One major impact of globalisation on education is denoted by the growing trend to use English, the global language, as a medium of instruction (MOI) in emerging polities that are trying to enhance their English-speaking capacities. This article emphasises developing an understanding of MOI from a language policy and planning as well as an educational perspective. It explores the policy and practice of MOI in 10 polities in Asia including Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Maldives, Nepal, Timor-Leste and Vietnam, using a broad-based framework that aims to explicate the context, motivation, goals, actors, implementation process and outcomes of MOI. The article points out the dominance of English as MOI which is used in eight of the polity studies included in the analysis. It concludes that while the Asian region as a whole reflects the globalisation of English as medium of instruction policies, individual polities may have specific motivations and goals and that they may develop specific strategies to protect their own interests and identities. More crucially, at the macro-policy level, there seems to be a simplistic understanding of MOI as a cheap solution to complex language problems for achieving overly ambitious politico-economic goals and that this leads to less than ideal MOI implementation illustrated by teachers' and students' struggles as policy actors at the micro level.
[Copyright of Current Issues In Language Planning is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.792130]

Medium of instruction (MOI) is a highly controversial and thorny educational issue in Hong Kong. Despite the Hong Kong government's strenuous efforts to promote Chinese-medium instruction since 1984, social and community pressure for English-medium instruction (EMI) has been immense and continues to increase. However, the dominance of English as MOI has raised various educational, linguistic, and socioeconomic issues such as rote learning, motivation, declining language standards, and restricted social mobility. Against this background, this article examines the potential of the recently introduced fine-tuning of MOI policy in addressing such concerns and ensuring the benefits of EMI. The article draws on language-planning theories and various concepts of bilingual education for framing the argument and relies on government statistics, empirical studies, and newspaper and magazine articles as sources of data. It is concluded that a policy approach is not sufficient to treat language problems, and that MOI should be planned holistically together with language teaching in the entire school curriculum.
[Copyright of Current Issues In Language Planning is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.791223]

Research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s pointed to a widening gap on Hong Kong university campuses between institutional language policy, which stipulated the use of English, and classroom practice, which often involved the use of Cantonese to explain and discuss English written materials. This article presents the findings of a multidimensional study which sought to uncover patterns of in-class and out-of-class language use at one officially English-medium institution between 2000 and 2010 and to identify the challenges that its mainly Cantonese-speaking undergraduates experience when listening to and speaking English for academic purposes. The findings were derived from two campus-wide questionnaire surveys and an interview-based longitudinal study of the student experience of English-medium higher education. The findings indicate that the gap between policy and practice has closed noticeably in the past decade in consequence of the increasing internationalisation of the student body and institutional initiatives to enforce the medium-of-instruction policy. While there is a closer, though not watertight, alignment between policy and practice in lectures and seminars, the evidence suggests that students have little need or desire to speak English outside the classroom, apart from situations in which international students or non-Cantonese-speaking students from mainland China are present.
[Copyright of Language and Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.553287]

Past research has tended to ignore the emergence or existence of 'middle zone' varieties such as topolects or regiolects. In addition, attitudinal dynamics have received little attention, including their contribution towards the re-evaluation of the status of language varieties. Regarding the status of Cantonese, linguistic, political and cultural considerations are contradictory; the speakers themselves are widely held to believe that it is a dialect, but no objective surveys have ever been undertaken. This study reports on a comparative study of attitudes towards the status of Hong Kong Cantonese held by three groups of Chinese: 53 Hong Kong Cantonese speakers; 18 Mainland Chinese Cantonese speakers; and 72 Mainland Chinese Putonghua speakers. Bell's Sociolinguistic Typology was used as the framework for an open-ended questionnaire, supplemented by a Magnitude Continuum (an unmarked language-dialect scale). The varied perspectives held by each group can be traced to their different political and linguistic situations, which touch issues of identity. Results confirm that Cantonese would more accurately be classified as an emerging mid-zone variety. This has implications for short-term language planning, especially in the education system, and the long-term autonomy and survival of Cantonese.
[Copyright of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.509507]

This monograph provides an overview of the language situation in Hong Kong from a historical perspective. Hong Kong has evolved in the past 167 years from a small fishing port to an international financial centre which forms part of a financial network hailed by Time Magazine as Ny.Lon.Kong (i.e. New York-London-Hong Kong). Hong Kong has gone through changes of sovereignty twice, once in 1842 as a Chinese territory ceded to Britain after the first Opium War, and a second time in 1997 as a British colony returned to China. It is a micro polity with no natural resources except its deep harbour. Economically, Hong Kong has gradually developed from a fishing port when British settlement began in 1841, to an entrepocirct during 1945-1950s, to a manufacturing hub during 1960-1970s, to an international financial centre since the 1980s. The historical, political and economic development has had a great impact on the language situation in Hong Kong. Its language community started with two separate monolingual groups: one consisting of local Chinese speaking Cantonese and other Chinese dialects, and the other composed of British colonists speaking English. Because of language spread and language shift as a result of political, economic and social changes, the monolingual group of Chinese speakers has become trilingual, speaking Cantonese, English and Putonghua, whereas the monolingual group of English speakers has expanded to include native speakers of such other English varieties as American English, Australian English, Canadian English, Indian English and Singaporean English. In addition, there is a large group of minorities composed of bilingual speakers of English and a south Asian language. Although the development of language use is a natural process, it can be influenced by the government's language policy and planning. In 1997 there was a major political change, and Hong Kong, a capitalist city that practised a free economy for 155 years, was handed back to a socialist

This study examines the extent to which South Asian students in Hong Kong are gaining fluency in Chinese and the impact of this on their educational outcomes in the postcolonial context of an official shift to a trilingual (Cantonese, English, and Putonghua) and biliterate (Chinese and English) society. It focuses on the teaching and learning of Chinese in secondary schools 'designated' for minority background students. Data are drawn from student language proficiency testing and teacher interviews. The study found low proficiency in Chinese due, in part, to teaching methodologies based on approaches to learning Chinese as a first language. There was evidence of inadequate teacher preparation, inappropriate curriculum, structural issues, and a cycle of low student motivation and performance. The study concludes that educational outcomes for these students will not improve without a seismic shift in policy thinking and improvement of educational provision for minority students.
[Copyright of Diaspora Indigenous and Minority Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15595690903442256 ]

This study used item response modelling to develop measures of the development of proficiency in speaking, reading and writing English among Hong Kong primary students. Home and family background factors were identified that could be linked to higher than average levels of development in proficiency across two school years, from Primary One to Primary Two or from Primary Two to Primary Three. Participants were 2133 Hong Kong students and their parents, sampled from 140 primary schools that had employed a native-speaking teacher of English to work with the students. Higher than average improvement in English proficiency was associated with the students' attitudes to learning, their opportunities to use English in everyday life, access to books in any language at home and school, parents' level of education and parents' support of their child's English studies. The year level and gender of the student also interacted with home background factors in predicting development of second language acquisition.
[Copyright of Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) at http://www.aare.edu.au]