WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:13.360 I'm particularly pleased to welcome on your behalf Professor Amy Tsui. 00:00:14.040 --> 00:00:19.140 Amy is the pro-vice chancellor and vice president of teaching and learning at the University of Hong Kong. 00:00:19.760 --> 00:00:25.600 And I think it's right to say that you've also spent some years working in Singapore, so you know the situation here well as well. 00:00:25.600 --> 00:00:32.600 Amy assists the Vice Chancellor in setting the direction and policy for teaching and learning at the university, including language policy. 00:00:32.600 --> 00:00:40.600 And she's the author of some eight books and 100 or so articles on the question of language policy and language teaching. 00:00:40.600 --> 00:00:46.600 One of her books, which is published by Cambridge, is as a demonstration copy on the table at the back. 00:00:46.600 --> 00:00:50.600 And they're taking orders and I hope that many of you will take advantage of that. 00:00:50.600 --> 00:00:56.360 of that. So we're now thinking policies into practice. What can we learn from experience 00:00:56.360 --> 00:01:00.360 elsewhere? And we're very pleased to welcome Amy Cui. Thank you. 00:01:00.360 --> 00:01:07.900 Thank you very much, Isabel. And thank you everybody for making time to come here. It's 00:01:07.900 --> 00:01:17.880 a great honor for me to be here and to be associated with Cambridge, Cambridge examinations 00:01:17.880 --> 00:01:21.860 and of course Cambridge University Press. 00:01:21.865 --> 00:01:31.245 What I'm going to talk about, I'll try to limit it to 40 minutes, although the slides probably, if I go through all of them, is going to take an hour. 00:01:31.245 --> 00:01:40.125 But I really would like to leave time for questions and comments and sharing of ideas from you. 00:01:40.125 --> 00:01:57.145 A bit of the background about myself, just very briefly, relevant to this symposium, is the fact that I have been involved in some of the policy implementations in Hong Kong. 00:01:57.145 --> 00:02:04.485 and I was sharing my experience with Peter and Isabel last night 00:02:04.485 --> 00:02:12.845 about the highly emotional sort of years 00:02:12.845 --> 00:02:18.725 in which Hong Kong switched from English medium instruction in schools 00:02:18.725 --> 00:02:21.605 to mother tongue education 00:02:21.605 --> 00:02:24.845 and what are some of the complexities involved. 00:02:24.845 --> 00:02:36.845 So I found the experience very enriching for myself and helped me to understand the complexities a lot more. 00:02:36.845 --> 00:02:43.725 I'm going to start off with a newspaper. 00:02:43.730 --> 00:02:50.730 something that I access on the web and this is an article that the New York Times 00:02:50.730 --> 00:02:57.730 published and it's written by the former president of Harvard University 00:02:57.730 --> 00:03:04.730 about how we should prepare American students for the future. 00:03:04.730 --> 00:03:10.730 And basically this is what New York Times highlighted it. 00:03:10.730 --> 00:03:13.730 English is global so why learn Arabic? 00:03:13.730 --> 00:03:18.730 And in this article, Lauren Summers said that 00:03:18.730 --> 00:03:21.730 international experience was essential, 00:03:21.730 --> 00:03:23.730 but English is global language, 00:03:23.730 --> 00:03:26.730 you've got all this translation going on, 00:03:26.730 --> 00:03:29.730 so why bother to learn a foreign language? 00:03:29.730 --> 00:03:34.730 This actually attracted immediately over 200 00:03:34.730 --> 00:03:37.730 very critical responses. 00:03:37.730 --> 00:03:39.730 And these are just some of the examples, 00:03:39.730 --> 00:03:44.030 and you can see that these are people from all walks of life. 00:03:44.030 --> 00:03:49.030 I'd like to share two excerpts with you. 00:03:49.030 --> 00:03:56.270 One I actually reproduced in the handout, in the paper, in your folder. 00:03:56.270 --> 00:03:59.190 And it says, what would Aristotle think? 00:03:59.190 --> 00:04:05.590 And of course, as we know, Aristotle's written about language and written about 00:04:05.595 --> 00:04:12.555 language and meaning and how in fact language is very much integral to the 00:04:12.555 --> 00:04:18.795 person and that it would be ridiculous to see language as something which is 00:04:18.795 --> 00:04:22.515 external which can be divorced from meaning from culture and from your 00:04:22.515 --> 00:04:31.355 identity so this is basically what he's described is very interesting about a 00:04:31.355 --> 00:04:36.355 a campus in Abu Dhabi, as it says in the second paragraph, 00:04:36.355 --> 00:04:39.355 where students, the Russian and the Chinese students, 00:04:39.355 --> 00:04:44.355 are taking chemistry from an Israeli professor. 00:04:44.355 --> 00:04:47.355 And then across the hall, you have Hungarian, Argentine, 00:04:47.355 --> 00:04:51.355 undergraduates taking math with a professor from France, 00:04:51.355 --> 00:04:55.355 and American, a Qatari student studying anthropology 00:04:55.355 --> 00:04:58.355 with a Latino professor. 00:04:58.355 --> 00:05:01.355 So what is happening here, and I think he's portrayed it very 00:05:01.355 --> 00:05:08.155 very well that students were switching effortlessly from one language to the other. 00:05:08.155 --> 00:05:17.695 And if you're looking not in the next five years, although it is, we are actually there already, 00:05:17.695 --> 00:05:24.655 but if you're looking ahead 20, 30 years down the road, this is not just happening in Abu Dhabi, 00:05:24.655 --> 00:05:27.455 it's happening everywhere in the world. 00:05:27.461 --> 00:05:34.941 And so this is what he is saying, is that Lawrence Summers would tell these students to get over it. 00:05:34.941 --> 00:05:40.861 A command of English and translation machines the size of an iPhone is all they need to succeed. 00:05:40.981 --> 00:05:45.481 And he says, Aristotle is turning in his grave. 00:05:47.441 --> 00:05:51.601 What he then, this is not the end of it, it's too long to reproduce it. 00:05:51.601 --> 00:05:57.901 But he ends his response with a following insightful remark, 00:05:58.041 --> 00:06:00.281 and I'll just quote one sentence there. 