english immersion schools in china: evidence from students and teachers
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 23 November 2014, At: 07:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
English immersion schools in China:evidence from students and teachersLiying Cheng aa Faculty of Education , Queen's University , 511 Union Street,Kingston , Ontario , K7M 5R7 , CanadaPublished online: 27 Mar 2012.
To cite this article: Liying Cheng (2012) English immersion schools in China: evidence fromstudents and teachers, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33:4, 379-391, DOI:10.1080/01434632.2012.661436
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661436
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
English immersion schools in China: evidence from students and teachers
Liying Cheng*
Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, 511 Union Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7M 5R7,Canada
Research has demonstrated that second language immersion is an effective meansof facilitating primary school students’ second language acquisition withoutundermining their competence in their first language. Despite the rapid growth ofChinese�English bilingual programmes in China, limited empirical research hasbeen conducted thus far by which to evaluate the programme effectiveness inrelation to students’ academic achievement, their cognitive development and theteaching and learning processes with regard to teacher education. This articlepresents evidence from several related empirical studies recently conducted inthree schools affiliated with the China�Canada�United States English Immersion(CCUEI) project. These studies focus on three broad categories of findings: first,on student academic achievement represented by English (L2), Chinese (L1) andmathematics (both literacy and numeracy); second, on cognitive predictors ofEnglish reading and listening achievement of these immersion students; and third,on immersion teachers who teach within the context of Chinese�English bilingualeducation. These combined results present a complex developmental picture ofstudents’ academic achievement and cognitive development; and an insight intothe teachers who teach within the context of an aggressive fast growth ofChinese�English bilingual programmes in China.
Keywords: bilingual programmes; English immersion; literacy and numeracy;academic achievement; cognitive development; programme evaluation
Context
English is spoken as a first language by approximately 375 million people and is the
official language for 75 countries with a total population of more than two billion.
Speakers of English as a second language outnumber those for whom it is a first
language, and 750 million people are believed to speak English as a foreign language
(Crystal 1995). English is the primary language of most international communica-
tions and has thus become a compulsory school subject in many places around the
world.
This is particularly true for the People’s Republic of China (China)1 where
success in English is key to academic success (Cheng 2008). English is one of the
three main subjects at all school and post-secondary educational levels (the other two
being Chinese and mathematics). With the decentralisation of education in mainland
China since 1985, a close link of using economic reform to improve the efficiency of
school management, and the accelerating societal and individual demands of English
proficiency in recent years, Chinese�English bilingual education2 has seen an
exponential increase (He 2011; Hu 2002, 2008). Bilingual education programmes
*Email: [email protected]
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
Vol. 33, No. 4, July 2012, 379�391
ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.661436
http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
are now popular with parents and therefore have attracted increasing numbers of
students. Most major cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan and
Xi’an now offer such programmes in schools. One of these programmes, the China�Canada�United States English Immersion (CCUEI) project, came about in 1997.
The CCUEI programme is a result of three factors: (1) a heightened recognition of
the value of English, (2) a dissatisfaction with traditional English language teaching
in China and (3) an increased exposure to the Canadian French immersion (FI)
model (see Qiang et al. 2011, for details; Special Issue of International Education on
CCUEI).
A search of the literature published in both English and Chinese has
demonstrated the definition of Chinese�English bilingual education most challen-
ging. Many terms have been used to refer to such programmes, and there is no
agreement as to what term to be used for what type of programme. For example, the
CCUEI programme is referred to as ‘English immersion’ (Cheng et al. 2010; Qiang
et al. 2011) and also as ‘content-based language teaching (CBLT)’ (see Hoare 2010).The term ‘Chinese�English bilingual education’ is used in this article as an umbrella
term to indicate instruction in both English and Chinese. This term is not used to
describe the teaching of English as a foreign language subject in schools. The
challenge in defining such programmes reflects two related facts: (1) the aggressive
growth of such programmes on the one hand and (2) the lack of empirical evidence
on the effectiveness of such programmes on the other (Gu 2006; Hu 2008). It is
therefore necessary to provide a brief review of existing research, so we can start to
understand the effects of such programmes on students’ academic achievement and
cognitive development in their reading and writing.
Marsh et al. (2000) evaluate the effects of late English immersion and language
instruction in Hong Kong in terms of English and Chinese performance with 12,784
middle-school students. They demonstrate that these students advance in English
proficiency (L2) compared with non-immersion students, but they argue that late
immersion in English has largely negative effects on non-language subjects
(mathematics, science, geography and history). This result challenges the generalityof previous findings regarding positive effects of immersion programmes in
secondary schools. Knell et al. (2007) find that immersion students perform better
than non-immersion students on measures of English vocabulary, word identification
and oral proficiency. These students also perform as well as non-immersion students
in Chinese character recognition and phonological awareness (PA) tasks. The
researchers highly recommend the early partial English immersion programme in
China and suggest that it has few negative effects on the students’ first language (L1).
In addition, Zhang and Yan (2007) conduct a comparative study in Beijing with
kindergarteners on early word reading. They find that the word-reading ability of the
English immersion children who practiced through letter-word reading was better
than that of the two control groups who learned English words through international
phonetic reading � a traditional method of English instruction in mainland China.
Liang’s (2004) study of English immersion in kindergarten in Wuhan also shows
that English immersion children are more skilled than non-immersion children in
developing social communicative competence. Liang (2009, 2011) suggests that peer
talk among students, which functions as an important source of mediation in Englishimmersion programmes, offers students greater opportunity for language use in
classroom interaction. Her findings present more of an emic perspective of student
activities in an English immersion context, which may provide important insights
380 L. Cheng
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
into pedagogy and teacher education in English language teaching in mainland
China. Regarding classroom interaction between teachers and students, Pei et al.
(2009) recommend that teachers in immersion programmes select and control
various discoursal strategies to create an optimal language environment for student
participation.
Despite these positive findings, researchers express concerns about the potential
negative consequences of Chinese�English bilingual education programmes. For
example, Hu’s (2008) review of Chinese�English bilingual education questions theeffectiveness of English immersion programmes; he argues that the lack of a
sociolinguistic context for using English after school is a major deficit of immersion
programmes. Gu (2006) calls for a close monitoring of these classrooms and
encourages ‘empirical experimentation rather than blind implementation’ (67). He
(2011) emphasises the controversial and complex nature of the Chinese�English
bilingual education. She further points out that it ‘coincides with the country’s fast
economic development’ (92), and it is the result of the major decentralisation
education policy in China.
Programme effectiveness on student achievement and cognitive development
Situated within the rapid and complex development of Chinese�English bilingual
education programmes, the CCUEI project was initiated based on the Canadian FI
model. For historical details of this project in collaboration with the Canadian
International Development Agency and the Chinese National Education Commis-
sion, please see Qiang et al. (2011) for details. It is, therefore, important to turn to theCanadian FI education prior to the discussion of programme effectiveness of the
CCUEI project.
Early evaluations of the FI programme generally used standardised tests such as
the Canadian Test of Basic Skills or the Canadian Achievement Test as outcomes to
measure English academic skills such as reading and mathematics. More recent
cross-sectional evaluations have examined the results of provincial assessments in
Ontario in Grade 3 (Turnbull et al. 2001) and Grade 6 (Lapkin et al. 2003). With
outcome measures that are more closely tied to provincial curriculum and are scoredholistically by teams of teachers, these findings largely replicate those of earlier
evaluations. In Grade 3, children in the FI programme performed at levels equal to
those of their monolingual peers in English language arts and mathematics. The only
cohort of students who did not reach parity with monolinguals was a small group of
students who would not begin formal study of English until Grade 4. Lapkin et al.
(2003) indicated that Grade 6 immersion students’ literacy test scores were better
than their peers’ in English-only programmes. These results show impressive
evidence that the academic achievement of students enrolled in FI programmes arebetter compared than those of non-immersion students.
