Bilingualism in Chinas Education, Research Paper Example

Abstract

During the course of this paper, we will examine the common linguistic dilemmas faced by the Chinese education system at all levels. There will be particular emphasis on the nationalist Mandarin form of Chinese and on English; the socioeconomic reasons for the emphases will be explained. Current and proposed strategies for bilingualism or multilingualism (especially in the context of education) will be touched upon and briefly analyzed, as well as various factors which affect the adoption of certain policies and strategies.

A Large and Diverse Population of Opinions: The Manifestation of Social Agenda in Chinese Education

There are fifty-five ethnic minorities and over one hundred common written and spoken languages in China today. Globalization embraces the function of power of personal language in ethnic minorities, the plurality within Chinese nationality (Fang, 2010). In a nation that is so fiercely proud of history and heritage, the subjugation of even one ethnic language is an affront to the firm roots which have continued to support the weight of social change. Furthermore, Communist nationalistic policy encouraged minorities to develop their language. According to Fang, the management of linguistic differences is among the greatest challenges to the national consciousness of China (2010). For obvious reasons, the resulting melee of challenges presented by the management of linguistic differences in education presents particular impediments to scholastic unity and socioeconomic progress. Instructors face the disagreeable choice between turning away one of the primary sources of pride for ethnicities or standardizing the choice of language and curriculum within the classroom in an effort to provide educational consistency across ethnic lines and then must further distinguish from a wide variety of goals for the classroom and the function of the material presented as part of the curriculum for second language acquisition (SLA).

Background

In the early 1970’s, John Lum and his American colleagues from the National Institute of Education recorded their observations regarding Chinese education (1972). While extremely dated, these observations serve as an objective time capsule from which it is possible to view the formative years and common educational perspectives during the time in which Chinese educational policy changes were first established. The original noninterference policies of ethnic bilingual education in China were milder forms of those in practice today. For any unofficial or ethnic language, the government would not pursue action either for or against it. However, the original stipulation for the reluctant acceptance of nationalized Chinese language was built upon the widespread ethnic belief that earmarks of their linguistic heritage would imprint themselves upon the constant development of national Chinese language. This perspective is generally disregarded now, despite the factuality at the heart of such a claim- a claim which would subtly honor a multitude of dialects which may otherwise be lost. Also unlike America, Chinese mainstream media and culture honors minority contributions with little visible prejudice and with greater accuracy (Lum, 1972).

Bilingualism and bilingual education are not the same entity. Most Chinese students are introduced to basic forms of several languages at an early age. This is bilingualism. By contrast, bilingual education specifically refers to instruction in a particular language. This instruction would inherently strengthen the bilingual fluency of the student in those languages included in the teaching of the text materials. While bilingual education is rarely seen and heard in America, bilingualism is common in China, where it is not uncommon for locals to seamlessly switch between dialects as the need arose and setting changed. This characteristic Chinese flexibility of language also blankets the open nature of the education system in which school and government officials, parents, and students have a noticeably large impact upon each individual classroom and its approaches. This constant and unsheltered exposure is typical even at the compulsory primary level- where students will spend much of their educational time learning skills of the military, factories, agriculture, or business. This socio-vocational initiation prepares students to become practical advocates on their own behalf, and in China the recommendations of parents and students are not made lightly and are treated with a respect and responsiveness that is unknown to the closed educational systems of the United States (Lum, 1972).

Bilingual education has presented both opportunity and challenge. Cultural considerations aside, education in China has no precedent with which to compare their actions and reactions. The closest such situation of the past was encountered in Korea. In Korea, Chinese is offered as a foreign language option in an effort to maintain national identity and international competency. It was argued that Chinese was an international language and thus equally important as Korean (Fang, 2010).

Feng (2009) makes a clear-cut distinction between bilingualism and what he calls “acting interculturally” (287). Language wields a particular social power as one of the most basic points of connection between different people and as a common method of self-identification with a certain group. While bilingualism caters to an attitude of linguistic subservience to the majority of the populace, intercultural education is distinguished from its predecessors by its incorporation of two or more common languages (Feng, 2009). An equal Korean-Chinese-English approach has been utilized in Korean schools- but has met with no real success in the shadow of the Chinese educational adaptability; in the current Chinese higher education system, tested and proven competency in English is required before a citizen can earn a bachelor’s degree or higher (Fang, 2010; Hu & Wan, 2007).

