An Examination on the Planning and Practice of Bilingual Education in Primary and Secondary Schools in Taiwan

Abstract

Over the past few years, several reforms in language education have been outlined to implement the full-scale bilingualization of the education system in Taiwan. Among the 3392 public primary and secondary schools, nearly one-third of them have been implementing bilingual education in certain subjects. The vast majority of these schools have adopted Immersion, CLIL, or EMI as models for bilingual education. It has been argued that these exotic models cannot be “transplanted” to the education context of Taiwan, and he proposes the FERTILE model. Adopting this model as the theoretical framework, this qualitative study aims to examine how school practitioners plan and practice bilingual education in Taiwan. Data were collected through the document analysis of the progress reports from thirty-five primary and secondary schools and three focus group discussions (FGDs) with nine subject teachers. The findings show that the participants made considerable efforts to construct a bilingual environment and have an identical understanding about the strategies for bilingual instruction that emphasize subject knowledge and students’ comprehension. However, the participants experienced a diverse ecology of bilingual teacher learning communities and received differential support from the principals. Qualified and stable teaching manpower was identified as the key to sustain bilingual education. Implications to different education stakeholders are also discussed.

1. Introduction

In 2018, the National Development Council (NDC) of Taiwan launched the ‘Blueprint for Developing Taiwan into a Bilingual Nation by 2030’. A total of eight common strategies and sixteen individual strategies were highlighted in the blueprint to pursue the policy goal of a bilingual Taiwan. Several major reforms and operational guidelines are outlined to implement the full-scale bilingualization of the education system [1,2]. One distinguishing feature of these reforms and guidelines is promoting bilingual courses in primary and secondary schools. Among the 3392 public primary and secondary schools in Taiwan, nearly one-third of them have been implementing bilingual education in certain domains or subjects [3]. Immersion, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), and EMI (English-Medium Instruction) have been taken as the main models by most education bureaus in different cities and counties in Taiwan for bilingual education [3,4,5,6]. However, one characterizing feature of these models is that they were all conceptualized from education contexts in Western countries. Local, bilingual subject teachers have expressed their concerns and doubts regarding the compatibility of these Western-oriented models at their schools [5,7,8]. Arguing that these “borrowed” exotic models may not be suitable for local schools, Lin [9,10] proposed the FERTILE model for Taiwan’s bilingual education. Adopting the FERTILE model as the theoretical framework, this study aims to examine how school practitioners plan and practice bilingual education, and how they identify the needed support and resources for the sustainable bilingual education in Taiwan.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Bilingual Education in Global Contexts

In less than 50 years, bilingualism and bilingual education have changed from being nearly unnoticed to be included in the main guidelines of most worldwide educational stakeholders of the 21st century [11]. The key defining feature of bilingual education is that the two languages are used to teach subject matter content rather than just the languages themselves [12]. The term was extended by Bialystok [13], who referred to bilingual education as any education program in which two or more languages are used to teach non-language-related academic subject matters in contexts where the language of instruction and the language of the home or community do not match. Since the first French immersion programs reported in Canada and the bilingual education initiatives in North America [14,15], bilingual education has rapidly extended to other continents, countries, and regions [16,17]. Currently, a wide number of countries across the globe offer some form of bilingual education [12,18], which is, as of recently, accessible in other education contexts. The nature and purposes of bilingual education programs vary extensively across contexts. In some settings, the aim of bilingual education programs is to promote biliteracy through the use of a second (minority) language as a medium of education among learners from the majority language group. This is the model found primarily in French immersion programs in Canada [19] and in international schools in European countries [20]. In other contexts, the purpose of bilingual education is to enable speakers of minority languages to develop skills in the majority language while maintaining their home language. This can be found in contexts such as Spain with the Basque or Catalan languages, the UK with Welsh, or the USA with Spanish [12,21]. Other bilingual education settings focus on the use of the home minority language (i.e., first language, L1) in earlier educational settings with the aim of shifting to the dominant language in subsequent educational stages to cope with mainstream education. This is known as transitional bilingual education [22].

