SEE 6 Language Programs and Policies Module

Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA ECIJA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
in Multilingual Societies
Albert C. Bulawat, MAEd

Krissina Posadas, MAEd
Maria Elaine A. Cabuso, MTENGBE
Divina V. Quiroz
Celso P. Resueno, Jr., MAE
Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 1

PREFACE
Academic community is only one of the myriad sectors which experiences the effects of the
pandemic. As a result, this community forces to adapt online academic interactions in lieu of
the face-to-face classes. It is for this reason that this module in SEE 6 (Language Programs
and Policies in Multilingual Societies) is being prepared. This module provides a survey of local
and international basic education language programs and policies that account for issues and
considerations relevant to the engagement of teachers in school settings.
This learning material is intended for the second year English major students in the College
of Education. It has four chapters prudently planned and chosen to meet the desired goals.
The First Unit traces the history and origin of bilingualism and multilingualism. Unit Two
tries to analyze and differentiate bilingualism and multiligualism, and enumerate the
different types, programs,structure, and frameworks of bilingualism and multiligualism. The
Third Unit helps the students to be familiarized with the principles of code switching and
code mixing, and examine the various reasons and tenets behind code mixing and code
switching. Lastly, Unit Four attempts to analyze the language programs and policies in the
South East Asia, examine the existence and effects of World Englishes, enumerate the three
basic orientations underlying language education planning, and examine the bilingual
education in different contexts.
It is hoped that this module may serve its purpose as a substantial support to the available
learning resources being used by the students.
The authors of this module neither claim the sole ownership to the information, graphics, and
illustrations included herein nor refuse to acknowledge the sources . Many of the contents
were adapted from the works of different authors, researchers, organizations and websites.
Lastly, this learning material is designed for Classroom Use Only and not for any other
purposes.
The Authors

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
Title Page 1
Preface 2
Table of Contents 3
Activating your Knowledge 5
Expanding your Knowledge 7
UNIT I. HISTORY OF BILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM AND
BILINGUAL EDUCATION 7
Origin of Bilingualism and Multilinguals 7
History of Bilingual Education 7
History of Bilingual Education in the Philippines 8
Different Concepts and Terminologies Related to Language
Programs and Policies in Multilingual Settings (Jessica Ball for
UNESCO, 2011) 9
References 10
Synthesizing your Knowledge 11
Activity 1 11
Activity 2 12

UNIT II. BILINGUAL AND MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION 16
Bilingualism 16
Goals of Bilingual Education 16
Distinction Between Bilingualism and Bilingual Education 16
Effects of Bilingualism to a Child 17
Multilingualism 17
Types of Bilingualism, Multilingualism and Bilingual
Education 17
Programs and Structures of Bilingual and Multilingual Education 18
Types of Bilingual Education Program Models/Approaches 18
Frameworks of Bilingual and Multilingual Education 20
Integrating the Framework 20
Characteristics of Effective Programs 21
Advantages of Bilingualism and Multilingualism 22
References 23
Activity 3 25
Activity 4 27
Activity 5 29

UNIT III. BILINGUAL AND MULTILINGUAL SPEECH 31
Code Switching and Code Mixing 31
Enhancement Activity 1 32
Reasons to Switch or Mix Languages 33
When is Code-Switching Helpful? 33
Is Code-Switching the same as Code-Mixing? 33
Accommodation Theory 36
Speech Convergence 36
Speech Divergence 36

Activity 6 37
References 38

UNIT IV. LANGUAGE PROGRAM and POLICIES in ASEAN Contexts 41
The Global Spread of English 41
World Englishes 41
Emergence of Hybridized Multilingual and Multicultural
Identities in Southeast Asia 45
Bilingual Education in Different Contexts: Principles and Practice 48
Diversity of Aims and Contexts 48
Three Main Types of Program: Maintenance, Transitional
and Enrichment 48
Canadian French Immersion 50
Origin 50
Design Features 50
Goals of Canadian French Immersion Program 50
Principal Program Types in Canadian French Immersion 51
Program Outcomes of Canadian French Immersion 51
Conditions for Success in Canadian French Immersion 52
European Schools 53
Origins and Goals of the European Schools 53
Organization of the European Schools 54
Curriculum of the European Schools 54
Conditions for Success and Learning Outcomes of the
European Schools 56
Two Way/Dual Language Programs 57
Contexts of LPP in SEA Societies: Need for Innovative Approaches 60
Approaches to Language Policy and Planning (LPP) 60
An Analytical Framework for Understanding LPP
in (Postcolonial) Southeast Asian Contexts 60
Recurrent LPP Goals and Means in Southeast Asian Contexts 61
Three Basic Orientations Underlying Language Education
Planning 61
Three Prototypical LPP Models 62
Current LPP Difficulties and Dilemmas in Southeast
Asian Contexts 65
The Need for Innovative Approaches to Bilingual
Education in Southeast Asian Contexts 66
References 68
Activity 7 70

Name: _______________________________ Score: ______________________
Course/Year/Section: _______________ Date: _______________________
Interpretive Hermeneutic Protocol

Directions: Assess your schema to come to understanding and to clarify what has led you to
this understanding. Read the given instructions before you fill in the matrix below.
PRE-UNDERSTANDING What I think about bilingual education:

You are required to answer
this section before you read
the content of this module.
What led me to think this:
UNDERSTANDING What I think about bilingual education and its history after
You are required to answer reading the main content:
this after you read the
content of this module
under the section
Expanding your Knowledge.
What led me to think this is:

NEW UNDERSTANDING What I now think about bilingual education and its origin
You will answer this after after reading the content and accomplishing the post-
you read the main content activities:
and accomplish the Post-
Activities.
What led me to think this is:

UNIT I. HISTORY OF BILINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM AND
BILINGUAL EDUCATION
This learning module encompasses a brief
Objectives: discussion of the history of bilingualism and
At the end of the unit, I am able multilingualism, the origin of bilingual education,
to: as well as that of Philippine bilingual education.
1. trace and record the history of As a future language educator, it is important to
bilingualism and for you to be equipped with this basic knowledge,
which serves as foundation of the current
multilingualism;
bilingual and multilingual approaches, programs
2. identify the origin of bilingual
and policies that are being implemented. It is
education; and
expected that with this knowledge, you will be
3. be familiarized with the able to fully grasp the historical, political, and
bilingual education in the social influences of bilingual education that led to
Philippines. the bilingual/multilingual policies and programs
you will, in the future, take part in implementing.
Origin of Bilingualism and Multilinguals
Bilingualism and multilingualism are both common phenomena in the modern

society brought about by historical, social, political, and economic influences. The study of
bilingualism is a complex field focused on studying the usage and comprehension of two (or
more than two) languages. However, years ago, the term bilingualism was largely used in the
field to cover multilingualism as well and as such, much earlier studies we find use the term.
Bilingualism has been a topic of interest since centuries ago. In fact, according to his
Oxford article, Bhatia (2017) mentioned that the earliest records of bilingualism can be
traced as early as the ancient religious texts, the Bible, and the Sanskrit grammar of Panini.
However, bilingualism only drew serious attention from linguists in the 20th century. The
article also cited three pivotal linguists whose works paved the way for “diverse and
interdisciplinary approaches to the study of bilingualism.” These linguists are listed below
along with their work and contribution:
• Uriel Weinreich – His work in 1953 has provided an extensive analysis of two different
languages in terms of their linguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic facets.
• Einar Haugen - He claimed to have coined the term codeswitching first. He studied the
Norwegian language in America which he published in 1953. His case study was built
upon the pre-generative grammatical framework.
• William Mackey - His work in 1967 explored the rationale for inattention to and the
challenges to the study of bilingualism in linguistics and devised the key underlying
theoretical and empirical questions related to bilingualism.
History of Bilingual Education
Languages are learned, maintained, and reinforced in school (Cenoz, 2018) as such,
many schools offer more than one language in their curriculum. However, this bilingual
approach to education is not new nor unique in the modern world. In fact, the early waves of
immigrants in the United States have enrolled their children in private or public bilingual
schools. Bilingual Education has a long and interesting history in the United States. Below are
important periods and changes that have impacted the language education as we know today:

• Ohio, 1839 – Ohio was the first American state to adapt a bilingual education law
where the use of German-English instruction was permitted in response to the appeal
of parents in 1839. This has prompted several other states to enact similar laws in
favor of bilingual schooling.
• World War I era – The first world war era has caused a shift in the political winds,
which has prompted majority of states to legislate the English-only instruction and
bilingual schooling was largely abandoned throughout the country. By 1925, Bilingual
education programs in American states had faded away.
• Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 – This has aided in the establishment of the
precedent that "separate but equal" education and other services were not really
about equality. This has resulted to a more empowered movement for equality in
education and other institutions.
• Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968 – It also known as Title VII of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Amendments (ESEA) of 1967. This act was passed during
the time of expanding immigration and an empowered civil rights movement. It gave
provision of federal funding to encourage bilingual approaches in instruction in local
school districts.
• Lau v. Nichol, 1974 – It is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court under the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 in favor of equal education. It instructed public school districts in
California to provide non-English-speaking students with instruction in the English
language to guarantee that they receive an equal education. This court decision
further emphasized the need for bilingual education.
• Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 – This is an amendment to BEA. It
emphasized the drive for true equality and the prohibition against discrimination in
schools and other institutions.
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2002 – It renamed the Bilingual Education Act to
English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement
Act. It has emphasized the importance of tests designed to assess the learners’ English
proficiency. This meant that despite granting autonomy to school districts to decide
their own instructional methods, the primary objective of education was English
language acquisition.
History of Bilingual Education in the Philippines
Philippine schools adhere to the bilingual education policies and programs mandated
by the present Constitutional provisions. Our students are taught in not only Filipino, but also
in English and in their mother tongue. This is perhaps natural considering that our people
generally speak more than one language thanks to our many different language varieties and
history of colonization. In this section we will discuss how the current Bilingual Education in
the country has come about.
Despite being colonized by the Spaniards for 333 years from 1565 until 1898, Spanish
was never learned by majority of our ancestors. It was the Americans who taught our
ancestors their language, English, through public education system. This later sparked the
conception of different language discussions and politics in the country, in search of a way to
break away from the trace of colonization.
The country is currently implementing the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education (MTB-MLE) in the basic education. According to Tupas and Martin (2016), among
the Southeast Asian countries, ours is the only one that institutionalized and enacted this law.
It would be interesting to look back at the past of the notable events in our history related to
language, leading to the current language laws and policies the country implements.
Important dates to remember (Tupas and Lorente, 2014; Azardon, et.al., 2016):
• 1937 – Tagalog was proclaimed to be the basis of the Philippine national language
Tagalog as the basis of the country’s national language.
• 1959 -the national language was renamed Pilipino due to political sensitivity
raised by the allegation of Tagalog imperialism or internal colonization
• 1973 - Section 3.2 of Article XV of the 1973 Philippine constitution named the
common national language as Filipino
• 1974 - the Bilingual Education Policy in the Philippines (BEP) was
institutionalized by virtue of Department of Education Culture and Sports

(DECS) Order No. 25. It mandated that for Mathematics and Science, English
was to be used, while for other subjects, Pilipino was to be used. This policy
applied to both in elementary and secondary schools
• 1987 - bilingual education was reaffirmed through the DepEd Order No. 52
-Filipino, not Pilipino, was institutionalized as the national language
• 1996 -CHED issued CMO No. 59 s. 1996 which states that “in consonance with the
Bilingual Education Policy underlined in DECS Order No. 52, Series of 1987,
the following are the guidelines vis-a-vis medium of instruction, to wit: (1)
language courses, whether Filipino or English, should be taught in that
language. (2) At the discretion of the HEI, Literature subjects may be taught
in Filipino, English or any other language as long as there are enough
instructional materials for the same and both students and instructors are
competent in the language. Courses in the Humanities and Social Sciences
should preferably be taught in Filipino.”
• 2009 - Multilingual Education (MLE) was institutionalized, technically ending the
bilingual education
- MLE was institutionalized through the Department of Education
(DepEd) Order No. 74, which requires the basic education to use the
learners’ mother tongue as medium in facilitating learning based on research
claims that it will improve learners’ academic achievement and language
proficiency.
• 2013 - Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education or MTB-MLE policy was
included in Republic Act 10533 or more popularly known as the “Enhanced
Basic Education Act of 2013”. This law dictates that regional mother tongue
shall be used from kindergarten to grade three (3), while both English and
Filipino will be used in the succeeding years.
Supplemental Readings
• “A ‘new’ politics of language in the Philippines: bilingual education and the new
challenge of the mother tongues” from https://rb.gy/wryz0a
• “Bilingual and Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in the Philippines” from
https://rb.gy/7hdh12
Different Concepts and Terminologies Related to Language Programs and Policies in

Multilingual Settings (Jessica Ball for UNESCO, 2011)
➢ Minority and Majority Languages

Minority language is a language spoken by a minority group of the population of a
territory like the Maranaw, Maguindanao, and Tausug in the Philippines. The sign
language of the mute and deaf or the braille for the blind are also minority. Majority
language is the language spoken by majority of the population in a country or in a region
of a country like Tagalog and Cebuano in the Philippines. However, the majority language
in a country may be a minority language in global sense like Korean is majority in South
Korea, but is a minority language of the world; whereas English is considered as a
minority language in South Korea, but is considered as one of the major languages of the
world.
➢ Official and National Language
National language is a language with a political, social, and cultural connection with it. It
is connected to the people and the territory they occupy and is a representation of the
people’s identity. Official language is a precise term used to refer to the language used by
the government, used by the court and administrators of a country. In the Philippines,
Filipino is the national language and is also considered as the official language with
English as the second official language.
➢ Language/s of Instruction
Language of instruction is the language used for teaching. The language choice for
instruction is as recommended by the existing language policy of the country or of the
school. In the Philippines, for example, Filipino and English, along with regional language
dialects, are the mandated languages of instruction in basic education and are therefore
the languages used by both teachers and learners. In some countries, the case may be
different as they may either require only one language or just two languages as mediums
of instruction in their respective school systems.