The seriousness with which China has pursued multilingualism responds to their acknowledgement of the high stakes. Sadly, the efficacy of the measures taken is often limited by the availability of research and techniques which are applicable to the unique challenges of China’s many ethnic groups, the dissimilarity of the nationalist form of Mandarin Chinese from common European and Western languages, and the interaction between politics, the economy, and the majority and minority groups within China. As Chen, Benet-Martinez, and Bond (2008) stated:

“For the most part, the impact of globalization has been manifested and explored in economic development, changes in lifestyles, and communication patterns… In the past decades, the majority of research in this area was focused on assessing bicultural identities of immigrants and ethnic minorities, mostly in Western cultural contexts, and on evaluating their psychological adjustment and sociocultural adaptation. Less is known about the identity issues of non-immigrants, especially majority groups who come into contact with other cultures as a consequence of globalization and migration”.

China’s discussion of education is riddled with a confusing array of struggles between theories of compatibility and opposition. Majorities and minorities, social and psychological acceptance and well-being, strategies employed, historical misgivings, and many other factors affect these importance decisions, and, in China, the current open system of education (which will be discussed in greater detail later) allows a broad range of input. This is both a strength and a weakness, allowing a diversity of perspective which encourages the inclusion of many perspectives but can be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of decisions with which it is presented by academia, school officials, parents, and even students.

Theory

The Chinese’ perceived threat to productive citizenship, as presented by diplomats, parents, and children, stems from an assumption that national identity and ethnic pride cannot peacefully and successfully coexist- if not prosper. This flat account of social interactions does not satisfy the skepticism of the respected social identity theorists who cite the current evidence that both individual and social identities are frequently adjusting, complex interactions between person(s) and their environment. As a major contributor to the outward expression of environmental impact, language aids in the negotiation and development of identity as a part of a larger social continuum, and the purposeful exclusion of certain languages from Chinese culture is a form of identity brainwashing (Feng, 2009).

Cultural adaptation is first divided into four broad sociological categories: assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization. Integrationists embrace original and incoming culture as needed. Early research attributed anxiety and depression to the multifaceted nature of integrationist acceptance; however, recent evidence suggests that the general well-being and cognitive development fostered by the acceptance of new languages and cultures, in fact, facilitates positive results (Chen et al., 2008).

Current Chinese linguistic approaches can be subdivided into two camps: Min-Han Jiantong and  Zhuanye Waiyu Fuhexing Rencai. Min-Han Jiantong emphasizes both the standard Han language of Mandarin origin and Min, the ethnic minority’s language of origin. This goal has been cited as the final aim of the larger Chinese minority groups. Still, there are arguments as to whether or not the ethnic or majority language should supplant the national language when necessary. Fuhexing Rencai, on the other hand, urges the adoption of current majority Chinese language and English as a matter of international competition. China also recently joined the World Trade Organization, signaling a shift toward increased Chinese involvement in foreign affairs- regarding employment and otherwise (Wan & Hu, 2007). Linguistic globalization has specificly targeted urban areas which frequently interact both socially and economically with foreign countries (Feng, 2009). As such, it is not surprising that this somewhat “white collar” approach to bilingualism is perceived as unnecessary to rural workers and can be met with hostility in certain areas of the country. Still, Fuhexing Rencai is currently the standard in the majority of bilingual education programs in China- mainly because of the political emphasis on loyalty to the principles valued by the nation as a whole (Feng, 2009).

The differences between these two movements takes a variety of forms- but can be consolidated as mainly an issue of English as a foreign language (EFL) or English as an international vehicle for communication, i.e. as a lingua franca, (ELF). Most researchers and theorists agree that English is currently advisable as a lingua franca and thus should not be held to the same level of accountability as EFL programs, because learning English is a courteous expression of practicality and international cooperation (Fitzpatrick, 2007). Even with such a majority consensus within academia as to overriding approach in China, Siguan and Mackey (1987) cite three underlying, socially-determined options: developing the entire language repertoire, developing the foreign vocabulary related to one’s specialized field, and developing the social and cultural connectivity of the people (as cited by Wan & Hu, 2007).

Current Practice

Chinese education employs a variety of strategies of bilingual education. English and any additional required languages are taught throughout the majority of primary and secondary school through any combination of three methods: immersion (which uses only the foreign language), maintenance bilingual instruction (which uses the mother tongue at first and gradually transitions to the use of different languages for different courses), and transitional bilingual instruction (which initially uses the home language and eventually transitions entirely into the foreign language). Because Chinese primary and secondary education focuses on training, universities are the main source of true bilingual education (Wan & Hu, 2007). In China, bilingual education typically consists of maintenance bilingual instruction and is used only to teach “non-language disciplines, such as Mathematics, Physics, History, Geography” (Wan & Hu, 2007, 220).

