Review of Educational Research

Although official promotion of content-based English language teaching started in mainland China only at the turn of the century, this form of language instruction, widely known in China as “Chinese–English bilingual education,” has gathered great momentum in the last 6 years and is now rattling across the country like a juggernaut. So-called Chinese–English bilingual education has always been controversial. Although small numbers of opponents have raised concerns about potential negative consequences and the constraints compromising optimistically envisioned goals, their voices have been drowned in the overwhelming academic discourse by a growing contingent of vocal advocates. This discourse is a driving force behind “the great leap forward” for Chinese–English bilingual education. This article problematizes the prevalent discourse on bilingual education in China. Based on analysis of systematically selected data sources, it contends that the academic discourse with its misconceptions, misrepresentations, and misinterpretations has misled stakeholders of bilingual education.

Loans are a central component of college finance, yet research has generated a dearth of strong evidence of their effect on student choices. This article examines challenges to causal modeling regarding the effects of borrowing and the prospects of indebtedness on students’ college-going behaviors. Statistical estimates of causal effects are confounded by dynamic interactions between the decision to borrow and the characteristics of borrowers (endogeneity), their degree and earnings expectations (self-selection bias), and cumulative debt (temporal and threshold effects). Furthermore, interpretive research illustrates that college counseling is highly intersubjective, with application and financial aid advice predicated on perceptions of student socioeconomic class and degree prospects. These studies indicate the need for an interdisciplinary research agenda more inclusive of sociopsychological perspectives.

This article discusses the issues and implications of high stakes tests on English language learners (ELLs). As ELLs are being included in all high stakes assessments tied to accountability efforts (e.g., No Child Left Behind), it is crucial that issues related to the tests be critically evaluated relative to their use. In this case, academic achievement tests are analyzed relative to their norming samples and validity to determine their usefulness to ELLs. Also, commonly used language proficiency tests are examined relative to definitions of proficiency, technical quality, alignment with criteria for language classification and reclassification, and their academic predictive validity. Based on the synthesis of the literature, the author concludes that high stakes tests as currently constructed are inappropriate for ELLs, and most disturbing is their continued use for high stakes decisions that have adverse consequences. The author provides recommendations for addressing the issues related to high stakes tests and ELLs.

Research on globalization and education involves the study of intertwined worldwide discourses, processes, and institutions affecting local educational practices and policies. The four major theoretical perspectives concerning globalization and education are world culture, world systems, postcolonial, and culturalist. The major global educational discourses are about the knowledge economy and technology, lifelong learning, global migration or brain circulation, and neoliberalism. The major institutions contributing to global educational discourses and actions are the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and UNESCO. International testing, in particular the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and instruction in English as the language of commerce are contributing to global uniformity of national curricula. Critics of current global trends support educational alternatives that will preserve local languages and cultures, ensure progressive educational practices that will protect the poor against the rich, and protect the environment and human rights.