The present paper tries to identify the social and psychological factors that motivate students to have better performance in English as a second language, and to postulate a theoretical model subsuming these socio-psychological variables to explain and predict the performance in English as a second language for Hong Kong students in Australia. Gardner (1959) hypothesized that students would have higher performance in the second language performance if they exhibit the desire to learn the second language in order to integrate themselves with the target culture than when they exhibit the desire to learn the language for pragmatic reasons. The perceived status of language affects the use of and attitude toward a language. Giles, Bourhis and Taylor (1977) defined Ethnolinguistic vitality as structural characteristics such as socio-economic status, demographic representation and institutional support pertinent to a language. Smolicz, Hudson and Secombe (1998) described multicultural policies of Australia as a solution to the dilemma of reconciling the immigrants' love of their homeland and its culture and their desire to adapt to the overarching Australian framework. 247 students of ethnic Chinese in Sydney metropolitan area who were studying in weekend Chinese schools (age 8 to 16 with mean age of 10.1) and 628 Hong Kong students who were studying in primary and secondary schools (age 8 to 16 with mean age 10.5) were sampled. Path analysis was used to determine the relationship between the performance of Chinese and English with ethnolinguistic vitality, motivation, attitudes and use and class anxiety in the learning of English.
[Copyright of Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) at http://www.aare.edu.au]

The Education Department of Hong Kong issued the Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools in October 1997. The policy stipulates that the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction in all but English language and literature subjects in secondary schools will be enforced with effect from September 1998. This signals a change in language policy in post-1997 Hong Kong, from bilingual to monolingual education. Traditionally English medium instruction has been more popular than Chinese medium instruction in Hong Kong secondary schools. Despite the Hong Kong government's recent efforts to promote Chinese medium education, the number of Chinese-medium schools was small before the handover. This is a documentary study investigating changes in Hong Kong government's medium of instruction policy amid political, economic and sociolinguistic changes in the last three decades. The study also explores some possible impact of the Chinese medium instruction policy proposed in the wake of change of sovereignty on English language learning. I will critique this new policy and make recommendations pertaining to the direction of Hong Kong's language education. The theoretical underpinning of the study is bilingualism and bilingual education. The model I propose will provide new insights for language teachers, language planners and policy makers.
[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/10.1080/13670059908667684]

This paper proposes to overcome the traditional essentialist and dichotomous ways of conceptualising language and language pedagogies, i.e. to go beyond linguistic purist perspectives. Analysing bilingual teaching practices in a science lesson, the paper proposes that practical bilingual pedagogies can be developed to help students in bilingual education programmes to access dominant linguistic resources and discourses by capitalising on their indigenous linguistic and cultural resources.
[Copyright of Language and Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/le643.0]

In September 1998, the Education Department of the fledgling Hong Kong Special Administrative Region implemented a controversial medium-of-instruction policy which compelled around three-quarters of the territory's hitherto English-medium secondary schools to switch to Chinese-medium teaching in Forms 1–3 (years 7–9). Only 112 schools were permitted to remain English-medium, but only on the condition that their content-area teachers make consistent use of English as the language of classroom instruction and interaction rather than, as had been the case in the last two decades of colonial rule, a mixture of Cantonese and English. This article presents the findings of a study which sought to determine the extent to which the post-colonial government's language policy has been translated into classroom practice in the reformed Chinese and English streams since 1998. The findings were derived from a questionnaire survey of a sample of undergraduates from the first two cohorts to complete their studies in the reformed Chinese and English streams, together with semi-structured interviews with students and teachers currently studying and teaching in the two streams. The findings indicate that teachers in both the Chinese and English streams have found it difficult to fully implement the new policy in their classrooms.
[Copyright of Research Papers in Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520802172461]

After the resumption of sovereignty in 1997 mother tongue education in Hong Kong, though it began with the good intention of national reintegration, politi-cally, socially, culturally and educationally, has escalated the tensions and contradic-tions of the politics of bilingualism in its implementation. The government policy of bi-literacy and trilingualism addresses, rather than resolves, the problems of hegemonic struggle among different social groups in the society, and between the indigenous elite class and national ruling elites at both the local and national level. A reproduction analysis is conducted to examine the events pertinent to the language shift of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) to Chinese as a medium of instruction (CMI), with particular emphasis on controversial issues such as parental choice, antagonism of elite classes, and group politics in the face of the internationalisation of English under globalised developments of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). English, a colonising language in the past and now a world language for changes in ICT, remains problematic for Hong Kong's language policy undergoing decolonisation and internationalisation in its early post-transitional years. Putonghua, the national lan-guage of China, challenging Cantonese, the regional dialect, as the formal and high Chinese language of the society, has added complexities to the discourse of polemical mother tongue education under the 'one country, two systems' framework practised in Hong Kong.
[Copyright of Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305792032000107786]

This article examines colonial language policies and practices at the government Central School, Hong Kong - the so-called Eton of the East - in the second half of the nineteenth century. The article, which draws on a range of unpublished primary sources, seeks to enhance our knowledge of an important episode in Hong Kong's educational history and, in so doing, illuminate our understanding of British attitudes towards the learning and use of English in the empire. The article is divided into three main sections. The first section analyses the nature and purposes of the scheme to 'centralise' government-sponsored English teaching in a flagship school in the early 1860s. The second section investigates the roles of the English and Chinese languages in the colonial curriculum and the approaches to the teaching of English adopted by the school's founding Headmaster, Frederick Stewart. The final section examines the reform of the Central School in the late nineteenth century.
[Copyright of Language and Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/le744.0]