Recent research has also focused specifically on the reading abilities of children in
FI, with an emphasis on poor reading ability or risk for development of reading
problems. Geva and Clifton (1994) studied good and poor readers in both FI
and English Grade 2 programmes and found that reading ability was correlated
across languages, and that there were no significant differences between FI and
English students at the same reading level on measures of word recognition,
decoding and type of miscues. Fluency indices, however, favour students in theEnglish programme. Using measures that have been shown to be robust predictors of
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 381
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
reading in English, such as PA, rapid naming and decoding ability, MacCoubrey
et al. (2004) have demonstrated that these measures predict reading performance in
French for FI students in the primary grades. This study also shows that
performance on early school-entry measures in the L1 could predict risk status in
the L2 two years later.
These findings from studies on Canadian FI are relevant to Chinese�English
bilingual education; students’ language development can be transferable across
languages. In fact, students of the Canadian FI for first language English studentsmanifest superior competence in French (as a second language) relative to students in
regular English programmes. They also demonstrate academic success in reading,
writing, speaking and listening comprehension in English as well as in other
academic subjects (Holobow et al. 1987; Swain and Lapkin 1982). However,
recognising that the language distance between English and Chinese is much larger
than it is between English and French, the question is whether or not these findings
can be realised in Chinese�English bilingual programmes such as the CCUEI project
(which is modelled after the FI education) for first language Chinese students.
Framework for investigating programme effectiveness
Considering the aggressive growth of English�Chinese bilingual programmes at theschool level in mainland China over the past decade, and the lack of empirical
research (Cheng et al. 2010; He 2011), a series of interrelated empirical studies were
conducted into several major aspects of such programmes. These studies were
conducted through research collaboration by researchers from Queen’s University,
Canada, and South China Normal University, China, and were funded by an
international opportunities fund from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council (SSHRC) of Canada. We used the CCUEI project as the basis for our study.
We collected data from three schools using the CCUEI programme model. We basedour research design on Lapkin et al.’s (1990) synthesis framework on essential issues
contributing to the success of FI education in Canada. This framework consists of
(1) product variables, including outcomes in second language (L2), first language
(L1), subjects other than L2 and L1 and social psychological issues; (2) teaching/
learning process variables such as teaching approaches and strategies; (3) mediating
variables such as learner characteristics, teacher characteristics and programme type
and (4) teacher education such as how and what immersion teachers are educated and
trained. A detailed description of the variables investigated within the FIprogrammes in Canada will be described and followed by a description of the
kind of variables studied within the CCUEI context in China.
Product variables
Numerous studies have demonstrated that immersion facilitates students’ learning
outcomes in L2 proficiency, L1 literacy, academic performance in other subjects and
cognitive development. For example, Turnbull et al. (2001, 24) conclude that ‘French
immersion does not have a negative impact on students’ literacy and mathematics
skills in English’. Immersion programmes are thought to enhance positive attitudes
toward L2 and to enhance the equity of educational opportunities (Goldberg and
Noels 2006). In addition, studies have indicated that immersion is generally a fairand effective form of second language education for classes with a broad diversity of
382 L. Cheng
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
learner characteristics and variable socio-economic backgrounds (i.e. Genesee 1987).
However, research also suggests that academic and behavioural difficulties constitute
one of the major factors predicting students’ transfer out of immersion programmes
(Obadia and Theriault 1995). There remains an obstinate discrepancy in students’
proficiency levels between receptive and productive skills; for example, Genesee’s
(1987) research shows FI students approaching virtually native levels of performance
in the receptive skills of listening and reading, yet with a significant lag behind
Francophone peers in the productive skills of speaking and writing. The improve-ment of immersion learners’ oral and written grammar has been identified as a major
priority by curriculum design and educators.
Teaching/learning process variables
Teaching/learning process variables describe relationships, such as teacher�studentinteractive behaviours in the context of approaches and strategies (Lapkin et al.
1990). A primary focus in immersion is ‘not the learning of a second language but
rather the learning of academic content through the medium of a second language’
(Safty 1991). Since school subjects are taught using L2 as the medium of instruction,
content learning and language learning occur simultaneously, with language learning
occurring largely as a by-product in the context of students’ interaction with
meaningful subject matter.
Mediating variables
L2 learning is influenced by mediating variables such as student characteristics,
teacher characteristics and programme types (Lapkin et al. 1990). Studies
consistently conclude that there are positive relationships between teacher char-
acteristics (previous academic performance, content knowledge, teaching compe-tence, years of teaching experience and participation in professional development
activities) and learning outcomes (e.g. Wallace 2009).
Teacher education
Teacher education consists of pre-service and in-service training, teacher qualifica-tion and certification (Lapkin et al. 1990). Immersion teacher qualification and
certification requirements vary within and from country to country. Specialised pre-
service training for immersion is not a requirement for teacher certification in the
USA (Met and Lorenz 1997) but in Canada, immersion teacher candidates must
complete teacher education programmes specialising in French before being certified
by a provincial College of Teachers. Regardless, standards for FSL certification,
including procedures, course credits and competency requirements, vary from one
province to another (Moeller 1989). In China, teacher education specialising inEnglish is not required for teaching in immersion (Song and Cheng 2011). Table 1
shows the variables empirically studied into the three CCUEI project schools.
Interrelated studies
The results of our studies are discussed sequentially according to Table 1, based onthe FI framework in relation to the four categories of variables. Some of these studies
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 383
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
are published and some are in press at this time. Included among these are studies
examining the impact of English immersion education on aspects of student
achievements (e.g. Cheng et al. 2010), on teaching/learning processes (e.g. Liang
2011; Niu 2008; Pei 2006; Zhang 2009) and on teacher education (Song and Cheng
2011). This paper focuses on reporting an overview of five interrelated studies
derived from the data collected from a group of Grade 2 (n�385), Grade 4 (n �430)
and Grade 6 (n�183) students in immersion or non-immersion programmes in three
schools, and on data collected from the teachers of these students from the samethree schools in mainland China.
English language immersion and students’ achievement in English, Chinese andmathematics
This study (Cheng et al. 2010) addresses three primary research questions regarding
English immersion students’ academic achievement represented by English (L2),
Chinese (L1) and mathematics. The study was conducted with a group of Grade 2
students (n�385), Grade 4 students (n�430) and Grade 6 students (n�183) inimmersion or non-immersion programmes in three CCUEI schools in China.
Cambridge Young Learners English Tests were employed as the L2 measure and
school-issued achievement tests in L1 (Chinese) and mathematics were also used in
this study. The results show that immersion students, compared with non-immersion
students, did better in English at all three grade levels. Significant differences were
found in English across the three grade levels. The advantage of English became
more prominent in Grade 6. Immersion students also did similarly in Chinese and
mathematics at Grades 2 and 4, but better at Grade 6. There was, however, nosignificant difference in Chinese and mathematics achievement observed at Grades 2
Table 1. Overall research framework and design.
Product variables Students’ academic achievement (Cheng et al. 2010)Chinese (L1)MathematicsEnglish (L2)Cognitive predictors of English reading achievement(Li et al. forthcoming) and listening comprehension(Li et al. forthcoming)Phonological awareness (PA)Naming speed (NS) (Li et al. 2011)
Teaching/learningprocess variables
Social science classrooms (Niu 2008)Science classrooms (Zhang 2009)Curriculum materials (Huang et al. 2011)Student peer talk (Liang 2011)Classroom interaction (Pei 2006)
Mediating variables(Song and Cheng 2011)
Learner characteristicsTeacher characteristics
Teacher education(Song and Cheng 2011)
Teacher educational backgroundTeaching practicesTeacher professional developmentTeacher perception of immersion educationRelationships between educational background,teacher characteristics and their professional development
384 L. Cheng
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
and 4, although significant differences were found at Grade 6. The findings of non-
significant differences for L1 Chinese and mathematics between the two groups at
Grades 2 and 4 could be due to the partial and limited immersion model (also
referred to as content-based language teaching, see Hoare 2010) used by the three
schools when both Chinese and mathematics are taught in Chinese. This programme
type is significantly different from the Canadian FI programme where all school
subjects (apart from English) are taught in French. In this sense, these English
immersion students have no particular gains in Chinese and mathematics. There is,
however, no observed negative impact of English immersion on students’ develop-
ment in L1 Chinese and mathematics.
The results found in the relationship between literacy (L1 and L2) and numeracy
(mathematics) support the developmental nature of the data for primary students. In
Grade 2, when English immersion programme had just begun, only Chinese was
uniquely correlated with mathematics. For immersion students in Grade 4, both
English and Chinese were uniquely correlated with mathematics. By Grade 6, only
English was uniquely correlated with mathematics. English, not surprisingly, did not
correlate with mathematics for non-immersion students because there is only limited
English instruction for these non-immersion students. The findings from this
evaluation study demonstrate a complex and developmental picture of primary
students’ academic development in terms of achievement in English, Chinese and
mathematics (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Relationship of literacy and numeracy.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 385
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Cognitive predictors of English reading achievement in Chinese English immersionstudents
The study (Li et al. 2012) investigates the effects of English and Chinese PA and
naming speed (NS) on English reading achievement and explores the evidence for
cross-linguistic transfer in Chinese English immersion students. Ninety-five English
immersion students and 63 non-immersion students from Grades 2 and 4 in
mainland China were administered with Chinese PA and NS tasks, English reading,
and mathematics achievement tests. English PA and NS tasks were given to English
immersion students only. English PA was a significant predictor of English reading
achievement for immersion students at both grade levels. There was little evidence of
cross-linguistic transfer from Chinese PA and NS to English reading achievement.
English immersion students performed equally to non-immersion students on NS
and mathematics in both grades, and in Chinese PA in Grade 4, but lagged behind
non-immersion students on Chinese PA in Grade 2.This study extends the previous research by showing that English PA is a
significant predictor of English reading in Chinese English immersion students in
Grades 2 and 4. However, the study does not provide clear evidence for cross-
linguistic transfer, perhaps because of the great differences between Chinese and
English, and the nature of the outcome measures used in this study. The
disadvantage demonstrated by English immersion students, compared with non-
immersion students on Chinese PA in Grade 2, but not in Grade 4, or on other
Chinese cognitive tasks in either grade, suggests that there are no enduring
detrimental effects to the English immersion students’ L1 achievement, although
they have been exposed to more L2 than non-immersion students.
Rapid NS components and reading comprehension in bilingual children
This study (Li et al. 2011) examines the development of rapid automatised naming
(RAN) components (i.e. articulation time and pause time) in English and Chinese,
and the relation of these components to English reading comprehension among
Chinese English immersion students in Grades 2, 4 and 6. Results indicate that pause
time rather than articulation time was highly correlated with total time in both
English and Chinese in all three grades. English and Chinese articulation times and
English and Chinese pause times were more related after Grade 2. All component
times decreased with grade level, but the decrease in English pause time between
Grades 2 and 4 was the greatest. English pause time explained the variance in English
reading comprehension only in Grade 6. There was little evidence of cross-language
transfer from Chinese RAN components to English reading comprehension.
This study found that RAN is a language-specific skill and that it predicts
reading comprehension. Therefore, if we want to improve bilingual children’s English
(L2) reading, English (L2) rather than Chinese (L1) RAN should be targeted. Little
research has been carried out to show ways to improve RAN, but orthographic
pattern training or letter naming training have shown positive effects. It may also be
useful, or rather perhaps more useful, to target directly the consequences of RAN,
that is, the orthographic representations. The results of the study suggest that this
training needs to be specific to the language/orthography in which reading
improvements are desired.
386 L. Cheng
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
PA and listening comprehension in Chinese English immersion students
The study on PA and listening comprehension (Li et al. 2012) investigates the
relationship between English listening comprehension and English and Chinese PA,
as well as the cross-linguistic transfer of PA in 48 Grade 2 and 47 Grade 4 Chinese
English immersion students. Evidence was found to be consistent with a bidirectional
relationship between English PA and English listening comprehension. English
listening comprehension had an effect on English PA in both Grades 2 and 4, and
this effect held even after controlling Chinese PA in Grade 4. English PA was a
stronger predictor for English listening comprehension in Grade 4 than in Grade 2.
There was some evidence of cross-linguistic transfer that enabled students’ L1
(Chinese) PA to contribute to their L2 (English) listening comprehension, but the
evidence was not strong.
The findings have implications for the fast-growing immersion programmes
around the world and in China in particular. To enhance conventional literacy
teaching by focusing on visual and contextual cues, educators could use PA
instruction (e.g. rhyming, segmenting and blending sound units) in early grades to
support both listening and reading activities. The cross-linguistic transfer evidence
suggests that this instruction could begin in Chinese (L1) but should progress to
English (L2) to capture its unique effect. Although PA instruction may not provide
an immediate effect, it should be beneficial in facilitating students’ language learning
in the long run.
Investigating primary English immersion teachers in China: background, instructionalcontexts, professional development and perceptions
This survey study (Song and Cheng 2011) explored immersion teachers’ educational
background, instructional contexts, professional development and teachers’ percep-
tions about English immersion in China. The data were collected from 47 primary
immersion teachers who were teaching in the three schools where data from the
above four studies were collected. Results from this study indicated that a majority of
immersion teachers were female and under 30, and typically in the early stages of
their teaching careers. Few Chinese immersion teachers (15%) reported having
taught immersion for more than five years. The relative inexperience that our
participants had in teaching immersion suggests that immersion in China is still in
the developing stage. Further, less than half of the teachers had bachelor degrees and
above. Despite the majority having teacher certification, many had limited
educational qualifications and training; as noted, certification from specialised
immersion teaching programmes is not required in China. These immersion teachers
were typically teaching 50 students in each class, with an average of 5.8 hours of
teaching per week.
The teachers reported using communicative, interactive and learner-centred
approaches in their teaching, but they generally lacked opportunities to engage in
authentic two-way interaction in English for their own professional development.
These immersion teachers perceived a variety of reasons for their professional
development. Improving teaching strategies and teaching immersion English
language were the most frequently mentioned reasons. Because the participants
were non-English native speakers with limited educational qualifications and
training, there is much room for improvement of their English proficiency.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 387
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
This group of teachers perceived English learning and more frequent use of
English as the major outcomes for the immersion programme at the macro level.
They also perceived that the major benefits for immersion students were in the
development of motivation and positive crosscultural attitudes in learning and
inquiring. These teachers’ educational backgrounds and their characteristics together
predicted 31.4% of teachers’ professional development, that is, teachers’ educational
backgrounds and their characteristics being the main reasons for these teachers to
engage in professional development. The study provided an initial, albeit valuable
understanding of English immersion education in China.
Conclusions
These studies together provide a window into the complex and intricate aspects of
Chinese�English bilingual education in China. Although there are limitations
associated with these studies, and although the data were drawn from three schools
only, they do collectively provide insight into the academic achievement represented
by L1 (Chinese), L2 (English) and mathematics, PA and NS of English immersion
students’ cognitive development in relation to their reading and listening, as well as
the background, instructional contexts, professional development and perceptions of
immersion teachers who teach in these three schools in China. These studies are
significant beginnings in understanding the programme effectiveness of English
immersion education in China, and they thus address some of the notable gaps in
empirical studies in this area.
English immersion students within the context of these studies seem to have
achieved similar success in their academic achievement, for example, as FI students
in Canada, without observed negative effect on their L1, mathematics and cognitive
development. Although no evidence was observed on cross-linguistic transfer
between English and Chinese, immersion students’ reading and listening abilities in
terms of PA and NS are comparable with non-immersion students, despite some lag
in Grade 2. No enduring detrimental effects upon the English immersion students’
L1 achievement are found, although they have been exposed to more L2 than the
non-immersion students.
Considering that only 21.3% of teachers in the three schools obtained training in
all aspects of teaching in immersion, and considering the moderately large size of the
immersion classes (around 50 students), more data are needed to fully understand
the impact of bilingual programmes of this kind in China. Hu (2007) rightly points
out that most immersion teachers in China have been trained to be English teachers
or subject teachers and they ‘lack systematic training either in subject content or in
English, let alone pedagogy of bilingual education’ (Hu 2007, 101). The immersion
teachers we studied did not have an extensive educational background (Song and
Cheng 2011). This result is consistent with what was claimed to be the kinds of
constraints in bilingual education in China (Feng and Wang 2007; Hu 2007). The
initial investigations described above call for more systemic, larger-scale and
longitudinal studies into the effectiveness of the Chinese�English bilingual pro-
grammes.
388 L. Cheng
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by an SSHRC International Opportunities Fund of Canada. Thedifferent components of this evaluation research were conducted by the research teams led byProfessors Liying Cheng, John Kirby, and Lesly Wade-Woolley, Queen’s University, Kingston,Ontario, Canada and Professor Haiyan Qiang, South China Normal University, Guangzhou,Guangdong, China. We gratefully acknowledge the involvement of the participating childrenand the collaboration of the teachers and administrators at the three schools in China.
Notes
1. I also refer to the People’s Republic of China (China) as China or mainland China in thispaper for the reason of simplicity.
2. Chinese�English bilingual education in the literature also refers to the bilingual educationto ethnic minority students in mainland China where a minority Chinese language, amajority Chinese language, and English are taught (see Geary and Pan 2003; Lin 1997).This paper limits the discussion on Chinese�English bilingual education to majorityChinese students, in English and Chinese (Mandarin or Putonghua), in mainland Chinaonly.
References
Cheng, L. 2008. The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing 25:15�38.
Cheng, L., M. Li, J. Kirby, H. Qiang, and L. Wade-Woolley. 2010. English languageimmersion and students’ academic achievement in English, Chinese, and mathematics.Evaluation & Research in Education 23: 151�69.
Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge encyclopaedia of the English language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Feng, Z., and J. Wang. 2007. Integrated English-A bilingual teaching model in SouthernChina. In Bilingual education in China: Practices, policies, and concepts, ed. A. Feng, 147�65. Clevedon: Multilingal Matters.
Geary, D. N., and Y. Pan. 2003. A bilingual education pilot project among the Kam peoplein Guizhou province, China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24:274�89.
Genesee, F. 1987. Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingualeducation. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Geva, E., and S. Clifton. 1994. The development of first and second language reading skills inearly French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50: 646�67.
Goldberg, E., and K. A. Noels. 2006. Motivation, ethnic identity, and post-secondaryeducation language choices of graduates of intensive French language programs. CanadianModern Language Review 62: 423�47.
Gu, Y. 2006. Toward a coherent foreign language policy in China: Lessons from Hong Kong.Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 16: 67�87.
He, A. E. 2011. Educational decentralisation: A review of popular discourse on Chinese-English bilingual education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 31: 91�105.
Hoare, P. 2010. Content-based language teaching in China: Contextual influences onimplementation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31: 69�86.
Holobow, N., F. Genesee, W.E. Lambert, J. Gastright, and M. Met. 1987. Effectiveness ofpartial French immersion for children from different social class and ethnic backgrounds.Applied Psycholinguistics 8: 137�52.
Hu, G. W. 2002. English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In Englishlanguage education in China, Japan and Singapore, ed. R. E. Silver, G. W. Hu and M. Iino,1�77. Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 389
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Hu, G. W. 2007. The juggernaut of Chinese-English bilingual education. In Bilingual educationin China: Practices, policies, and concepts, ed. A. Feng, 94�126. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.
Hu, G. W. 2008. The misleading academic discourse on Chinese-English bilingual education inChina. Review of Educational Research 78: 195�231.
Huang, X., B. Tube, and C. Yu. 2011. Meeting the dual goals of content knowledge andEnglish language learning: A study of the CCUEI curriculum materials. Frontiers ofEducation in China 6: 37�67.
