Annotated Bibliography

(1600 words)

The following annotated bibliography is presented related to the topic I will

choose in my final assignment (program brief). The topic is “Establishing a

very late English Immersion program at tertiary level”. The context I have

used is at my university, Islamic State University of Malang, Indonesia.

ENTRY 1

Wang, X. & Feng, L. (2005). Revisiting bilingual education at tertiary level

in China. US-China Foreign Language, 3 (4), 69-72. Retrieved
September 10, 2006 from
http://www.linguist.org.cn/doc/uc200504/uc2005413.doc

Using the perspective of language policy and the concept of bilingual

education, the writers try to look back the implementation of bilingual
education in China. To stimulate better bilingual education, the university
establish centre for bilingual education research, teachers training center and
education teaching materials research and development. The existence of
bilingual education policy also inspires some Chinese universities to
implement bilingual education as the medium to meet the students foreign
language needs, to make the students to be ready to compete in the job
market and to enhance the students’ communicative competence. By
referring to the implementation of bilingual education from five universities,
the writers conclude that there are three different approaches used: a)
textbooks, Medium of Instruction (MOI), blackboard writing, assignments,
and exams all in English, b) textbooks and blackboard writing in English

1
while MOI, assignments and exams all in Chinese, c) textbooks and
blackboard writing in English, MOI in a mixture of English and Chinese.
The Input Hypothesis by Krashen is used to analyze which approach
is preferable and explain its implication to bilingual education. The first
approach even seemingly preferable, however, it is still difficult to
implement at the beginning stage when the students are weak both
linguistically and professionally. The writers argue that in this sense, the use
of L1 as a powerful role in subject-matter learning need to be taken into
account. It provides ‘cognitive academic language proficiency’ (CALP) and
facilitates to the ability to learn and discuss abstract ideas. Hence, CALP and
good education in L1 can make English input more comprehensible.
However, the writers remind that since L1 is so crucial, it does not mean that
translating the lesson in to Chinese allow to do. Translating blocks the
students to negotiate the meaning. The writers suggest that the
implementation of the policy should be hand in hand with policy
development to get better approach of bilingual education. The different
approaches used and the criticism on it becomes the significant point to
sharpen my understanding on the appropriate and applicable bilingual
education for my university context.

ENTRY 2
Cohen, A.D. & Allison, K. (1998). Bilingual processing strategies in a
university-level immersion program. Ilha do Desterro. 35. 185-199.
Retrieved September, 2 2006 from
http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/FLIP_study.html-22k

Through this research report, the writers intend to explore the

importance of bilingual processing strategies for university students in the

2
context of the University of Minnesota’s Foreign Language Immersion
Program (FLIP). More specific, the writers’ aim is to describe how the
students use both their native language and the immersion language to
process meaning on academic tasks, and to compare their behavior with their
peers (non-FLIP) who take immersion courses but not engaged in full
immersion. The writers give a thorough description on the courses offered
at the university to build the readers’ comprehensive understanding on the
situation. Moreover, another detail description on the research methodology
including research participants, data collection procedures and research
instruments, and data analysis is also given for the purpose of gaining the
insight of the context.
The findings are mapped into three areas: a) in the extent of note
taking in the FLIP language the difference was not statistically significant, it
was found that 67% of FLIP students took notes in the FLIP language and
10% in bilingual notes while 54% of non-FLIP students took notes in the
FLIP language and 16% used both, b) in the extent of internal mental dialog
in the FLIP language the difference was also not significant, it was found
that 91% of FLIP students and 79% of non-FLIP students used mental
dialogue, and c) in the extent of mental translation during classroom
activities and its perceived helpfulness, there was statistically significant that
60% of FLIP students had not used translation on the task while one-third
reporting that they refrained from using mental translation. The writers
recommend that bilingual program at university should encourage more
cognitive processing through L2 as a vehicle for communication and should
enhance the exclusive use of FLIP language as a real plus of the immersion
program so that the objective of giving new language experiences for the
students can be effectively achieved. The research findings are very

3
beneficial guidance to show which students’ learning aspect should be
prioritized when we are going to do bilingual education at tertiary level.