00:06:00.661 --> 00:06:06.001 He said, learning a foreign language is about a way of being in the world, 00:06:06.421 --> 00:06:09.001 not about getting the next deal done. 00:06:09.441 --> 00:06:12.601 And I think that is a very, very insightful remark, 00:06:13.381 --> 00:06:15.041 that it's about a way of being. 00:06:15.461 --> 00:06:19.081 A way of being is the way you see yourself, 00:06:19.081 --> 00:06:25.301 the way you relate yourself to the rest of the world is your perception on the rest of the world. 00:06:25.661 --> 00:06:33.581 And this is why in studies of bilingual education, it always talks about a broader outlook. 00:06:33.941 --> 00:06:36.541 It talks about intercultural understanding. 00:06:36.961 --> 00:06:40.821 It talks about intercultural respect as well. 00:06:41.241 --> 00:06:43.381 So that is very important. 00:06:43.381 --> 00:06:46.721 and here very briefly is from a headmaster. 00:06:46.721 --> 00:06:49.321 There are many principals in this room. 00:06:49.326 --> 00:06:52.666 and this is the headmaster of an international school 00:06:52.666 --> 00:06:56.566 who says getting by just isn't enough 00:06:56.566 --> 00:07:01.886 that if you think that 00:07:01.886 --> 00:07:07.366 you can only get by, you can get by by speaking English 00:07:07.366 --> 00:07:11.286 then you've actually missed out a lot 00:07:11.286 --> 00:07:16.406 you have missed out the opportunity of attaining a deeper 00:07:16.406 --> 00:07:18.646 and richer experience. 00:07:18.646 --> 00:07:23.006 And it says here, years of learning a language 00:07:23.006 --> 00:07:26.226 as well as the history and society of places 00:07:26.226 --> 00:07:29.766 where that language is spoken, develops 00:07:29.766 --> 00:07:33.326 a student with a truly multicultural outlook. 00:07:33.326 --> 00:07:37.386 Our global society is increasingly in need of individuals 00:07:37.386 --> 00:07:40.506 who look at issues with a broad perspective. 00:07:40.506 --> 00:07:44.346 And I thought the concluding remark was very good. Getting 00:07:44.346 --> 00:07:50.286 by with languages simply isn't good enough, would we apply the same kind of thinking to 00:07:50.286 --> 00:07:57.286 learning science and mathematics? Would we say that science and mathematics never mind, 00:07:57.286 --> 00:08:05.206 you know you just get by. Okay, so with that, what I'm going to do in this presentation 00:08:05.206 --> 00:08:11.186 is to look at the various models of 00:08:11.191 --> 00:08:13.751 bilingual education worldwide. 00:08:13.751 --> 00:08:18.391 Because more and more, we come to the realization 00:08:18.391 --> 00:08:23.391 that not only is it not sufficient to speak one language, 00:08:23.991 --> 00:08:27.671 it's not sufficient even to speak two languages. 00:08:27.671 --> 00:08:31.631 We're now talking about not just bilingual competence, 00:08:31.631 --> 00:08:34.751 we're talking about multilingual competence, 00:08:34.751 --> 00:08:39.751 or some people called it plural-lingual competence 00:08:39.751 --> 00:08:46.651 in the individual. So what I'd like to do is to say let us look at some of the 00:08:46.651 --> 00:08:54.391 commonly adopted models of immersion or bilingual education and look at what 00:08:54.391 --> 00:09:01.351 research tells us about the effectiveness of the implementation and 00:09:01.351 --> 00:09:07.051 then to ask ourselves why is it that some of these findings do not agree with 00:09:07.051 --> 00:09:13.051 with each other and why are there inconclusive and even conflicting findings? 00:09:13.051 --> 00:09:18.051 What are the mediating factors and what do we need to pay attention to 00:09:18.051 --> 00:09:26.051 if we want to try something out in our own country or in our own city, etc. 00:09:26.051 --> 00:09:31.051 I mean, I was talking to our Mongolian delegates at the table, 00:09:31.051 --> 00:09:33.051 they've just started it and it's very, very, 00:09:33.056 --> 00:09:39.596 very young and there are so many questions about what should we do what would be the 00:09:39.596 --> 00:09:47.816 way ahead and I hope that this presentation will give you some ideas and I'd like to welcome 00:09:47.816 --> 00:09:54.996 questions and suggestions from all of you. First of all the Canadian French immersion 00:09:54.996 --> 00:10:02.236 I think everybody is familiar with that so I'm just going to go very quickly down these 00:10:02.236 --> 00:10:06.676 bullet points the aim is additive bilingualism that is you do 00:10:06.676 --> 00:10:11.176 you handle both languages well one adds to the other and not subtraction 00:10:11.176 --> 00:10:14.196 and in many places we see 00:10:14.196 --> 00:10:17.996 students attaining one language and lose their mother tongue 00:10:17.996 --> 00:10:21.736 and this of course is a widespread concern 00:10:21.736 --> 00:10:24.816 in the USA and in Hong Kong 00:10:24.816 --> 00:10:29.236 I can see that happening and I believe in Singapore 00:10:29.236 --> 00:10:33.236 dare I say that this is probably also happening. 00:10:33.236 --> 00:10:36.436 And it's something that we're very concerned about. 00:10:36.436 --> 00:10:38.076 L2 is the medium. 00:10:38.076 --> 00:10:40.376 When we talk about immersion program, 00:10:40.376 --> 00:10:45.296 then you really talk about 50% or more for immersion. 00:10:45.296 --> 00:10:47.836 But of course, for bilingual education, 00:10:47.836 --> 00:10:49.676 there are different models. 00:10:49.676 --> 00:10:53.436 And this is not to say that unless you have 50%, 00:10:53.436 --> 00:10:54.916 then it's not going to work. 00:10:54.921 --> 00:10:57.161 I think it depends. 00:10:57.161 --> 00:11:01.561 The L2 curriculum parallels the L1 curriculum, 00:11:01.561 --> 00:11:04.421 and I'll come back to this point later on, 00:11:04.421 --> 00:11:07.841 that the teachers are bilingual, 00:11:09.061 --> 00:11:11.101 and L1 is the majority language. 00:11:11.101 --> 00:11:15.481 That is the students are able to speak the language 00:11:15.481 --> 00:11:18.881 outside of the, that the L1 of the students 00:11:18.881 --> 00:11:21.681 is the majority language that they do have exposure 00:11:21.681 --> 00:11:23.441 to in the community. 00:11:23.441 --> 00:11:29.681 was the characteristics which were outlined by Cummings, Jim Cummings and 00:11:29.681 --> 00:11:35.381 Meryl Swain when they did the started this immersion program but as we know 00:11:35.381 --> 00:11:41.501 that in the current model very often this is not always the case that the 00:11:41.501 --> 00:11:51.341 that the L1 of the student might be a minority language. So basically the 00:11:51.341 --> 00:11:56.641 models are, and those of you are familiar with these models, if you will bear with me, 00:11:56.641 --> 00:12:03.081 we have the early total immersion where it's the first three years from kindergarten to grade two. 00:12:03.081 --> 00:12:11.901 It's all in the target language, L2, and then as you progress, the amount of L1 increases 00:12:11.901 --> 00:12:16.781 and the amount of time, all the subjects in L2. 00:12:16.786 --> 00:12:21.946 decreases. That's the early total immersion. Early partial immersion as the 00:12:21.946 --> 00:12:30.746 name implies that from the very beginning is half-half. Then what you see, you see 00:12:30.746 --> 00:12:36.766 the movable bars there, it shows that the variation in the percentage of the 00:12:36.766 --> 00:12:43.246 immersion. The middle immersion is when it happens in grade 4 and there are 00:12:43.246 --> 00:12:52.606 certain bits where the L1 is still there but for the most part is L2 and in some cases you have the two year late 00:12:52.606 --> 00:13:07.246 immersion where you have the immersion for the first two years of secondary education which is grades 7 and 8 00:13:07.246 --> 00:13:12.246 and then you start increasing the amount of L1 instruction. 00:13:12.246 --> 00:13:22.246 In places like Europe, for example, where there is a concern for students acquiring more than two languages, 00:13:22.246 --> 00:13:26.246 you actually get double immersion, that is you have three languages. 00:13:26.246 --> 00:13:31.246 But this kind of model is still relatively few. 00:13:31.246 --> 00:13:38.646 Then in the United States they have this 00:13:38.651 --> 00:13:44.651 the variation of the Canadian model is a two-way immersion program 00:13:44.651 --> 00:13:48.631 and typically it started off with Spanish and English 00:13:48.631 --> 00:13:53.631 as you know because of the large number of Latinos 00:13:53.631 --> 00:13:57.191 Spanish being the mother tongue 00:13:57.191 --> 00:14:00.031 so they have what they call the two-way immersion 00:14:00.031 --> 00:14:08.031 but what this is saying is that this model addresses the concern 00:14:08.031 --> 00:14:15.411 that Latino children, when they go into the English mainstream schools, lose their mother tongue. 00:14:15.831 --> 00:14:20.011 And so in order to retain the mother tongue, they have this two-way immersion. 00:14:20.211 --> 00:14:28.211 And typically, the aim is for bilingual and biliterate competence. 00:14:28.931 --> 00:14:33.291 They also want the students not to suffer in their academic achievement, 00:14:33.771 --> 00:14:36.731 and they should also develop cross-cultural competence. 00:14:36.731 --> 00:14:47.731 and they have roughly equal number of students in both languages in the same classroom and the instruction is done through both languages 00:14:47.731 --> 00:15:00.511 that's why they call it two-way. But in the last 10 years with the rise of Asia and particularly China you see more and more Chinese English two-way programs 00:15:00.517 --> 00:15:05.517 have Korean English and Japanese English as well. 00:15:05.517 --> 00:15:15.517 So that's just a diagrammatic representation of the Chinese English two-way immersion. 00:15:15.517 --> 00:15:28.517 In Hong Kong, the model that's adopted is late immersion, where the L2 immersion starts at grade 7. 00:15:28.517 --> 00:15:36.717 In primary schools English is taught as a subject and then is adopted as a medium of instruction. 00:15:36.717 --> 00:15:47.217 But of course that in 1997 after the handover, three-quarters of the schools were required to teach through the medium of Chinese. 00:15:47.217 --> 00:15:57.517 And it's from secondary one to secondary three, then from secondary four onwards which is grades 10 to 12. 00:15:57.517 --> 00:16:07.057 It's really up to the schools. So some schools opted to have what is called late, late partial immersion. 00:16:07.057 --> 00:16:15.677 That is that when they get to forms 4 to 7, some of the subjects are taught in English 00:16:15.677 --> 00:16:22.377 and some of the subjects are taught in Chinese. And of course there were a lot of 00:16:22.382 --> 00:16:27.982 resistance and objections from the community about mother tongue education 00:16:27.982 --> 00:16:32.542 and the government has introduced what they call fine-tuning 00:16:32.542 --> 00:16:36.782 the mother tongue education model 00:16:36.782 --> 00:16:43.222 and has given a lot of flexibilities to schools 00:16:43.222 --> 00:16:51.302 In Europe, as Peter introduced, the form of bilingual education is content and language 00:16:51.302 --> 00:16:58.302 integrated learning CLIL where is the teaching of content through the target language 00:16:58.302 --> 00:17:04.302 and Peter is an expert in this area so if you have anything about CLIL ask him 00:17:04.302 --> 00:17:14.302 okay and roughly now it's about 30 to 40 percent of the primary and secondary students in Europe receive CLIL tuition 00:17:14.302 --> 00:17:20.302 and the CLIL teachers some of them are subject teachers and some of them are language teachers 00:17:20.302 --> 00:17:23.302 and sometimes they collaborate. 00:17:23.302 --> 00:17:31.042 Okay? And the subjects adopting CLIL, they have put them into three subject groups. 00:17:31.042 --> 00:17:38.662 One is the science group, which is biology, physics, and what have you, the usual science subjects. 00:17:38.662 --> 00:17:44.242 And then they have the humanity subjects, and then the creative art subjects. 00:17:44.247 --> 00:17:48.527 But a quick survey of what schools are doing in Europe 00:17:48.527 --> 00:17:53.527 shows that most of them tend to use CLIL, English, 00:17:55.367 --> 00:17:57.727 which is a foreign language, 00:17:57.727 --> 00:18:02.367 which is mostly English in natural science and social sciences. 00:18:02.367 --> 00:18:05.007 The lesson time is not stipulated, 00:18:07.127 --> 00:18:10.047 but it can range from 10%, 20%, 00:18:10.047 --> 00:18:15.047 20% to a kid can be as high as 50% or two-thirds of the time. 00:18:15.047 --> 00:18:21.047 So what are the concerns of immersion and CLU programs? 00:18:21.047 --> 00:18:28.047 Number one is what is the impact of L2 immersion on first language, on the mother tongue? 00:18:28.047 --> 00:18:33.047 What is the impact of L2 immersion on academic achievement? 00:18:33.047 --> 00:18:41.167 Are they learning as well, as competently as students who are educated through their mother tongue? 00:18:41.607 --> 00:18:47.007 What is the effectiveness of L2 immersion in developing L2 proficiency? 00:18:47.767 --> 00:18:53.047 Then, of course, apart from these educational concerns, in the larger community, 00:18:53.667 --> 00:18:58.627 there is a concern about cultural identity, about national identity, 00:18:58.627 --> 00:19:06.107 and how whether the use of a foreign language is going to erode or undermine 00:19:06.112 --> 00:19:09.172 cultural and national identity. 00:19:09.172 --> 00:19:13.432 And this is very much the concern in Japan and in Korea. 00:19:13.432 --> 00:19:17.332 When English was introduced, initially when it was 00:19:17.332 --> 00:19:20.292 introduced earlier into primary education, 00:19:20.292 --> 00:19:23.112 there was already serious concern. 00:19:23.112 --> 00:19:26.452 When it was suggested that English should be adopted 00:19:26.452 --> 00:19:30.732 as the medium of instruction, there were some very, 00:19:30.732 --> 00:19:33.152 very emotional responses to that. 00:19:33.152 --> 00:19:38.152 and Peter was talking about issues like that in his presentation 00:19:38.152 --> 00:19:45.152 about not divorcing these issues from the classroom 00:19:45.152 --> 00:19:49.152 because they do have an impact on students' attitude 00:19:49.152 --> 00:19:58.152 and on the ways in which immersion programs are being managed 00:19:58.152 --> 00:20:01.352 and in fact Hong Kong is a classic case 00:20:01.352 --> 00:20:07.352 where it's a highly politicized issue. 00:20:09.352 --> 00:20:11.352 What does research tell us? 00:20:11.352 --> 00:20:16.652 The Canadian experience is probably known to a lot of us 00:20:16.652 --> 00:20:19.452 that it says that the most effective model 00:20:19.452 --> 00:20:21.852 is in early total immersion. 00:20:21.852 --> 00:20:27.972 That the students who started very early on in total immersion, 00:20:27.977 --> 00:20:32.157 developed a very high level of proficiency in French 00:20:32.157 --> 00:20:34.777 and they are actually able 00:20:34.777 --> 00:20:37.117 or they were found to be able 00:20:37.117 --> 00:20:40.057 to catch up their English proficiency 00:20:40.057 --> 00:20:42.877 very soon after English was introduced 00:20:42.877 --> 00:20:44.257 in the later years. 00:20:44.377 --> 00:20:45.837 If you remember the model 00:20:45.837 --> 00:20:47.957 that in starting from grade three, 00:20:48.397 --> 00:20:50.677 the amount of L1 increased 00:20:50.677 --> 00:20:54.157 and they were saying as soon as that happened, 00:20:54.157 --> 00:20:57.397 they were able to catch up quite quickly 00:20:57.397 --> 00:21:10.277 And the students developed near-native proficiency in receptive skills, but they lacked behind in productive skills, especially in grammatical accuracy. 00:21:10.877 --> 00:21:13.317 That was in the later research. 00:21:13.417 --> 00:21:25.317 In the earlier research, the focus was very much on oral proficiency and the receptive, not on oral proficiency, sorry, it's on the receptive skills, on listening and reading. 00:21:25.317 --> 00:21:31.757 but as it progressed they found that in fact there were problems with productive skills 00:21:31.757 --> 00:21:34.757 and I'll come back to that in a moment. 00:21:34.757 --> 00:21:38.257 What does the US experience tell us? 00:21:38.257 --> 00:21:44.677 That for the two-way immersion, Lin Tom Leary conducted a study and I've specifically chosen 00:21:44.677 --> 00:21:49.837 their Chinese-English programs for illustration here because these 00:21:49.842 --> 00:21:53.442 These are two very different languages. 00:21:53.442 --> 00:21:55.242 And how did that work? 00:21:55.242 --> 00:22:03.242 So what the study was done on two schools, one adopting, in one school and I referred 00:22:03.242 --> 00:22:11.042 to that as, or she referred to that as, it was referred to as Program 1, that the students 00:22:11.042 --> 00:22:14.602 came from average to low income families. 00:22:14.602 --> 00:22:22.462 about 25% of the students were from low-income families and about 50% of 00:22:22.462 --> 00:22:28.402 the teachers of college degrees. Whereas the second one, the students are mostly 00:22:28.402 --> 00:22:34.402 from middle-class high-income families. You see the issue about how important 00:22:34.402 --> 00:22:40.222 socioeconomic status is comes in here and and that's why it was particularly 00:22:40.222 --> 00:22:44.782 designed that way and most of the parents have college degrees and the 00:22:44.782 --> 00:22:51.502 findings show that in both programs the students attain intermediate to 00:22:51.502 --> 00:22:56.982 high levels of proficiency in both languages and were able to use the four 00:22:56.982 --> 00:23:03.782 language skills in a variety of contexts so the research was saying that 00:23:03.782 --> 00:23:11.702 that it seemed that the program works for students from different socioeconomic backgrounds 00:23:11.707 --> 00:23:18.787 but what is very interesting is that the students in the Chinese program TWI 00:23:18.787 --> 00:23:28.707 programs consistently achieved either at the same level of their non-TWI non 00:23:28.707 --> 00:23:34.707 immersion peers in the same in the same school or well above the state grade 00:23:34.707 --> 00:23:41.707 level of their non-TWI counterparts in reading and math. 00:23:42.667 --> 00:23:49.587 So in the same school, they are on a par, but at the state grade level, they are well above. 00:23:50.127 --> 00:23:51.707 That's the US experience. 00:23:53.467 --> 00:23:57.507 The Hong Kong experience tells a very different story. 00:23:57.507 --> 00:24:09.847 and this is an often cited piece of research conducted by Herbert Marsh and Hao at the Chinese University. 00:24:10.707 --> 00:24:18.147 It was often cited because it was a large scale study of 56 schools and 12,000 students 00:24:18.147 --> 00:24:25.787 and these schools and students were selected by government as a representative sample 00:24:25.787 --> 00:24:29.287 and it is truly representative. 00:24:29.287 --> 00:24:33.567 So they compare the students' academic achievement in English 00:24:33.573 --> 00:24:38.253 Chinese and then four content subjects, math, science, history and geography. 00:24:39.773 --> 00:24:47.773 And the tests were standardized and the achievement tests were actually designed by specialists 00:24:47.773 --> 00:24:56.733 in the subject. So I think it's quite rigorously designed. What they found was that the positive 00:24:56.733 --> 00:25:03.733 effect of English immersion on the students' achievement in Chinese and English, particularly 00:25:03.733 --> 00:25:10.053 the latter. What is very interesting here is the positive effect of English immersion 00:25:10.053 --> 00:25:19.053 on Chinese. Then there is slightly negative effect on math, but very negative effect on 00:25:19.053 --> 00:25:22.053 on geography, history, and science. 00:25:28.053 --> 00:25:32.053 And the impact is equally negative, 00:25:32.053 --> 00:25:38.053 irrespective of whether the students were initially more able or less able. 00:25:38.053 --> 00:25:44.053 Because in Hong Kong, the schools at the time when the research was conducted 00:25:44.053 --> 00:25:48.053 was categorized into five bands. 00:25:48.053 --> 00:25:55.433 And the English medium students were in band one, these are the top students, okay? 00:25:55.438 --> 00:26:02.438 and then a lot of the Chinese medium students were in the other bands. 00:26:02.438 --> 00:26:11.438 But the negative effect on students was irrespective of their academic ability. 00:26:11.438 --> 00:26:22.438 However, students who had higher English proficiency initially were less disadvantaged in geography, history and science. 00:26:22.438 --> 00:26:27.678 The next point is interesting, the strong emphasis on English in English classes 00:26:27.678 --> 00:26:32.198 had a positive effect on achievement in all six subjects. 00:26:33.398 --> 00:26:38.158 And for history, the negative effect decreased somewhat, 00:26:38.158 --> 00:26:43.558 for science it decreased somewhat as well but to a lesser extent, 00:26:43.558 --> 00:26:47.278 but it did not decrease for math and geography. 00:26:48.278 --> 00:26:51.278 Okay, so that's the Hong Kong experience. 00:26:52.438 --> 00:26:57.438 So let's come to the Chinese experience. 00:26:57.438 --> 00:27:01.438 This is the China-Canadian-US English immersion, 00:27:01.438 --> 00:27:06.438 which began to take off in about 1997, 00:27:06.438 --> 00:27:08.438 started in Xi'an. 00:27:08.438 --> 00:27:11.438 And now there are about 50 schools like that 00:27:11.438 --> 00:27:15.438 in the major cities, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Xi'an, 00:27:15.438 --> 00:27:17.298 and about 30,000 schools. 00:27:17.303 --> 00:27:27.443 students. I'm citing a study conducted by Chang Ayal in 2010 involving three 00:27:27.443 --> 00:27:36.623 schools with nearly a thousand students from grades 2, 4 and 6. About 600 students 00:27:36.623 --> 00:27:44.063 in immersion and about 380 in non-immersion classes. An English medium 00:27:44.063 --> 00:27:52.763 is used for English arts, social studies and science, but math was taught in Chinese. 00:27:52.763 --> 00:27:58.403 And they took school-based tests and the Cambridge Young Learners English tests. 00:27:58.403 --> 00:28:04.263 So Isabel should be quite happy about using that as a measure. 00:28:04.263 --> 00:28:11.423 The findings show that the immersion students did better in all three grades, grades 2, 4 00:28:11.423 --> 00:28:13.463 and 6. 00:28:13.463 --> 00:28:21.303 For math and Chinese, the immersion students did better only in grade 6. 00:28:21.303 --> 00:28:26.703 And for math, the immersion students did... 00:28:26.703 --> 00:28:34.023 sorry, this is a mistake, the non-immersion students did better in grade 4. 00:28:34.023 --> 00:28:39.163 Okay, and this is quite interesting. And what the researchers said 00:28:39.168 --> 00:28:46.968 could not quite understand why the immersion students did better only in 00:28:46.968 --> 00:28:54.468 grade 6 but not in grade 4 what is happening there something is going on in 00:28:54.468 --> 00:29:01.668 grade 4 and whether that has got to do with a developmental issue okay but the 00:29:01.668 --> 00:29:10.628 The findings of Chang'e-gau seem to converge more with the general immersion study. 00:29:10.628 --> 00:29:16.068 It seems that the Hong Kong experience was the one that really stood out. 00:29:17.628 --> 00:29:22.228 So why are there such conflicting research findings? 00:29:22.228 --> 00:29:45.528 First of all, despite these conflicting findings, one positive outcome of all these studies is that the students in immersion programs are able to achieve a higher level of proficiency in both L1 and L2, compared to their counterparts in non-immersion programs. 00:29:45.528 --> 00:29:50.528 What this suggests is that the bilingual child has developed 00:29:50.528 --> 00:29:54.868 greater sensitivity to language and may have a more flexible mind 00:29:54.868 --> 00:29:56.868 compared to a monolingual child. 00:29:56.868 --> 00:30:01.028 Just now in Peter's session there was a question about 00:30:01.033 --> 00:30:08.033 cognitive flexibility of kids and in fact there have been quite a lot of research done 00:30:08.373 --> 00:30:13.753 comparing bilingual children, young children, non-bilingual young children and they were 00:30:13.753 --> 00:30:21.753 asked to carry out various cognitive tasks like manipulation of objects and being able 00:30:21.753 --> 00:30:26.853 to spot differences in shapes and so forth and it showed that the bilingual child was 00:30:26.853 --> 00:30:32.193 much cognitively more advanced and this is actually not surprising because if 00:30:32.193 --> 00:30:38.313 you think about a child a monolingual child compared to a bilingual child and 00:30:38.313 --> 00:30:46.093 if you give them even as they are learning at word level there are 00:30:46.093 --> 00:30:51.933 certain words in English where you don't have an equivalent in Chinese and you 00:30:51.933 --> 00:30:55.833 have a Chinese word which doesn't have an equivalent and the meaning is a bit 00:30:55.833 --> 00:31:06.373 different and initially children would see them as the same but as they grow older they begin to make finer and finer differentiation. 