Key Concepts and Theories Origins of Monolingual Principle

Teachers’ Attitudes

Research on classroom language policies and practices in CSL classrooms has only just started with the recent proliferation of CSL programmes. Wang (2015) provided a historical account of the development of classroom language policies since the establishment of CSL education in China. The study pointed out that CSL teaching has a negative attitude towards ‘medium of instruction’, treating all supporting languages as ‘foreign’ and ‘undesirable’. Research shows that teachers’ and students’ language attitudes may vary under the influence of many factors at an institutional, professional and personal level (Levin 2003; McMillan and Rivers 2011; Stables and Wikeley 1999; Turnbull and Arnett 2002).
Macaro (2001) presented a ‘continuum of perspectives’ as a framework for analysing teachers’ views of classroom language use. On one extreme of the continuum, teachers in the virtual position hold a monolingual perspective, believing that the exclusive use of L2 is the best way for students to learn a new language. Teachers in a maximal position admit the virtual condition may not exist so they only seek to maximise the use of L2. Yet, teachers in this position usually feel guilty about using L1 to aid L2 learning. At the other extreme, teachers in the optimal position hold a multilingual perspective, constantly exploring the most effective way to use L1 judiciously. Teachers holding the optimal position recognise value in the use of L1 without any pedagogical regrets (Macaro 2009). The optimal model is gaining wider acceptance and is beginning to take hold in ESL teaching practices in Hong Kong (He 2011; Swain et al. 2010).
In French immersion programmes in Canada, McMillan and Turnbull (2009) used semi-structured interviews to elicit teachers’ attitudes towards classroom language use with two experienced French teachers. The study showed that one participant teacher was in a maximal position, as he found it pedagogically important to use students’ L1 but was constantly feeling regretful when resorting to it. Similarly, Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012) interviewed 24 CSL teachers to understand their attitudes towards the monolingual pedagogy of CSL classrooms in Beijing. The 15 teachers in the virtual position were found to have many unproven assumptions about L2 teaching. As to factors influencing the perspectives of L2 teachers, Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012) identified five: (1) institutional language policy; (2) knowledge of language development; (3) linguistic purism or ideology; (4) foreign language competences; and (5) assumptions and perceived dangers.
In Hong Kong, current in-service CSL teachers are Chinese language subject teachers who were mostly educated and trained as Chinese L1 teachers (Oxfam 2014). As discussed in Chapter 1, Zhang et al. (2011) found that their CSL instruction methods remained similar to Chinese L1 teaching, indicating that CSL teachers did not adjust their classroom language use patterns for CSL students. The study also reported the appointment of a local English teacher (native Chinese) to deliver lessons in CSL classrooms because the school realised that monolingual CSL teachers were struggling to communicate with their beginner CSL learners. Likewise, Gao (2012) investigating a local school found that CSL teacher participants were mostly in the virtual position, seeing little value in the students’ home language and other language learning experiences.