2.2. Models of Bilingual Education in Taiwan

Among the 3392 public primary and secondary schools in Taiwan, nearly one-third of them have been implementing bilingual education in certain domains or subjects [3]. However, the idea of bilingual education is quite vague and lacks a common language in the teaching context [23]. One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that the Ministry of Education does not provide an explicit direction for the promotion of bilingual education in Taiwan’s public schools. Therefore, the Bureaus of Education in local governments are influenced by the views of different scholars and experts, thus adopting different interpretations. Immersion, CLIL, and EMI have been taken as the main models by most education bureaus in different cities and counties in Taiwan for bilingual education and are extremely influential in schools that have started implementing bilingual education [3,4,5,6]. For example, Tsou and Kao [24] adopted CLIL from the European Union in elementary schools based on the experience of bilingual education in Tainan City. CLIL was also adopted by Taipei City and New Taipei City as the model for bilingual experiment courses in certain designated schools since 2016. As for the Immersion model, it has also been adopted by the Ministry of Education in its program that promotes bilingual education in several subjects in schools since 2017, including arts, health and physical education, natural science, integrated activities, and life [25]. The model has also been adopted by many schools that implement bilingual instruction in certain subjects [26,27].

2.3. Practice of Bilingual Education at Local Schools

Along with the implementation of bilingual education in Taiwan, there has been a largely increasing interest in the school practice of implementing bilingual education in local research communities. Much interest has been paid in the primary school context. In a case study, for example, it was found that the school kept adjusting the teaching and assessment methods based on students’ learning progress. The case school made relevant arrangements to promote bilingual education, such as workshops, course arrangement, textbook purchasing, and plans for teaching space [28]. A case study with life, arts, natural science, and physical education teachers emphasized the significance of the acquisition of learning objectives, the flexible usage of Chinese and English by students through multi-modal instruction, and the value of the learning community during the process of implementing bilingual education [3]. In bilingual math classrooms, it was reported that appropriate, interesting English videos as well as specific, operational, and dynamic activities were important components of high-quality math teaching [29]. In another qualitative study, the participants reported that it is important for bilingual teachers to have a satisfactory level of English proficiency in order to cope with the difficulty of preparing learning materials [26]. Many bilingual subject teachers also expressed their expectations, hoping that the availability of resources would be increased, the systematic training for bilingual instruction would be developed, and the support given by school administrators and the government would be stronger [8].

Researchers who paid attention to the junior high school context have also documented similar results. For example, it was argued that bilingual teachers must develop professional knowledge and several skills, including English speaking skills, the ability of designing bilingual lesson plans and collecting teaching materials, and providing appropriate scaffolding [25]. Effective bilingual courses also require subject and language teachers to work together, but not in co-teaching modes [30]. In a case study, it was found that the principal’s support and promotion had helped the implementation of bilingual education, but there was no support system for bilingual curriculum planning [31].

2.4. Challenges of Implementing Bilingual Education in Local Context

Along with the prevalence of bilingual education across different education phases, challenges appear. In the primary school context, the major challenges that bilingual teachers encountered include their unfamiliarity with the adopted model for bilingual instruction, inability to teach the subjects in English, and lack of teaching materials [32]. In a mixed-methods study with 51 elementary school teachers, the identified difficulties include: the differences among students’ English proficiency levels, incompetence in using English to communicate with students in class, and shortage of teaching materials for implementing bilingual instruction [8]. Other challenges also include excessive workload, the construction of a bilingual learning environment, the establishment of effective communication and mutual trust between teachers and administrators, and the design of a bilingual curriculum [3,33].

In the junior high school context, similar results have been documented too. The findings from a case study show that bilingual instruction highly challenged instructors’ language skills, making them spend more time and effort on preparing for bilingual lessons. In addition, without any official guideline for language integration, the subject teachers had difficulty planning bilingual lessons and therefore caused the students’ learning schedule to fall behind [30]. Subject teachers also reported that it required extra time and effort to work with English in order to prepare their bilingual lesson plans. They also found it hard to design bilingual lessons or activities, set up English learning objectives, speak English in classes, and build up a strong bond with other subject teachers [34]. Many subject teachers also reported several challenges they encountered, including the shortage of bilingual teaching materials and resources, insufficient time to prepare for lesson plans, and lack of incentives [25].

2.5. Theoretical Framework

As shown above, Immersion, CLIL, and EMI have played significant roles in guiding the directions of the implementing of bilingual education at schools. One characteristic feature of these models is that they were all conceptualized from education contexts in Western countries. Local bilingual teachers have expressed their concerns and doubts regarding the compatibility of these Western-oriented models at their schools [5,7,8]. Believing that none of these “borrowed” exotic models can be successfully implemented at all the schools in Taiwan due to different school contexts and characteristics, Lin [23] pointed out that Taiwan’s bilingual education should be teachable for teachers and comprehensible for students. Based on the concept of comprehensible input in language learning theories [35] and interaction hypothesis [36,37], Lin proposed the FERTILE model for Taiwan’s bilingual education [9,10].

The FERTILE model is an acronym based on the key words of seven principles. Among these principles, the principle of flexibility in the promotion of bilingual education suggests that local governments and schools should not adopt a single model for bilingual education. Teachers should be given more autonomy in bilingual teaching. Teachers can decide the percentage of Mandarin and English used in classrooms based on the levels of the students’ proficiency and the individual school curriculum instead of being restricted by set rules. Secondly, the principle of environment established for the promotion of bilingual education implies that the whole school itself should be seen as the bilingual environment where students speak both Mandarin and English. This bilingual environment includes interactive contexts for bilingual communication and a physical bilingual learning environment, stressing the importance of a dynamic communication environment [9]. In addition to teachers, the school principals and administrative staff also need to use both languages in schools as a form of role modeling for students. In this way, the students are immersed in the bilingual environment in schools and use two languages for communicating naturally.

In addition, sufficient time is needed for the promotion of bilingual education in Taiwan. For experienced teachers who are just starting bilingual teaching, it may take one or two semesters to get familiar with it. Teachers also need to understand instructional strategies in their bilingual teaching. These strategies include using classroom English at the beginning to help students enter bilingual contexts, designing their bilingual teaching and adjusting the percentage of language use based on the students’ English proficiency, using complete Mandarin or English sentences without mixing them in the same sentence, and helping students understand that both languages are equally important and should not ask students to only use English in classrooms.

Moreover, teachers need to pay attention to how learning needs analysis and differentiated instruction. Teachers should understand learner readiness and their English proficiency levels when planning a bilingual curriculum. Content teachers need to be assisted by their English teaching colleagues through experience sharing and professional development [38,39]. The English teachers not only help improve content teachers’ language proficiency but also offer professional suggestions for content teachers regarding English in teaching plans. Finally, the promotion of bilingual education needs all stakeholders’ participation, including the stakeholders inside schools as role models and ideal bilingual environments outside schools to increase the effectiveness of bilingual education.

In comparison with Immersion, CLIL, and EMI, the FERTILE model is the first localized model for bilingual education in Taiwan. It illustrates the guiding principles of bilingual education for school practitioners. In the literature, however, there were few empirical works on the model’s affordability and practicability at schools until recently [40,41,42]. This study adopts the FERTILE model as the theoretical framework and uses the advocated principles of the model to tackle the following research questions: (1) how do school practitioners plan and practice bilingual education; and (2) what are the needed support and resources for the sustainable bilingual education at public schools in Taiwan? The findings are useful for bilingual education to thrive and sustain in the local educational context.

3. Research Design

A pragmatic qualitative approach [43] was taken in this study considering its capability of marking the meeting point of description and interpretation, where description involves presentations of facts, feelings, and experiences in the language of participants, as interpreted by the researcher. The participants of this study included key school personnel (i.e., conveners of domains, directors of academic affairs, directors of student affairs, or section chiefs of the curriculum) and teachers of different academic subjects from elementary and secondary schools in Taoyuan City, Hsinchu City, and Hsinchu County. These participants have been implementing bilingual education at their schools for different lengths of time, ranging from one year to three years. They are native speakers of Chinese and have been using Chinese as their first language. All these participants received their bachelor’s or master’s degrees from local universities in Taiwan. They were invited by the research team to share the progress and achievements of bilingual education at their schools at three seminars. Data were collected through document analysis and focus group discussion (FGD) during the seminars. For document analysis, the progress reports presented by the representatives of 35 primary and secondary schools at the seminars were collected (PR1-PR35). As to the FGD, the questions focus on the school leadership, bilingual learning community, bilingual instruction strategies, challenges of bilingual education, and the sustainability of bilingual education (Appendix A). In total, three FGDs were held by the research team with nine teachers on the seminar sites (

Table 1. FGD participants.

	Teacher	Subject	Education Stage	School Location
FGD 1	T1	Music	Primary	Taoyuan City
	T2	Performing Arts	Secondary	Taoyuan City
	T3	Performing Arts	Secondary	Taoyuan City
FGD 2	T4	Integrated Activities	Primary	Hsinchu County
	T5	Integrated Activities	Primary	Hsinchu County
	T6	Integrated Activities	Primary	Hsinchu County
FGD 3	T7	Integrated Activities	Secondary	Hsinchu City
	T8	Arts	Secondary	Hsinchu City
	T9	Music	Secondary	Hsinchu County

). The length of these FGDs was approximately 20–25 min. Data collected from the documents and FGD were analyzed using thematic analysis [44] to identify the features and patterns of the data. Coding strategies and guidelines provided by Charmaz [45] were applied throughout the analysis.

4. Findings

4.1. Extensive Efforts to Construct Bilingual Environment

There is clear evidence showing that the participants have made great efforts on the construction of a bilingual environment that creates opportunities for teachers and students to use English. English signs, slogans, and posters are present at different locations on campuses, such as washing basins on the hallways, toilets on different floors, staircases, elevators, bulletin boards, library entrance, etc. English also appears on various kinds of electronic and paper documents, such as school websites on the internet, electronic bulletins at school gates, letters of notice for learning activities outside schools, school report cards, graduation certificates, school calendars, class schedules, classroom logs, teaching logs, certificates of merit, contact books, students’ learning passports, etc. One participant (PR13) shared the following paper documents at her school that are written or printed in both Chinese and English:

• Campus map;
• Floor directory;
• School brochure;
• Graduation certificate;
• School report card;
• Administrative meeting minutes.

The construction of a bilingual environment also extends to various activities and occasions at the schools, including greeting students at school gates, the broadcast for everyday lunch menu, the start of the cleaning time and the end of class, the announcement at the morning rally and the flag-raising ceremony, the address at administrative meetings, games at festival season celebration, the athlete’s vow at school sports day, the opening ceremony at the school’s anniversary celebration, parents meeting day, etc. One participant (PR07) listed a number of daily or annual activities that her school had organized in the past few years to create an immersive environment for students to use or learn English, including:

• ICRT NewsLunchbox broadcasts;
• Speech,song, listening, and reading comprehension contests;
• Administrative broadcasts;
• Interactive games during festival seasons such as Christmas and Halloween;
• Emcee and dance assembly at school fairs;
• Workshops on readers’ theatre.

4.2. Identical Understanding about Principles for Bilingual Instruction

Another finding with strong evidence is that the participants show similar understandings about the guiding principles of planning and implementing bilingual instruction proposed by the FERTILE model. One of the principles identified by the participants in group discussions is to use Chinese as the main language for instruction. English is used as a tool for communication purposes, not for language learning:

Our bilingual teachers use Chinese as the main language for instruction. The focus of instruction is on subject-related knowledge and skills. Through appropriate integration of English into the courses, we try to help students practice their English listening, speaking, writing and reading skills.

(FGD2, T7)

English language is really just an assisting tool to help the students communicate with others in a natural way. We brought English language into the course in a gradual manner, so that students may not feel too stressful. In my class, students have been learning to use English step by step [since the beginning of the semester]. And now it’s almost the end of the semester, students sometimes are not aware that they are talking to us in English.

(FGD1, T1).

To my students, they only need to think about how to use English, not how to learn English.

(FGD2, T5).

Another two principles that were highlighted by the participants of all the three discussion groups are: (1) learning subject-related knowledge is superior to learning English in bilingual classes and (2) teachers must consider the students’ English proficiency levels while they try to integrate English into bilingual courses:

Eventually, bilingual education must put subject knowledge and skills as the priority, and subject teachers themselves are experts in their subjects.

(FGD2, T4).

The extent to which English language is integrated into subject courses should depend on student characteristics, course requirements, and school features. The most important element of bilingual courses is the subject itself. So, I think that via bilingual education, we provide students with more resources so that they can have more chances to enhance their international mobility, not to sacrifice what they are supposed to learn in the subjects.

(FGD1, T2).

Bilingual education must be subject-oriented. Whether the amount of English in bilingual classes should be increased or decreased must depend on teacher characteristics and student characteristics.

(FGD2, T6).

The extents of integration English into subject courses are different according to students’ education stages.

(FGD3, T7)

The progress reports also show similar results. The participants identified the following principles and strategies they adopted for bilingual instruction, including:

• Focusing on subject-related knowledge and skills;
• Using Chinese as the main language of teaching;
• Integrating classroom English into teachers’ instruction;
• Prioritizing students’ comprehension of subject knowledge and skills;
• Presenting English in teaching materials in consideration of students’ English language proficiency;
• Differentiating difficulty of teachers’ questions for students with different levels of English proficiency;
• Creating authentic contexts for students to use English to communicate with others.
• Providing scaffolding for students to use English to interact with peers and teachers during group discussion and presentation of outcomes.

4.3. Diverse Ecology of Bilingual Teacher Learning Community

The findings indicate the different mentalities and levels of involvement of bilingual teachers in the learning communities across different schools. There are communities that feature interaction, dialogue, and cooperation among community members.

Before this semester, we had only three subject teachers in our community, and we had meetings every week. The interaction was pretty good. This semester we have three English teachers to join us. If we are to organize school activities, such as school concerts, then the English teachers will help our student hosts to prepare their scripts, also our foreign English teacher will come to help. Because we have only seven people, it is a small community, so the interaction is quite nice.

(FGD1, T1)

The atmosphere of our community is very good because I was the one who invited other members to the community by the time the community was founded. Because these teachers accepted my invitation at the very beginning, they are willing to work with me on planning and implementing bilingual activities at our school.

(FGD1, T3)

Unlike those bilingual teacher learning communities that are characterized by constant interaction and team cooperation, a few communities are mainly driven by a few key members. Interaction or cooperation is rarely seen due to the absence of other members at community activities.

We have a huge bilingual teacher learning community with teachers with different mentality. It is hard to use a simple term to describe the atmosphere of our community. Because our principal is very active in promoting bilingual education, most teachers will get themselves involved in the community at a satisfactory level. But there are few teachers would think that the community is extra workload to them, and they are not willing to participate in community activities …. If they do not see sufficient incentives, they would just vanish from the community.

(FGD1, T2)

Although these bilingual teacher learning communities differ in teachers’ mentality and involvement, one common characteristic of these communities is the presence of English language teachers. In most communities, English language teachers have played the role of language experts, providing bilingual subject teachers consultation on the use of English in bilingual courses.

The major role of English teachers is to provide bilingual subject teachers with some suggestions about how to use classroom English.

(FGD1, T2)

In addition to Google, I heavily rely on our English teachers to check my bilingual lesson plans.

(FGD2, T5)

English teachers play the role of English experts. Although most of the time I am the one who design the lesson plans, I will invite the English teacher to check my grammar. After all, his expertise is English language.

(FGD3, T7)

For curriculum development for bilingual courses, I am in charge. After I come out with initial plans, I will go discuss with the English teacher. The assistance from the English teacher is purely on English language, helping me modify the sentence structures, vocabulary, misspelling, etc. We will then further discuss what English is suitable to be integrated into the course.

(FGD3, T8)

The progress reports disclose another important role played by English teachers in the communities. Since these communities are the driving force for the construction of bilingual campuses at their schools, community members are usually responsible for holding various kinds of bilingual activities for their colleagues and students. A review on the progress reports shows that for English teachers are often tasked to organize and execute different kinds of school activities, such as:

• English foundation courses for slow English learners;
• Festival season celebrations;
• Summer and winter English camps;
• Administrative broadcastings;
• School sports day broadcastings;
• English reading, spelling, writing and song contests;
• Signs, slogans, and poster decoration;
• Inter-school and international cultural exchange programs.

4.4. Differential Levels of Support from School Leadership

The findings also show that the participants perceived different levels of support from their principals in regard to implementing bilingual education. Some principals are actively engaged in bilingual school events, whereas others tend to circumvent relevant activities.

Generally speaking, our principal has been supportive to activities related to bilingual education.

(FGD1, T1)

Our principal is very supportive to bilingual education because herself is an English teacher. She is also the member of the English Advisory Group of Taoyuan City. She has been very active to promote bilingual education. She was the former director of the Center of English Resources in Taoyuan City. So, the principal is deeply involved in bilingual education.

(FGD1, T2)

Our principal will retire soon. Basically, he is neither supportive to nor oppose bilingual education. He would endorse teachers’ initiatives, but himself wouldn’t involve in the implementation of bilingual education.

(FGD1, T3)

The findings further reveal that for those principals who are supportive of bilingual education, they mainly play a significant role in providing the required resources for bilingual teachers and facilitating teacher professional development at schools.

The principal is on our side. He is supportive to our work. He would try to find the resources we need and work on the solutions to the problems we have. I think he is our best backup force.

(FGD2, T5)

The principle always says that bilingual education is the future. There were few teachers who were not able attend the professional development activity on classroom English due to their workload or hesitation, but she made great efforts to persuade the teachers to come to the activity.

(FGD2, T6)

4.5. Multi-Faceted Difficulties and Obstacles

Various difficulties and obstacles were identified by the participants talking about their experiences of planning and implementing bilingual education. Some of these difficulties and obstacles are closely related to the policies and regulations at the systemic level and conventions at the organizational level. For example, it was repeatedly brought up by a number of participants that many training programs organized by the Ministry of Education and local education bureaus for bilingual teachers actually adopted different models and approaches, such as EMI, Immersion, CLIL, and FERTILE. One participant (PR20) mentioned that the bilingual teachers at her school who attended these programs often ended up confused because they received very different, and sometimes even contradictory feedback from course instructors. This confusion has led to the teachers’ diverse perspectives on bilingual education and increased the complexity of having a “common language” and reaching consensus among bilingual teachers themselves.

Another major difficulty that frequently appears on the progress reports is the insufficient reduction in teaching load for bilingual subject teachers and English teachers. Without sufficient reduction in teaching hours, bilingual teachers faced the challenge of finding enough time to prepare bilingual lessons and participate in community activities due to their own teaching load or duties in administrative affairs. Also, English teachers were unable to find enough time to provide quality guidance and feedback on bilingual subject teachers’ planning and practice of using English. What is more, the lack of incentives, such as sufficient reduction in teaching load, has made it extremely hard to attract more subject teachers to join bilingual teacher communities (PR12; PR18). Other difficulties and obstacles at this level also include the lack of comprehensive trainings on bilingual instruction and curriculum design, insufficient resources to subject teachers’ professional development on their English language proficiency, instability of the composition of bilingual teacher community, and lack of coordination of free time slots for bilingual teacher community activities.

Unlike the difficulties and obstacles at the systemic and organizational levels, there are a number of difficulties that are associated with the bilingual teachers’ self-image, beliefs, and attitudes, including low self-confidence in using English to teach subject knowledge, the fear of making mistakes while using English, high levels of anxiety while using English, the inability to develop teaching materials for bilingual lessons, the difficulty to determine the percentage and timing of using English, and low motivation and enthusiasm in implementing bilingual education. One participant (PR32) pointed out that her colleagues’ negative attitude towards bilingual education has been the main difficulty at her school. The negative attitude reflects on her colleagues’ beliefs that:

• They [Subject teachers] will not be able to cover important subject knowledge and skills if they bring English language into their classrooms;
• It is easier to achieve learning objectives if they use only Chinese to teach their subjects;
• Using English language will interrupt their teaching fluency and tempo;
• Students’ English proficiency is not good enough to understand their English instruction;
• Using English will not make their job easier when they are doing classroom management.

From the experiences of other participants, the difficulties and obstacles came not from the system, schools, or teachers, but the students. In bilingual classes, some students were not confident in speaking English and were extremely afraid of making mistakes while using English. The resistance from students to bilingual classes was especially strong among those students with low English proficiency. In every class, there are students with a high English proficiency and students with a low English proficiency. One of the most challenging tasks for bilingual teachers is the huge English proficiency gap among their students. One participant (PR08) shared that different levels of students’ English language proficiency have had a great impact on teachers’ planning and practice in bilingual classrooms, including:

• Slowing down the tempo of teaching;
• Interrupting teaching flow and fluency;
• Reducing amount of subject content to be taught;
• Struggling on the appropriateness and comprehensibility of English used by the teachers.

4.6. Teaching Manpower as the Key for Sustainability

Several initiatives were proposed by the participants to tackle the aforementioned difficulties and obstacles. The most important initiative is the access to qualified and stable manpower for teaching, including both local subject teachers and foreign English teachers.

We hope that we can have stable access to foreign English teachers…Good foreign English teachers are difficult to find, and it’s not easy that foreign English teachers can get along with local teachers.

(FGD1, T2)

We need to have teachers who have expertise of developing bilingual teaching materials. These materials can then be used by other teachers as reference and could save other teachers a lot of time. Right now, we only have few teachers who are capable of developing teaching materials. We have so many bilingual classes, but we only have one foreign English teacher and one local English teacher who can help develop these materials in our bilingual teacher learning community.

(FGD2, T4)

We need more teachers to join us. The regulation right now is that once a school chooses a subject at a specific grade to implement bilingual instruction, bilingual instruction must be applied to all classes at that grade. It has been problematic in our school because not all teachers of the same subject at a specific grade are willing to embark on this task.

(FGD3, T7)

The classes of our school are quite few, so I can teach music to all the classes at the same grade. But the problem is I am the only teacher who is doing bilingual instruction, so students can only use English in my course. It would be great if students are able to use English in every course. It would be better if we have more teachers to implement bilingual instruction.

(FGD3, T9)

In addition to teaching manpower, the most needed support or resources mentioned by other participants in the group discussion include the availability of subject-specific teaching materials as a reference (FGD 2, T6); most importantly, a subsidy for subject teachers to participate in professional development programs on English language ability (FGD2, T5); and endorsement from English teachers who think bilingual teachers might impede students’ learning of “correct” English language (FGD3, T8).

5. Discussion

The findings of this study provide an interesting scenario of how bilingual teachers interpreted and practiced bilingual education in reference to the guiding principles of the localized FERTILE model for bilingual education. Firstly, the participants were aware of the significance of adjusting the percentage of using English in bilingual classes based on students’ English proficiency levels, showing that the participants were entitled to a flexibility of language switching in bilingual classes. In addition, the participants were actively engaged in the establishment of a bilingual environment that provides students plenty of opportunities to use English not only in bilingual classes, but also in different kinds of school activities. These opportunities, arguably, are not necessarily embedded in authentic contexts that require students to use English for communication or interaction [46]. One vivid example of this phenomenon is the English proverbs or famous quotes on staircases at schools. Although students have the opportunities to read these proverbs and quotes when they are on the staircases, there is no communication involved in the event of students reading these proverbs and quotes. Moreover, the principles of role modeling and provision of sufficient time were absent among the principals of some schools. In the schools in which the principals were either passive outsiders or aggressive advocates of bilingual education, bilingual teachers’ mindsets toward and practice of bilingual education were affected accordingly.

In terms of bilingual strategies, the findings provide clear evidence to the participants’ understanding of teaching strategies articulated in the FERTILE model, such as using Chinese as the main language for instruction and English for communication, preparing teaching materials in consideration of students’ English proficiency levels, focusing teaching on subject-related knowledge and skills, and integrating classroom English into teachers’ instruction. The participants’ practice also involved a learning needs analysis and differentiated instruction, as shown in the teachers’ efforts on providing scaffolding for students with a low English proficiency and differentiating difficulty of questions for students with different levels of English proficiency. According to Lin [9,10], these analyses and strategies are valuable to the implementation of subject-oriented, comprehension-driven bilingual education at local schools.

Regarding the notion of all stakeholders’ participation highlighted in the FERTILE model, the findings show that not all school practitioners were advocates for bilingual education. Even in the bilingual teacher learning communities, community members were not necessarily on board. This could be treated as an alarm given that the participation and contribution of both bilingual teachers and English teachers are critical to the effectiveness of bilingual education [39]. Lastly, the participants encountered different difficulties at the systemic, organizational, and classroom levels, of which some have been brought up in previous studies [8,32]. These difficulties well account for the participants’ desires to gain access to qualified and stable teaching manpower, develop subject-specific teaching materials, and receive subsidization for professional development in English language competence.

The findings of this study have significant implications to teacher educators, school practitioners, and policy makers. Professional development programs for bilingual teachers must zoom in on the differentiated instruction for students with different levels of English proficiency in bilingual classrooms. The programs also need to prioritize the teachers’ capability of developing bilingual lesson plans and teaching materials that are contextually compatible. School leaders must play a more active role to shift the effect of role modeling so as to create the atmosphere and culture of whole-school participation. At schools, creating opportunities for students with different English proficiency levels to use English to communicate with others in authentic contexts is more important than bilingualizing the offices, classrooms, and facilities on campus. Policy makers must be aware that getting more buy-in from both subject teachers and English teachers through optimizing relevant administrative regulations is the key to sustainable bilingual education. Initiatives of loosening the recruitment criteria of English proficiency tests, increasing the reduction in teaching hours, and preserving schools’ autonomy in choices of models and counseling experts that suit the schools’ interest and needs the best should be thoroughly considered.

6. Conclusions

This study adopted the first localized model of FERTILE for bilingual education in Taiwan to examine the planning and practice of bilingual education by key personnel and bilingual teachers at primary and secondary schools. The findings from progress reports and FGDs reveal encouraging signs. Most of the schools have made considerable efforts to construct bilingual environment. The bilingual teachers have clear and identical understanding about the strategies for implementing subject-oriented, comprehension-driven bilingual instruction. However, worrying signals do exist. Different levels of participation and support from members of the learning community and school principals did not fit into the ideal scenario depicted in the FEERTILE model. Collective and precise initiatives by teaching educators, policy makers, school leaders, and practitioners that tackle teaching manpower, administrative regulations, and context-specific teaching materials are most needed for the sustainability of bilingual education in the country.