ENTRY 3
Torres-Guzman, M.E. (1996). Mentoring the bilingual teacher. NCBE
Resource Collection Series. 7. 1-10. Retrieved August, 12 2006 from
http://www.ncela.gwn.edu/pubs/resource/mentor.htm

The situation of a new bilingual teacher who can get a traumatic

experience in teaching if s/he does not have a cooperating or supervising
teacher to offer guidance and support (mentoring) for her/him inspires
Guzman to dig up the importance of mentoring for bilingual teachers.
Guzman discusses obvious elements that contribute to the teacher’s better
performance and commitment, and contribute to better bilingual program.
Mentoring refers to supportive or encouraging activities to provide
information, assistance, support and guidance between mentor (experienced
bilingual teacher) and mentee (new-experience bilingual teacher). In this
article, Guzman presents three institutions (The Multi-district Trainer of
Trainers Institute (MTTI), The New York City Mentor Teacher Internship
Program, the San Marcos, Texas Independent School District) which have
implemented mentoring in bilingual education.
To make mentoring definitely effective, Guzman narrows down the
areas that should become the main part in the dialogue between mentor and
mentee. The four crucial issues involving are language of instruction ( what
language to teach, how to teach, and what the students’ language), culture
and instruction (diversity of the classroom, respect and pride among
students, relevant and accessible subject to the student), language

4
assessment and cognitive development (how to assess the students’
understanding, what language used to test, what indicator to know the
students’ performance), and transformation and power relationship (how to
accommodate the needs’ of mainstream and minority students).
One thing that makes this article really beneficial is its constructive
criticism on the previous models of mentoring especially on the aspect of the
mentor and mentee interaction and its proposed alternative solution. It critics
that the most active participant was only the mentor while the mentee just
passively receive what the mentor instructs. Therefore, Guzman proposes an
interactive approach in which both mentor and mentee are actively involved
during the mentoring. This approach maximizes the strengths and capacities
of mentor and mentee by combining the mentor’s knowledge of practice and
the mentee’s knowledge of new research and theoretically-based models of
teaching. It means that both of them simultaneously learn and instruct. The
proposed approach will be one of useful strategies for preparing university
lecturers to be bilingual lecturers.

ENTRY 4
Gill, S.K. (2006). Language policy and planning in higher education in
Malaysia: a nation in linguistic transition. 1-15. Retrieved September,
23 2006 from
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/clpp/proposal/SaranMalaysia.htm

As an educational practitioner who concerns much on language

planning and policy in Malaysia, Gill describes a picture of the linguistic
journey of a post-colonial nation with a focus on the higher education sector.
The picture involves the changes in the role and status of English and the

5
changing dynamics of its relationship with the national language (Bahasa
Melayu). After gaining the independence in 1957, Malaysia needs as
medium to reflect identity and to facilitate unity from multi ethnic society.
Therefore, there was language policy on the use of Bahasa Melayu as
official and national language. It means that the role and use of English as
the result of British colonization begin to reduce. The policy leads to the
birth of National University of Malaysia (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia-
UKM) in 1970 which required Bahasa Melayu as the medium of instruction.
The most obvious implementation of the policy was the modernization of
Bahasa Melayu which run under Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, and it aims to
develop and enrich the national language, to promote literary growth and
creative talent and to publish books in the national language.
In 2002, there was a ‘shocking announcement’ from prime minister that
science and mathematics subjects will be taught in English from primary to
tertiary level of education. Regardless that the policy was top-down policy
and was decided without discussing with universities at large, Gill places
himself as an academic who tries to identify the logical reasons behind the
drastic change from using Bahasa Melayu into English. Guzman argues that
globalization, human resource capability, knowledge and information
explosion, slow pace of Publications/Translations in Bahasa, lack of
legislation for the role of Bahasa Melayu in the domain of business and
industry, and weakened employment base for graduates from public
universities become the most obvious reasons for the change.
The change brings a new challenge for UKM in which in one side it is
responsible to maintain the existence of Bahasa Melayu in another side it
should be responsive to the world global change. In this sense, Gill
personally communicates with authorized person from UKM about the

6
strategic plan for language planning and policy. The initial decision made is
that, 50-70% of the total number of first year science courses will be in
English and conducted by Professors who are fluent in the language; for the
social sciences, 30% of the total number of first year courses will be in
English. The discussion on language planning and policy and the reasons for
the change definitely become the greatest point in this paper. The discussion
supports my exploration on the importance of conducting bilingual
education at university level and broadens my comprehension on the initial
stage of conducting bilingual education.