➢ Mother tongue Instruction
The term mother tongue refers to the first language you learned, the language you identify
with and is a native speaker of. It is your primary or first language. Mother tongue
instruction means that the learners’ home language or mother tongue is used as a subject
and as the language of instruction.
➢ Linguistic Rights
Aside from being a tool for communication, language is also a fundamental attribute of
cultural identity and empowerment, both for individual and group. To have a peaceful
cohabitation, it is important that we show respect for the languages of individuals that
belong to different linguistic communities as us. These linguistic rights go for both
minority and majority language users.
➢ Language Teaching
Language teaching refers to the teaching of grammar, vocabulary, written and oral forms
of the language that are incorporated in the curriculum with the goal of helping the
learners to acquire and master the target language.
➢ Bilingual and Multilingual Education
Not to be confused with bilinguals or multilinguals resulting from exposure to different
languages at home or the community, Bi/Multilingual Education involves teaching or
instruction of or using the different languages. These terms will be elaborated in the next
unit.
These concepts and terminologies will help you as you explore the different topics in
the succeeding units of your course.
References:
Arzadon, M., Igcalinos, A., Zubiri, L., Cortez, A., Awid, M., and Gumba, L. (2016). Regional
Research on the Use of Language(s) in Classrooms in Ethnolinguistic Communities:
Philippines. Unpublished Report submitted to UNESCO, Bangkok.
Ball, J. (2011). Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: Mother
tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in early childhood and early.
Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000212270
Bhatia, T.K. (2018). Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Oxford Bibliography Online. Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/ujeyld
Bybee, E.R., Henderson, K.I., and Hinojosa, R.V. (2014, November 20). An Overview of U.S.
Bilingual Education: Historical Roots, Legal Battles and Recent Trends. Texas
Education Review 2 (2). Retrieved from https://rb.gy/ntdvjo
Cenoz, J. (2012, November 01). Bilingual and Multilingual Education: Overview. The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/zshazx
History of Bilingual Education. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/pmgqnc
Moran, R. F. (2011). Bilingual Education Act: Equal Education Opportunities: History, Politics,
Theory, and Practice. JRank. JRank.
Tupas, R. and Lorente, B.P., (2014). A ‘new’ politics of language in the Philippines: bilingual
education and the new challenge of the mother tongues. In P. Sercombe & T.R.F. Tupas
(Eds.). Language, identities and education in Southeast Asia: language contact,
assimilation and shift in Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore
(pp. 165 - 180). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from
https://rb.gy/wryz0a
Tupas, R. and Martin, I.P. (2016). Bilingual and Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education
in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/7hdh12

Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Course/Year/Section: _______________ Score: ____________________
Activity 1
Directions: Based on the discussion presented, draw a Road Map showing the historical
timeline of Bilingual Education and answer the question that follows.
How did the historical and political situations in the US play their part in shaping Bilingual
Education of today? Elaborate your answer.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Activity 2
Name: _______________________________ Score: _______________________

Course/Year/Section: _______________ Date: ________________________
A. Expoundables!
Directions: Answer the following:
1. Differentiate national from official language.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. “Awareness of the history of bilingual education is important to a language teacher.” Give

reasons to support this statement.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. With specific examples, explain the relevance of the bilingual education in the country to
the modern Philippine and global societies.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

B. Timeline of Bilingual Education History in the Philippines
Directions: In the space provided below, draw a historical timeline of the bilingual education
in the Philippines based on the discussion and the supplemental reading under the history of
bilingual education in the Philippines. Label your timeline properly and give important notes
for each entry.

Name: _______________________________ Score: ______________________
Course/Year/Section: _______________ Data: ______________________
Video Analysis
Directions: Watch the video entitled "Creating bilingual minds" through this link
https://bit.ly/3gR8Dsq. Then, accomplish the following tasks:
1. How did the speaker, Naja Ferjan Ramirez describe foreign language learning?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Why were babies regarded as linguitic geniuses?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Naja Ferjan Ramirez with her team studied brains involving 11 month-old babies to
understand how bilingual brains are formed. What salient findings did they have and how
relevant are they in understanding how brain works when learning languages?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Fill in the circles with words you can associate with bilingualism and multilingualism.
Bilingualism/
Multilingualism

UNIT II. BILINGUAL AND MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION
Objectives: This learning module introduces you to aspects

At the end of the unit, I am of bilingualism and multilingualism. You will
able to: explore their different advantages and
1. develop awareness and characteristics and the different types, programs
understanding of bilingualism and structure, and frameworks of bilingual and
and multilingualism and their multilingual education. Understanding and
advantages; learning about the different concerns and facets
2. explore the different types, of bilingualism and multilingualism and how
programs and structure and the they are incorporated in education would be
frameworks of bilingual and beneficial to you as a future language educator
multilingual education; and as you approach learning and language use in
your classroom.
3. examine the characteristics of
effective language programs.
Bilingualism
In contemporary societies like ours, bilingualism is not uncommon. Either due to

being born from parents with different languages or from being exposed later in life, people
from numerous countries are either bilingual or multilingual. Defined by Verplaetse and
Schmitt (2010) as "the ability to communicate in two different languages," bilingualism is a
complex topic of discussion. Gauthier (2012) discussed two types of bilingualism, namely: (a)
sequential bilingualism, which happens when a child only learns one language at birth then
learn another later on; and (b) simultaneous bilingualism, which happens when the child
acquires two distinct languages at the same time due to being exposed to these languages,
possibly with parents or caretakers using two languages. Nonetheless, bilingualism is a noted
phenomenon that has paved the way for bilingual education.
Goals of Bilingual Education
Stephen Krashen in his Bilingual Education: Ninety Questions, Ninety Answers

posited that there are two distinct goals of bilingual education, namely: (a) academic English
skills development and academic success; and (b) development of the home language or the
native tongue. This means that, unlike English-only programs, Bilingual Education aims to
develop English language fluency and literacy and develop and maintain students' oral
fluency and literacy in their home language.
Distinction Between Bilingualism and Bilingual Education
Bilingualism, as mentioned earlier, is a common phenomenon. As early as three years

old, children may become bilingual. This could occur in two different models. The first is when
the child learns two different languages simultaneously, which results in simultaneous
bilingualism. When the child develops proficiency in the first language before developing
skills in another language, it is known as sequential bilingualism (Cappa, 2012). Bilingualism
is complex as it exists in a person in different levels of proficiency. A bilingual may have only
had minimum proficiency in both languages, or he or she may have mastery of both.
On the other hand, the term bilingual education is the term we use to refer to that
approach in education where two different languages are utilized in classroom instruction. It
aim is strengthening the students’ mastery of language. Its long history of which you have
already explored in the previous unit.

Effects of Bilingualism to a Child
While bilingualism is a complex topic and the discourse are varied and contradictory,
Nicoladis and his team have noted in their work in 2016 the various beneficial effects of
bilingualism on children. These are:
• Ability to comprehend their conversation partner’s communication needs;
• Mental flexibility (divergent thinking and general reasoning skills);
• Non-verbal problem-solving skills;
• Verbal and linguistic skills; and
• socio-cognitive development.
These skills are essential in the improvement of language proficiency, academic success,
and the life of the child.
Multilingualism
Another widely common phenomenon, multilingualism is the ability to communicate

using more than two different languages (Cenoz, 2013). He argued that there are three
factors considered to contribute to the current prominence of multilingualism are the
spread of modern technologies, globalization, and migration, and immigration. According to
him, multilingualism may be classified as either an individual or a social phenomenon.
Types of Bilingualism, Multilingualism and Bilingual Education
Bilingual Education may be defined differently in different contexts. In this context,

Bilingual Education is the umbrella term used to describe a variety of language programs
that integrate English learners and native English-speaking learners in academic instruction.
Both English and home language are used as academic content and mediums of instruction.
1. Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) is an approach to education where learners

are first taught with their home language before transitioning to English-only
instruction. TBE is classified as either an early or late-exit program. It is regarded as
an early exit program if a bilingual approach (teaching in both home language and
English) is used in instruction for the first two years or less of children's education
before transitioning to using English-only instruction. Still, they receive the majority
of their lessons in English. On the contrary, the late-exit program is where the
learners receive instruction in two languages for longer or all their elementary
education. This is to focus on helping them to master their first language so that they
could use this as an instrument to learn and master the next language, English, and
improve academic achievement (Ray-Subramanian, 2011).
Pros
• TBE provides learners with an opportunity to get better jobs and improve
their economic status (Mitchell et al. as cited in Baker, n.d.)
• Learners in TBE are exposed to social settings with native English-speaking
peers.
Cons
• TBE is regarded as a subtractive program since the knowledge gained by the
learners about their first language is later abandoned in favor of acquiring the
necessary English skills required by the English-only classroom environment
(Reese et al. as cited in Polanco and Baker, n.d.)
• TBE does not promote social integration, and learners are isolated in a
classroom with learners who are also non-native English speakers, limiting
their exposure to the English language.
2. Two-Way Immersion (TWI) is bilingual education where two groups of learners

who are native speakers of two distinct languages are placed together in a classroom
where both these languages are used. This type of program aims for a high level of
biliteracy among the learners, improved academic achievement, and cross-cultural
awareness. To achieve this, learners begin two-way immersion in kindergarten or
first grade and proceed with the approach throughout their elementary school

careers. Here, the teachers must be bilingual and bi-literate (CSBA Governance Brief,
September 2014).
Pros
• It promotes a positive environment where learners feel respected, and their
language and culture are valued (Lindholm-Leary & Block, 2010).
• It creates an environment of an integrated culture where learners improve
their proficiency in the two languages. Through this, not only master two
languages, but they also develop an awareness of each other's culture and
become proud of their own (Baker, 2011).
Con
• TWI presents additional challenges for teachers, as TWI teachers must help
two groups of learners whose levels of proficiency in the two languages are
different from each other. Only a few teacher preparation programs address
the special conditions that TWI teachers face.
Programs and Structures of Bilingual and Multilingual Education
Subtractive bilingual education

The program is subtractive if its focus is the learners’ mastery of the target dominant
languages like English. It gives little to no attention to honing their skills in their home
language, thus promoting monolingualism in school (Flores and Baetens, 2010). In this
approach, learners are forced to abandon the notion of improving their skills in their first
language and are instead required to put all their attention to mastering the new language.
Examples of subtractive bilingual education are submersion and transitional bilingual
education.
Additive bilingual education

Additive bilingual education does not support the one-language only policy in schools
which promote monolingualism. According to Flores and Baetens (2010), this approach helps
students to become 'balanced bilinguals' who have equal proficiency both languages of
instruction. In this program, two groups of learners are integrated despite having different
levels of proficiency in two languages. These students are generally catered simultaneously
using both languages. This means that while the school aims to improve the learners'
proficiency in the second language, their first language is not abandoned, but is improved and
maintained alongside the new language. Examples of additive bilingual education are
immersion programs and dual-language bilingual programs.
Types of Bilingual Education Program Models/Approaches
Jessica Ball distinguished the differences among the different bilingual education
programs in an article she provided for UNESCO in 2010. The table below shows Ball's
description for each program approach.
Program Model Type Program Model Description

Mother tongue-based The children's first language (L1) is used to deliver the
instruction learning program entirely. For it to be possible, the
learners and teacher must share the same language
background and the teacher is a bilingual who has respect
for the learners’ heritage language and culture.
Bilingual education or the Non-native English speakers who share the same first
two-way bilingual education language receive instruction in both literacy and
academic content delivered in two languages, their home,
and English. In Two-Way Bilingual Education, the class is
a combination of non-native English speakers and native
English speakers who receive instruction from a bilingual
teacher in both languages. Its threefold functions are
transition from first language to second language
environment, developing fluency in the second language,

and maintenance of the the learners’ heritage language
and culture (YourDictionary, 2020).
Mother tongue-based Instruction begins in mother tongue or home language,
bilingual education or the and then the next language is gradually introduced using
developmental bilingualism their knowledge of the home language as a scaffold for
learning the new one. Here, according to Nolasco as cited
in Gallego and Zubiri (2013), the teacher starts from
where the learners are and on what they already know.
They use it to have a strong training in acquiring linguistic
skills in the next language. Additionally, Ganal in Navarro,
et.al. (2016) claimed that the learners’ mother tongue
development is correlated to their second language
development. This means that the stronger their
foundation in their mother tongue, the stronger their
literacy development in the second language will be.
Multilingual education Education starts being delivered in the mother tongue
before it transitions to introducing additional languages.
Its aims are multilingualism and multiliteracy and as cited
by Cenoz (2013) cited, involves improved linguistic and
academic results.
Transitional bi/multilingual It is a rapid shift from using one language onto English to
education (also called develop English literacy abilities as soon as possible
'bridging' and ‘early exit’) (Billings, et.al., 2010). Here the focus is for learners to
master the second language which results to them either
lose their mother tongue while acquiring the second
language or fail to fully develop their mother tongue
literacy. It is an ‘early exit’ program which includes a
sudden shift to L2 after just 2 or 3 years in school.
Maintenance bi/multilingual All target languages become the mediums of instruction
education (late exit or after L2, and L3 has been introduced. L1 instruction often
developmental bilingual continues as a topic of study to provide ongoing support
program) for the child's L1. This is often also called 'additive
bilingual education' because even if the next language/s
are introduced, L1 is not displaced or abandoned. It
fosters the learners’ first language and promote
bi/multilingualism and bi/multiliteracy. It is ‘late-exit’
program that according to Billings, et.al. (2010) aims at
the development of the learners’ literacy skills and
proficiency in their first language while having
comparable skills and proficiency in the second language.
Immersion or foreign It is a language education approach where the tudents are
language instruction given instruction in all academic subjects in the target
language like English. Their teachers are native speakers
of the target language and are fluent in the students’
native language. There are three types of immersion
approach, namely: a) total immersion, in which the
learners are exposed only to the target language the
entire time that they are in school; b) partial immersion,
in which the learners are taught in the target language
half the time while in their native language on the other
half; and c) two-way immersion, in which learners of
different language backgrounds are combined in a
classroom and are taught in both their native and target
language (FluentU, 2020).
Submersion (a.k.a. Sink or A widely criticized approach, nicknamed ‘sink or swim’,
Swim) Rangelova (n.d.) explained submersion as an approach
where students who are not native speakers of the target
dominant language receive education in that language.
They are forced to learn the target language, with little to
no support from their teachers if they wish to catch up
with the lessons and communicate with their teachers

and peers. In this approach, the dominant language is
learned at the expense of L1, promoting subtractive
bilingualism.
Frameworks of Bilingual and Multilingual Education
As you may have realized by now, there are a variety of programs addressing bilingual
education. These programs are subjected to study and evaluation by researchers using three
frameworks. Hall, Smith, and Wicaksono (2011) explained the three frames as follows:
1. Content-based framework – It frames the bilingual and multilingual education in
terms of its language use. It looks into the program by evaluating its language use in
terms of its strong form (i.e., the languages are used systematically for academic
purposes) or weak form (i.e., the first language is used only in moderation like for
clarifying) dichotomy.
2. Language-based framework – This refers to evaluating the bilingual and
multilingual education by looking at the languages of instruction as the vehicles for
intercultural communication and content learning, emphasizing on the acquisition of
academic content.
3. Context-based-framework – It frames bilingual and multilingual education in terms
of the context that it is designed, implemented, and evaluated, namely: (a) macro-
level (i.e., national level); and (b) micro-level (i.e., local level).
Integrating the Framework
Bilingual and multilingual programs are being organized along with one or more of three
primary orientations mentioned by Hall, Smith, and Wicaksono in their 2010 work:
1. language as a problem
Language is viewed as a cause of conflict and stereotypes among bilinguals. Some
have negative perceptions of bilinguals and multilinguals as having mental inferiority,
split-identity, emotional vulnerability, language anxiety, low self-esteem, alienation,
and cultural dislocation.
2. language as a right
Language can be a personal, human, or constitutional/legal right. Language as a right
protects individuals or groups against all forms of discrimination on the merit of their
chosen language/s and the use of that language as a means of safeguarding individual
or group identity.
3. language as resource
Language as a resource views language as a means to establish a multicultural society
capable of building links for economic prosperity and social harmony among the
diverse communities, eliminating the pressures brought about by a deliberate
discussion of language as a problem and as a right.
The table below shows the correlation of some of the main features of bilingual and
multilingual education by combining insights from each of the three conceptual frameworks.
Type of Program Support for L1 Elite/Folk Primary

Orientation
Submersion None Folk Language as a
problem
Transitional Temporary, until Typically, folk Language as a right
mastery of the
dominant is ensured
Maintenance Support for L1 is strong Mixed Language as a right
with access to quality and resource
materials and well-
trained teachers.
One-way immersion Support for L1 varies Typically, elite Language a resource
but typically threatens
L1.

Two-way Strong Elite/folk Language a resource
immersion/dual
Community language Typically strong at the Folk Language a resource
teaching secondary level
Heritage language The dominant language Elite/folk Language a resource
education is often the students L1
Characteristics of Effective Programs
According to Krashen (n.d.), one of the fundamental goals of bilingual education is the
development of the learners' knowledge and skills. To achieve this, appropriate and effective
programs must be provided for the learners. Bilingual and multilingual education programs
must have the following characteristics:
1. High expectations and clarity of pragmatic goals- Effective programs view students
as capable of achievement. Hence high standards are set with clear and specific
practical goals.
2. The curriculum at par with that of English-only curriculum- One important thing
to consider a bilingual program effective is if it is competently designed that it can
produce ideal outcomes that are comparable to the English-only curriculum.
3. Inclusion of courses requiring the use of home language- It must include courses
where the learners' native language will be utilized, and their fluency improved.
4. Inclusion of English-language component- As it is a bilingual program, courses,
where English is a subject of study or is the language of instruction, must be provided.
5. Incorporation of students' home culture through multicultural instruction-
Cultural awareness and pride are two important outcomes that a bilingual program
should be able to produce.
6. Has the support of school administration, teachers, staff, students, parents, and
the community- No matter how well-designed and thought-of a program is, if it lacks
the support of one or all of the stakeholders, it is likely not to produce the desired
result.
7. Availability of appropriately trained personnel- For the program to be effective,
school administrators must be properly oriented with the rudiments of the program
so they can appropriately supervise, monitor, and evaluate its implementation.
Likewise, biliterate teachers who are trained appropriately and accordingly should be
employed for the program.
8. Availability of adequate teaching and learning resources, and appropriate
materials. Aside from qualified personnel, it is also important for teaching ang
learning resources and materials for the implementation of the bilingual program be
made available.
9. Conduct of regular and appropriate student performance monitoring- To ensure
that the program goes smoothly and that the desired results are attained, regular
monitoring of the students' performance should be conducted.
10. Involvement of parents and family in the planning, monitoring, and evaluation
of the program. If you keep the parents and family members involved with every step
of the program, you will inspire their trust and support. This will help give the program
a better chance to succeed.
Some key features of effective programs also include:
1. All pupils learn and perform when the media of instruction is the language they
understand.
2. In terms of language proficiency, teachers must have the ability to teach content in
both languages, and sensitivity to local language ideologies is fundamental.
3. School autonomy is a condition for success. Thus, rules and expectations developed
for monolingual schools are generally unsuitable for bilingual and multilingual
programs.
4. Parents and other caregivers, teachers, administrators, and school staff should
support advanced bilingualism and show respect for the minority language.
5. Programs should challenge students to work at high academic levels because low
expectations do not foster academic success in any language.

Advantages of Bilingualism and Multilingualism
For years, people have perceived bilinguals and multilinguals as disadvantaged,

masters of neither of the languages that they speak. However, recent researches have proved
otherwise. Chibaka (2018) appraised pragmatic evidence of the different advantages of
bilingualism and multilingualism. According to her, the advantages are at two levels-
individual and societal. Below are the
Advantages that she found.
1. Individual bilingualism and multilingualism provide for:

• More advanced cognitive abilities – Bilinguals and multilinguals were found to
perform better on tests involving the highest cognitive domain in Bloom's taxonomy,
creativity, metalinguistic awareness, reading proficiency, and possess flexibility in
mental processes and advanced prior knowledge scaffolding abilities.
• Delay of aging-related complications (Alzheimer's disease) and management of
chronic aphasia
• Linguistic awareness and communicative competence are enhanced – Bilinguals
and multilinguals develop their language proficiency better than monolinguals do.
They can switch on and off a language depending on the context of the situation they
are in. Because they are creative thinkers, they also possess communicative
resourcefulness that can extend in their real-life problem-solving capacity.
• Potential to attain higher academic standards – This is due to them being better
problem solvers, sharper memories, and more flexible than their monolingual
counterparts.
• Better career opportunities – Because bilinguals and multilingual not only know
different languages but are also aware of other cultures linked with those languages,
they gain an advantage over monolinguals in the current global and local market
where skills in other languages, especially in English, is viewed more positively by
employers.
• Better information processing skills – Because bilingual and monolingual brains
are consistently exercised from processing diverse linguistic information, and their
mind is better equipped in processing information or performing cognitive tasks
effectively, with less effort than the monolinguals.
• Improved intercultural competence – Since language and culture are interrelated,
learning another language also means learning another culture. This develops
awareness of other cultures, which leads to several positive results like sensitivity to,
appreciation, and accommodation of other people and their culture. This would also
help address the racism and xenophobia that are, unfortunately, still in our societies.
• Better economic opportunities – As discussed before, being bilingual or
multilingual can give you a better chance at landing a job that pays better than some.
English language proficiency, for example, would give you a better opportunity at
getting professional jobs here and abroad, especially in the fields of business and
education. Even better if you know another language like Spanish, French, and
Chinese as you will be viewed as an asset to the organization.
2. Societal bilingualism and multilingualism provide for:
• Economic and business growth – Bilinguals and multilinguals strengthen the

workforce and become an asset to the labor market and society. This positive effect
in the labor force cascades to the growth in the society's economy.
• Strengthening social cohesion, integration, and inclusion – Bilingual and
multilingual population can transform society into a multicultural one where policies
to ensure equality for everyone are enacted and implemented.
• Multicultural education – Education becomes a place not only for improving
academic skills and knowledge but also in developing cultural awareness and
acceptance, which leads to a more welcoming environment of learning for all.
• Assist to national security and health sensitization – Multilingualism gives an edge
to the multilingual society in ensuring national security by allowing the multilingual
security personnel to communicate effectively to diverse world populations for
defense operations, negotiations, and crisis-resolution strategies. Also,

multilingualism benefits the health sector as it allows for better and more effective
dissemination of information related to health issues and concerns. Producing
information flyers or posters about a viral disease like the COVID-19 and how to
prevent it from spreading in different languages, including the minority ones, is more
effective than just printing them in the dominant language.
References:
Advantages and disadvantages 1. (2016). Retrieved from

http://www.scientificlanguage.com/03 Advantages and disadvantages2016.pdf
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (Vol. 79). Multilingual
matters.
Ball, J. (2010). Enhancing the learning of children from diverse language backgrounds:
Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in early childhood and early.
Retrieved from http://eyeonkids.ca/docs/files/unesco_mother-
tongue_based_ey_2010.pdf
Bilingual Education: Need for Bilingual Education, Benefits of Bilingualism and Theoretical
Foundations of Bilingual Education - Language, English, Students, and Instruction -
StateUniversity.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1788/Bilingual-Education.html
Billings, E.S., Martin-Beltran, M., and Hernandez, A. (2010). Beyond English Development:
Bilingual Approaches to Teaching Immigrant Students and English Language Learners.
National Society for the Study of Education, Volume 109, Issue 2, pp. 384–413.
Bringing Immersion Bilingual Education to Life: A Teacher’s Guide. Retrieved from

https://www.fluentu.com/blog/educator/immersion-bilingual-education/
Cappa, C. Fernando, J. Giulivi, S., and Stoks, G. (2012). Multilingualism and Literacy
Development. Dyslang. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/bckvou.
Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 33.

Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259438531_Defining_Multilingualism
Chibaka, E.F. (2018). Advantages of Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Multidimensional

Research Findings. Retrieved from https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/59744.pdf
English Learner in Focus, Issue 2: The promise of the Two-Way Immersion Program. (2014).
CSBA Governance Brief. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/5gmluo
Flores N. and Baetens, H. (2015), Programs and structures in bilingual and multilingual
education. In Wright, Boun, and Garcia (2015) The Handbook of Bilingual and
Multilingual Education. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Gallego, M. and Zubiri, L. 2013. MTBMLE in the philippines: perceptions, attitudes, and
outlook. Retrieved on July 14, 2015 from
https://mlephil.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/mtbmle-in-the- philippines-
perceptionsattitudes-and-outlook.pdf
Gauthier, C. (2012). Language Development in Bilingual Children. Research Papers. Paper

210.
Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/210
Hall, C. J., Smith, P. H., & Wicaksono, R. (2011). Bilingual and multilingual education. Mapping
Applied Linguistics, 175–196. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315226286-10

Krashen, S. (n.d.). Bilingual education: Ninety questions, ninety answers. Retrieved from
https://rb.gy/wanxsr
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Block, N. (2010). Achievement in predominantly low SES/Hispanic

dual language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
13(1), 43.
Navarro, T.M.M., Abao, E.L., Bacus, R.C., Alda, R.C., and Espera C.C. (2016). Mother Tongue-
Based Instruction: Policy to Practice. International Journal of Education and
Research, Vol. 4 No. 3. Retrieved from https://www.ijern.com/journal/2016/March-
2016/12.pdf
Nicoladis, E., Charbonnier, M., and Popescu, A. (2016). Second Language/Bilingualism at An

Early Age with Emphasis on Its Impact on Early Socio-Cognitive and Socio-Emotional
Development. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/akedgz
Polanco, P. & Baker, D.F. (n.d.). Transitional Bilingual Education and Two-Way Immersion
Programs: Comparison of Reading Outcomes for English Learners in the United States.
Athens Journal of Education.
Programs and Structures in Multilingual Education (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://bit.ly/30JFol6
Ray-Subramanian C.E. (2011). Transitional Bilingual Education. In: Goldstein S., Naglieri
J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA.
Rangelova, R. (n.d.). ESL Immersion vs. Submersion: Models & Approaches. Retrieved from
https://study.com/academy/lesson/esl-immersion-vs-submersion-models-
approaches.html
Tool Module: Different Types of Bilingualism. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/uicjz8
Verplaetse, L.S., and Schmitt, E. (2010). Bilingualism and Learning. International

Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition).

Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Course/Year/Section: _______________
Activity 3
Expoundables!
Directions: Answer the following:
1. State the key difference between bilingualism and multilingualism.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2._______________________________________________________
Explain how educational institutions realize the goals of bilingual and multilingual
education.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
3. Which types of bilingual education programs are subtractive/additive? Which goals
do they follow?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
4. In today's era, do bilingualism and multilingualism matter? Explain your answer.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

5. Looking at the bilingual and multilingual education as a whole, what do you think are
the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats do they have. Give three each.
Strengths Weaknesses
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
Opportunities Threats
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.

Activity 4
Name: _______________________________ Score: _______________________

Research says…
Directions: Choose three of the different types of bilingual education programs. Cite 2 -3
research findings of them. Write a three to five-sentence synthesis of the findings for each
type.
Types of Bilingual Research Title, Source Findings

Education Program Author/s and Year
Synthesis of the findings


Activity 5
Name: _______________________________ Score: _______________________

Draw to me!
Directions: Make a poster of how bilingualism and multilingualism should be seen as an
essential educational reform, particularly in second language learning. Use the box as your
canvass. Write a one-sentence explanation of your poster.

Name: _______________________________ Score: ______________________
Course/Year/Section: _______________ Date: _______________________
VIDEO ANALYSIS
Directions: Watch the official trailer of the movie My BebeLove #KiligPaMore viewed or
downloaded on this link: https://www.youtube.com/gXX2VWVN9_U
Then, do the activities below.
Source:
http://mymovieworld-
coolman0304.blogspot.com/2015/11/my-
bebe-love-official-poster-and.html
1. List down at least three sentences (from the characters’ dialogues) that show the
use of more than one language. Explain briefly how a language influences the
character’s mood, attitude and context of the film.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Take a close look at the picture below. Examine how the sentences are structured and
affect the speakers’ understanding of the language.

UNIT III. BILINGUAL AND MULTILINGUAL SPEECH
Objectives:
Why do people codeswitch? Simple reasons
At the end of the
chapter, I am able to: may include tiredness, being overcome by emotions,
or the need for specialized vocabulary. An English
1. be familiarized with the speaker whose native language is Tagalog might drop
principles code switching some Tagalog words into his conversation at work
and code mixing;; immediately after a phone call in which he discovers
2. differentiate code switching that his parents died of a vehicular accident.
and code mixing;;
Likewise, a lawyer will use technical
3. examine the various
reasons and tenets behind vocabulary during court hearings and interrogation of
code mixing and code the accused. When at home, he then uses ordinary
switching; and English or even his mother tongue when talking to
4. appreciate the essence of family members. People may also use more than one
code switching and code language or code to obscure information that they
mixing don't want casual listeners to understand.
Code Switching and Code Mixing
Different groups of speakers assign codes to their own languages. Codes are
particular "grammars" of specific tongues: rules for constructing and deriving words and
sentences, inventories of sounds to convey meaning, rules for uttering those sounds, rules for
translating those sounds into graphic symbols commonly used in writing. Code switching and
code mixing are commonly used by language speakers throughout the world. Both occur
when two languages are used spontaneously in one clause or utterance.
Many scholars and linguists have attempted to differentiate between code switching
and code mixing as a result of language contact. These generally occur in most multilingual
communities to ascertain their social identities and group memberships.
1) Auer (1998): Code switching is the alternating use of two or more codes within one
conversational episode. In this case, “codes” refer to distinct language varieties or
dialect.
2) Bokamba (1989): Code switching is the mixing of words, phrases and sentences from
distinct grammatical (sub) systems across sentence boundaries within the same
speech event.
On the other hand, code mixing is the embedding of various linguistic units such as
affixes (bound morphemes), words (unbound morphemes), phrases and clauses from
cooperative activity where the participants, in order to infer what is intended, must
reconcile what they hear with what they understand.
3) Crystal (1987): Language switching occurs when two bilingual individuals alternate
two languages during their speech between them.
4) Hudson (1980): Code switching is defined as the speaker’s meaning of different
varieties of the same language at different times and in different situation, which
seems to refer more to disglosic situation.
5) Hymes (1971): Code switching is a common term for alternative use of two or more
languages, varieties of a language or even speech styles.
6) Wardhough (2010): People decide to switch from one code to another or to mix
codes even within very short utterances and thereby create a new code. Code
switching can occur in a conversation between or within a single speaker’s turn.
7) Weinreich (1953): The ideal bilingual is someone who is able to switch between
languages when required to do so by changes in the situation but does not switch
when the speech situation is unchanged and certainly not within a single sentence.