00:31:06.373 --> 00:31:22.893 Let me give you an example, a very interesting example of a primary classroom when the students were talking about a sort of an Asian Greek story and the students had to 00:31:22.898 --> 00:31:26.398 and write the ending of a story. 00:31:26.398 --> 00:31:38.998 And they said, what is going to happen to this lady who was sort of tricked by the bad god? 00:31:38.998 --> 00:31:41.098 What is going to happen in the end? 00:31:41.098 --> 00:31:49.498 So they said, she was able to get a new life and she was able to grow plants. 00:31:49.498 --> 00:31:52.298 And they have to decide what they grow. 00:31:52.298 --> 00:31:55.238 They said, oh, they will grow rice. 00:31:56.378 --> 00:31:58.018 They will grow fruit. 00:31:58.338 --> 00:32:01.578 And one child said, no, they don't grow rice. 00:32:02.238 --> 00:32:03.238 They don't grow rice. 00:32:03.238 --> 00:32:06.198 They don't eat rice in that country. 00:32:06.938 --> 00:32:11.418 And so they said, yes, they grow noodles. 00:32:12.598 --> 00:32:16.198 But you know what the child was thinking? 00:32:16.658 --> 00:32:18.258 He was thinking about spaghetti. 00:32:19.138 --> 00:32:20.898 But he doesn't know the word. 00:32:20.898 --> 00:32:27.798 it's there in the mind but the word was noodles and another child said no no no 00:32:27.798 --> 00:32:36.738 I know what fries they eat fries it's french fries okay so you can see that 00:32:36.738 --> 00:32:41.958 the range the way they make differentiation of things that they eat 00:32:41.958 --> 00:32:44.758 and the whole classroom discourse was full 00:32:44.763 --> 00:32:47.363 of examples like that. 00:32:47.363 --> 00:32:51.663 So that's just an illustration. 00:32:51.663 --> 00:33:00.103 However, what we see here is that 00:33:00.103 --> 00:33:05.923 the Jim Cummings in 1998 article 00:33:05.923 --> 00:33:09.163 revealed 30 years of L2 immersion 00:33:09.163 --> 00:33:11.163 and he drew the following conclusion. 00:33:11.163 --> 00:33:14.163 He said the development of additive bilingual 00:33:14.163 --> 00:33:21.443 biliteracy skills entails no negative consequences for children's academic, linguistic, or intellectual 00:33:21.443 --> 00:33:28.243 development. On the contrary, although not conclusive, the evidence points in the direction 00:33:28.243 --> 00:33:33.923 of subtle metalinguistic, academic, and intellectual benefits for bilingual children. 00:33:34.703 --> 00:33:41.303 Okay, I'd like to put a question mark there on this conclusion, and I'm saying, is that too much 00:33:41.303 --> 00:33:44.203 of a sweeping generalization here. 00:33:44.203 --> 00:33:48.503 If we look at the research findings that I shared with you, 00:33:48.503 --> 00:33:53.243 then probably drawing that sort of conclusion 00:33:53.243 --> 00:33:56.843 is something that you might want to take with caution. 00:33:56.843 --> 00:34:03.763 The reason why, I'm not sort of disagreeing with that, 00:34:03.763 --> 00:34:06.623 I just, I'm suggesting 00:34:06.629 --> 00:34:11.629 that before we draw that conclusion in interpreting these results, 00:34:11.629 --> 00:34:18.629 we should have some explanation of why there are these conflicting findings. 00:34:18.629 --> 00:34:24.629 First of all, I'd like to suggest, because it really depends on the focus of the study, 00:34:24.629 --> 00:34:28.629 of what is the goal of that research. 00:34:28.629 --> 00:34:33.629 A lot of the earlier research focused on bilingual achievement. 00:34:33.629 --> 00:34:41.629 So there's a lot about L1 and L2 and we have seen that as far as bilingual achievement is concerned, yes. 00:34:41.629 --> 00:34:48.629 But when it gets to academic development, then all sorts of other things come into play. 00:34:48.629 --> 00:34:55.629 About learning science, learning mathematics, a lot of the studies also focus on math. 00:34:55.629 --> 00:35:05.189 But as you can see, math very often has got a lot to do with symbolic manipulation, 00:35:05.189 --> 00:35:12.429 which is probably less dependent on language than subjects like history or social sciences. 00:35:12.429 --> 00:35:19.629 Which is what I'm saying in the second point, that it's language-heavy subjects. 00:35:19.629 --> 00:35:22.629 I wouldn't say that math is independent of language. 00:35:22.629 --> 00:35:26.629 I would say that it's less language heavy. 00:35:26.629 --> 00:35:28.489 So I would want to say 00:35:28.494 --> 00:35:33.494 I would suggest that these are the mediating factors in implementation. 00:35:33.494 --> 00:35:38.494 First of all, it's age 4 in immersion and the stage of learning. 00:35:38.494 --> 00:35:41.494 That makes quite a bit of difference. 00:35:41.494 --> 00:35:47.494 Is it early, like starting from kindergarten, or is it late immersion? 00:35:47.494 --> 00:35:52.494 The reason being that if you start very young, 00:35:52.494 --> 00:35:59.494 young children in the kind of learning that they're involved in 00:35:59.494 --> 00:36:02.494 very often deals with very concrete objects 00:36:02.494 --> 00:36:05.494 they deal with everyday interaction 00:36:05.494 --> 00:36:08.494 and there's a lot of redundancy in the environment 00:36:08.494 --> 00:36:12.494 and there's a lot of visual aids and objects 00:36:12.494 --> 00:36:15.494 which will help them to acquire the language 00:36:15.494 --> 00:36:18.494 and the kind of language that they have acquired 00:36:18.494 --> 00:36:22.434 would mostly be what Jim Cummings would call 00:36:22.434 --> 00:36:25.454 the basic interpersonal communication skills 00:36:25.454 --> 00:36:28.594 I think a lot of you are familiar with. 00:36:29.134 --> 00:36:34.474 So it's relatively easy for them to pick that up. 00:36:34.994 --> 00:36:37.374 But when you get to secondary education, 00:36:37.814 --> 00:36:40.194 I mean, the fact that there is this division 00:36:40.194 --> 00:36:43.434 between primary and secondary, which is worldwide, 00:36:43.774 --> 00:36:44.814 has a reason for it. 00:36:44.814 --> 00:36:46.394 There is a reason for doing that 00:36:46.394 --> 00:36:50.354 because as you move to secondary education, 00:36:50.359 --> 00:36:54.059 the concepts, your learning becomes more abstract 00:36:54.059 --> 00:36:56.659 it becomes more decontextualized 00:36:56.659 --> 00:37:03.659 and the demand on the students to grapple with these concepts 00:37:03.659 --> 00:37:05.859 becomes far more demanding 00:37:05.859 --> 00:37:11.859 so if we were again, I was talking to some of our friends here 00:37:11.859 --> 00:37:16.759 saying that can you actually start using a target language 00:37:16.759 --> 00:37:21.759 to learn in secondary schools with no previous learning of the target language. 00:37:21.759 --> 00:37:24.759 Now that gets very, very difficult. 00:37:24.759 --> 00:37:30.759 The amount of curriculum time and duration, for example, 00:37:30.759 --> 00:37:36.759 is it just sufficient to have 10%, 20% or is it, 00:37:36.759 --> 00:37:39.759 later on in an example that I will show you, 00:37:39.759 --> 00:37:42.759 that in fact if the duration is very short, 00:37:42.759 --> 00:37:45.759 then it actually undermines the effectiveness. 00:37:45.759 --> 00:37:48.759 What are the students' initial L2 proficiency, 00:37:48.759 --> 00:37:52.099 which I mentioned just now, parental support. 00:37:52.099 --> 00:37:55.599 Teachers' L2 proficiency and language awareness, 00:37:55.599 --> 00:37:57.499 absolutely important. 00:37:57.499 --> 00:38:00.599 And the teachers' explicit attention to language 00:38:00.599 --> 00:38:02.919 in English and content teaching. 00:38:02.919 --> 00:38:04.679 I'm very conscious of the time, 00:38:04.679 --> 00:38:07.079 so I'm going to run through this very quickly 00:38:07.079 --> 00:38:12.219 because I think the teachers' language awareness 00:38:12.224 --> 00:38:15.084 and focus on languages, it's very important. 00:38:19.104 --> 00:38:21.144 I'd just like to give an example. 00:38:21.424 --> 00:38:24.044 I've got that spelled out in my paper, 00:38:24.044 --> 00:38:25.964 but in the interest of time, 00:38:26.104 --> 00:38:28.924 I'm going to just briefly mention this. 00:38:29.104 --> 00:38:31.864 This is talking about the teaching of science. 00:38:33.324 --> 00:38:39.284 A PhD student of mine did a study 00:38:39.284 --> 00:38:42.284 on the teaching of science by science teachers 00:38:42.284 --> 00:38:46.204 who are language aware and not language aware. 00:38:46.724 --> 00:38:50.204 The language aware teachers are those who do understand 00:38:50.204 --> 00:38:53.984 what it takes in order to help students 00:38:53.984 --> 00:38:58.304 to construct scientific knowledge in English. 00:38:58.304 --> 00:39:03.484 And the issue about, he was looking at grammatical metaphors, 00:39:03.964 --> 00:39:07.264 but grammatical metaphor is a concept proposed by Halliday 00:39:07.264 --> 00:39:12.064 which talks about how in scientific English 00:39:12.064 --> 00:39:16.804 there is a process going on in which one grammatical class 00:39:16.804 --> 00:39:20.204 is substituted by another grammatical class. 00:39:20.204 --> 00:39:23.304 And what he's talking about is nominalization, 00:39:23.304 --> 00:39:25.224 which is noun phrases. 00:39:25.224 --> 00:39:34.084 So typically, scientific language has got a very heavy use of noun phrases. 00:39:34.089 --> 00:39:43.089 So what we're trying to do, those of you who teach science through a second language will know 00:39:43.089 --> 00:39:48.089 that students have terrible problems and they tend to memorize and not learn. 00:39:48.089 --> 00:39:57.089 And that is because the language of science has not been unpacked properly for the students. 00:39:57.089 --> 00:40:15.089 So for example, the process in everyday English, a scientific process is represented by a clause 00:40:15.089 --> 00:40:24.089 with subject-verb, object and so forth. But in scientific English, it's collapsed into a noun phrase. 00:40:24.089 --> 00:40:30.129 So what is needed then is for the teacher to unpack that. 00:40:30.129 --> 00:40:34.029 And let me give you an example of how this was deconstructed. 00:40:34.029 --> 00:40:38.629 So this secondary 2 teacher was stealing neutralization. 00:40:38.629 --> 00:40:46.329 And the book says neutralization is a process by which an acid is added to an alkali until it becomes neutral or vice versa. 00:40:46.509 --> 00:40:48.009 The products are salt and water. 00:40:48.389 --> 00:40:50.429 So that's the definition of neutralization. 00:40:50.809 --> 00:40:51.889 What do students do? 00:40:51.889 --> 00:40:55.949 If they actually do not understand it, 00:40:55.954 --> 00:41:00.514 memorize and that's why there's a lot of learning. But this very effective 00:41:00.514 --> 00:41:05.614 teacher, what he did was that first of all he tried to unpack it. Neutralization is 00:41:05.614 --> 00:41:11.134 a process. What is this process? Acid neutralizes an alkali. Okay, that's a 00:41:11.134 --> 00:41:17.274 clause and you see that the verb, the action verb is actually embedded there 00:41:17.274 --> 00:41:22.954 or vice versa. Acid is added to an alkali until it becomes neutral. Then the 00:41:22.954 --> 00:41:26.794 The next step is what is an acid, what is an alkali? 00:41:26.794 --> 00:41:29.494 What is a process? 00:41:29.494 --> 00:41:32.294 The I-O-N indicates a process. 00:41:32.294 --> 00:41:37.094 So a process, you don't use a verb, you turn it into a noun. 00:41:37.094 --> 00:41:40.314 And then what does neutral mean? 00:41:40.314 --> 00:41:45.114 You neutralize active voice or neutralize by. 00:41:45.114 --> 00:41:46.414 What is the salt? 00:41:46.414 --> 00:41:48.214 What does pH value mean? 00:41:48.214 --> 00:41:52.954 How does adding acid to alkali or vice versa result in salt and water? 00:41:52.954 --> 00:41:55.194 Do you see what I'm saying here? 00:41:55.194 --> 00:41:57.894 So it's unpacking that. 00:41:57.894 --> 00:42:01.694 Then for scientific English, what happens is that 00:42:01.694 --> 00:42:05.094 you then turn a process into a thing. 00:42:05.094 --> 00:42:09.714 Once you turn it into a thing, you can say a lot about this thing. 00:42:09.714 --> 00:42:13.814 So for example, neutralization is exothermic. 00:42:15.914 --> 00:42:17.814 This is a Form 2 student. 00:42:17.819 --> 00:42:19.519 Now what does that mean? 00:42:19.519 --> 00:42:22.119 Then you have to unpack exothermic. 00:42:22.119 --> 00:42:24.719 So neutralization is no longer a process, 00:42:24.719 --> 00:42:26.119 it becomes a thing, 00:42:26.119 --> 00:42:29.019 a thing that you can say a lot of things about. 00:42:29.019 --> 00:42:29.819 Okay? 00:42:29.819 --> 00:42:35.819 So this is an illustration of how important it is it 00:42:35.819 --> 00:42:41.819 for teachers to be able to focus on the language 00:42:41.819 --> 00:42:45.619 which is specific to that subject discipline. 00:42:45.619 --> 00:42:52.899 and in order to help students you have to be able to provide that kind of linguistic scaffolding 00:42:52.899 --> 00:43:01.779 in order to help students learn. I'm going to skip this because of the time. What is happening here 00:43:02.419 --> 00:43:10.899 and which I highlight as the neglected aspect of the L2 curriculum is that in the L2 curriculum 00:43:10.899 --> 00:43:16.499 typically in schools focused a lot on everyday knowledge 00:43:16.499 --> 00:43:20.539 and there's very little on educational knowledge. 00:43:20.539 --> 00:43:26.239 So you see a gap between the English that they are learning, 00:43:26.239 --> 00:43:31.059 maybe eight classes, eight lessons, ten lessons in a week, 00:43:31.059 --> 00:43:34.259 which is about a third, and the rest of them, 00:43:34.259 --> 00:43:36.499 they have to use English to learn science, 00:43:36.499 --> 00:43:39.679 science, mathematics, geography, what have you. 00:43:39.685 --> 00:43:47.725 but the English curriculum or the L2 curriculum is not supporting the subject curriculum. 00:43:48.785 --> 00:43:56.485 And this raises a question of how the L2 curriculum must be reviewed and redesigned 00:43:56.485 --> 00:44:00.905 in order to support the teachers, the students. 00:44:01.965 --> 00:44:06.125 Another point I'd like to make here which emerged from these findings 00:44:06.125 --> 00:44:12.965 is that there's very little study on the quality of teaching in immersion and 00:44:12.965 --> 00:44:19.085 the impact on student learning. Okay, there's a missing link there but what we 00:44:19.085 --> 00:44:26.585 found in my own research and my PhD students research show that very often 00:44:26.585 --> 00:44:35.585 L2 is simplified to the extent that the cognitive challenge is reduced and in 00:44:35.585 --> 00:44:43.085 In fact, Cummings made exactly the same observation for French immersion programs 00:44:43.085 --> 00:44:49.825 where there's a very high drop-off rate because the teaching was poor, 00:44:49.825 --> 00:44:53.445 because it was not cognitively challenging. 00:44:53.445 --> 00:45:01.545 There's a lot of teacher talk and the teacher, in order to get an answer from the student, 00:45:01.550 --> 00:45:04.510 will ask a lot of closed questions. 00:45:04.510 --> 00:45:06.150 We all have that experience. 00:45:06.150 --> 00:45:09.190 You ask a question, an open question, 00:45:09.190 --> 00:45:10.430 there is no response. 00:45:10.430 --> 00:45:11.550 What do you do? 00:45:11.550 --> 00:45:13.550 You change it to a closed question. 00:45:13.550 --> 00:45:17.390 You change a why question to a what question. 00:45:17.390 --> 00:45:19.150 You still don't get a response. 00:45:19.150 --> 00:45:20.830 What do you do? 00:45:20.830 --> 00:45:22.830 What do you do? 00:45:22.830 --> 00:45:25.870 You ask a yes, no question. 00:45:25.870 --> 00:45:28.590 And the student either said yes or no. 00:45:28.590 --> 00:45:33.130 And the teacher said, at least I'm getting some response from the students. 00:45:33.130 --> 00:45:35.270 Okay, it's either yes or no. 00:45:35.710 --> 00:45:40.650 But my own analysis of what is happening there 00:45:40.650 --> 00:45:45.110 is you see that the cognitive challenge becomes a reasoning question, 00:45:45.310 --> 00:45:50.110 becomes a factual question, then it becomes a choice question. 00:45:50.950 --> 00:45:53.890 And it's not challenging anymore for the students. 00:45:54.330 --> 00:45:56.930 And this is an opportunity lost. 00:45:56.930 --> 00:46:03.270 So this kind of learning encourages reproduction 00:46:03.270 --> 00:46:07.870 rather than learning for understanding. 00:46:07.870 --> 00:46:10.570 I'd like to conclude this presentation, 00:46:10.570 --> 00:46:13.890 and I'm sorry I've overrun a bit already, 00:46:13.890 --> 00:46:20.690 that what I'm saying here is that the outcomes of bilingual programs 00:46:20.690 --> 00:46:23.410 are mediated by a number of factors, 00:46:23.415 --> 00:46:29.175 including but not restricted to students L1, L2 abilities and their stage of learning, 00:46:29.175 --> 00:46:35.335 the language and content teachers L2 competence and language awareness, the mutual support 00:46:35.335 --> 00:46:41.195 between the L2 curriculum and the content curricula, the language support in the learning 00:46:41.195 --> 00:46:45.575 environment inside and outside of the classroom. 00:46:45.575 --> 00:46:51.695 And I'd like to say that it's very important to review critically the mediating factors 00:46:51.695 --> 00:46:55.155 in the local context in implementation. 00:46:55.155 --> 00:46:58.815 There should be flexibility in implementation 00:46:58.815 --> 00:47:01.095 and that teachers must be empowered 00:47:01.095 --> 00:47:02.975 to exercise their judgment 00:47:02.975 --> 00:47:05.935 because really teachers know best 00:47:05.935 --> 00:47:08.715 teachers know best what happens on the ground 00:47:08.715 --> 00:47:11.035 and what works best for their students. 00:47:11.035 --> 00:47:14.775 I think the worst thing to happen is to say 00:47:14.775 --> 00:47:16.555 well this is the requirement 00:47:16.555 --> 00:47:18.815 and you have to follow the requirement 00:47:18.815 --> 00:47:23.815 without allowing room for teachers to experiment 00:47:23.855 --> 00:47:25.995 and try out what they think would work best 00:47:25.995 --> 00:47:26.995 for their students. 00:47:26.995 --> 00:47:27.995 Thank you.