Bad English in Hong Kong: the risks of jumping to conclusions

I refer to Andrew Lee’s response (“Broken English shows Hong Kong schools need to fix the system”, April 3) to my letter (“Easy to blame English textbooks for Hong Kong students’ poor DSE results: here’s why it’s unfair”, March 26).

The primary purpose of my letter was to defend the value of textbooks in the English-language classroom, not “the system”, as suggested by Mr Lee. Had it been an endorsement of “the system”, I would not have proposed a model that combines textbook use (which forms a basis for systematic language learning) with language application (which provides students with a meaningful context for using the language).

As Mr Lee puts it, he benefited from “a reasonable foundation”, which allowed him to catch up with his native-speaking classmates, although he has not acknowledged the role of textbooks. His personal example is revealing in its own right. It is important to discern the backgrounds of local students to teach language effectively.

As most Hong Kong students do not study alongside native-speaking classmates, my hybrid model enables students to have the best of both worlds: students can build a solid foundation with the use of textbooks, which underpin the learning of English as a second language, and put the language to good use during immersive activities, which underpin the learning of English as a first language.

Mr Lee also blames the deteriorating standard of English in Hong Kong on current practices in education. This is unfortunately an overly simplistic view of the issue. The decline has multiple causes, such as a social environment for learning and using English, the medium-of-instruction policy and the effects of social media on language use.

It is encouraging to see the interest in students’ language development but it might not be wise to jump to hasty conclusions. The main thrust of my letter was never about heavy reliance on textbooks.

John Ng, Lai Chi Kok