According to Hamers and Blanc (1989), the phenomenon of mixing the linguistic
units of two or more languages that occur within the grammatical systems of a sentence is
called code mixing. Language users code mix as a technique to overcome linguistic difficulties
associated with achieving language competence in the native language or the target language.
Enhancement Activity 1
Name: _______________________________ Score: _____________________
Course/Year/Section: _______________ Date: ______________________
A. READ, WATCH AND DISCUSS
Directions: Read “Bilingual/Bilingue” by Rhina P. Espail. Then watch Jamila Lyiscott’s poem
“3 Ways to Speak English.” Discuss the instances of “code switching” in these two poems.
Name at least three (3) examples. Then discuss whether you think “code switching” is
acceptable or not.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B. LIGHTS, CAMERA ACTION!
Directions: Choose a TV commercial (local or international) in which more than one language
is used. Observe if there is an evidence of code switching or code mixing illustrated in the
commercial you have chosen. Explain how these two phenomena have contributed to the
context of the advertisement. Your output must be presented in PPT format. Attach a video
clip of the chosen material. The rubric below will be used to assess your written insight for
this activity.
Effective Adequate Marginal Inadequate Poor

Criteria
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
Content
Relevance of Argument
Structure and
Organization
Grammatical Accuracy
Total Score

Reasons to Switch or Mix Languages
There are a number of possible reasons for switching from one language to another;
three are described below.
• To Fulfill a Need. A speaker who may not be able to express him/herself in one
language might switch to another to compensate for the deficiency. As a result, the
speaker may be triggered into speaking in the other language for a while. This type of
code switching tends to occur when the speaker is upset, tired, or distracted in some
manner, or when they are less fluent in one language.
• To Express Solidarity. Switching also commonly occurs when an individual wishes to
express solidarity with a particular social group. Rapport is established between the
speaker and the listener when the listener responds with a similar switch.
• To Exclude Others. Code switching may also be used to exclude others from a
conversation who does not speak the second language. For example, if two people in an
elevator in an English-speaking place spoke Spanish, then not only would the others on
that elevator who do not speak Spanish would be excluded from the conversation, but
also a degree of comfort and intimacy would be established between the Spanish-
speakers due to the fact that not all those present in the elevator can listen to their
conversation.
When is Code-Switching Helpful?
• The socio-linguistic benefits of code switching include communicating solidarity with or

affiliation to a particular social group, so code switching can be viewed as a means of
providing a linguistic advantage rather than an obstruction to communication.
• Furthermore, code switching allows a speaker to convey more nuanced attitudes and
emotions by choosing from a bigger pool of words that is available to a bilingual person,
much like how one might use font, bolding, or underlining in a text document to
emphasize points.
• Utilizing the second language, then, allows speakers to increase the impact of their
speech and use it in a more effective manner.
Is Code-Switching the same as Code-Mixing?
Both involve creating hybrid words or switching between two or more language
within phrases, clauses, or from one complete sentence to the next. Some use the terms "code
mixing" and "code switching" interchangeably, especially those who study morphology,
syntax, and other formal aspects of language, but other areas (like subfields of linguistics,
communication, or education theory) have their own extremely specific definitions for code
mixing.
The main difference can be summarized like this: Code switching is something
speakers do intentionally because they want to express themselves with a personal style or
flavor, but code mixing is something speakers might do unintentionally simply because they
don't know the correct word or phrase.

Name: _______________________________ Score: _____________________
A. EXPRESS YOUR UNDERSTANDING

Directions: Analyze the questions carefully and answer them meaningfully.
1. What is the difference between code switching and code mixing?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Why is there a need for code switching in some communication situations?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. When should code switching be used in communication?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Is there any situation where code switching should be avoided in a conversation?

Cite an example and explain meaningfully.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name: _______________________________ Score: _____________________
A. SITUATION ANALYSIS
Directions: Cite specific situations in which code switching and code mixing are applied or
observed. Explain how communication will take place in each specific situation. Your answer
may be based on your experiences where code switching and code mixing occurred.
1. CODE SWITCHING
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. CODE MIXING
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Accommodation Theory
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) is the way the speaker adjusting speech,
vocal patterns, and/or gestures to accommodate the interlocutor in a certain communication.
Howard Giles, Professor of Linguistics and Psychology at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, developed the theory in 1973. People change the way they speak to be better
understand others to accommodate to their communication needs.
Downward
Convergence
SPEECH
CONVERGENCE Upward
Convergence
ACCOMMODATION
THEORY
SPEECH Mutual
DIVERGENCE Convergence
A. Speech Convergence
Speech convergence is the way the speakers move their speech closer toward each
other. There is a tendency for people to become more alike in terms of linguistic, prosodic or
non-verbal features, including pronunciation, utterance length, pauses, speech rates, vocal
intensities, as well as facial expressions and the "intimacy of their self-disclosures."
Downward Convergence
Downward convergence occurs when people in upper class (such as people with an
RP) toning down their way of speech to speak to people in a lower-class.
Upward Convergence
Upward convergence occurs when lower-class people trying to eliminate some of the
stronger regional feature of their speech when they speak to the upper class.
Mutual Convergence
This occurs when the speaker and the interlocutor adjust their speech toward each
other.
B. Speech Divergence
Speech divergence is the ways in which both speakers accentuate their verbal and
non- verbal differences.

Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Course/Year/Section: _______________ Score: ____________________
Activity 6
Directions: Identify the terms, names or places being defined or identified by the given
statements. Write your answer on the space provided before each number. ANY form of
ERASURE/ALTERATION will invalidate your answer.
____________________ 1. The way the speaker adjusting speech, vocal patterns, and/or gestures
to accommodate the interlocutor in a certain communication
____________________ 2. The ways in which both speakers accentuate their verbal and non-verbal
differences
____________________ 3. The ways the speakers move their speech closer toward each other
____________________ 4. Convergence that occurs when people in upper class tone down their
ways of speech to speak to people in a lower-class.
____________________ 5. Convergence that occurs when the speaker and the interlocutor adjust
their speech toward each other
____________________ 6. Convergence that occurs when lower-class people trying to eliminate
some of the stronger regional feature of their speech when they speak
to the upper class
____________________ 7.
____________________ 8. Enumerate at least three (3) linguistic, prosodic or non-verbal features
____________________ 9.
____________________ 10. Professor of Linguistics and Psychology at the University of California
who developed the Accommodation Theory in 1973.
SITUATION ANALYSIS
Directions: Cite a specific situation in which each of the following modes of Accommodation
Theory is applied or observed. Explain how communication will take place in each specific
situation.
1. Speech Convergence – Upward Convergence

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Speech Convergence – Downward Convergence

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Speech Convergence – Mutual Convergence

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Speech Divergence
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Retrieved from https://owlcation.com/humanities/Code-Switching-Definition-Types-and-

Examples-of-Code-Switching on July 17, 2020.
Retrieved from : https://www.slideshare.net/irsasiichul/accommodation-theory-45845944

on July 17, 2020.

Congratulations, Language Advocates, we’re down
to the last unit of our Module and this signifies that
the Semester will be over.
Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________

Directions: Before dwelling on the discussion which focuses on Language Programs and
Policies in the Asian Contexts, together with the World Englishes, I want to elicit your opinion
on the following issues and topics which were raised by Jenkins (2003) and Mesthrie and
Bhatt (2008). Write your answers on the spaces provided.
1. How can we decide whether a non-standard English usage is an “error” or an “innovation?”

Does it depend entirely on whether the speaker is native or non-native, or are there other
criteria, such as frequency of use, number of users, and so on (Jenkins, 2003)?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
__
2. What are the positive and negative consequences of the spread of English to an Outer
Circle country like China (Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008)?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

3. Do you believe it is possible to retain your L1 accent in other language(s) and still be
intelligible to native to native speakers of that language? Have you had any personal
experiences that support your view (Jenkins, 2003)?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_

UNIT IV. LANGUAGE PROGRAM AND POLICIES IN ASEAN CONTEXTS
The last unit of this module zeroes in on the
Objectives various debates concerning the worldwide expansion
At the end of this unit, I am of the English language, World Englishes, and linguistic
able to: imperialism. Further, it tries to answer whether the
1. analyze the language English language is used by the West as a means to
programs and policies in the control cultural colonies or whether English is
South East Asia; hybridized and used by the Asian for their everyday
2. examine the existence and living? Also, it dwells on the effect of how a language
policy and planning (LPP) is in consonance with the
effect of World Englishes;
emergence of social and educational (in)equalities.
3. enumerate the three basic
Lastly, this chapter discusses these issues and
orientations underlying concludes with the proposal that Southeast Asian
language education planning; postcolonial societies need to develop their own LPP
and frameworks.
4. examine the bilingual All of the contents of this unit are credited to
education in different the article of Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) entitled
contexts. Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian Perspectives by
Hong Kong University Press.
The Global Spread of English
The emergence of the English language among the metros in Southeast Asia has
become more ubiquitous. This includes the airports, malls and any public places where
signages are more conspicuous. You can notice that most, if not all, of the signages are written
in bilingual or multilingual, and sometimes in English. To see examples of the said signages,
including the most hilarious ones, visit the article entitled Top 25 Ridiculous Signs You Only
See in Asia by Active Planet Travels at https://activeplanettravels.com/25-ridiculous-signs-
you-only-see-in-asia/. The advent of English language in the worldwide stage can be traced
back by looking at the lenses of historical, political, and even socioeconomic factors. In many
countries in Southeast Asia like Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore, English was historically
a colonial language imposed by British governments. All the same, English language today
has become more preeminent medium of global finance, science and technology, commerce,
trade, education, and the Internet. It indeed serves as the major medium of communication
for various peoples who come within and beyond Asia. But the question is, does English solely
masked its colonial history and become the lingua franca for multicultural communication
among peoples from Southeast Asia and outside the region? This, and more related tenets
and concepts, will be the focal argument of this unit.
World Englishes
Many cities in Southeast Asia, like the Philippines, have citizens who converse using
varieties of English language. Should this be considered by language planners and educators
as a pedagogical model to be taught and leaned in schools even regions in Southeast Asia, use
varieties of Englishes such like British and American English?
Kachru (1985, 1992, 1997), who pioneered the study on World Englishes,
differentiated the kinds of English mostly based on the national boundaries and geographic
locations.
According to Kachru, English varieties which are used and spoken in Anglo countries
– UK, US, Australia, and Canada - are called “inner circle” or “core” varieties. On the other
hand, those spoken as second language (ESL) - Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, India… - are
called “outer circle” varieties while those spoken in places as foreign language (EFL) – China,
Japan, Korea, Israel…- are called “expanding circle” varieties. To illustrate these varieties,
Kachru made an image of three concentric circles (inner circle, outer circle, expanding circle)

which is used to portray hierarchy of Englishes, and given each variety its status and
authority. The inner varieties are dubbed as norm-giving; the outer circle norm as the
developing, and the expanding circle varieties are the norm-dependent. It can be gleaned on
these varieties that learners from Southeast Asian societies try to learn the English language
variety of the inner circle.
For more discussions pertaining to Kachru’s Three Concentric
Circles Model, please visit the article entitled “Varieties of
English” from Blog deWordPress.com at
https://varietiesofenglishsite.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/classification-of-english-
speakers-kachru-model/
After reading the aforementioned link about Kachru’s
Three Concentric Circles Model, please do answer the short activity
that follows:
Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Directions: It is hoped that after reading the article entitled “Kachru Model: The Three Circles
of English”, you are more enlightened about World Englishes. Hence, please do answer the
following questions to gauge whether you read the article and other pertinent issues.
1. Define the following terms as discussed in the article read. After which, explain what
the terms are and cite examples. On the first line in the box, write what the acronym
means, followed by the explanation and examples.
________________________________________________________
ENL •___________________________________________________________
____
•___________________________________________________________
____
_____________________________________________________
ESL •___________________________________________________________
___________
•___________________________________________________________
___________
______________________________________________________
•___________________________________________________________
EFL ____________
•___________________________________________________________
____________
2. Randolf Quirk (1988) during his lecture at the Japan Association of Language
Teachers (JALT) Conference made a polyphloesbean assertion when he stressed that
“Non-native Englishes are not valid as teaching models.” Further, he emphasized that
“ESL speakers must be discouraged from using the variety they hear because it is neither
liberal nor liberating to permit learners to settle for lower standards than the best.”
What is your stance or opinion about these claims? Do you agree or disagree? Defend
your answer. You may support your answers with research studies or literature.

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Despite the insightful contributions of Kachru pertaining to the English language in
_________________________________________________________________________
the world of language, it is inevitable to always have other experts who negate or criticize his
_________________________________________________________________________
work like Modiano (1999), Bruthiaux (2003), Mollin (2006), Graddol (1997), Rampton
_________________________________________________________________________
(1990)_________________________________________________________________________
and Berns (1995).
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_
Directions: Research on the aforesaid experts who negate or criticize
“Kachru Model: The Three Circles of English.” Make a summary of your
research by filling out the table below:
Names of the Claims against Kachru’s Do you agree or disagree?

Experts Model Explain here

Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Directions: Look for a research paper which focuses on issue/s of World Englishes in the
context of Southeast Asia. After which, fill out the tale below, then report to the class.
Title and Reasons why the Objectives of Findings of the study
researcher/s study was conducted the study

Emergence of Hybridized Multilingual and Multicultural Identities in Southeast Asia
Through the years, English language has been in a pedestal of glory since it is
regarded as an international lingua franca. However, this language is seen as a threat among
other languages and even to the culture of English’s ex-colonies. Others look at the English
language as a supplemental medium along with other local languages, as claimed by Crystal
(1997). Whatever your stance on the effect of English language, it should always go beyond a
totalizing and dichotomous way of thinking.
For example, Lai (2003) made a study of young learners’ cultural identity patterns
and language attitudes. The study found out that the young people who recognize themselves
as Hong Kongers are also inclined toward Cantonese and English. Further, the learners
agreed that Cantonese and English are not exclusive and they find it normal to mix English
words in their everyday conversation since it is part of their language repertoire (Li & Tse,
2002).
This scenario is then tantamount to the Singlish of Singaporean (Chua, 2003) and
even to the Philippine English (Borlongan, 2018). For more related articles concerning
Philippine English, please do READ the following researches from the given links:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?sxsrf=ALeKk00eZz8NeABFTZmp00_M-
jLlWLhquw:1595645500984&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECCMQJzoHCCMQ6gIQJzoHCC4Q
6gIQJ1CLGFiLGGDEHmgBcAB4AIABnwWIAZ8FkgEDNS0xmAEAoAECoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXd
perABCg&uact=5&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=2998554542145035193
Borlongan, A. (2017). Contemporary perspectives on Philippine English. Philippine ESL

Journal Vol.19. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322628546_Contemporary_perspectives_on_
Philippine_English
Dimaculangan, N. (2018). Another Look Into Philippine English: Towards

Users‟ Awareness And Celebration. International Journal of Advanced Research and
Publication (IJARP) Vol.2 Issue 8. Retrieved from http://www.ijarp.org/published-
research-papers/aug2018/Another-Look-Into-Philippine-English-Towards-Users-
Awareness-And-Celebration.pdf
Esquivel, O. (2019). Exploring the Filipinization of the English Language in a Digital Age: An
Identity Apart from Other World Englishes. Journal of English as an International Language,
v14 n1 p58-72. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1244667.pdf
Jubilado, C. (2016). Where is the CR? A Description of Philippine English in Hawaii.

Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 17, 2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 86 University of
Hawaii. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rodney_Jubilado/publication/309740722_Where_
is_the_CR_A_Description_of_Philippine_English_in_Hawaii/links/5c3b24a0a6fdccd6b5a8f
565/Where-is-the-CR-A-Description-of-Philippine-English-in-Hawaii.pdf
Malicsi, J. (n.d.). Philippine English: A Case of Language Drift. Retrieved from

http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_22-1/RitsIILCS_22.1pp29-
58_MALICSI.pdf
From Pennycook’s (2004) perspective of performativity theory on languages and

communication resources, it is indeed beneficial not to look at languages as separate stable
systems with solid demarcation. As Pennycook (2004) believes, the idea of languages as
discrete, enduring, monolithic entities with solid limits is actually the fruit of colonial
knowledge production. In practice, people draw on a whole range of linguistic resources
which cannot be easily pigeonholed as “separate languages” in their everyday linguistic
practices. Parallel to these hybridized linguistic practices are their similarly hybridized
sociocultural identities.
Due to this, Lin & Shim (2004) pointed out that as an aftermath of the ascend of
international cosmopolitan cities in Southeast Asia and the proliferation of a whole new
generation of bilingual speakers in these cosmopolitan cities, the rise of cosmopolitan
varieties of Asian Englishes can be witnessed which will not fit comfortably into the
hierarchical WE paradigm of core, inner, outer or expanding circles. Further, they predicted
that these cosmopolitan speakers of Asian Englishes will increasingly seek to assert the

legitimacy and status of their speaking styles on an equal footing with Anglo-American
English speaking styles, ultimately bringing about a paradigm shift in institutionalizing what
target models to teach, learn and test in schools in these societies (Luk & Lin, 2005), although
as things stand now we are still a long way from reaching these goals.
It is also apparent in the fad that in East Asian cosmopolitan cities, there are
increasing transnational popular cultural flows and linguistic hybridization taking place. For
instance, Rip Slyme, a popular rap group in Japan, has used English in their lyrics to fashion a
kind of “double” identity.
However, the theory of linguistic imperialism fails to show is perhaps how English
can be actively taken up, how people can actually appropriate (i.e., claim ownership of)
English and why people strategically choose to use English (Lin, Wang, Akamatsu & Riazi,
2002). Pennycook (2003) observes that the linguistic imperialism theory cannot account for
a sense of agency, resistance, or appropriation on the part of ex-colonized peoples. It tends to
construct ex-colonized peoples as passive victims (Li, 2002). Somehow between the
dichotomous positions of uncritically celebrating the global spread of English as an innocuous
tool for communication, science and technology (Crystal, 1997), and constructing English as
a monolithic universal killer language colonizing relentlessly the linguistic and cultural
habitats of ex-colonial societies, we have to steer a levelheaded, middle way by taking a
socioculturally situated perspective; i.e., we need to look at each sociocultural context in all
its complexities before jumping to a conclusion.
Going beyond the debate between the “imperialism-resistance” theories (e.g.,
Phillipson, 1992) and the “postcolonial performativity” theories (e.g., Pennycook, 2003,
2004), Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) have to find a way of understanding and exposing new
forms of inequalities in education and society and new productions of subaltern subjectivities
(i.e., marginalized identities and an underclass sense of self. While doing critical education
analysis, it is important to be wary of falling into the trap of doing merely essentialist identity
politics (e.g., arguing that one’s L1 must be more important than one’s L2). Rather, it is a must
to struggle to study the new material and institutional conditions that might lead to social
and educational inequalities, and to explore practical alternatives in LPP policy and practice.

Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Directions: Choose one of the countries in Asia, then research on its distinct features as one
of the varieties of Englishes (they may be in words or lexical features, phonology,
morphology, syntax or pragmatics) For example, Filipinism or words which are only used in
the Philippines or the way how Korean pronounce the vowel sound as the terminal sound
among words (e.g. orange /ɔrəndʒ(i)/ instead of /ɔrəndʒ/). Complete the table below and
discuss to your class.
Country Distinct features

Bilingual Education in Different Contexts: Principles and Practice
Theoretical and empirical literature of bilingual education which is relevant to an
understanding of how a second or foreign language (L2) can be used as a medium of
instruction in schools for the dual goal of achieving bilingualism/biliteracy and
cognitive/academic learning are discussed in this part of the unit. Further, major theories,
principles, concepts and program options/models in bilingual education are delineated. Also,
various factors and conditions promoting or inhibiting success in bilingual education are
critically reviewed. Lastly, their implications to Southeast Asian contexts are discussed.
Diversity of Aims and Contexts

Baker (2001:193, cited Ferguson, Houghton and Wells, 1977) gave examples of the
diverse aims of bilingual education as follows:
1. To assimilate individuals or groups into the mainstream society; to socialize
people for full participation in the community;
2. To unify a multilingual society; to bring unity to a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal, or
multinational linguistically diverse state;
3. To enable people to communicate with the outside world;
4. To provide language skills which are marketable, aiding employment and status;
5. To preserve ethnic and religious identity;
6. To reconcile and mediate between different linguistic and political communities;
7. To spread the use of a colonizing language, socializing an entire population to a
colonial existence;
8. To strengthen elite groups and preserve their position in society;
9. To give equal status in law to languages of unequal status in daily life; and
10. To deepen understanding of language and culture.
The aforementioned diverse roster of aims also shows that bilingual education can be
used by language education planners as a means to a range of ends, which often goes beyond
merely linguistic and educational considerations. As Baker (2001, p. 193) pointed out:
... bilingual education does not necessarily concern the balanced use and
development of two languages in the classroom. Behind bilingual
education are varying and conflicting philosophies of what
education is for. Sociocultural, political and economic issues are ever
present in the debate over the provision of bilingual education.
It seems that, in designing language education policies in one of the countries in Asia,
Hong Kong, the important first step is to explicate and prioritize the range of goals that are
widely considered to be important in and for Hong Kong. Policymakers, however, can
anticipate animated public debates and discussions on what constitute the most important
goals and what appear to be the optimal programs in language education. It seems that, to
achieve greater success in implementing language education policies, these policies need to
be first legitimized or supported by some public consensus.
In the process of policy legitimation or public consensus-building, it is important to
make accessible to the public research and scientific information regarding different aspects
of bilingual education. For instance, it is important:
1. To inform the public of the different, often conflicting goals and priorities in
language education;
2. To inform the public of the necessary conditions for success (often requiring
certain school, family and community resources), as well as the costs and benefits
of different program options that are available and feasible to achieve the goals,
under current government resource constraints and
3. To generate and promote informed public discussion on how to prioritize the
different goals and select from different feasible program options to achieve the
goals with a view to resource implications.
Three Main Types of Program: Maintenance, Transitional and Enrichment

Another way of classifying bilingual education program would be to consider the
following set of variables proposed by Baker (1996):
1. Typical language(s) used by the child in daily life
2. Typical language(s) used in the classroom
3. The educational/societal aim(s) of the program

4. The probable outcomes of the program
Based on the above variables, ten types of bilingual education program can be
distinguished (summarized from Baker, 2001:193–201):
1. Submersion education/the “sink or swim” method, e.g., in the US
2. Submersion with withdrawal/pull-out/sheltered English classes, e.g., in the US
3. Segregationist education, e.g., in South Africa before Nelson Mandela was elected
president.
4. Transitional bilingual education (early exit or late exit) employing bilingual
teachers (as a result of advocacy by minorities), e.g., in the US
5. Mainstream education (with a foreign language taught as a subject), e.g., “core
French” and “drip-feed” French program in Canada.
6. Separatist education, e.g., small isolationist religious schools.
7. Immersion bilingual education, e.g., early total, early partial, delayed immersion,
late immersion program in Canada.
8. Maintenance and heritage language bilingual education, e.g., Navajo and Spanish
in the US, Ukrainian in Canada, Maori in New Zealand.
9. Two Way/Dual Language Immersion, e.g., in certain elementary schools in the US
10. Bilingual education in majority languages, e.g., certain schools in Luxembourg,
the European Schools Movement.
These ten types of bilingual education program are summarized and contrasted in
Table 1 (from Baker, 2001, p. 194). To facilitate discussion, these diverse types of bilingual
education program can be classified into the following three broad categories based on their
educational/societal aims:
Table 1. A Summary of Different Types of Bilingual Education Program (from Baker,
2001:194)
1. Maintenance program
2. Transitional program
3. Enrichment program
These three types of program were first differentiated by Fishman (1976). For
Fishman, Maintenance bilingual education program aims at maintaining linguistic minority/
immigrant students’ first language while providing them with access to the dominant
language (L2) of the society through using the students’ first language (L1) as a medium of
instruction in the early years of schooling or, in Two Way/Dual Language program, through
using both the students’ L1 and L2 as mediums of instruction for different subjects or on
alternate days. Transitional program, in contrast, aim at helping linguistic
minority/immigrant students to go through a more or less gradual transition from using
some of their L1 to using only the mainstream language as the medium of instruction. The
aim of transitional program is the assimilation of linguistic minorities/immigrants into the
monolingual mainstream society.
While both maintenance and transitional program have arisen from the needs of the
linguistic minority/immigrant students, enrichment program (also called “additive bilingual”
program), in contrast, have been designed for the majority language students. Typically, the
parents of these majority language students want their children to master a high level of
proficiency in a socio-economically important L2 in addition to, not in replacement of, the

dominant societal daily life language (L1). This is done through using the L2 as a medium of
instruction in all or some of the subjects (e.g., total or partial French immersion program for
English-speaking students in Canada). Different variants of the enrichment program model
are likely to be relevant to the situation of Hong Kong, where bilingual education aims at
enabling the majority Cantonese-speaking group to acquire English as an additional language
without weakening their first language.
As the enrichment model is realized as different variants of immersion education, the
rest of this chapter is devoted to a critical review of the following three successful program
models in immersion education:
a. Canadian French Immersion,
b. European Schools, and
c. Two Way/Dual Language Immersion
The following review draws on major references in bilingual and multilingual
education which include: Cummins, 1995, 2000; Baker and Jones, 1998; Johnson and Swain,
1997; Tung, 1992, 1996; Cummins and Corson, 1997; Baker, 2001; Day and Shapson, 1996;
Beardsmore, 1993, 1995; Bernhardt, 1992; Harley, Allen, Cummins and Swain, 1990;
Genesee, 1987; Swain and Lapkin, 1982; Freeman, 1998; Baker and Hornberger, 2001;
Lindholm-Leary, 2001.
Canadian French Immersion

The Canadian French immersion programs have always been cited as successful
examples of using a L2 or FL as a medium of instruction to achieve high levels of proficiency
in the L2 without sacrificing the L1 and academic learning. It is, therefore, indispensable to
take into consideration the origins, design features, program outcomes and necessary
conditions for the success of the Canadian French Immersion Model.
Origin
The first French immersion program was started in the mid-1960s as an innovative
educational experiment, when a group of vocal, middle-class English-speaking Canadian
parents in St. Lambert, Quebec, lobbied their school board for improvements to the teaching
of French as a second language. These parents had read accounts of different forms of
bilingual education that might serve as superior alternatives to the traditional French-asa-
subject program (“Core French”) which focused on grammar, memorization, and drill and had
not provided their children with sufficient skills to work in French, or to socialize with French
speakers.
Collaborating with scholars in bilingualism at McGill University, the St. Lambert
parents proposed to their school board a radical departure from any existing FSL (French as
a second language) program in Canada: a program in which their unilingual English-speaking
children were taught entirely in French from Kindergarten or Primary 1, with English
language arts formally introduced in Primary 2 or 3 and about half the time devoted to each
language from Primary 4 through 6. By the late 1960s, the rest of Canada was becoming aware
of the socio-economic and political value of achieving a high level of proficiency in French,
and various French immersion program modelled on or adapted from the original St. Lambert
program have spread to other provinces. By the 1990s, French immersion program were
offered optionally by some school boards. In several school boards, enrollment may be as
high as 50%, the rest of the students going to first language medium schools. Across the
country, however, “only approximately 7% of the entire student population attends an
immersion program” (Johnson & Swain, 1997:2).
Design Features
The following sections aim at presenting an overview of the design and structure of
Canadian French Immersion Program.
Goals of Canadian French Immersion Program
The goals of Canadian French Immersion are typical of those of the enrichment model
of bilingual education. As summarized in Baker (2001, p. 204), the stated aims of Canadian
French Immersion are for students who are English-speaking Canadians:
1. to become competent to speak, read and write in French;

2. to reach normal achievement levels throughout the curriculum including the
English language; and
3. to appreciate the traditions and culture of French-speaking Canadians as well
as English-speaking Canadians.
It can be seen from these goals that additive bilingualism is the ultimate goal of
Canadian French Immersion program. It is expected that students in these program will
become bilingual and bicultural without any loss of academic achievement and first language
competence.
Principal Program Types in Canadian French Immersion
Based on different combinations of values for the two design variables of (1) extent
of immersion and (2) beginning level of immersion, four types of Canadian French Immersion
Program which are commonly found can be outlined as follows:
1. Early total immersion
L2 is used in all lessons right from Kindergarten or Grade 1. L2 use gradually
decreases to approximately 80% in Grades 2 to 5 and approximately 50% in
Grades 6 to 8. Ultimately in Grades 9 to 12, approximately 40% of lessons are
taught in L2.
2. Early partial immersion
Early partial immersion is characterized by approximately 50% of L2 use
from Kindergarten through Grade 8. L2 use decreases to approximately 35% in
Grades 9 and 10, and ultimately to approximately 30% in Grades 11 and 12.
3. Middle (delayed) partial immersion
L2 is learnt only as a subject from Kindergarten through Grade 3. However,
starting in Grade 4, approximately 80% of lessons are taught in L2. L2 use
decreases to approximately 50% in Grades 7 and 8, and to approximately 40% in
Grades 9 through 12.
4. Late partial immersion
L2 is learnt only as a subject from kindergarten through Grade 6. However,
starting in Grade 7, approximately 80% of lessons are taught in L2. L2 use
decreases to approximately 50% in Grades 9 through 12.
Program Outcomes of Canadian French Immersion
Cummins (1999) has provided a succinct summary of major program outcomes of

Canadian French immersion. The following account is taken from Cummins (199:4–5;
emphasis added):
Consistent findings have been obtained from French immersion
program evaluations across Canada. In early immersion programs, students
gain fluency and literacy in French at no long-term cost to their English
academic skills. Within a year of the introduction of formal English language
arts students catch up in most aspects of English test performance. Usually
students require additional time to catch up in English spelling but by grade 5
there are normally no differences in English test performance between
immersion students and comparison groups whose instruction has been totally
through English. One potential limitation of these findings is that standardized
tests do not assess all aspects of English academic skills; in particular, writing
development is usually excluded from such tests. However, the few studies that
have examined English writing development specifically show no evidence of
problems among immersion students in this regard (Swain, 1997). There is also
no evidence of any long-term lag in mastery of subject matter taught through
French in early, middle or late immersion programs.
With respect to French skills, students’ receptive skills in French are better developed
(in relation to native speaker norms) than are their expressive skills. By the end of
elementary school (grade 6) students are close to the level of native speakers in
understanding and reading of French but there are significant gaps between them and native
speakers in spoken and written French (Harley, Allen, Cummins & Swain, 1990).
Similar findings are obtained for late immersion programs. French skills develop well
in the first two years of the program and differences between students in intensive forms of
late immersion (100% French in grades 7 and 8) and those who have come through an early
immersion program are relatively minor. The early immersion program students are

generally more fluent and comfortable in French but the late immersion students show
somewhat greater accuracy in their mastery of grammatical constructions. As Swain (1997)
notes in her review:
“The evidence emerging from the variety of immersion programs with
different starting ages suggests that older students may possess cognitive
characteristics which give them an advantage in learning certain aspects of a
second language” (p. 266).
As seen from Cummin’s account, the learning outcomes of different versions of