Zhejiang University (hereafter ZU) has been renowned as China’s best working example of bilingualism in a significant portion of the classes offered at the post-secondary level. In this case, the languages of emphasis are the national majority Chinese and English, which makes the University a prime example of Fuhexing Rencai linguistic policy in action. In fact, requirements for the inclusion of English in the curriculum and testing are not limited to entrance exams at ZU. Language usage requirements vary by the level of bilingual fluency of the class’s students and professor. Even in instruction which primarily uses the Chinese language, between ten and twenty percent of the course is conducted in English. English-first instruction utilizes the same percentages of required usage for the national Chinese- with the exception that one hundred percent of testing be conducted in English. Interestingly, the balanced bilingual testing and homework must consist of at least sixty percent English (Wan and Hu, 2007).

According to Kirkpatrick (2007), English is the primary vehicle for international communication. As the success story of Zhejiang University illustrates, the pragmatic considerations of the Fuhexing Rencai lingual policy movement have placed a higher value on the interests of international business than on the cultural pride inspired by the majority language, and the majority of the Chinese citizens are resilient and highly intelligent. One Computer Science professor at ZU conducted a private experiment in the efficacy of the bilingualist emphasis. In one class she taught the entire course in English only; in the other class she began with Chinese only and gradually transitioned to English-only instruction. Surprisingly, the English-only final exam’s resulting grades did not distinguish the English-focus from the transitioned class. As a result of the educational experimentation, the viability of transitioning programs was strengthened in reputation and bilingualism began to have a greater impact on other higher education systems across China (Wan and Hu, 2007).

As the above study was informal and largely unrecorded, some pertinent details remain to be seen, such as the form of English which was used during the instruction and testing. In his critical essay, “Setting Attainable and Appropriate English Language Targets in Multilingual Settings: A Case for Hong Kong”, Kirkpatrick sheds light on the Chinese government’s lack of differentiation between the varying forms of spoken and written English (2007). Unlike in America, the United Kingdom, and Australia, other countries, such as Scotland, Nigeria, India, and China, have adapted their own variations of the English spoken by native speaker countries. Despite a long history of English-language influence on Scotland, their forms of spoken and written English are often so different from those of native speakers as to be utterly unrecognizable. With China’s linguistic ties to English springing mainly from a desire to remain globally competitive, the use of the language is a slight and necessary imposition and thus occupies a constant state of marginalization (Kirkpatrick, 2007). However, as globalization becomes an ever-increasing reality throughout the world and in the technological and business realms of Asia in particular, this early progression toward linguistic incorporation has given successful linguists an edge.

Early attempts at establishing trilingualism (with the addition of Cantonese to Mandarin Chinese and English) in Hong Kong relied on the information obtained from benchmarks. These benchmarks presented a skewed picture of linguistic progress, because they tested grammar and spelling according to the accepted form of language as would be utilized by a native speaker. An accomplished Chinese speaker of English or Cantonese would often receive a low score based upon minor changes in popular forms. Furthermore, rules of grammar, syntax, and spelling in English vary wildly even between the three primary native-speaking countries of America, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The grammatical accuracy and pronunciation, stress, and intonation scales demanded a level of formalized perfection that even most native speakers never achieve. Trilingual students are then compared against monolingual, native speakers and are often disparaged by what is inaccurately presented as a lack of progress in the language subject area (Fitzpatrick, 2007).

The failure belongs not to the versatile Chinese students but to the teachers and their processes of bilingual education. According to a 2005 poll of university students, forty-five percent of professors seemed to struggle with English themselves, and fifty-five percent were considered as lacking knowledge in their specialized teaching area. Temporarily putting these facts aside, we would like to reiterate that the adopted Fuhexing Rencai policies of Chinese education are intended to create a globally competitive, English-fluent new generation. However, until students begin their post-secondary education, their English instruction focuses on the proper written form of English (Wan & Hu, 2007). With today’s technology, written language is easily produced, duplicated, and distributed, so the ELF potential of listening and speaking English is severely underestimated in favor of a less direct means of communication.

These “less direct means of communication” are represented by the less-popular audio-lingual method of teaching a second language. The audio-lingual method avoids using the home language or much writing and focuses on listening and speaking. The three other most common methods of teaching a second language are the grammar-translation method, the direct method, and the communicative language teaching (CLT) method. The grammar-translation method places a heavy focus on written language but does not grasp the complexity and lack of standardization present in many languages- with English among them. The direct method attempts to mirror the learning of one’s mother tongue through the use of simple conversation to build vocabulary and a contextual understanding of sentence structure and pronunciation but produces little understanding of grammar and written language. The last method, the communicative language teaching (CLT) method, first attempts to instill a basic second language skill set of reading, writing, speaking, and listening and then proceeds to expound on this skill set through the frequent use of student-centered scenarios and intercommunication. The grammar-translation method- which was used in the original second language programs and emphasizes writing and reading- continues to be the most popular choice in China (Ye, 2007).