Knell, E., H. Qiang, M. Pei, Y. Chi, L. S. Siegel, L. Zhao, and W. Zhao. 2007. Early Englishimmersion and literacy in Xi’an, China. Modern Language Journal 91: 395�417.
Lapkin, S., D. Hart, and M. Turnbull. 2003. Grade 6 French immersion students’ performanceon large-scale reading, writing and mathematics tests: Building explanations. AlbertaJournal of Educational Research 49: 6�23.
Lapkin, S., M. Swain, and S. Shapson. 1990. French immersion research agenda for the 90s.Canadian Modern Language Review 46: 638�74.
Li, M. L. Cheng, and J. Kirby. 2012. Phonological awareness as the predictor of listeningcomprehension in Chinese English immersion students. International Education 41, no. 2.
Li, M., J. Kirby, L. Cheng, L. Wade-Woolley, and H. Qiang. 2012. Cognitive predictors ofEnglish reading achievement in Chinese English-immersion students. Reading Psychology33, no. 4.
Li, M., J. Kirby, and G. Georgiou. 2011. RAN components and reading achievement acrosslanguages. Journal of Research in Reading 34: 6�22.
Liang, X. 2004. The impact of English immersion on children. Training and Research: Journalof Hubei University of Education 21: 92�4.
Liang, X. 2009. Investigating activities in an English immersion context in Mainland China.Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of American AppliedLinguistics, Denver, CO, USA.
Liang, X. 2011. Investigating how activities mediate student peer talk in an English immersioncontext in the mainland of China. Doctoral diss., University of Hong Kong.
Lin, J. 1997. Policies and practices of bilingual education for the minorities in China. Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18: 193�205.
MacCoubrey, S. J., L. Wade-Woolley, D. Klinger, and J. R. Kirby. 2004. Early identification ofat-risk L2 readers. The Canadian Modern Language Review 61: 11�28.
Marsh, H., K. T. Hau, and C. K. Kong. 2000. Later immersion and language of instruction inHong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and nonlanguage subjects.Harvard Educational Review 70: 302�50.
Met, M., and E. Lorenz. 1997. Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades ofexperience. In Immersion education: International perspectives, ed. R. K. Johnson andM. Swain, 243�64. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moeller, P. 1989. French student-teachers: Who knows how good they really are? CanadianModern Language 45: 445�56.
Niu, X. 2008. An investigation of content-based foreign language teaching methodology[ ]. Masters thesis, South China Normal University.
Obadia, A. A., and C. M. L. Theriault. 1995. Attrition in French programs: Possible solutions.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED400674).
Pei, M. 2006. Scaffolding and participation in classroom interaction: Perspectives fromEnglish immersion teaching in the People’s Republic of China. Doctoral diss., Universityof Hong Kong.
Pei, M., X. Du, and W. Wang. 2009. Teachers’ discoursal strategies to prompt studentparticipation: A qualitative study. Education Science 29: 42�7.
Qiang, H. Y., X. Huang, L. Siegel, and B. Trube. 2011. English immersion in Mainland China.In English language education across Great China, ed. A. Feng, 169�88. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.
Safty, A. 1991. French immersion in Canada: Theory and practice. International Review ofEducation 37: 473�88.
Song, X., and L. Cheng. 2011. Investigating primary English immersion teachers in China:Background, instructional contexts, professional development, and perceptions.Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 39: 1�16.
390 L. Cheng
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 1982. Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Turnbull, M., S. Lapkin, and D. Hart. 2001. Grade 3 immersion students’ performance inliteracy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1998-99). CanadianModern Language Review 58: 9�26.
Wallace, M. R. 2009. Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices,and student achievement. Teachers College Record 111: 573�96.
Zhang, X. 2009. Strategies for teaching core vocabulary for primary science curriculum inEnglish immersion programs. Paper presented at the 5th annual conference for EnglishImmersion Education, March, in Macau, China.
Zhang, L., and R. Yan. 2007. Impact of different teaching approaches on English word-reading ability for children. Early Childhood Education 6: 8�11.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 391
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
07:
14 2
3 N
ovem
ber
2014