Canadian French Immersion seem to be largely positive. However, since the context of
Canadian French Immersion is likely to be very different from other societal contexts, it is
important to analyze the conditions for the success of Canadian French immersion before any
generalization of its effectiveness can be made.
Conditions for Success in Canadian French Immersion
The research literature strongly indicates that the success of Canadian immersion
programs depends on a number of important conditions (Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Baker, 2001;
Johnson & Swain, 1997; Cummins, 1999a). These conditions, further elaborated in Part II of
this volume, can be summarized as follows (Tung, 1996):
1. Parental involvement is important, for attention and material support, as well as
providing a home environment which is rich in support for L1 and L2 linguistic and
literacy development, e.g., rich print environment at home.
2. Both students and parents are members of the majority group in the society; i.e., the
students’ L1 is not at risk but secure and prestigious in the society. The larger
sociolinguistic context also supports the use and development of the students’ L1
speech and literacy.
3. The immersion program is optional. Students can choose to leave the program.
Students remaining in the immersion program are therefore likely to be those
motivated to study in the L2.
4. Both students and parents hold positive attitudes towards French and French-
Canadians.
5. High quality of teachers is necessary, which means high standards of professional
training and high proficiency levels in both languages.
6. An interactive style of teaching (rather than a teacher-fronted, didactic style of
teaching) provides a variety of high-quality input (e.g., in a range of language
functions) as well as rich opportunities for students’ productive language use.
Of the above-listed conditions/factors, teacher professional preparation and
instructional approach/teaching methodology seem to be areas which are, relatively
speaking, most amenable to the teacher training/curriculum planning efforts of government
and language education planners. So, here, we devote some more space to an examination of
classroom strategies used by effective French immersion teachers and of the instructional
principles upheld in Canadian immersion education.
For instance, Swain and Lapkin (1982) have delineated the instructional principles of
early total immersion, summarized as follows:
1. Students should receive the same type of education as they would in the regular
English program, but the medium of instruction through which content is presented
and discussed is French. This provides a naturalistic setting for second language
acquisition.
2. The teacher accepts and starts from the existing language, interests and skills of the
children. The language acquisition process is seen as “production flowing from
comprehension.”
3. The teacher’s focus is on conveying the content to the students and on responding to
the content of what the students are saying, whether it is said in broken French or the
home language, English.
4. The early emphasis is on teaching relevant vocabulary in the context of conveying
real messages through the use of pictures, gestures, and other body language cues.
5. Explicit instruction in grammar is given when the children get older (e.g., Grade 3) in
separate lessons.
Snow (1990, quoted in Baker, 2001:337) has also provided a list of ten specific
techniques that tend to be used by experienced and effective immersion teachers:

1. Providing plenty of contextual support for the language being used (e.g., by body
language — plenty of gestures, facial expressions and acting).
2. Deliberately giving more classroom directions and organizational advice to
immersion students. For example, signaling the start and the end of different routines,
more explicit directions with homework and assignments.
3. Understanding where a child is at, thereby connecting the unfamiliar with the
familiar, the known with the unknown. New material is linked directly and explicitly
with the child’s present knowledge and understanding.
4. Extensive use of visual material. Using concrete objects to illustrate lessons, using
pictures and audio-visual aids, giving the child plenty of hands-on manipulative
activities to ensure all senses are used in the educational experience.
5. Obtaining constant feedback regarding the level of a student’s understanding.
Diagnosing the level of a student’s language.
6. Using plenty of repetition, summaries, restatement to ensure that students
understand the directions of the teacher.
7. The teacher being a role model for language emulation by the student.
8. Indirect error correction rather than constantly faulting students. Teachers ensure
that the corrections are built into their language to make a quick and immediate
impact.
9. Using plenty of variety in both general learning tasks and in language learning tasks.
10. Using frequent and varied methods to check the understanding level of the children.
One would notice, however, that many of these instructional strategies and principles
seem to be more appropriate for early rather than late immersion learners, and for dealing
with early grade-level academic content, which tends to be less abstract and context-reduced
than higher grade-level content. Most research in Canada has also been conducted on early
immersion at the elementary level (Grades K–6) whereas, for the most part, in Hong Kong
English-medium instruction begins at the secondary level. We therefore need to exercise
caution when interpreting the Canadian research findings in the contexts of Hong Kong or
other societies.
European Schools
Another example of a successful immersion education is the European Schools

Models. It is, however, charged with elitism for the expensive and exclusive nature.
Beardsmore (1993:3-4) made a claim pertaining to European schools:
The least productive model included in this collection is that of the European
Schools, given that it is not destined for expansion, is expensive to operate and could be
taxed with elitism. Nevertheless, the immense practical experience gained from this
complex form of multilingual education and the many insights it offers on how to handle
mixed populations on an equal footing should provide elements of inspiration. As a
model, it is unlikely to be adopted elsewhere. It differs significantly from many so-called
international schools, however, in that, unlike the latter, it is genuinely multilingual
both in program and in outcome, whereas most so-called international schools are only
international in population make-up, to some extent in curriculum, but rarely so in
languages on offer.
The European Schools Model (Beardsmore, 1993, 1995; Cummins, 1995; Tung, 1996)
is therefore included in the roster mainly for the insights that education planners might gain
regarding the question of how to effectively design and run a small number of top-quality,
innovative schools which can provide the society and economy with a top-notch workforce
that is fully biliterate (in English and Standard Chinese) and fully trilingual (in Cantonese,
English and Putonghua), albeit small in size. Nevertheless, some of the principles drawn from
the practical experience of the European Schools can also be adapted for application in less
elitist bilingual education models. The following sections on the features of the European
Schools are based on Beardsmore (1995), Cummins (1995) and Tung (1996).
Origins and Goals of the European Schools
The European Schools were first established in 1958 by the education authorities of
the twelve member states of the European Economic Community for children of civil servants
working for one of the supra-national European institutions. The schools use multilingualism
as a tool to promote a European identity, but at the same time ensure the development of the

students’ first language and cultural identity. Students are taught through at least two
languages, and are required to learn a third language as a subject.
Organization of the European Schools
Each school consists of various linguistic sub-sections so that children are enrolled
initially in the sub-section using their first language. In the primary school, therefore, the
children are mainly educated through their first language. A second language (English, French
or German) is taught as a subject from the very beginning. Teachers are seconded from
schools of the various countries. New teachers are assigned a mentor to help them adjust to
the special circumstances of the school. There are also seminars and retraining sessions for
teachers. Unpaid coordinators are elected from teachers to ensure coordination of activities
across grades and languages. Remedial teachers are employed to provide additional L2
instruction for students joining the school after Grade 1.
Curriculum of the European Schools
Primary school education lasts for five years (see Table 2, adapted from article of Lin,
A. and Man, E. (2009) entitled Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian Perspectives by Hong
Kong University Press). All children follow the same program, irrespective of the language of
instruction. When L2 is used as the medium of instruction, it is used in cognitively
undemanding and contextualized subjects such as physical education and the European
Hours. The latter involves children from different linguistic sub-sections in co-operative
activities such as sewing and cooking. The intention is to let children from different countries
interact before prejudices about people of different origins can be formed.
Table 2.
Secondary school education consists of three phases

a. Grades 6–8: the “observation cycle” (see Table 3, adapted from article of Lin, A.
and Man, E. (2009) entitled Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian Perspectives by
Hong Kong University Press) The role of L2 is extended in this phase, but it is still
used in activities that are relatively context-embedded and cognitively
Table 3.

undemanding. Examples of complementary activities are electronics, computer
science, photography, painting, typing and needlework.
b. Grades 9–10: the “semi-specialization cycle” (see Table 4, adapted from article
of Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) entitled Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian
Perspectives by Hong Kong University Press). Students have more options in this
phase. Depending on their choice of elective courses, over half of the curriculum
can be conducted in the students’ L2.
Table 4.
c. Grades 11–12: the “specialization cycle” (see Table 5, adapted from article of
Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) entitled Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian
Perspectives by Hong Kong University Press). The specialization cycle leads to the
European Baccalaureate, the internationally recognized European school leaving
certificate. This means that written examinations are identical, irrespective of the
language they are written in.
Table 5.

Conditions for Success and Learning Outcomes of the European Schools
The conditions leading to the success of the European Schools are summarized as
follows:
a. All teachers are bilingual, but they teach only in their native language. All
other staff members are also bi- or multilingual.
b. The learning of an L2 is given relevance in that there are children in the
same school speaking the L2 as a native language and that the L2 is used
as a medium of instruction from Grade 3. All children go through the same
process of transition from using L1 as a medium of instruction to using L2
as a medium of instruction.
c. In the primary school, oral competence in the L2 is emphasized over
written competence, which is the focus of the secondary school. The focus
in the primary school is on basic vocabulary and sentence structures.
d. Examinations are not important until after Grade 8. Students in early
grades can, therefore, focus more on developing language and thinking
skills rather than studying mainly for examinations, as is often the case in
Hong Kong.
e. The learning of a second language takes place in a non-threatening
environment, because all students have to use a weaker language at some
time.
f. L1 is maintained both as a subject and as a medium of instruction for at
least some content subjects throughout primary and secondary schooling.
g. Teaching in the L2 moves gradually from cognitively undemanding and
contextembedded activities (e.g., physical education, music, European
Hours, sewing and cooking) to cognitively demanding and context-
reduced activities (e.g., history, geography, social sciences).
The learning outcomes of the European Schools are summarized as follows:

i. After 1,300 hours of instruction in French as an L2 at the European School of
Brussels (where French is the dominant social language), the students’
competence in the language is comparable to Canadian French Immersion
students after 4,500 hours of instruction. This shows the importance of the
larger social and interaction context of students in language learning.
ii. When the students graduate, their best friends in school are often from a
different linguistic sub-section. Most students have developed positive
attitudes towards the L2 culture and L2-speaking people.
iii. When students finish secondary school, their productive competence in L1
and L2 is of a standard that would allow them to take examinations in either
language. The most important factor was found to be the relevance and
authentic purpose students felt in learning and using the L2.
It can be seen from the above summary that European Schools seem to provide an
even more effective way of developing L2 proficiency than Canadian French Immersion. The
key factor seems to be the mixed or multi-ethnic and multicultural nature of the student
population. The L2 takes on authentic communicative functions for the students in the school
environment, and this greatly enhances students’ L2 learning motivation, L2 opportunities
for use and thus L2 development (a similar favorable condition also obtained for the Two
Way/Dual Language Model discussed below).
The European Schools’ early emphasis on building a solid foundation in L1 literacy
also seems to be an important factor, as valuable literacy-related skills can be transferred to
the L2 later in the students’ school career (Cummins, 2000). The emphasis on early exposure
to L2 both explicitly as a subject and implicitly as a natural social language among students
from different ethnic groups also appears to be an important factor for success.
Finally, the way in which L2 as a medium of instruction is introduced also seems to
be a key factor for success: L2 is introduced after the student has developed a solid foundation
in the L1 and has studied the L2 as a subject for some years.3 It is also introduced gradually,
first in a few subjects, which are cognitively undemanding and context-embedded (e.g., art
work, music, European Hours), and only later gradually to cognitively demanding and
context-reduced subjects (e.g., history, social sciences). However, throughout the school
years, L1 remains an important school subject as well as a medium of instruction in a number
of key content subjects.

Two Way/Dual Language Programs
The third successful example of immersion education is the Two Way/Dual Language
model. In Two Way/Dual Language schools there are approximately equal numbers of
language minority and language majority students in the same classroom. This is a more
appropriate model than total immersion in situations where students’ L1 is not widely
supported in the larger society (e.g., Spanish-speaking Cuban immigrant children in Florida,
US) and thus needs to be maintained as a medium of instruction for at least half of the lessons
in school.
There are a variety of terms used to describe such schools: Two Way schools, Two
Way Immersion, Two Way Bilingual Education, Developmental Bilingual Education, Dual
Language Education, Bilingual Immersion, Double Immersion and Interlocking Education.
The first Two Way schools in the US appear to date from 1963 in Dade County, Florida, and
were developed by the US Cuban community in that area. During the 1960s, fifteen Two Way
schools were established in Dade County. Since that time, there has been a steady rise in the
number of Two Way schools in the US. There are over 170 Two Way schools in the US now.
The languages of instruction are predominantly Spanish/English (over 90% of such schools)
but with the following combinations also represented: Cantonese/English,
Portuguese/English, Haitian Creole/English, Korean/ English, Russian/English,
Japanese/English, and French/English. Around 85% of all these schools operate from
Kindergarten to Grade 6 (Baker, 2001).
Lindholm-Leary (2001) has documented in detail the critical features of successful
Dual Language Education programs. These critical features are found in program design,
implementation and its larger institutional and sociocultural contexts.
The following is a summary of the features described in Lindholm-Leary (2001):
1. Effective Leadership in School

a. Administrative and principal support
b. Instructional leadership
2. School Environment
a. A positive school environment
b. Additive bilingual environment
c. Co-operative and reciprocal instructional climate
d. Cross-cultural components
3. Teachers and Staff
a. High-quality instructional personnel
b. Staff training
4. Instructional Design and Features
a. Duration of instructional treatment
b. Exposure to optimal dual language input
c. Language output — promotion and opportunities
d. Focus on academic curriculum
e. Integrated language arts instruction
f. Meeting distinct needs during language arts instruction
g. Literacy instruction in two languages
5. Students
a. Classroom composition
• The ratio of speakers of the two languages should not be more
than 2:1
• Although there is little research on the literacy and achievement
of African American children in immersion programs
• Equality in treating students from different social class and
language backgrounds
• Students with special learning needs
• Home/school collaboration

Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Directions: Read each question as stipulated in every item. Answer the questions by writing
on the spaces provided.
1. Identify the similarities and differences of the three immersion programs. Write your
answers on the spaces provided.
SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES
3 immersion
programs:
• Canadian
French
Immersion;
• European
Schools; and
• Two
Way/Dual
Language
Programs

2. Among the three immersion programs, which context is closest to the Philippine
context? Does it mean that a similar program can be developed, or does it require
adaptation?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
3. Critical features of successful Dual Language Education programs were discussed to

explain the success of any language education program. How do these features
positively or negatively influence the planning of language policy and practice in
Philippine setting?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_

Contexts of LPP in SEA Societies: Need for Innovative Approaches
In this chapter a brief review of approaches to LPP is provided. Then a new LPP
framework specifically useful for understanding bilingual education in Southeast Asian
contexts is proposed. The cases of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia are discussed in light
of this framework, and innovative approaches to bilingual education are discussed with a
view to exploring possible fruitful directions for tackling LPP difficulties and dilemmas
experienced in these societies.
Approaches to Language Policy and Planning (LPP)
Tollefson (1991) differentiated the two broad approaches to language policy and
planning which he dubbed (1) the Neo-classical Approach, and (2) the Historical-Structural
Approach (HSA). According to him, HSA approach differs from the neoclassical approach in
the following features:
a. a historical perspective in the analysis;
b. a focus on exploring how language issues relate to socio-economic concerns
involving competition between different groups in society;
c. an explicit recognition of sociopolitical domination and conflict (e.g., inter-
ethnic, inter-religious, or inter-class conflict); and
d. an explicit recognition of the political role or stance of the social scientist,
educator or language planning theorist.
An Analytical Framework for Understanding LPP in (Postcolonial) Southeast Asian