The constant social and educational struggle of China is to balance the new principles which integration demands with the established cultural norms. The rewards are tangible and do not represent the threat that was originally perceived. On the contrary, according to Chen et al. (2008), a high level of personal bicultural identity integration develops an innate sense of cultural cues which can successfully navigate through the different internal and external attributions of foreign and local social cues. Resistance to cultural integration can even prohibit the full development of cognitive processes and social adaptability.

Proposals for the Future

Min Han Jiantong and Zhuanye Waiyu Fuhexing Rencai are both exclusionary in approach. According to Feng (2009), this does not fulfill the best interests of China as a whole. Min Han Jiantong should be more accepting of the realities of business communications and the need for linguistic flexibility, and Fuhexing Rencai should include the freedom to determine one’s own level of fluency in various languages through the individualistic selection of foreign languages (Feng, 2009). Feng’s concept of “acting interculturally” seeks therefore to strike a balance between the ethnic bilingualism and bilingual education, as was discussed in the literature review (Lum, 1972).

The social-educational model of Gardner (1985) argues that the sociocultural context of a learner’s home country strongly influences variables in second language acquisition- as well as their level of successfulness in integration (as cited by Rao, 2006). Learning strategies are often selected based upon this environmental conception of linguistic and cultural beliefs. In “Understanding Chinese Students’ Use of Language Learning Strategies from Cultural and Educational Perspectives”, Rao elaborates:

“Language learners who believe teachers to be the authoritative source of knowledge are more prone to avoid self-directed strategies necessary to achieve language proficiency .A learner belief that fluency can be achieved solely through such traditional means as translation, grammar application and rote memorisation can restrict his or her range of strategies” (2006).

A definite correlation between independence, student engagement and academic success has been established through repeated testing. However, as Bremner illustrates, even these individualistic student strategies can be nullified by environmental barriers, such as an impatient teacher, a very traditional school, or the exclusive use of other SLA strategies (2000). SLA in China has only recently adopted the new technique of the CLT method, but it is currently thought to hold the most potential. However, certain adaptations to the unique challenges of Chinese SLA progression (from local Chinese dialects to any other foreign language or dialect) are necessary to the highest level of student learning (Ye, 2007). According to Wan and Hu (2007), these accommodations are necessary because a) the learners’ age, sex, intelligence, learning strategies, and other factors vary, b) the cognitive and emotional domains employed by the teacher (and their skill level as well) will vary, c) the type of education, equipment and resources available, and outside influences will vary, and d) the strategies of both the course and the delivery of the information will vary. For these reasons, Ye recommends that the CLT method be modified to include active participation by the students, some independent study, and cooperative learning (2007). Further analysis should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the texts chosen are conducive to learning according to the individual needs of the majority of the students and as a synchronistic part of the overall course and class strategies,  that learner access to additional resources through the system of education is proportionate to the average need (at the least), and that the grouping during cooperative learning is thoughtfully arranged according to linguistic aptitudes and personal learning styles.

Providing a basis of learning styles and strategies allows for more independent study and, by extension, more student success. Common, successful strategies will be explored in this section and large-scale perspectives in the next. For one, Li (2008) urges teachers to reveal the purpose of the material and the lesson and therefore provide a comfortable framework which leaves no doubt as to the required level of engagement and intended purpose of the lesson. Another strategy is learner synthesis and detail highlighting- what Li calls selective memorization and reading. Through personal review, analysis, and conceptual bridge-building, the information is easier to recount. Similarly, the contextualized memorization builds conceptual bridges- but narrows its scope to lesser-used vocabulary and visual representations, such as flashcards, images, or graphics. Reviewing and covering small new segments of information are also vital to long-term memorization. Perhaps the most unconventional and intriguing aspects of Li’s recommended techniques is scheduling and timing. He does not limit the scope of this technique to the learning environment alone- but also cites studies by Lev Vygotsky which determined that from six to seven and eight to ten o’clock in the morning and from ten to eleven o’clock at night are the three times of “ ‘climate’ period for memorizing new vocabulary” (Li, 2008, 45).

