HAVING taught English to speakers of other languages for 14 years, I was intrigued by Mr Tsang Yok-sing's column about double standards in language teaching (South China Morning Post, February 22).
I agree with him that it is ridiculous that a teacher of Chinese is required to pass an exam in English. Given this situation, it is also unfair, although clearly more sensible, that English teachers are not required to show a similar proficiency in Chinese. After all, if I take a computer for repairs, I do not demand the technician to prove he can service a television.
However, Mr Tsang's opinion that only teachers who know their students' mother tongue can teach a second language efficiently, conflicts with my experience. I worked in Italy for seven years before coming to Hong Kong. When I arrived in Italy, I knew no Italian so I used only English when I taught. In my third year in Italy, I began to use Italian in the classroom to explain points. In this way, I could be sure that my learners had understood the ideas. Also, I found that using Italian led to a friendlierand more pleasant atmosphere. However, at the end of the year I was struck by the fact that all my classes made far less progress in English than comparable classes I had taught in the previous two years. As the only major difference with the previous years was my using the students' mother tongue to ''facilitate'' their learning, I was surprised to see Mr Tsang champion such an approach.
I can understand Mr Tsang reacting against the Education Department's blanket ban on the use of Chinese during English lessons. However, my experience indicates that it is very easy to use too much of the mother tongue and, in doing so, hold back students' progress. The value of using the mother tongue may vary with the age and proficiency level of the students. After seven years of classroom-based experimentation with young adults of all levels of proficiency, I found that the benefits derived from usingthe mother tongue affect marginal rather than core elements in the language learning/teaching process.
Mr Tsang's position that English should be taught as a foreign language in Hong Kong also seems to be an over-reaction. It is clear that English is not as widely used in Hong Kong as it is in the urban regions of some English as a second language societies such as India, Nigeria, or Singapore. Yet, the general population comes into contact with far more English than, say, citizens of China, Italy and Thailand where English has the status of a foreign language. Unlike teachers in such countries, Hong Kong teachers have numerous opportunities to link their teaching to examples of English that their students encounter outside the classroom. Such examples can continually reinforce what the students have learnt at school.
Nobody would tell a one-eyed man to shut his good eye and go around with a white stick simply because he does not have 20/20 vision in both eyes. Neither should Hong Kong students be taught English as though it is a foreign language merely because the environment here is not as rich in English as it is in, say, Singapore. As for Singapore, the use of English spread because its elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, could see the benefits of exploiting the island state's heritage. Clearly, the use of English will diminish here if powerful politicians decide to ignore Hong Kong's linguistic heritage.