In September 1998, Hong Kong's Education Department introduced the first stage of a controversial language policy which, when fully implemented, will bring about a fundamental change in the roles of the English and Chinese languages in the territory's education system at secondary level. The new policy, which was announced shortly after the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong from Britain to China in 1997, stipulates that the majority (around 300) of the territory's English-medium schools should adopt Chinese as the medium of instruction (MOI). Only 114 schools have been allowed to 'continue' teaching in English. In the community-wide debate which followed the announcement of the policy, reference was frequently made in the media to the fact that the select group of English schools would 'retain' English as the MOI, while those English schools which failed to receive permission to 'continue' using English would be forced to 'switch' from English to Chinese. This paper, which examines the language of oral communication in the English-medium stream prior to the introduction of the new policy, assesses the changes which teachers and students in the English schools and former English (i.e. now Chinese) schools will need to make in order to implement the new policy.
[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/10.1080/02671520110084030]

In September 1997, shortly after China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong, the Education Department announced a policy which was widely seen as a restoration of 'mother-tongue education', but which, in reality, was an elitist language selection policy. This policy, which provided for the selection of the best primary school graduates for monolingual education in English, was designed to be a cost-effective way of training in English skills for those who had the economic and cultural capital to benefit from it. Meanwhile, the majority of students were barred from sufficient exposure to English, the language of power and wealth. In this paper, I shall show that this policy draws on a strong utilitarian discourse about the centrality of English for the economic survival of Hong Kong, which was engineered by business interests on the eve of the changeover in 1997, and which helped perpetuate a form of linguistic imperialism. Meanwhile, academics whose research was used to legitimize the policy, failed to problematize dominant language ideologies that have been used to justify pedagogically unsound practices and an inequitable language streaming policy. Through documenting the voices of individual educators, I am able to delineate counter-discourses which, albeit weak and isolated, nevertheless manifested much broader educational concerns than the narrow utilitarianism and the unquestioned privileging of the learning of English skills that underlay the current policy.
[Copyright of Journal of Education Policy is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093032000145917]

In higher education teaching, enhancing learner autonomy has become a key concern for curriculum planners and classroom teachers. The significant body of research about learner autonomy in language learning over the last 20 years (e.g. Holec 1981, 1988; Riley 1985; Dickinson 1987, 1992; Wenden & Rubin 1987; Little, 1991; Dam, 1995; Benson & Voller, 1997) has indicated an on-going search for more understanding of how learner autonomy can be implemented in different contexts.
This paper is based on a research study which was conducted in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in Hong Kong. The study explores learners' attitudes and expectations of language learning, teacher and learner roles, their learning preferences and perceptions of learner autonomy. The paper reports the results and discusses their implication on the development of a learner-centred approach in higher education.
[Copyright of Teaching in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510120078045]

The society of Hong Kong objected strongly when the government instructed schools to change their medium of instruction from English to Chinese at the junior secondary level soon after Hong Kong was reunited with the People's Republic of China in 1997. This paper tries to make sense of the objection to this piece of politically correct and pedagogically sound policy. It analyses the situation from Bourdieu's ideas of habitus and various types of capitals. The paper argues that the government's effort to persuade Hong Kong society to accept mother-tongue education on pedagogical grounds alone was to no avail because the English language has not only become a habitus of society; it also serves to distinguish Hong Kong people from mainland Chinese. The failure of the government was partly due to its insensitivity to the nature and social functions of language.
[Copyright of British Journal of Sociology of Education is the property of Routledge . Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425690220137756]