Contexts
The following part discusses the three dimensions of the proposed analytical
framework: desires, goals, and means, by Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009).
Desires of the State and Global Capitalism Reign High in Many Southeast Asian Contexts.
Like any other societies, Southeast Asian societies are ingrained with profound urge for
various types of beneficence for different parties. Of the primordial importance is the
predominating elite class, whose craving often dominates the needs, wants or desires of other
social sectors.
The postcolonial Asian states were hampered with the pressing nation-building chore
of promoting political unison and social solidity. LPP is often a way to spread a national
standard language symbolizing the dominion and unity of the contemporary nation-state.
The postcolonial Malaysian state, for instance, set itself on a de-Anglicization path by
changing the MOI of its education system to its national standard language (Bahasa Malaysia)
in the 1970s and 80s. The Chinese ruling elite of Singapore, by contrast, had to differentiate
itself from Malaysia when it fragmented itself from postcolonial Malaysia to produce its own
autonomous Singaporean nation-state in 1965. Selecting English as the most significant
official language in uniting the Malays, Tamils, and Chinese in Singapore seemed to be a sound
political choice. Foreseeing the increase of English as the universal trade language, and
Modern Standard Chinese — the national language of China — as a rising regional trade
language, the Singaporean state’s LPP has consistently been determined by both political
nation-building and economic development wants. The government elevated the status of
English to the status of that of first language all through the education system (e.g., using it as
the MOI for all content subjects from kindergarten to university). But, it also substituted all
Chinese dialects with Modern Standard Chinese in all public and education spheres.
Hong Kong, as a late postcolonial society rejoining the motherland, China, in 1997, is
permissible to preserve its Special Administrative Region (SAR) status in China until 2047.
However, the Chinese government has expressed apprehensions about the deficiency of
proof of identity with the motherland among the younger Hong Kong generation. LPP is again
imbued with the national unity-building desire of the central government of the Chinese state,
and the mother-tongue education policy implemented in junior secondary schools in 1998
has been believed by many to be a political move in such a direction (Tsui, 2004). Recent
policy initiatives in employing Putonghua (the standard spoken language of China) as the MOI
for Chinese language and literature subjects in Hong Kong schools are also believed to be
infused with a similar national unity-building desire.
Nevertheless, as an upshot of the upsurge of universal capitalism in the twenty-first
century and English as the influential international language riding on its wings, there is a
strong yearning to (re-) elevate the status of English in the education system in many Asian

societies. This yearning is mirrored in the current reverse mode of MOI policy in Malaysia
under the Malaysian political leaders’ decision to globalize Malaysia’s economy.
Correspondingly, there has been a topical liberalization of the linguistic streaming policy in
Hong Kong, permitting for more room for schools to pick English or Chinese as the MOI for
different subjects from Secondary 4 (Grade 10) onwards. In the case of Hong Kong, the
craving of both global capitalists and inner business leaders to have a ready-made English-
conversant workforce has spread to parents and the general public, and has made an
impression on government LPP policy.
Among various Southeast Asian social circumstances, where linguistic privileges
encouragement effort has not been fully established, it is regularly the politically and
economically powerful reigning elite that makes LPP pronouncements for the social order. In
Malaysia, for example, the heritage languages of linguistic minorities were removed from the
education system after Malaysia’s liberation from Britain. In Singapore, indigenous language
varieties (e.g., Hokkien, Hakka, Cantonese), which play a significant sociocultural role in inter-
generation communication and cultural steadiness, have been literally banned from all
significant public spheres (e.g., radio and television broadcasting, cinemas, schools, civil
service, political arenas). In Hong Kong, the education system makes no bilingual education
provision for ethnic minorities of South Asians, or newly arrived children from mainland
China who habitually speak some indigenous Chinese variety (e.g., Hakka, Chaozhou dialect).
If given a role to play in the education system, these native languages can be a rich linguistic
means to capitalize on for building bilingual and multilingual skills among these children
(Wiley, 1996). The humanistic yearning to value the indigenous linguistic resources that
children carry with them to school does not figure significantly in most Southeast Asian
societal contexts, where the political and economic discourses of the ruling elite usually take
importance and legitimize most LPP pronouncements in favor of national standard languages
and/or English, whereas indigenous language varieties, the mother tongues of the children,
are often perceived as undesirable features to eliminate, rather than positive assets to build
on for developing bilingual and multilingual competences (Cummins, 2003; Wiley, 1996).
Recurrent LPP Goals and Means in Southeast Asian Contexts
The varieties of persistent LPP goals and the program means to realize these goals
that are found in many Southeast Asian contexts can be explained using proposed analytical
framework by Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) with reference to choice combinations made on the
following three basic dimensions or orientations that underlie LPP decisions:
a. the continuum of L1/L2 use in school instruction;
b. the breadth and depth of the target communicative repertoire; and
c. the universal-elitist continuum.
Using this analytical framework, Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) outline three prototypical
LPP models that can be found in Southeast Asian societies:
a. the universal mother-tongue education model;
b. the universal total immersion model; and
c. the universal partial immersion model.
The following sections, enumerated the three dimensions and describe three
prototypical program models found in many Southeast Asian societies.
Three Basic Orientations Underlying Language Education Planning
1. The Continuum of L1/L2 Use in School Instruction. Under this dimension are two
sub-dimensions:
a. extent of L1/L2 use: the relative amounts of L1 and L2 (second or foreign
language) use in school instruction, and
b. beginning level of L1/L2 use: the school level at which L1/L2 is first used
as the medium of instruction.
Based on various options made on the sub-dimension of (a) extent of L1/ L2 use, three
main types of education model can be delineated:
• Mother Tongue Education Model,
• Total Immersion Education Model, and
• Partial Immersion Education Model
The sub-dimension of the extent of L1/L2 use is a continuum on which different
proportions of the students’ L1 and/or L2 are used in school instruction. At one end of the
continuum is the Mother Tongue Education Model. Under this model, the students’ L1 is used

as a medium of instruction not only for L1 language arts and L1 history/cultural subjects (e.g.,
in Hong Kong, these include Chinese language, Chinese history, Chinese literature and
Chinese cultural studies), but also for all other content subjects. Instruction in the L2 is
available only in the L2 language arts subjects (e.g., in Hong Kong, the L2 language arts
subjects include English language and English literature).
At the other end of the continuum is the Total Immersion Education Model. Under this
model, the students’ L2 is used as a medium of instruction for all subjects except the L1
language arts and L1 history/cultural subjects. Between the two ends of the continuum are
different varieties of the Partial Immersion Education Model, under which both L1 and L2,
each with equal or different proportions, are used as mediums of instruction for content
subjects. Usually, L2 is first introduced in the cognitively less demanding and contextually
more embedded subjects (e.g., art and crafts, music, physical education, cookery,
international exposure/hours) and only gradually introduced to the cognitively more
demanding and contextually less embedded subjects (e.g., history, science, mathematics). In
the Two Way Immersion/Dual Language Model, which is a variant of partial immersion, L1
and L2 are each used on alternative days, or L1 in the morning and L2 in the afternoon, or
vice versa.
Beginning Level of L1/L2 Use. The sub-dimension of the beginning level of L1/L2 use
is the continuum on which different school levels can be selected as the level at which L1/L2
is first introduced as the MOI in school. One end of the continuum is occupied by different
varieties of the Early Immersion Model, under which students’ L2 is used as the MOI for
content subjects at a very early school level (i.e., Kindergarten or Primary 1). The other end
of the continuum is occupied by different varieties of the Late, Late Immersion Model, under
which the students’ L2 is used as the MOI for content subjects at a very late stage in the
schooling career (i.e., post-secondary or university level). Between the two extremes are
different varieties of the Mid- (also called Delayed-) Immersion and Late Immersion Models.
The beginning level of immersion under these models varies from Primary 4 or 5 to
Secondary 1 or 2 (Grade 7 or 8).
2. The Breadth and Depth of the Target Communicative Repertoire. This second basic
dimension underlying language education planning is clamored as the primordial goal to be
attained by schooling. The target communicative repertoire is considered as a tool kit of
linguistic and communicative resources. On one end of the continuum is an expanded tool kit,
in which there is a wide array of communicative tools (breadth) and each tool is fully
developed (depth). On the other end of the continuum is a very limited communicative
repertoire, in which there is a very restricted range of tools, each of which is only partially
developed. Between these two ends are different levels of functional capacity in different
languages.
3. The Third Dimension: The Universal-Elitist Continuum. The third basic dimension
involves specifying as the goal of schooling the different proportions of school population
that are expected to achieve different levels of communicative competence in different
languages.
On one end of the continuum (the universal end), the goal of language education
policy is to make all or a very high proportion of school graduates to attain a high level of
competence in all or most of the socio-culturally and economically valuable varieties of
languages in a wide range of use domains in the society. This usually has pricey resource
implications for the government. At the other end of the continuum (the elitist end), only a
minute proportion of school graduates is expected to achieve an expanded communicative
repertoire. Between these two extremes are varying levels of linguistic expectations (e.g.,
high proficiency in the first language and only functional competence in the second language)
for different proportions of school graduates for different use domains or purposes.
Three Prototypical LPP Models

Based on different combinations of selection choices made on the three basic
dimensions mentioned above, a range of possible bilingual education options can be designed
and developed. The defining features of each option can be specified with reference to critical
decisions made on the three basic dimensions.
In the following sections, Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) outlined three major policy
models found in postcolonial countries. Under each policy model, the defining features,
rationale, advantages, and disadvantages are discussed.

1. The Universal Mother-Tongue Education Model
The universal mother-tongue education model stresses the cognitive and educational
advantage of using the students’ first language as the medium of instruction for all content
subjects all through primary and secondary schooling. Its defining features are as follows:
a. It has a universalist orientation. Educational provision and goals should be the
same for all schools and students.
b. The program goals are effective academic learning, high-level thinking skills,
socialization into L1 culture and L1 national identity, high level of L1 proficiency
and literacy, functional competence in L2.
In the Hong Kong context, mother-tongue education often means using spoken
Cantonese and Modern Standard written Chinese as the MOI. However, it is indispensable to
consider that complication of the use of confusing terminology in Hong Kong. For instance, in
mainland China, mother-tongue education would mean using the ethnic minority group’s
native language, instead of Putonghua and Modern Standard Chinese, as the MOI for ethnic
minorities. In Malaysia, mother tongue education would mean using the different ethnic
language varieties of the students (including different Malay language varieties which are not
the same as BM). This has not been an option, as the Malaysian government’s nation-building
desire stipulates a BM standard language as the MOI for all school populations. It must,
therefore, be pointed out that mother-tongue education in Hong Kong is not totally mother-
tongue. Only the spoken medium is mother tongue, while the written medium of schooling,
Modern Standard Chinese, is in fact quite different from the students’ mother tongue,
whereas in Malaysia, it was national language (BM) immersion rather than mother-tongue
education which was implemented upon independence from Britain. In Singapore, it must be
pointed out that mother-tongue education has never been implemented. And even the
“heritage languages” which are taught and maintained as a subject are actually standard
languages which are usually not the mother tongue of the school children. For instance, a
Chinese child’s home language or mother tongue might be Hokkien, but the officially
stipulated “heritage language” for him or her in school is Modern Standard Chinese.
Advantages and Disadvantages

Under the universal mother-tongue education model, the socially divisive, labelling
effect of having a small number of elite English-medium schools alongside a large number of
mother-tongue education schools (e.g., the linguistic streaming policy implemented in 1998
in Hong Kong) can be avoided. There will no longer be charges of elitism or unfairness made
by the public to the government. The benefits of mother-tongue education can be reaped in
areas of more effective academic learning, more interactive classrooms, and a higher level of
L1 proficiency and literacy achieved by school graduates, provided that other favorable
conditions also exist (e.g., high quality of curriculum, teachers and teaching).
However, the English proficiency of secondary school graduates can be expected to
be at best functional. More seriously, for instance, as in the case of Hong Kong, there will be a
problem of lack of articulation between a Chinese-medium secondary education and a
predominantly English-medium university/professional education. University bridging and
English remedial courses will be under great pressure to help Chinese-medium secondary
school graduates to adapt to English-medium studies in university. With a high degree of
academic autonomy, it is also unlikely that the majority of English-medium universities will
be willing to offer parallel L1 courses, especially in the professional disciplines (e.g.,
accountancy, business, medicine, engineering, computer science).
To successfully switch to the universal mother-tongue education model in a
postcolonial society, resources would need to be put into the following areas:
a. development of high-quality L1 materials and references for content subjects,
b. standardization and development of dictionaries of specialized terminology in
specialist subject areas in the L1, and
c. retraining of content teachers to help them to teach effectively in L1, and
d. strengthening the English language subject curriculum and materials
development, improving the quality of English language teaching, and providing
more professional development incentives and opportunities for teachers to
improve the quality of teachers. This might offset the drop of English standards
due to the switch to L1 MOI for all subjects.
However, due to globalization forces and the dominance of English as a global trade
language, there has been a renewed desire to replace mother-tongue education with some
partial immersion education (e.g., adding English immersion for some or all subjects). For

instance, in 2003, the Malaysian government decided to reintroduce English immersion into
its school system, stipulating English as the MOI for math and science subjects.
2. The Universal Total Immersion Model

Opposite to the universal mother-tongue education model, the universal total
immersion model emphasizes the socio-economic, scientific, technological as well as
international, commercial importance of an L2 (usually English or French), which is usually
also the former colonial language and the language in which the ruling elite has been
educated.
In this model, children are usually totally immersed in the L2 from Primary 4 or
Secondary 1 onwards. The defining features of the model are as follows:
a. a universalist orientation: educational provision and goals should be the same for
all schools and students;
b. the program goals are: high level of L2 proficiency; continuity in the medium of
instruction between university education and secondary/senior primary
education;
c. L2 as a lingua franca unifying different ethnic groups in the society (e.g., as in the
case of Singapore).

The universal total immersion model is usually adopted by multi-ethnic and/or
postcolonial countries like Kenya (Bunyi, 1997), Botswana (Arthur, 1996) and Burundi
(Ndayifukamiye, 1996; see also Blommaert, 1999). Usually in these postcolonial countries,
the L2 has long become the key to socio-economic success and the language of education,
administration and the ruling elite. It usually also serves as a unifying lingua franca, not
politically related to any ethnic group (but it is usually related to the socioeconomically
dominant middle/professional classes). There is, as a rule, a great parental demand for L2-
medium education from all sectors in these societies. The universal total immersion model
has the advantage of at least providing the appearance that access to the socio-economically
important L2 resources is made available to all children in public schooling.
In reality, however, the goals of additive bilingualism of total immersion are
achievable largely by children coming from social classes with ample home support for the
L2 (e.g., parents who speak the L2 and can help their children with their L2 studies). Children
coming from low SES, non-L2-speaking homes usually rely heavily on the code-switching
practices of their bilingual teachers to survive in the immersion classroom (Arthur, 1996;
Ndayifukamiye, 1996). The situation in these contexts is very similar to that documented in
Hong Kong prior to the implementation of the 1998 streaming policy (e.g., Johnson, 1997).
Very often, additive bilingualism develops among the elite and subtractive bilingualism
among the majority of children.
To avoid the disadvantages of the universal total immersion model mentioned above,
a great deal of resources needs to be invested in the public schooling system. Effective L2
subject teaching, curriculum and materials development, and appropriate bridging and
immersion-preparation programs need to be developed. There also needs to be extensive
professional preparation of both immersion and language teachers. Intensive remedial
programs need to be developed to provide additional language support to students not
coping well in L2 immersion classes. The universal total immersion model had long been
practiced in Hong Kong prior to 1998.
The disadvantages have been well documented. This is an old path which Hong Kong
schools should not retread unless the government is willing to invest the amount of resources
mentioned above to make it beneficial not only for the elite but also for a substantial
proportion of students.
In the case of Singapore, this option seems to have been successful. But again it is at
the expense of the children’s heritage languages, and it offers only a weak form of bilingual
education, as English monolingualism rather than bilingualism seems to be fostered.
3. The Universal Partial Immersion Education Model

The universal partial immersion model is between the universal mother-tongue
education model and the universal total immersion model. It is practiced in Brunei, where all
students, starting from Primary 4, are taught the subjects of science, mathematics, history
and geography in English (L2) and the subjects of civics, Islamic studies, Malay language,
physical training, and art and handicraft in Malay (L1) (Jones, 1999). The defining features of
the model are as follows:

a. It has a universalist orientation. Educational provision and goals should be the
same for all schools and students;
b. The program goals are high levels of both L1 and L2 proficiency; continuity in the
medium of instruction between university education and secondary/senior
primary education; L2 developed as a language for higher studies in science,
technology and for international business; L1 developed as a language for
cultural, religious, historical and national identity, heritage and values.

Like the universal total immersion model, the universal partial immersion model
fulfils the great parental demand for access to socio-economically important L2-medium
education. It also has the advantage of valuing and maintaining the students’ L1 all through
schooling.
Disadvantages emerge, however, if the students are partially immersed too early,
when neither their L1 nor their L2 has been well developed. Problems also arise if the
immersion teachers are ill-prepared for immersion teaching (see Jones, 1999). Students with
little home support in the L2, like those in the universal total immersion model, depend
heavily on the code-switching practices of their bilingual teachers (Martin, 1999) to survive
in the immersion classroom. Subtractive bilingualism is likely to develop among these
students.
Similar to the situation in universal total immersion, to successfully implement
universal partial immersion, a great deal of resources needs to be invested in the public
schooling system. For instance,
1. effective L1 and L2 subject teaching,
2. well-designed L2 curriculum materials that take into account the developing nature
of the L2 proficiency of students, and
3. appropriate bridging and immersion-preparation programs (e.g., the Molteno
Project in South Africa).
There also needs to be extensive professional preparation of both immersion and
language teachers. Intensive L2 enrichment programs also need to be developed to provide
additional language support to students not coping well in L2 immersion classes. These
difficulties seem also to be those being experienced in Malaysia after the reintroduction of
English for math and science subjects in 2003.
Current LPP Difficulties and Dilemmas in Southeast Asian Contexts
The above analytical framework has helped us to understand the recurrent LPP goals
and means adopted in many Southeast Asian societies. However, these LPP options have
resulted in difficulties and dilemmas, which can be summarized into three main areas:
a. non-specific goals,
b. labelling effect, and
c. mismatch of available resources and the means adopted to achieve the goals.
a. Non-specific Goals
First of all, many Southeast Asian societies are introduced with a renewed strong
desire to cultivate high levels of English proficiency among their students. However, what are
the specific target kinds of skills, registers and genres of English realistically reachable by the
adopted programs? This question seems to be only vaguely grasped by the LPP decision
makers (e.g., government officials). It seems that many LPP decisions have been driven by
some myths about language acquisition. Below are some of these:
• The Immersion Myth
• The Native Speaker Myth
• The Purism Myth
Driven by these myths and without a precise conceptualization of the nature of their
proficiency goals, many Southeast Asian LPP decision makers have an almost religious belief
in L2 immersion as the best means for achieving the goal of raising general L2 proficiency
levels. However, while L2 immersion might be good for developing certain academic L2 skills,
registers and genres in particular subject domains in which students are immersed, it might
not be, for instance, the best means to cultivate social L2 communicative skills. Instead, using
a communicative language teaching approach in an L2-as-a-subject lesson might be a better

way to foster social L2 skills, for instance, than immersing students in a science or math
lesson in L2.
b. Labelling Effect
Many LPP decisions made in Southeast Asian contexts have had a negative labelling
effect to those who are streamed into the non-L2 immersion programmes. For instance, the
dualistic, streaming approach to LPP implemented in 1998 in Hong Kong has created two
classes of student in Hong Kong: those who can enter English immersion schools and those
who cannot. The latter has suffered from a serious negative labelling effect resulting from a
rigid, dualistic approach to bilingual education: either L2 total immersion or only mother-
tongue education. This is certainly educationally unfavorable to the majority of children who
are streamed into the mother-tongue education schools.
c. Mismatch of Available Resources and Chosen Program Models
This mismatch of resources and program models is perhaps by far the most common
difficulty experienced in many Southeast Asian LPP contexts. As discussed, both total
immersion and partial immersion programs as conceptualized in current “mythical” thinking
about L2 acquisition (e.g., purism: only L2 can be used in L2 lessons, L2 lessons are preferably
taught by native or native-like speakers) require an L2 teacher supply who can teach content
subjects in native-like or fluent L2 with the right register and genre in the chosen L2 academic
subject domains. In many Southeast Asian societies, this is almost an unreachable or a very
expensive goal. In both Hong Kong and Malaysia, there have been concerns about the L2
linguistic ability of teachers to teach content subjects in fluent English. Singapore has been
relatively successful in implementing total English immersion from Kindergarten onwards;
however, there have also been concerns about the local varieties of Singaporean English
which have emerged from this kind of total immersion — concerns that these local varieties
of English might not be internationally intelligible.
The Need for Innovative Approaches to Bilingual Education in Southeast Asian Contexts
In view of the above difficulties and dilemmas, Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) proposed
the need to break away from rigid models to find flexible, innovative LPP solutions. Once we
can think outside the box and break away from the purism myths, then we might find a whole
new space for exploration of innovative means to achieve reachable goals in LPP. The
following part discusses the three directions that might offer potential for developing
innovative ways out of our difficulties and dilemmas:
a. developing content-based L2 instruction,
b. breaking away from the “immersion” model as the only best approach to
designing bilingual education programmes, and
c. utilizing bilingual classroom strategies to provide limited-L2-proficiency
students with access to L2 academic proficiencies.
a. Developing Content-based L2 Instruction

In traditional thinking about approaches to designing bilingual education, a sharp
boundary is drawn between teaching L2 as a subject and using L2 as the MOI for teaching
content. However, in the proposed framework for exploring innovative approaches to
designing bilingual education programmes, Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) propose that such a
rigid boundary can be crossed over. Figure 1 shows a new way of thinking: teaching L2 as a
subject and using L2 as an MOI for teaching content does not need to be seen as two discrete
programme models but as lying on two end points of a continuum (the x-axis in Figure 1). If
we can switch our thinking in this direction, we would be able to design what we could call
tentatively “bilingual education on a shoestring budget”. For instance, in many Southeast

Asian contexts where L2 teaching resources do not exist in abundance (e.g., not enough L2
fluent teachers to use L2 as the MOI for content subjects), we can develop a strong content-
based L2 programme, which can serve as a good-enough programme with the existing
resources to make accessible to the majority of students L2 academic proficiencies (e.g., L2
academic registers and genres, lexico-grammatical knowledge and skills relevent to these
genres). Side by side with content subjects taught in L1 (which ensures that the content
teaching goals are reached), we can have a content-rich L2 curriculum taught as a subject.
Malaysia, for instance, implemented in 2003 an additional subject, EAP, to facilitate the
implementation of English as MOI for science and math subjects. Although we still await
research studies to find out the impact of such a progrmme in Malaysia, in principle this
makes good educational sense. Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009) proposed one step further that if,
in some Southeast Asian contexts where the implementation of L2 as an MOI for any content
subjects is not supported with adequate teaching resources (e.g., staff members), then the
development of a strong content-based L2 subject is a good choice as a possible mode of
providing some access to the benefits of bilingual education.
In Thailand, for instance, the Sarasas Ektra Bilingual School has pioneered an
“immerse twice” model (Jones, 2007), which consists of a two-track curriculum: key content
areas are taught in the mother tongue in one track, and the same key content areas (but with
a reduced content syllabus) are taught in English (the L2 of the students) in the parallel track
to the same students. In fact the English instruction on content matter can be seen as a
content-rich EAP instruction, and not as an “immersion programme” in the sense described
in the Western literature. This two-track system seems workable in this context of the Sarasas
Ektra Bilingual School, where the majority of students are expecting to continue their studies
in universities that offer some programmes in English (e.g., international business studies).
The first author has observed classes and interviewed students in this school and found that
the students were not bored by having to learn the subjects “twice”, as the subject curricula,
in the words of the students, “are organized differently and taught by different teachers”. The
students feel that this approach has both reinforced their understanding of the content
subjects and increased their English ability to learn these content subjects. The students’
public examination scores also show high levels of both academic attainment and English
language attainment. While this approach might need to be adapted for it to be workable in
other contexts, it does provide an innovative way of thinking when we explore new solutions
out of our old dilemmas (e.g., the need to provide access to bilingual education even when we
do not have enough L2 resources, on the part of the students and sometimes also the
teachers).

b. Breaking Away from the “Immersion” Mode of Thinking
Another innovative way of thinking about LPP in Southeast Asian contexts might
involve the need to break away from the immersion model as the only best approach to
bilingual education. In the existing immersion education literature, purism is the norm rather
than exception. The myths outlined above provide, although perhaps in a rough sketch, a
concise summary of the kind of purist pedagogy stipulated: the limited role that L1 can play
in immersion classrooms. However, as more studies on the positive roles that can be played
by the L1 (e.g., Lin, 2006) show, strategically and systematically using L1 can help to bridge
the gap between the students’ existing L2 proficiency and the required L2 proficiency to learn
in the L2.
References
Active Planet Travels. (2020). Top 25 Ridiculous Signs You Only See in Asia. Retrieved from
https://activeplanettravels.com/25-ridiculous-signs-you-only-see-in-asia/.
Blog deWord Press.com. (2016). Varieties of of English: Kachru Model: The Three Circles of
English. Retrieved from
https://varietiesofenglishsite.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/classification-of-english-
speakers-kachru-model/.
Borlongan, A. (2017). Contemporary perspectives on Philippine English. Philippine ESL

Journal Vol.19. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322628546_Contemporary_perspectives
_on_Philippine_English.
Department of Education. (2020, July 25). DO 52, s. 1987 – The 1987 Policy on Bilingual
Education. Retrived from https://www.deped.gov.ph/1987/05/21/do-52-s-1987-
the-1987-policy-on-bilingual -
education/#:~:text=The%20Policy%20on%20Bilingual%20Education,in%20Grades
%20I%20and%20II.
Dimaculangan, N. (2018). Another Look Into Philippine English: Towards Users ‟Awareness
And Celebration. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publication (IJARP)
Vol.2 Issue 8. Retrieved from http://www.ijarp.org/published-research-
papers/aug2018/Another-Look-Into-Philippine-English-Towards-Users-Awareness-
And-Celebration.pdf
Esquivel, O. (2019). Exploring the Filipinization of the English Language in a Digital Age: An
Identity Apart from Other World Englishes. Journal of English as an International
Language, v14 n1 p58-72. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1244667.pdf
Freepik. (2020, Jul5 25). Language. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-

vector/languages-concept-with-flat
design_2555841.htm#page=1&query=language&position=18
Google Scholar. (July 25, 2020). Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?sxsrf=ALeKk00eZz8NeABFTZmp00_M-
jLlWLhquw:1595645500984&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECCMQJzoHCCMQ6gIQJzoH
CC4Q6gIQJ1CLGFiLGGDEHmgBcAB4AIABnwWIAZ8FkgEDNS0xmAEAoAECoAEBqgE
HZ3dzLXdperABCg&uact=5&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=2998554542145035193
Jubilado, C. (2016). Where is the CR? A Description of Philippine English in Hawaii. Philippine
ESL Journal Vol. 17, 2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 86 University of
Hawaii. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rodney_Jubilado/publication/309740722_W
here_is_the_CR_A_Description_of_Philippine_English_in_Hawaii/links/5c3b24a0a6fdc
cd6b5a8f565/Where-is-the-CR-A-Description-of-Philippine-English-in-Hawaii.pdf

Lin, A. and Man, E. (2009). Contexts of LPP in SEA Societies: Need for Innovative Approaches:
Language Program and Policies in ASEAN Contexts Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian
Perspectives. Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong
Malicsi, J. (n.d.). Philippine English: A Case of Language Drift. Retrieved from

http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_22-1/RitsIILCS_22.1pp29-
58_MALICSI.pdf

Name: _______________________________ Date: ______________________
Activity 7
Directions:
a. Download any bilingual education curriculum in the Philippines (e.g., a national
curriculum, a school-based curriculum, or the DepEd Order as provided in the
link (https://www.deped.gov.ph/1987/05/21/do-52-s-1987-the-1987-policy-
on-bilingual -
education/#:~:text=The%20Policy%20on%20Bilingual%20Education,in%20Gr
ades%20I%20and%20II.)
b. Explain the following:
• desires,
• goals, and
• means
as reflected by the curriculum document used.
c. Further, list down the the curriculum goals and means using the following:
• the L1-L2 MOI continuum,
• the universal-elitist continuum, and
• the breadth and depth of the target communicative repertoire.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
(Name of the bilingual education curriculum used)
Desire
Goals

Means
Curriculum goals
and means using
the L1-L2 MOI
continuum
universal-elitist
continuum
the breadth and

depth of the target
communicative
repertoire

SEE 6 Language Programs and Policies Module

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEE 6 Language Programs and Policies Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA ECIJA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Albert C. Bulawat, MAEd

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 1

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 2

Activating your Knowledge 14

Activating your Knowledge 30

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 3

Activating your Knowledge 39

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 4

Interpretive Hermeneutic Protocol

PRE-UNDERSTANDING What I think about bilingual education:

What led me to think this:

What led me to think this is:

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 5

What led me to think this is:

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 6

Bilingualism and multilingualism are both common phenomena in the modern

History of Bilingual Education

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 7

History of Bilingual Education in the Philippines

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 8

Different Concepts and Terminologies Related to Language Programs and Policies in

➢ Minority and Majority Languages

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 9

History of Bilingual Education. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/pmgqnc

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 10

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 11

Name: _______________________________ Score: _______________________

1. Differentiate national from official language.

2. “Awareness of the history of bilingual education is important to a language teacher.” Give

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 12

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 13

2. Why were babies regarded as linguitic geniuses?

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 14

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 15

Objectives: This learning module introduces you to aspects

In contemporary societies like ours, bilingualism is not uncommon. Either due to

Goals of Bilingual Education

Stephen Krashen in his Bilingual Education: Ninety Questions, Ninety Answers

Distinction Between Bilingualism and Bilingual Education

Bilingualism, as mentioned earlier, is a common phenomenon. As early as three years

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 16

Another widely common phenomenon, multilingualism is the ability to communicate

Types of Bilingualism, Multilingualism and Bilingual Education

Bilingual Education may be defined differently in different contexts. In this context,

1. Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) is an approach to education where learners

2. Two-Way Immersion (TWI) is bilingual education where two groups of learners

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 17

Programs and Structures of Bilingual and Multilingual Education

Subtractive bilingual education

Additive bilingual education

Types of Bilingual Education Program Models/Approaches

Program Model Type Program Model Description

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 18

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 19

Frameworks of Bilingual and Multilingual Education

Integrating the Framework

Type of Program Support for L1 Elite/Folk Primary

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 20

Characteristics of Effective Programs

Some key features of effective programs also include:

Language Programs and Policies in Multilingual Socities 21

Name: _________ Score: _

Name: _________ Score: _

Name: _________ Score: _

Name: _________ Date: