Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been promoted by the European Union as a means to achieve multilingualism. While in Germany and other European countries the trend to use the L2 as a medium of instruction is increasing, in Hong Kong, however, we see a converse development. Many schools switched from English as a medium of instruction (EMI) to mother tongue education.
The German CLIL concept promotes a gradual and cautious switch to L2 for only a few content subjects in the curriculum. The Hong Kong EMI approach introduces L2 after a short bridging period to most content subjects. Although the CLIL and EMI programmes both share the features of a late immersion programme, their approach to language use in classroom discourse frames is different. The current study was designed to examine the processes and effects of language learning in L2-taught content subjects. Based on samples from two history lessons in the German CLIL and the Hong Kong EMI context, classroom interaction was analysed with special focus on teacher/student talk and codeswitching. First results support the claim that constructive processes during classroom interaction are vital elements of language acquisition.
[Copyright of International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb465.0]

Comparing how English teachers evaluate their students in China and Hong Kong, the author points out that one-third of teachers' instruction time is spent on assessment-related matters.

研究者先介紹教師口語和教學的關係及有關的研究，再介紹研究設計。研究採用「生手／專家比較法」以了解中國語文科教師教室內的語言表現。研究對象是一位經驗教師和一位教學祇有三個月的新教師。研究採用質化導向，用教室觀察和與研究對象晤談的方法搜集資料，並以錄音及文字加以紀錄。研究者發現經驗教師比新教師較能：一、激發學生聯念，引起其學習動機；二、以告訴及控制提供良好的學習條件，容納學生意見，且能正確給予報酬；三、活用語言形式，配應策略，適切教學內容和學生能力。研究者分析了經驗教師語言運用的能力較好的原因後，進一步提出教師教育要重視教授語言與教育的理論，加強教師口語訓練，強化學員中國語言的知識和教師的信念。（鄭佩芳整理）

This study examined Hong Kong students' achievement goals and their relations with students' perceived classroom environment and strategy use based on the multiple goal perspective of goal orientation theory. A total of 925 Grade 8 students from six secondary schools in Hong Kong voluntarily responded to a questionnaire that measured these three sets of variables. Consistent with previous studies using goal orientation theory, the findings of this study indicated that students' perceived classroom environment was significantly related to their personal achievement goals and strategy use. While mastery goals were found to be the strongest predictor of strategy use, performance-approach goals and perceived instrumentality also had positive relations with mastery goals and strategy use. Our findings suggest that mastery goals and performance goals were not contrasting goals as conceptualised in normative goal orientation theory. Students with high motivation for both types of goal were more adaptive in learning than were students who pursued a single type of goal. Moreover, the value of adding perceived instrumentality when studying students' motivation should be emphasised. The implications of these findings for understanding Hong Kong students' motivation, and for planning effective teaching instruction to enhance their motivation, are discussed.
[Copyright of Educational Psychology is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410701612008]

The Hong Kong Classroom Environment Scale (HKCES) is a new instrument designed to assess upper primary and junior secondary school students' perceptions of actual and preferred classroom environment. The development of the scale involved 2 stages of study. In the 1st stage of study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses clearly identified 4 dimensions of classroom environment: teacher involvement, teacher support, order and student involvement and collaborativeness. In the 2nd stage of study, the instrument was administered to a new sample of about 6,000 students from 13 primary schools and 5 secondary schools for cross-validation.
[Copyright of Educational Research & Evaluation is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/edre.9.4.317.17813 ]