Comparisons Across the Three Case Study Schools Regarding Trilingual Education

  • Lixun Wang
  • Andy Kirkpatrick
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 33)


This chapter compares the three case study schools and their implementation of trilingual education based on the stakeholders’ views, namely the school principal, the teachers, the students and the parents, focusing on three issues. The first issue is their perceptions of the trilingual education model implemented in the schools, the second issue is their views on code-mixing in teaching and learning, and the third issue is their views on the use of Putonghua as the MoI in teaching the Chinese Language subject.


Case studies compared Trilingual education Stakeholder surveys Stakeholder interviews Code-mixing and code-switching Medium of instruction 


  1. Bacon-Shone, J., & Bolton, K. (2008). Bilingualism and multilingualism in the HKSAR: Language surveys and Hong Kong’s changing linguistic profile. In K. Bolton & Y. Han (Eds.), Language and society in Hong Kong (pp. 25–51). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
  2. Camilleri, A. (1996). Language values and identities: Code-switching in secondary classrooms in Malta. Linguistics and Education, 8(1), 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ferguson, G. (2003). Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts: Functions, attitudes and policies. In S. Makoni & U. Meinhof (Eds.), AILA review 16: Africa and applied linguistics (pp. 38–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Gauci, H., & Camilleri Grima, A. (2013). Code-switching as a tool in teaching Italian in Malta. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(5), 615–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guthrie, L. F. (1983). Contrasts in teachers’ language use in a Chinese-English bilingual classroom. Retrieved from
  6. Hirvela, A., & Law, E. (1991). A survey of local English language subject teachers’ attitudes towards English and ELT. Institute of Language in Education Journal, 8, 25–38.Google Scholar
  7. Kan, V., Lai, K. C., Kirkpatrick, A., & Law, A. (2011). Fine-tuning Hong Kong’s medium of instruction policy. Hong Kong: Strategic Planning Office & Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual Societies, The Hong Kong Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). The language(s) of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or multilingualism? Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  9. Legislative Council. (2016). Background brief on using Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese language subject in primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong (LC Paper No. CB(4)1181/15-16(03)). Retrieved from
  10. Li, D. C. S. (2000). Cantonese-English code-switching in Hong Kong a Y2K review. World Englishes, 19(3), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li, D. C. S. (2008). Understanding mixed code and classroom code-switching: Myth and realities. New Horizons in Education, 56(3), 75–87.Google Scholar
  12. McClure, E. F. (1977). Aspects of code-switching in the discourse of bilingual Mexican-American children (Technical Report, 44).Google Scholar
  13. Pan, S. (2000). Hong Kong’s bilingual past and present. Intercultural Communication Studies, 10(1), 57–65.Google Scholar
  14. The Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR). (2016). Territory-wide survey on the use of Putonghua as medium of instruction to teach Chinese Language (PMIC) in schools of Hong Kong. Retrieved from
  15. Tse, S. K. (2009). Chinese language education in Hong Kong: Twenty-five years of educational research in Hong Kong. Educational Research Journal, 24, 231–255.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lixun Wang
    • 1
  • Andy Kirkpatrick
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Modern Language StudiesThe Education University of Hong KongTai PoHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Languages & LinguisticsGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations