8

WHO’S TEACHING WHOM?

CO-LEARNING IN
MULTILINGUAL CLASSROOMS
Li Wei

Transnational migration on a global scale in the last two decades has raised a range
of important issues for language education in different countries. Amongst them
is the question of what to do with the languages in the pupils’ linguistic repertoire
that are not the school’s language of instruction. Bilingual and multilingual educa-
tion come in different shapes and forms. A “strong form” of bilingual education,
described by Baker (2012), occurs where “language minority children use their
native, ethnic, home or heritage language in the school as a medium of instruction
with the goal of full bilingualism” (Baker, 2012, p. 232). Examples of such strong
forms of bilingual and multilingual education may include the European schools
that have been described by Housen (2002), among others, where linguistically
and culturally diverse students are taught in nonlanguage subjects in multiple
languages as well as learning additional languages. Multilingual proficiency and
cultural pluralism are promoted through content learning and regular mixing of
different language groups. It is fair to say that such schools are still in the minority
and tend also towards the elite in the sense that they are not widely available to
all pupils who are in need of bilingual and multilingual support. More common
forms of bilingual education are often less structured, with less focus on balanced
distribution of languages across the curriculum.
This chapter looks at a particular type of school for bilingual and multilingual
children in Britain, especially for those of immigrant and/or minority ethnic
backgrounds, which we call complementary schools. Whilst the complementary
schools are not set up with an explicit goal of full bilingualism, nor do they
actively encourage the use of the full linguistic repertoire of the pupils, in prac-
tice, both the teachers and the pupils use a wide range of linguistic resources
and behave in a highly multilingual manner. Indeed, evidence shows that such
schools are a safe space for the pupils to practice their multilingual identities
168 Li Wei

and contest the monolingual and monocultural ideologies, which include the
language-of-instruction policies of these schools (Blackledge & Creese, 2010a,
2010b; Martin, Bhatt, Bhojani, & Creese, 2006).
Systematic enquiries of complementary, heritage, or community language
schools internationally have a relatively short history. There is a fast-expanding
body of literature on the policies and practices of these schools in different
national and linguistic contexts.1 This chapter focuses on what is going on in the
British complementary school classroom, with particular regard to teaching and
learning practices through multiple languages. Whilst the findings of the research
reported in this chapter have important implications for policies, my primary
interest here is in the co-learning between teachers and pupils in terms of language
and cultural knowledge and the effect of co-learning on identity development.
The chapter is structured as follows: I begin by discussing the notion of
co-learning in the classroom that provides the theoretical foundation for the
subsequent analysis. The connections between co-learning and other theoretical
concepts in the study of language teaching are outlined. I then outline the com-
plementary schools in the United Kingdom, which provide the context for the
present study.The Chinese complementary schools and the research methods used
for the present study are then described.The main body of the paper is devoted to
an analysis of co-learning of language, co-learning of related cultural practices, and
the co-construction of identity through co-learning, through a series of examples
of classroom interaction between the teacher and the pupils. The chapter con-
cludes with a summary of the findings and a discussion of their implications.

Co-learning in the Classroom

The classroom is an interesting site for the negotiation of power relations. Class-
room-based learning typically involves the role set of teachers and learners. While
cultural variations exist, the role of the teacher in the classroom context is tradi-
tionally seen as the source provider of information and the role of the learner as
the recipient of that information. In the language classroom, the teacher provides
models of language, either through their own speaking and writing or through
samples of speech and writing by other, usually “native,” language users, and the
learner learns to use the target language according to the standard set by the
teacher via such models.
Technological advancement and global migration have challenged the tradi-
tional configuration of the classroom role set and broken the boundary between
formal classroom-based learning and learning in less formal contexts (cf. García
& Flores, this volume; Norton, this volume). A massive amount of information is
freely available on the internet at the press of a button. Learners no longer need
to wait for their teachers to give them the information. They also find themselves
sharing learning contexts with others from very diverse backgrounds, experi-
ences, motivations, and needs. For the language teacher, they may be teaching
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 169

a group of learners with highly mixed interests, abilities, learning histories, and
exposures to the target language, while the language learner may be confronted
with so many different models of the target language that notions of native, first,
second, and foreign languages become blurred (see recent critical sociolinguistic
work by Blommaert, 2010; Pennycook, 2010, for example).
This chapter deals with a specific language classroom context, where the tra-
ditional role set of the teacher and the learner, and the power relations implied
in such a role set, is being challenged by sociocultural changes that are going on
simultaneously in the community and society at large. I will evoke the notion
of co-learning both as an analytic concept for the empirical data that I present
and as a pedagogical practice that may benefit the co-participants in multilingual
classrooms more generally.
The concept of co-learning has been used in a range of disciplines from artifi-
cial intelligence and computer simulation to global security systems and business
information management. Interestingly, and somewhat paradoxically, co-learning
as a concept is not talked about very much in educational research, where co-
participation and co-construction of knowledge are more often discussed with
a focus on equitable access to resources, equal contributions from individuals,
and emergence of knowledge through the actual learning process. In essence,
co-learning is a process in which several agents simultaneously try to adapt to one
another’s behavior so as to produce desirable global outcomes that would be shared
by the contributing agents. Researchers of co-learning have been particularly inter-
ested in the emergence of conventions and the evolution of cooperation during
its process (e.g., Macy & Skvoretz, 1998; Ossowski, 1999; Shoham & Tennenholtz,
1994, 1997). Brantmeier (n.d.) suggests that, in the classroom context, co-learning
changes the role sets of teachers and learners from “dispensers and receptacles of
knowledge” to “joint sojourners” on the quest for knowledge, understanding,
and wisdom. The teacher would become a learning facilitator, a scaffolder, and a
critical reflection enhancer, while the learner becomes an empowered explorer, a
meaning maker, and a responsible knowledge constructor. As Brantmeier argues,
“a facilitator doesn’t get in the way of learning by imposing information. A facili-
tator guides the process of student learning” (Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.). A scaffolder
“assesses the learner’s knowledge and builds scaffolding to extend that knowledge to
a broader and deeper understanding” (Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.). And a critical reflec-
tion enhancer asks the learner to “reflect on what is being learned and the process of
learning (meta-reflection about process)” (Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.). In the meantime,
an empowered explorer is “an independent or collective explorer of knowledge
through disciplined means” (Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.). And a meaning maker and
responsible knowledge constructor is “one who engages in meaningful knowledge
construction that promotes relevancy to her/his own life” (Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.).
Mutual adaptation of behavior is the key to co-learning. In order to achieve desir-
able learning outcomes, the teacher and the learner need to constantly monitor and
adapt their actions and learn from each other.
170 Li Wei

Co-learning in the classroom does not simply involve the teacher in develop-
ing strategies to allow equitable participation for all in the classroom; co-learning
requires much unlearning of cultural conditioning because, as Brantmeier (n.d.)
points out, “it challenges the traditional authoritative, dominant and subordinate
role sets in schooling environments and the unequal power relationships in wider
spheres of our world” (Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.). It empowers the learner, and “builds
a more genuine community of practice” (Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.). It moves the
teacher and the learner towards a more “dynamic and participatory engagement”
(Brantmeier, n.d., n.p.) in knowledge construction. According to Brantmeier, the
characteristics of a co-learning relationship include:

• all knowledge is valued;

• reciprocal value of knowledge sharers;
• care for each other as people and co-learners;
• trust; and
• learning from one another.