Vygotsky intensified memory perspective advocates the looping of cognitive nerve impetus. Specifically, the selection of fifty words per day to memorize and occasionally review is of the greatest benefit as a habitual interconnection and review of ideas. Associative memory (which could be compared to the recent Western emphasis on the deep reading movement) encourages the development of personalized categorizations and definitions on the premise that individualization will aid in linguistic memory retention.  In essence, it is the academic equivalent of a rationalized stream-of-consciousness. Body reaction of memory uses gestural processes to physically illustrate a concept and could include acting out scenarios, using sign language, or even interpretive dancing. Artistic symbolization of memory seeks to use more visual and complex methods as introduced by psychologist Jean Piaget, such as graphing or semantic-mapping (Li, 2008).

In a quite different vein of examination, potential computer science contributions to the accuracy of bootstrapping (personally connecting similar concepts in an effort to simplify the larger picture) are elaborated upon in Duan, Lu, and Li’s 2007 essay, “Multi-Engine Collaborative Bootstrapping for Word Sense Disambiguation”. Oxymoronic though the title may be, the essay is a poignant and useful examination of the challenges presented by ambiguity. For one, unclear word choices often lead students to draw the wrong conclusions from research or general texts and misinterpret the information.

For an example from English, the word “gay” has many connotations and denotations which are not always overtly stated. From strictly the traditional sense of the word, a student could be confused by a journal article which presents the emotional difficulties faced by “gay” (used in this example to mean homosexual) men and women, since the traditional meaning conveys a sense of happiness and satisfaction with life. In a real-life example, a native speaker of English who visited China during the Beijing Olympics was surprised to see the following signs.

The script is a little unclear in Figure 2; the English translation reads: “If you have heart or brain disease, please ascend the Great Wall according to your capability”. In Figure 3, the zoo’s warning sign reads: “Please don’t cross any railings lest suddenness happens!” (Siemon, 2010). These examples were provided as examples of the dangers of communicative teaching approaches which rely on inaccurate bootstrapping.

The Multi-Engine Collaborative Bootstrapping (MCB) program seeks to use sense inventories and translation pairs to review existing databases and reduce the amount of ambiguity of meaning presented. This will require a large number of native speakers to evaluate the inventories and pairing to determine their accuracy according to the norms of the language and culture of the ‘mother tongue’ community being represented (Duan, Lu, and Li, 2007). For obvious reasons, if this technological initiative is successful, it will have a great impact on the understanding of words and their underlying cultural framework.

Conclusion

Much of the debate over language and education in China is fueled by the past and political fears, as are the calculated actions demanded by the Chinese nationals who well remember the history of the country’s oppression from within and without (Lum, 1972). Nationalistic support for the government has repeatedly placed China’s people in an ironclad chokehold of its own making. It pit brother against brother, and the fear of repeating such a conflict permeates the unspoken tensions between the special interest and “Majority rules” philosophies of intercultural education today (Feng, 2009). Despite these fears, Chinese education can be said to much more practical and open than that which is experienced in the typical elementary and secondary schools of America. Indeed, as Lum (1972) asserts, “the wide openness of China’s educational systems makes it virtually impossible for ‘deviance’ to sneak in (91).

References

Bremner, S. (1999). Language Learning Strategies and Language Proficiency: Investigating the Relationship.. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 490. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Chen, S., Benet-Martínez, V., & Harris Bond, M. (2008). Bicultural Identity, Bilingualism, and Psychological Adjustment in Multicultural Societies: Immigration-Based and Globalization-Based Acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 803-838. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00505.x.

DUAN, J., LU, R., & LI, X. (2007). Multi-engine collaborative bootstrapping for word sense disambiguation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 16(3), 465-482. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Fang, G. (2010). Bilingual Education Among Ethnic Koreans in China. Chinese Education & Society, 43(1), 82-92. doi:10.2753/CED1061-1932430107.

Feng, A. (2009). Identity, ‘acting interculturally’ and aims for bilingual education: an example from China. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 30(4), 283-296. doi:10.1080/01434630802658458.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). Setting attainable and appropriate English language targets in     multilingual settings: a case for Hong Kong. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 376-391. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00170.x.

Li, X. (2008). Practical application of memory: Effectives of memory techniques for learning a second language. US-China Foreign Language, 6(1), 43-48. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Lum, J. (1976). Bilingual policies in the people’s republic of china. Studies in Comparative International Development, 11(1), 88. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Rao, Z. (2006). Understanding Chinese Students’ Use of Language Learning Strategies from Cultural and Educational Perspectives. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 27(6), 491-508. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Siemon, A. (2010). Learning english in china: is communicative language teaching a reality?. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 33(2), 39-42. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Wan, C., & Hu, X. (2007). Bilingual Instruction in Chinese Universities. Changing English: Studies in Culture & Education, 14(2), 217-229. doi:10.1080/13586840701443057.