And the characteristics of a co-learning classroom environment include:

• shared power among co-learners;

• social and individualized learning;
• collective and individual meaning making and identity exploration;
• community of practice with situated learning; and
• real-world engagement and action.

Research on co-learning in the classroom investigates how the coparticipants,

teachers, and learners jointly build and manage their co-learning relationships,
what they actually learn from each other, and what impact co-learning practices
has on the co-participants’ knowledge acquisition and identity development.

Co-learning and Language Teaching

Since the 1990s, there has been a transformation in language teaching, especially
second- and foreign-language teaching, from an instructor-centered curriculum
to what has been termed as the learner-centered curriculum (e.g., Nunan, 1988; see
also Leung, this volume). The learner-centered curriculum is a negotiated process
in which the curriculum is a collaboration between teachers and students. Whilst
the focus is often on how the teacher plans, implements, and evaluates their lan-
guage-teaching activities, emphasis is given to learner needs, learner motivation,
and learner identity.
One of the consequences of the learner-centered curriculum is a realization of
learner diversity. Due in part to ever-increasing international migration and inter-
cultural encounters, it is now commonplace for language classes to have learners
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 171

with very different linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds, some having
very complex migration and language-learning experiences (cf. García & Flores,
this volume). They bring with them “funds of knowledge”—“the historically
accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for
households and individual functioning and well-being” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez, 1992, p. 133, see also Moll & Gonzalez, 1994). Such funds of knowledge
contain rich cultural and cognitive resources that can be used in the classroom in
order to provide culturally responsive, meaningful, and effective teaching (cf. Nor-
ton, this volume). Teachers, as well as the learners, have much to gain from using
these funds of knowledge in the classroom, not only to make the classrooms more
inclusive but also to engage in real-world meaning making and identity explora-
tion, which are crucial yet often neglected aspects of learning.
Multilingualism is now widely recognized to be a major source of funds of
knowledge.2 The ability to use home or community languages and to draw on
funds of knowledge associated with worlds beyond the classroom and the school is
part of what Kramsch and Whiteside (2008) call symbolic competence—“the ability
not only to approximate or appropriate for oneself someone else’s language, but
to shape the very context in which the language is learned and used” (Kramsch &
Whiteside, 2008, p. 664. See also Kramsch, 2006; Leung, this volume). As Kramsch
and Whiteside point out,

Social actors in multilingual settings seem to activate more than a commu-

nicative competence that would enable them to communicate accurately,
effectively, and appropriately with one another.They seem to display a partic-
ularly acute ability to play with various linguistic codes and with the various
spatial and temporal resonances of these codes. (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008,
p. 664)

Extending Bourdieu’s notion of sens pratique, which is exercised by a habitus

that structures the very field it is structured by in a quest for symbolic survival
(Bourdieu, 2000, p. 150), Kramsch and Whiteside (2008) argue that a multilingual
sens pratique multiplies the possibilities of meaning offered by the various codes in
presence. As they suggest,

In today’s global and migratory world, distinction might not come so much
from the ownership of one social or linguistic patrimony (e.g. Mexican or
Chinese culture, English language) as much as it comes from the ability
to play a game of distinction on the margins of established patrimonies.
(Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008 p. 664)

It should be recognized that the language teacher community has also

gone through enormous diversification. Native speaker teachers are no longer
regarded as the standard bearer (e.g., Braine, 2010; Llurda, 2005). Multilingual and
172 Li Wei

multicultural teachers bring their own funds of knowledge and have their own
symbolic competence. The question that I am particularly interested in exploring
is, then, what and how do the teachers and learners co-learn in the multilingual
and multicultural classroom?

Complementary Schools in Britain

Complementary schools have been a major sociopolitical and educational
movement in Britain since the 1950s. Initially they were formed by the Black
community as a means of tackling racism towards, and underachievement amongst,
Black children. In the 1960s and 1970s, British Muslim communities set up a
number of faith schools, especially for girls. Some of these schools later received
governmental recognition along with other faith schools. But the vast majority of
complementary schools in today’s Britain are cultural and language schools, usu-
ally run outside the hours of mainstream schools, that is, at weekends.3 According
to the national resource center ContinYou’s register (http://www.continyou.org.
uk/), there are currently over 2,000 such schools (see also Kempadoo & Abdel-
razak, 1999). However, such figures are likely to be an underestimate, as these
schools are voluntary organizations and many are very small and informal and thus
may not wish to appear on official registers for a variety of reasons.
Complementary schools have attracted a certain amount of public debate in
Britain vis-à-vis the definition of schooling, government’s involvement in edu-
cational management, and alternative pedagogical practices (e.g., Chevannes &
Reeves, 1987; Halstead, 1995; Hewer, 2001; McLaughlin, 1995). But on the whole
there is a lack of awareness of complementary schools by both mainstream school
teachers and the general public. Many mainstream teachers are not aware that
a significant number of their pupils also attend complementary schools at the
weekend, nor do they know what is being taught, or how, in these schools. For
their part, complementary schools do not usually attempt to interact with other
educational institutions (see Creese et al., 2008; Kenner, 2007). This includes
complementary schools of other minority ethnic communities. So a teacher at a
Turkish complementary school in the northeast of London may not have spoken
to a Gujarati school or a Chinese school teacher in the same area. They tend to
operate entirely within their own communities.
While the establishment of the complementary schools is sometimes seen as a
challenge to the dominant ideology of monoculturalism in Britain, the ideology
of the complementary schools themselves is rarely questioned. For instance, most
complementary schools have an implicit policy of one language only (OLON), usu-
ally the minority ethnic language of course, or one language at a time (OLAT). It
discourages the use of English and the mixing of languages and treats the pupils as
if they were the same as those from their ancestral countries, be it China, Turkey,
India, or some other, even though they are British by any definition. I have raised the
question elsewhere (Li & Wu, 2008, 2009) about the implications of such policies.
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 173

To me, OLON and OLAT policies are another form of the monolingual ideology,
particularly in light of the complexities of the multilingual repertoires of the pupils,
the teachers, and the parents (cf. García & Flores, this volume). Although it is under-
standable that the complementary schools want to insist on using specific community
languages in this particular domain, the long-term consequence of the compartmen-
talization of community languages and cultural affiliations is an issue of concern.4

The Present Study

The present study draws data from a number of complementary schools for
ethnic Chinese children in the major British cities of London, Manchester, and
Newcastle.5 The current Chinese community is one of the largest immigrant
communities in Britain, developed primarily from post-war migrants who began
to arrive in the 1950s.The vast majority of the post-war Chinese immigrants were
from Hong Kong. They were Cantonese and/or Hakka speakers. Many of them
were peasants and laborers who left an urbanizing Hong Kong to seek a better
living in Britain. They tend to be engaged in largely family-based catering busi-
nesses and other service industries. Over a quarter of the Chinese community in
Britain now are British born.6
There were informal reports of “home schooling,” that is, children being taught
by their parents and others at home, amongst these Chinese migrant families in
the 1950s and 1960s in cities such as London, Liverpool, and Manchester where
there were significant numbers of Chinese residents (Benton & Gomez, 2007).
The very first Chinese schools, complementary schools in effect, emerged on the
basis of such collectives of families, providing private education to their children.
The reasons for the emergence of such schools were complex. There is no doubt
that racial discrimination played a role. But the fact that the vast majority of
the Chinese were, and still are, engaged in service industries has led to scattered
settlements right across Britain. It is often said that any town or village in Britain
with around 2,000 residents will have at least one family-run Chinese takeaway.
While this may be stereotypical, the implication is that the Chinese children of
these families would have little or no contact with other Chinese children if there
was no Chinese complementary school.The establishment of the Chinese schools
must thus be seen as a major achievement of the community in their determina-
tion to support themselves. According to the UK Federation of Chinese Schools
and the UK Association for the Promotion of Chinese Education, the two largest
national-level organizations for Chinese complementary schools, there are over
200 Chinese complementary schools in the United Kingdom.7 They are located
in major urban centers. Many families have to travel for hours to send their chil-
dren to the schools. They receive little support from the relevant local education
authorities. They are almost entirely self-financed. Parents pay fees to send the
children, and local Chinese businesses offer sponsorships and other support (e.g.,
paying for the hire of premises and facilities). Many of the schools use teaching
174 Li Wei

materials provided free of charge by voluntary organizations and other agencies

in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The teachers are mainly enthusiastic
middle-class Chinese parents and university students.
In the last decade or so, a pattern has emerged. There are now four types of
Chinese schools in Britain: (1) schools for Cantonese-speaking children from
Hong Kong immigrant families; (2) schools for Cantonese-speaking children of
Hong Kong immigrant families with particular religious affiliations, that is, run
by the church; (3) schools for Mandarin-speaking children from mainland China;
and (4) schools for Mandarin-speaking children of Buddhist families, mainly
from Taiwan. Most of the schools run classes over the weekend for up to three
hours. Parents play a crucial role in the schools—parents pay, parents govern, and
parents teach. A typical Chinese complementary school in Britain looks like this:
It rents its premises from a local school or education center. There is a temporary
reception desk at the entrance for parents to speak to the teachers about any
issues of interest. A shop is available for the children to buy snacks and drinks.
Space is provided for the staff to have tea and coffee during break time and to
have meetings. The children are grouped according to proficiency in Chinese.
There are traditional Chinese dance, arts, and sports sessions before or after the
language and literacy sessions. Many schools also provide English-language les-
sons for parents.
With regard to language, four issues are noteworthy: (i) There is a clear policy
that only Chinese, whatever variety it may be, should be used by the teachers and
pupils, even though in practice both teachers and pupils alternate between Chi-
nese and English regularly (see further, Li & Wu, 2008). Li Wei (2011) discusses
how switching by the children between Chinese and English, as well as between
speech and writing, in the complementary-school classroom is used creatively
not only in the process of learning but also as an act of identity and rebellion
against the OLON or OLAT policies. (ii) Like most complementary schools
in Britain, the Chinese schools have literacy teaching as their key objective,
as there is a widespread perception amongst the parents that the British-born
generations of minority ethnic children have lost the ability to read and write in
their ethnic languages. (iii) There are significant differences between the teach-
ers and the pupils’ linguistic proficiency and preference. The teachers tend to
be native speakers of Chinese, have had a substantial monolingual experience
as Chinese speakers, and prefer to use Chinese most of, if not all, the time.
In contrast, the pupils have had limited and context-specific input in Chinese,
have high proficiency in English, and use English as the lingua franca with their
peers, including other children of Chinese ethnic origin. The children’s English-
language proficiency, in most cases, is much more sophisticated than that of
the teachers. Li and Wu (2009) examined examples of how children manipulate
the discrepancies in the language proficiencies and preferences in Chinese and
English between themselves and their teachers to their own advantage in the
classroom, for example, through correcting the teachers’ pronunciation of certain
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 175

English words and the use of idioms that are unknown to the teacher. (iv) All
the Cantonese schools also teach Mandarin and the simplified characters that are
associated with it. However, none of the Mandarin schools teaches Cantonese
or the traditional complex characters. This may be seen as a sign of the changing
hierarchies amongst varieties of the Chinese language as a result of the rising
politico-economic power of mainland China. Mandarin, the variety that is most
popularly used in mainland China, is fast gaining currency in the Chinese over-
seas diasporas that are traditionally Cantonese or Hokkien speaking (see further
Li & Zhu, 2010a, 2010b). It also raises issues of the complexities of different
modalities in learning Chinese (see, e.g., Li, 2011).
The data for the present chapter come out of a series of research projects inves-
tigating multilingual practices in complementary schools and families in London,
Manchester, and Newcastle. In each of the cities, we chose one Cantonese school
and one Mandarin school. And in all the schools, extensive ethnographic obser-
vations were made. After initial meetings with the administrators in each school
explaining the purpose of the research project, information sheets were distributed
to teachers, parents, and pupils and permissions sought for further data collection.
We were allowed access to observe classroom interaction and to collect data in
a range of settings, including break time and formal school events such as prize-
giving ceremonies. A selection of teachers, administrators, parents, and pupils were
interviewed, and recordings, both audio and video, were made in the classroom
as well as during break time. We chose to focus on the 10–12-year-old groups in
all the schools we studied, although some of the classes also included children as
young as eight, or as old as 14, years. All the examples discussed below are taken
from the transcripts of audio-recorded interactions.8

Co-learning of Language
Example 1 is taken from a Mandarin class in the Cantonese school in London.
The teacher has written the Chinese characters for a particular type of cookie,
曲奇, on the whiteboard because she thought it was an unfamiliar word for the
pupils. As it happens, the word is a Cantonese transliteration of English and some
of the pupils recognize the characters, as they have seen them in local shops. The
Cantonese pronunciation of the characters is kuk-kei, as G2, one of the pupils, says
in Example 1. But the teacher, not knowing Cantonese, pronounces the word in
Mandarin, which sounds very different from the English source, cookie. The two
pupils explain to the teacher that the Cantonese pronunciation of the characters
is in fact very similar to the English word. What is particularly remarkable is that
when the teacher seeks confirmation (“Is it?”), G2 replies in Cantonese, haila,
meaning yes and reinforcing the fact that they are Cantonese speakers. So whilst
the pupils are learning Mandarin, their knowledge of Cantonese helps with the
proceeding of the class, while the teacher gains knowledge about the origin of the
Chinese word by learning from the pupils.
176 Li Wei

Example 1. (T: a female teacher in her late twenties;

G1 and G2 are two 11-year-old female pupils.)
T: 曲奇 (quqi). 一种饼干,知道吗?
Quqi. A kind of cookie, you know?
G1: What?
T: 曲奇 (quqi).
G2: kuk-kei. kuk-kei.
T: Yes.
G1: So why did you say qiu . . . something qiu . . .
T: 曲奇 (quqi).
G2: No. kuk-kei.
G1: 广东话是 kuk-kei?
In Cantonese it is kuk-kei.
G2: It’s Cantonese. kuk-kei is Cantonese.
T: 是吗?
Is it?
G2: 係啦!
Yes!

We have observed many comparable instances where the pupils’ knowledge

of Cantonese has proved to be particularly useful in the teaching and learning of
specific words and phrases, many of which are transliterations of English. Exam-
ples include 沙律 (salad) in Cantonese saaleot and in Mandarin 色拉 sela; 芝士
(cheese), in Cantonese zisi and Mandarin zhi-shi. The Mandarin teachers, while
assuming an influential status in the class and teaching what is assumed to be a
high-status variety of Chinese, gain by learning from the pupils.
Example 2 is taken from a class of 8-year-olds in the Cantonese school in
Newcastle. The teacher is going through a series of pictures of fruit and vegetables
and asks the pupils to name them in Mandarin. When the teacher points to the
picture of potatoes, B1 answers in English. The teacher asks for the Chinese name,
and G1 answers in Cantonese.The teacher does not know the Cantonese word for
potato. So she asks for clarification. B2 repeats what G1 said. The teacher realizes
that they are speaking Cantonese. She seems to accept it with her “OK” and then
asks for an alternative. B1 answers in English, again, but this time with a Canton-
ese utterance final particle. The teacher takes the opportunity to stress that this is
a Chinese class and asks for the Chinese name. B1 attempts at a literal translation.
Tang means sweet but it is a noun, as in confectionery, and shu means potato. Tian
means sweet and it is an adjective. One can see that he is trying to work out what is
the correct form of the word. G2 repeats B1’s first attempt, tang shu (confectionery
potato), in a mildly mocking way and some of the pupils in the class giggle. The
teacher then offers the correct term, explaining that in some parts of China it is
known as hong shu (literally: red + potato) and in some other places, bai shu (white
potato). G2 understands it and says in English “red and white.” The teacher then
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 177

offers another term, digua (literally: earth melon), adding that this is how it is known
in her hometown dialect. But she then says that digua is potato. G1 reckons that
sweet potato would need to have an adjective before it. So she says tian digua. But
in fact, digua means sweet potato and the teacher has made a slip in the previous
turn.When she corrects G1, and herself, by saying digua is sweet potato, B2 repeats
the Cantonese term that he and G1 offered in the first place, faansyu, as if in protest.

Example 2. (T: Female teacher in her early thirties. B1 and B2 are boys
and G1 and G2 are girls. They are all about eight years old.)
T: 好了。下一个, 是什么?
Good. Next, what is it?
B1: Sweet potato.
T: 中文是什么?
What is it in Chinese?
G1: 蕃薯 (faan syu) ?
Sweet potato.
T: 什么?
What?
B2: 蕃薯 (faan syu)?
Sweet potato.
T: OK. 还可以叫什么?
What can it also be called?
B1: Sweet potato 啦。
PA [particles]
T: 中文!!
Chinese.
B1: 糖薯 (tang shu), 甜薯 (tian shu)?
candy potato, sweet potato
G2: 糖薯 (tang shu)!
candy potato

(Giggles)

T: 红薯 (hong shu), 也有的地方叫白薯 (bai shu)?

some places call it bai shu
B2: Red and white.
T: 我们家那边叫地瓜 (digua).
In my hometown we call it digua.
G2: 地瓜 (digua)?
T: 地瓜 (digua) 就是 potato.
Digua is potato.
G1: So it’s 甜地瓜(tian digua)?
So it’s sweet digua
178 Li Wei

T: No, 地瓜 (digua) 就是 sweet potato.

No, digua is sweet potato.
B2: 蕃薯啦 (faan syu la)?

Example 3 was recorded in one of the Mandarin schools in London. The

teacher is trying to explain the meaning of the phrase 摆乌龙 (bai wulong), or in
traditional characters 擺烏龍, and in Cantonese, baai wulung. As in Examples 1 and
2, the phrase comes from a Cantonese transliteration of the English phrase own
goal, and the verb baai/bai could mean play, place, or display. Nowadays, the phrase
is widely used amongst speakers of different varieties of Chinese to mean “made
a mess of things.” Like the teacher in Example 1, the teacher in this example does
not seem to know the origin of the phrase that he is teaching. He makes a connec-
tion between the word wulong (transliteration of own goal) with the name of a type
of Chinese tea which has the same written characters. Unlike Example 1 though,
the pupils in the present example do not seem to know the origin of the phrase
either, as they are not Cantonese speakers so they have not challenged the teacher
on the meaning of the phrase. What they do challenge is the mispronunciation of
the English translation of the phrase that the teacher makes. He pronounces the
word mishap as /mɪ ʃeɪp/. B1 is clearly puzzled. After the teacher explains it with
other translations, but still including the mispronunciation in English, G1 realizes
what is meant and offers the “correct” pronunciation. When the teacher shows his
lack of knowledge of the correct pronunciation, the pupils start to teach him. And
the teacher learns. The class then proceeds smoothly. One cannot help wondering
though that, if there was a Cantonese speaker present bringing further funds of
knowledge to the discussion, the teacher and the pupils would have learned much
more beyond the correct pronunciation of an English word. Nevertheless, the
teacher has gained some knowledge of English pronunciation.

Example 3. (T: Male Mandarin teacher in his late twenties.

B1 and B2 boys about 13 years old; G1: a 12-year-old girl.)
T: (Speaking slowly as he writes on the whiteboard) 摆-乌-龙 (bai wulong).
Mess up. 乌龙 (wulong), black dragon. 乌龙茶 知道吗?
Wulong Tea, do you know?
Black Dragon tea. 乌龙 (wulong)? means /mɪ ʃeɪp/.

(Silence)

T: 乌龙 (wulong) /mɪ ʃeɪp/. 摆乌龙 (bai wulong). Mess up.

B1: What?
T: Made a mistake. Accident. /mɪ ʃeɪp/.
G1: /mɪshǽp/, you mean?
B1: Oh I see.
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 179

T: What?
B2: /mɪshǽp/. It’s /mɪshǽp/.
B1: Not /mɪ ʃeɪp/.
T: /mɪshǽp/.
B1: Yes.

Elsewhere, I have discussed other examples of the pupils teaching the teach-
ers the standard ways of saying certain phrases or pronouncing certain words in
English (e.g., Li & Wu, 2009).The teachers in the Chinese complementary schools
generally readily accept that the pupils’ English is much better than theirs and
many actively seek to learn from the pupils, just as many Chinese parents routinely
ask their British-born children for the “correct” way of saying things in English.
Example 4 comes from a Cantonese class in the Manchester Cantonese school
that we studied. The teacher is trying to teach numerals in the traditional Chinese
written characters rather than the Arabic numbers.The pupils, who are used to the
latter, cannot see the point of learning the Chinese characters and contest the way
they are being taught. One pupil,Y, explicitly says “But we don’t use them now.”

Example 4 (T: Female teacher in her forties. G, P,

and Y are girls and H is a boy, all about 11 years old.)
T: 嗱, 改好正的那些拿出堂課簿, 抄黑板的字。
Nah, those who finished the corrections, take out your exercise book and copy the
characters on the blackboard.
G: (moaning) Oooh . . . What for?
T: 第一個是壹字, 第二個是貳字, 這些是中國的數字。
The first character is word ‘One,’ the second is word ‘Two.’These are Chinese number
words.
P: (confirming understanding): 哦。
Oh.
T: 壹是代表一, 貳是代表二, 叁是代表三, 肆是代表四。.
‘One’ represents ‘one’, ‘Two’ represents ‘two’, ‘Three’ represents ‘three’, ‘Four’ rep-
resents ‘four’.
H: 喺堂課簿。
In the exercise book.
T: 是啦, 在堂課簿。
Yes, in the exercise book.
G: (sigh) 唉。
Ai.
T: 壹至拾。不是一至十次。壹是代表一的‘一’字。是中國的文字。
中國的數字一是這樣寫. . . .
‘One’ to ‘Ten,’ not one to ten times. ‘One’ represents ‘one.’These are Chinese characters.
Chinese number words are written like these. . . .
180 Li Wei

T: 這些是以前中國用的壹字。
This is the word ‘One’ which used to be used in China.
Y: 但我們現在不用。
But we don’t use them now.
T: 現在不用, 但比你們認識一下, 因爲有時會在報章上看到。所以給你
們認識, 這個是壹、貳、叁、肆、伍、陸、柒、玐、玖、拾。快點抄
到堂課簿上。因爲在報紙上, 有時你們會 見到這些字。
Not being used now, but just to let you know these. Sometimes you’ll see them in
newspaper or magazine articles. So, (I’m) letting you know these.This is ‘One,’‘Two,’
‘Three,’ ‘Four,’ ‘Five,’ ‘Six,’ ‘Seven,’ ‘Eight,’ ‘Nine,’ ‘Ten.’ Copy into your exercise
book quickly. Because you’ll sometimes see these words in newspapers.

Shortly after this exchange, the teacher asked the class what other systems of
numerals they knew. Some said that they knew the Roman numerals.The teacher
was very enthusiastic about learning them and asked two of the pupils to write
them out on the blackboard. She actually remarked to the class, “Oh I learned a
lot today.” In fact, during our interviews with the teachers, many of them claim
that learning from the pupils is one of the most enjoyable aspects of working in
the complementary schools.
One further example I want to discuss in this section was recorded in the
Mandarin school in London. In this example, the teacher is explaining the text
送爷爷回家 meaning taking granddad home. But her English translation “took
grandfather to the home” does not only sound bookish, it is also pragmatically
misleading. Chinese learners of English often have problems with the use of arti-
cles in English. The teacher evidently does not know the difference between
home, which can be used as an adverb, and the home. This causes one of the pupils
to remark on the Chinese tradition of looking after the elderly within their own
families rather than sending them to care centers. What is interesting here is that,
while B1 realizes that he misunderstood the teacher because of the way she
phrased it, the teacher does not seem to realize that the word home can also refer
to care centers for the elderly.

Example 5. (T: Female teacher in her mid-twenties. B:

Boy of 12 years old.)
T: (Reading the textbook) 送爷爷回家, took grandfather to the home.
send granddad home
B: Aren’t the Chinese supposed to be nice to their grandparents?
T: Yes, of course.
B: Why is she sending him to a home then?
T: What?
B: You said she sent the granddad to a home.
T: 对, 家 home。回家 going home。
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 181

B: Not an old people’s home then.

T: What?
B: Doesn’t matter.

This example also illustrates the discrepancies in the cultural knowledge that
exists between the teachers and the pupils. Many of the teachers have been in
Britain for only a short period of time. The pupils, on the other hand, are mostly
British born.They have relatively little in common in terms of their cultural back-
ground and life experience. This lack of commonality between the teachers and
the pupils can potentially cause difficulties in the classroom and beyond, unless
they engage in co-learning in an active and positive way.
Let us now turn to other examples that illustrate more specifically the issue of
co-learning of culture rather than language.

Co-learning of Cultural Values and Practices

Example 6 is taken from a recording of an exchange between two boys and the
teacher in the Mandarin complementary school in London.The teacher has men-
tioned the word 统一 (unite) several times. That has triggered the question from
B1. B2 offers his explanation, which is correct, except that he talks about Taiwan
and China as two separate countries. This is a highly contentious political issue
and the mainland Chinese government and a significant number of the politi-
cians in Taiwan use a discourse that treats Taiwan as an integral part of China,
even though, as B2 points out, the mainland and Taiwan are often separately rep-
resented at international events. The teacher clearly follows the official line and
states that the mainland and Taiwan are not two countries and that Taiwan is part
of China. He explains B2’s observation by referring to the UK situation and how
the different nations in the United Kingdom9 are represented in sports. He further
rejects B1’s assertion that Scotland is a different country and reinforces his position
by stressing the word United in the United Kingdom.

Example 6. (T: Male teacher in his early thirties.

B1 and B2 are boys about 13 years old.)
B1: Are the Chinese still fighting?
T: No, why?
B1: So why are you always talking about 统一?
unite
B2: It’s about Taiwan and China. They are two countries, and they want to be
united.
T: No. 不是两个国家。台湾是中国的一部分。
Not two countries.Taiwan is part of China.
B2: No, they are not.
182 Li Wei

T: They are.
B2: They are not. In the Olympics, there were separate teams. I saw it.
T: It’s like Scotland or Northern Ireland. 都是英国, 但是世界杯 football
还有rugby也 是分开的了。
All part of the UK. But for the World Cup football and rugby, they can be separately
represented.
B1: Scotland is a different country.
T: No it is not.
B2: It is. XXX (a girl in the class) is from Scotland. She was born in . . . where
were you born again?
B1: Dundee.
T: 但它是统一的了。不是两个国家. The UNITED Kingdom 知不知道?!
But it is united. Not two separate countries.The United Kingdom, don’t you under-
stand?!

As has been discussed in Li and Wu (2010), the process of teaching and learn-
ing can be seen as a process of socialization through which certain values and
ideologies, as well as facts and practices, are transmitted and exchanged amongst
the coparticipants. Out of this process, new values, ideologies, knowledge, and
identities may emerge. The mainland and Taiwan relationship issue is a politically
sensitive one amongst the Chinese worldwide, but it is rarely directly discussed in
everyday social interaction. It is interesting to observe such a direct engagement
with the issue in a British complementary school classroom.The teacher is taking
a very clear and strong stance in the present example. The pupils seem to have
a somewhat different understanding of the situation. Whether or not the pupils’
views would be changed by the teacher’s stance is impossible to tell. But one thing
is certain: By engaging in the discussion, both the teacher and the pupils have
been made aware of the different positions on the issue.
Example 7 is an instance of the teacher moving from various Chinese folk fes-
tivals to the key phrase 盼望 (panwang), meaning longing for. But the examples she
gives in collocation with it all concern certain sociocultural ideals, such as having
a “united homeland” and “united family.” In contrast, the pupils are all longing for
the less serious things such as holidays, sporting events, and in an apparent act of
rebellion, the end of the Chinese complementary school year.

Example 7 (T: Female teacher in her forties. Q and B are girls,

and the others boys, all between 10 and 11 years old.)
T: 那是第五个词了。第四个词?盼望。盼望怎么说? 比如说, 我们都盼望什么?
盼望,expect, look forward to.Write down the explanation beside the words,
in case you forget it later. 盼望, the 4th one, means look forward to. 比如
说, 我们都盼望什么?
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 183

That’s the fifth word.The fourth word? ‘Panwang’ (long for). How do you use ‘Pan-
wang’? For example, what do we long for? ‘Panwang’ expect, look forward to.Write
down the explanation beside the words, in case you forget it later. ‘Panwang’, the
fourth one, means look forward to. For example, what do we ‘panwang’?
P1: 过节.
Having festivals.
P2: 圣诞节。
Christmas.
T: 世界杯?
World cup?
P3: No.
P4: 吃月饼。
Eating mooncakes.
T: 我们都盼望吃月饼? Sounds a little strange.
We all long for eating mooncakes?
B: Birthday! My birthday!
T: 我们都盼望着过圣诞节。B盼望着过生日。盼望 can be a little big for
all these occasions. 比如说, 我们都盼望着祖国统一, 对吧? 我们都盼望
着祖国 get reunited.
We all long for Christmas. B longs for her birthday. ‘Panwang’ can be a little big for
all these occasions. For example, we all long for our mother country to get reunited,
right? We all long for our mother country to get reunited.
L: 盼望中文学校完了。
Long for Chinese school to run out.

(All laugh.)

T: L, be serious, OK?
L: I am serious, I’m looking forward to it.
T: 比如说, 我们都盼望家人团聚。
For example, we long for family reunion.
T: For example, if you are here in Manchester, your parents are back in China,
and you have been separated for years, you are looking forward to the
reunion of the family.

Very similarly, in Example 8, the teacher is making sentences with the phrase
期待 (qidai), also meaning longing for, in collocation with a “united motherland,”
family reunion, peace, and friendship, while the pupils are making fun of each
other, as well as making light of the learning task. B deliberately transliterates
his classmate’s girlfriend’s name, Jennifer, in a funny Chinese phrase literally
meaning real clay Buddha, and the phrase moon bathing is clearly a parody of sun
bathing.
184 Li Wei

Example 8. (From a Mandarin class of 13-year-olds in Newcastle. T:

Female teacher in her forties. B, a boy.)
T: “期待” 可以说什么? 期待 祖国统一, 期待家人团聚, 期待和平友好。
What can you say with qidai (longing for)? Longing for a united motherland; longing
for family reunion; longing for peace and friendship.
B: xxx (name of another boy in the class) 期待真泥佛跟他晒月光。
xxx is longing for Jennifer to moon bathing with him.
(All laugh.)

Another example that shows the discrepancy between what the values that
the teacher wants to pass onto the pupils and what the pupils are interested in is
Example 9, where the teacher makes sentences with the verb 团结tuanjie (unity/
unite) by citing examples of propaganda slogans from mainland China, while the
pupils use the word in association with football.

Example 9. (T: Female teacher in her early thirties. B1 and B2:

11-year-old boys.)
T: 团结(tuanjie)。团结就是力量, 团结起来争取更大胜利。团结(tuanjie),
united.
Unity/Unite. Unity is strength. Unite to strive for greater success.
B1: Manchester United.
B2: Yeah, United will win.

Co-construction of Identity
What impact does the kind of socializational teaching, as we see in the above
examples, have on the development of the pupils’ identity? As here, we have shown
elsewhere that the pupils in the Chinese complementary schools often resist the
teachers’ socializational teaching by posing challenging questions and making fun
of the classroom activities (e.g., Li & Wu, 2010; see also Blackledge et al., this
volume). Many of them associate China with food, music, and everyday culture.
While most of them are aware of certain aspects of Chinese history, some of the
old folk tales, and archaeological artifacts, their primary interests in things Chinese
are Chinese pop songs, comics and youth magazines, and various card and com-
puter games.Yet, little of what the young British Chinese seem to be interested in
is reflected in the teaching in the Chinese complementary schools. Their actual,
complex, lived experiences as British Chinese youth are not at all reflected in the
teaching and learning in this particular context. For the schools and the teachers,
and many of the parents for that matter, on the other hand, the emphasis seems to
be on a set of traditional values and practices, many of which are imagined rather
than real (cf. Norton, this volume). They also tend to think of the children as pri-
marily Chinese and they want them to be very much similar to those in China.
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 185

The children, on the other hand, think of themselves primarily as British youths
of Chinese heritage. The issue of identity is sometimes discussed explicitly in the
Chinese complementary school classrooms, as the final example illustrates.

Example 10. (From the Mandarin school in London. T:

Female teacher in her early thirties. G1 and G2 are girls
and B1 and B2 boys, all between 11 and 12 years old.)
T: 我们中国人。
We are Chinese.
B1: 我们不是中国人。
We are not Chinese.
T: 你不是中国人是什么人?
You are not Chinese?
B2: 英国人。
British.
G1: 英国华侨。
British Chinese.
T: OK.
G2: 海外华人。
Overseas Chinese.
G1: 是华人还是华侨。
Should it be huaren (ethnic Chinese) or huaqiao? (Chinese citizens residing
outside China).
T: 严格地说, 应该是华人。
Strictly speaking, it should be huaren (ethnic Chinese).
B1: 华人。
Huaren (ethnic Chinese).
T: 对。你们是海外华人。
Correct.You are overseas Chinese.
G1: 英国华人。
British Chinese.
T: 也可以。
Also correct.
B1: 那你呢?
Then what are you?
T: 我? 我是中国人。
Me? I am Chinese.
B1: So you don’t have a British passport.
T: No.
B2: Isn’t your husband British?
T: Yes, I have permanent residence.
B1: So you are not British.
186 Li Wei

T: 我可以说是华侨。
I can say that I am huaqiao (Chinese citizen residing outside China).
B2: British Chinese.
T: No. I am a Chinese living in Britain.You are British Chinese.
B1: Or Chinese British.
B2: Like they call it Chinese American or American Chinese.
B1: ABC (American-born Chinese).
T: You are BBC (British-born Chinese).

Here, the Chinese phrase 中国人 (zhongguo ren) is linguistically ambiguous

as it can refer to the general ethnic category or Chinese citizens or nationals.
What the pupils object to is being described as Chinese citizens or nationals.
But the two terms often used to describe Chinese people living outside China
are also confusing. 华人 (huaren) means persons of Chinese ethnic origin, and
华侨 (huaqiao) means Chinese citizens who are living outside China. However,
when the English term Overseas Chinese is used, it often includes both groups
of people. Many of the governmental and nongovernmental organizations for
overseas Chinese affairs do not make a clear distinction between the two groups
and they are both invited to events in the British Chinese embassy—for instance,
Chinese National Day celebrations and Chinese New Year receptions. Remark-
ably, the pupils in the present example seem to be interested in the fine technical
details and one of them asks the teacher directly what she is.The teacher first gives
a clichéd reply that she is Chinese. After the pupils’ challenges, however, she has to
reflect on it and gives a more precise answer. The pupils also begin to reflect on
who they are. What starts as a technical discussion of some terminological issues
has thus led to a meaningful discussion and enhanced awareness of their identities.

Conclusion
I have tried in this chapter to use the concept of co-learning to investigate the
teaching and learning that goes on in a specific kind of language classroom—
British Chinese-language(s) complementary schools. Co-learning challenges
the traditional sets in the classroom, especially the unequal power relationships
between the teachers and the pupils. It takes the teacher and the learner to a more
“dynamic and participatory engagement” in knowledge construction by empow-
ering the learner and by building a more genuine community of practice. In such
an environment, different kinds of knowledge are not only equally appreciated but
also actively exchanged.
Complementary schools such as the ones we have examined in this chapter
offer an interesting environment for co-learning. The funds of knowledge the
teachers and pupils bring into the classroom include language, culture, and life
experiences.What is particularly interesting, as the examples discussed in this chap-
ter show, is the differences in the teachers and the pupils’ linguistic proficiencies
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 187

in Mandarin, Cantonese, and English, their attitudes and attachments to the dif-
ferent languages and language varieties, the cultural values that are inherent in
the languages as well as those that they gain from their different life experiences,
their migration histories and developmental trajectories, and their social positions
in the community and the wider society. The vast majority of the teachers have
a relatively short experience of living in Britain and many also have little contact
with the Chinese communities apart from service encounters. Some of them are
educational transients who are in Britain for their studies and who have every
intention of returning to China in due course. They of course bring with them
knowledge of contemporary China, which they do use in their teaching. But the
vast majority of pupils in the Chinese complementary schools are British born
and have no intimate knowledge of China. Very few of them have ever lived in
China for any significant period of time.They are British youth of ethnic Chinese
background. These differences may cause tensions and conflicts, as studies in Li
and Martin’s (2009) collection demonstrate. But they also provide exciting learn-
ing opportunities and resources. When the teachers and the pupils are engaged
in co-learning, these resources are fully utilized and opportunities taken. Their
knowledge therefore gets enriched. The conventional power relations between
the teacher and the pupil are being challenged in the process of co-learning. A
new set of relations is negotiated.
One particular aspect of the co-learning using different funds of knowledge,
the above examples show, concerns the pupils’ knowledge of Cantonese and
the lack of it on behalf of many of the teachers, especially those in Mandarin
classes. Although the social hierarchy between Mandarin and Cantonese is chang-
ing fast amongst the Chinese diasporas due to globalization and the increased
politico-economic power of mainland China, Cantonese speakers bring with
them specific cultural knowledge that is immediately relevant to the everyday life
of the community in which these Chinese complementary schools are located.
So, while at the global level Mandarin clearly has higher status, at the local level
Cantonese plays a key role that brings with it specific power and influence. For
instance, the provision of services such as restaurants, travel agencies, accountan-
cies, and health clinics in the Chinese communities in Britain is still dominated
by Cantonese. And there are many times more Cantonese schools than Mandarin
ones. When the Cantonese pupils use their knowledge of the language skilfully
in the classroom, they can obtain an especially powerful position, and when the
non-Cantonese-speaking teachers are prepared to learn from the pupils, they gain
knowledge, power, and respect.
Co-learning in the complementary school classroom also has significant effects
on the identity development of both the teachers and the pupils. The reflexive
process of co-learning provides an interesting opportunity for the co-participants
to think further about who they are, what they know, and what they can learn
from others. New identities and new ideas of identities emerge out of the co-
learning process.
188 Li Wei

Notes
1. See Blackledge and Creese (2010a); Brinton, Kagan, and Bauckus (2007); Duff and Li
(2009); He and Xiao (2008); Hornberger (2005); Li and Martin (2009); May and Aikman
(2003); Nicholls (2005).
2. See Boyd, Brock, and Rozendal (2004); Gee (1996); Perry and Delpit (1998); Saxena
and Martin-Jones (2003); Smitherman (2000).
3. See Li (2006) for a review of the historical developments of complementary schools in
Britain; see also Blackledge, Creese, and Takhi, this volume.
4. See Blackledge and Creese (2010b); Blackledge et al., this volume; Creese et al. (2006);
Martin, Creese, Bhatt, and Bhojani (2004).
5. These data were collected as part of an ESRC funded project Investigating Multilin-
gualism in Complementary Schools in Four Communities. RES-000–23–1180 and AHRC
project SGDMI/PID134128. The research team of the ESRC project consisted of A.
Creese, T. Baraç, A. Bhatt, A. Blackledge, S. Hamid, Li Wei,V. Lytra, P. Martin, C.-j. Wu,
and D.Yağcıoğlu-Ali. The AHRC project was led by Zhu Hua.
6. A more detailed account of the current sociolinguistic situation of the British Chinese
community can be found in Li (2007).
7. See http://www.ukfcs.info/ and http://www.ukapce.org.uk/.
8. The examples are given in standard Chinese and English orthography. Mandarin is rep-
resented in simplified Chinese characters and Cantonese in traditional full characters.
The pronunciation of the Chinese words is given only where it is relevant to the discus-
sion, in Pinyin for Mandarin and in Jyutping for Cantonese, in brackets immediately
after the Chinese characters. The English translation is given underneath the Chinese
transcript in italics.
9. Britain comprises the three nations of England, Scotland, and Wales. The United King-
dom also includes the province of Northern Ireland.

References
Baker, C. (2012). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Benton, G. & Gomez, E.T. (2007) The Chinese in Britain, 1800–present: Economy, transnation-
alism, and identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010a). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London, UK:
Continuum.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010b). Opening up flexible spaces: Ideology and practice in
complementary schools. In V. Lytra and P. Martin (Eds.), Sites of multilingualism: Comple-
mentary schools in Britain today (pp. 3–17). Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
Boyd, F., Brock, C. H., & Rozendal, M. S. (Eds.). (2004). Multicultural and multilingual literacy
and language: Contexts and practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth.
London, UK: Routledge.
Brantmeier, E. J. (n.d.). Empowerment pedagogy: Co-learning and teaching. Retrieved from
http://www.indiana.edu/˜leeehman/Brantmeier.pdf
Brinton, D. M., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (Eds.) (2007). Heritage language education: A new
field emerging. London, UK: Routledge.
 Who’s Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms 189

Chevannes, F., & Reeves, M. (1987). The Black voluntary school movement. In B. Troyna
(Ed.), Racial inequality in education (pp. 147–169). London, UK: Tavistock.
Creese, A., Barac, T., Bhatt, A., Blackledge, A., Hamid, S., Lytra, . . .Yagcioglu-Ali, D. (2008).
Multilingualism in complementary schools in four linguistic communities (ESRC Report no:
RES-000–23–1180). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
Creese, A., Bhatt, A., Bhojani, N., & Martin, P. (2006). Multicultural, heritage and learner
identities in complementary schools. Language and Education, 20(1), 23–43.
Duff, P. A., & Li, D. (Eds.). (2009). Indigenous, minority, and heritage language education in
Canada: Policies, contexts and issues. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue
canadienne des langues vivantes, 66, 1.
Gee,J.P.(1996).Social linguistics and literacies:Ideology in discourses. London,UK:Routledge-Falmer.
Halstead, M. (1995). Voluntary apartheid? Problems of schooling for religious and other
minorities in democratic societies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29, 257–272.
He, A. W., & Xiao, Y. (Eds.). (2008). Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citi-
zenry. Mānoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i.
Hewer, C. (2001). Schools for Muslims. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 515–527.
Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (2005). Introduction: Heritage/community language education:
US and Australian perspectives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingual-
ism, 8(2&3), 101–108.
Housen, A. (2002). Processes and outcomes in the European Schools Model of multilingual
education. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 45–64.
Kempadoo, M., & Abdelrazak, M. (1999). Directory of supplementary and mother-tongue sup-
plementary classes 1999–2000. London, UK: Resource Unit for Supplementary and
Mother-Tongue Schools.
Kenner, C. (2007). Developing bilingual learning strategies in mainstream and community contexts
(ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000–22–1528). Swindon, UK: ESRC.
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern
Language Journal, 90(2), 249–252.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings: Towards a
theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645–671.
Li, W. (2006). Complementary schools: Past, present and future. Language and Education,
20(1), 76–83.
Li,W. (2007). Chinese. In D. Britain (Ed.), Language of the British Isles (pp. 308–325). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Li, W. (2011). Multilinguality, multimodality and multicompetence: Code- and mode-
switching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. The Modern Language Journal,
95(3), 370–384.
Li,W., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2009).Tensions and conflicts in classroom code-switching [Spe-
cial issue]. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2).
Li,W., & Wu, C. (2008). Codeswitching, ideologies and practices. In A. E. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.),
Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry, (pp. 225–238). Honolulu, HI:
National Foreign Language Resource Centre, University of Hawai’i.
Li,W., & Wu, C. (2009). Polite Chinese children revisited: Creativity and the use of codeswitch-
ing in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Educa-
tion and Bilingualism, 12(2), 193–211.
Li, W., & Wu, C. (2010). Literacy and socializational teaching in Chinese complementary
schools. In V. Lytra and P. Martin (Eds.), Sites of multilingualism: Complementary schools in
Britain today (pp. 33–44). Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
190 Li Wei

Li W. & Zhu, H. (2010a). Changing hierarchies in Chinese language education for the
British Chinese learners. In L. Tsung & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Teaching and learning
Chinese in global contexts: Multimodality and literacy in the new media age. London, UK:
Continuum.
Li W., & Zhu, H. (2010b).Voices from the diaspora: Changing hierarchies and dynamics of
Chinese multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 205, 155–171.
Llurda, E. (Ed.). (2005). Non-native language teachers. Perceptions, challenges and contributions to
the profession. New York, NY: Springer.
Macy, M.W., & Skvoretz, J. (1998).The evolution of trust and cooperation between strang-
ers: A computational model. American Sociological Review, 63, 638–660.
Martin, P. W., Bhatt, A., Bhojani, N., & Creese, A. (2006). Managing bilingual interaction
in a Gujarati complementary school in Leicester. Language and Education, 20(1), 5–22.
Martin, P. W., Creese, A., Bhatt, A., & Bhojani, N. (2004). A final report on complementary
schools and their communities in Leicester (ESRC R000223949). Leicester, UK & Birming-
ham, UK: University of Leicester/University of Birmingham..
May, S., & Aikman, S. (2003). Indigenous education: Addressing current issues and develop-
ments [Special issue]. Comparative Education, 39(2), 139–145.
McLaughlin,T. H. (1995). Liberalism, education and the common school. Journal of Philoso-
phy of Education, 29, 239–253.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31,
132–141.
Moll, L. C., & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 439–456.
Nicholls, C. (2005). Death by a thousand cuts: Indigenous language bilingual education
programmes in the Northern Territory of Australia, 1972–1998. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2&3), 160–177.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study of second language teaching. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ossowski, S. (Ed.). (1999). Co-ordination in artificial agent societies: Social structures and its impli-
cations for autonomous problem-solving agents. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London, UK: Routledge.
Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (1998). The real ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of
African-American children. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Saxena, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (2003). Bilingual resources and “funds of knowledge” for
teaching and learning in multi-ethnic classrooms in Britain. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 6(3/4), 267–282.
Shoham,Y., & Tennenholtz, M. (1994). Co-learning and the evolution of social activity (Report
No. STAN-CS-TR-94–1511). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Com-
puter Science.
Shoham,Y., & Tennenholtz, M. (1997). On the emergence of social conventions. Modeling,
analysis and simulations. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1–2), 139–166.
Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language, culture and education in African America. New
York, NY: Routledge.