Abstract
Internationally, English is increasingly being adopted as the language of post-secondary education. In Asia however efforts by universities to promote the use of the English language both inside and outside the classroom may be threatened by the supposed reticence of Asian learners. This paper problematizes Chinese learners alleged reticence by examining how one group of undergraduates at an English medium of instruction university in Hong Kong were able to meet the demands placed upon them for participation in spoken activities within their English for academic purposes classroom. Interviews with students and teachers, classroom observations, audiovisual recordings of classroom interaction and documentary analysis were used to understand how students participated in classroom discussion. The results suggest that learners adopted particular oral roles and drew upon a range of resources in ways that enabled them to conceptualize participation in classroom discussion as, in part, the result of learner agency. Implications for classroom practices in content classrooms traditionally dominated by a transmission mode of teaching are discussed.

Keywords: classroom discourse, reticence, language across the curriculum.

Introduction
Internationally, English is increasingly being adopted as the language of post-secondary education (Coleman, 2006; Phillipson, 2006.) In Hong Kong, the role of the English language in tertiary education was underlined in a 2004 review of language education at the University of Hong Kong, an English medium of instruction (EMI) institution. Emphasis was placed on the need for language enhancement and proficiency, an outcome closely linked to the use of the English language: “English should be the lingua franca for all formal and informal communication throughout the university” (University of Hong Kong, 2004, p. 9). To attain this goal it was argued that “measures should be taken to encourage students to use English as a medium of spoken and written communication on campus” (University of Hong Kong, 2004, p. 31). However, encouraging the use of spoken English amongst Chinese learners, both inside and outside the classroom, is likely to be especially challenging. For example, the review of language education at the university conceded that “the amount of time students spent on communicating in English in class is…very limited” (University of Hong Kong, 2004, p. 10). This conclusion resonates with research describing the supposed reticence of second and foreign language learners to participate in oral interaction in both language and content classrooms (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Jackson, 2002). In the case of learners from Asian educational backgrounds, participation in classroom discussion is thought to be especially problematic (Cheng, 2000; Flowerdew & Miller, 1995; Jackson, 2002; Kim, 2006; Tsui, 1996). The move from transmission based instruction to active learning in higher education, including interactive discussion formats, means that this supposed reticence threatens not only the implementation of language policy at EMI institutions it also potentially undermines the academic success of learners. This paper investigates how the gap between espoused language policy and policy in use (Li et al, 2001) might be narrowed by examining oral language use amongst one group of undergraduate learners within the EAP classroom at the University of Hong Kong. The results are of interest to researchers, teachers and policy makers involved in the formulation and implementation of language policies at EMI tertiary institutions.

Literature review
This section reviews the reasons for the apparent reticence of second language learners that have been identified by previous research. One approach to the investigation of learner reticence locates the alleged problem at the level of the individual student or teacher. Horwitz et al (1996) maintain that learners of foreign languages frequently fear speaking in class, are concerned about being seen as less competent than their peers and are apprehensive about making mistakes in the target language. Other investigations foreground the language proficiency of learners. Cheng (2000) believes that “if Asian students have fewer problems with language, both in perception and production, they are more likely to take active roles in the class” (p. 444). Tsui’s (1996) survey of secondary English language teachers in Hong Kong reveals the widespread presence of reticence as the result of the low English language proficiency of students, a fear amongst learners of making mistakes, the teachers’ dislike of silence in the classroom and tendency to ask questions of brighter students, as well as the inability of students to comprehend the instructions and questions of their teachers. Jackson (2002) examined participation by undergraduates of Business Studies in classroom discussion at one EMI university in Hong Kong. The most reticent students argued that their lack of participation reflected a fear of making mistakes, a lack of confidence and the language barrier. Business studies instructors concurred, maintaining that student participation in classroom discussion is constrained partly by the learners’ limited English language proficiency and by their fear of speaking. More recently, Evans and Green (2007) report the results of a questionnaire survey of 4932 undergraduates across all departments at one English medium university in Hong Kong. Sixty percent of students indicated that they experienced difficulty in speaking accurately in English, while 40% suggested that communicating ideas fluently is difficult. Evans and Green (2007) conclude that “inadequate basic language competence results in a lack of confidence as students struggle to accomplish macro-linguistic tasks of a complex nature” (P. 15).
   Moving beyond the level of the individual learner or teacher, other explanations of reticence address the role of cultural factors (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Flowerdew & Miller, 1995; Ferris and Tagg, 1996; Jones, 1999). Jones (1999), for instance, argues that compared to language proficiency, “cultural background is an equal and possibly more important cause of NNS (non-native speaker) reticence or silence” (p. 257). Cultural variables that are thought to underpin the alleged reticence of Chinese students include a collectivist culture in Chinese society, the traditional roles assigned to teachers and students (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996), the need to maintain face and a learning style that traditionally values memorization and rote learning (Flowerdew & Miller, 1995).
   The perception of Chinese learners as reticent in the classroom has however been challenged by other research. Kember (2000), for instance, reports on the introduction of alternative teaching and learning methods, including problem-based learning, group projects and peer teaching, across eight universities and colleges in Hong Kong. Evaluation of the project, through questionnaires and interviews with participants, indicated strong student support. Kember (2000) concludes that “the impression that Hong Kong students prefer passive learning and resist teaching innovations can have little or no foundation” (p. 110). Lee (1999) reaches a similar conclusion in her study of tutorial discussions at one higher education institution in Hong Kong. Based upon interviews with 22 Chinese undergraduate students enrolled in a variety of disciplines, Lee (1999) reports that learners expect to participate equally with their tutor in discussions and are aware of the need to give opinions and to respond to others. Lee (1999) believes that these results cast “some light on the misperception in the literature that ‘Chinese students do not participate in discussion’” (p. 263). Kennedy (2002) notes that Chinese learners might be regarded as reflective rather than passive, with much interaction between teacher and student taking place outside the classroom. However as these studies rely primarily on interviews, questionnaires and surveys of previous research, there is potential for discrepancy between what students report about their involvement in classroom discussion and what takes place within the classroom itself. To address this concern, the study reported here undertook empirical research within language classrooms to better understand how one group of Chinese learners participated in discussion activities. To investigate the alleged reticence of Chinese learners in the classroom and how one group of students met the need for oral participation in the classroom, the data collection and analysis was guided by the following research question:
           
How can participation by Chinese second language learners in undergraduate         classroom discussion be promoted at EMI tertiary institutions?

Method
This study investigates participation in classroom discussion by one group of Chinese second language learners at an EMI tertiary institution in Hong Kong. The experiences of a small number of learners and their teachers are examined within classroom contexts to reveal the participants’ definition of the situation. A feature of this type of research is that the researcher is encouraged to use triangulation. Therefore, to better understand learners’ participation in classroom discussion, as well as the thoughts and feelings of both teachers and students about this participation, data were collected using interviews, questionnaires and classroom observation over an entire semester.

Context and participants
The study was conducted at the University of Hong Kong, an English medium tertiary level institution in Hong Kong. The primary participants were eight first year Chinese undergraduate students, four males and four females, from the Department of Economics and Finance and two English language teachers from the English Centre at the university. At the time of this study the eight students were enrolled in a compulsory one semester English for academic purposes course entitled ‘English for Academic Communication: Economics and Finance’ (hereafter EAC). Two English teachers responsible for the delivery of EAC classes were asked to participate in the study on the basis of their prior experience in teaching this course. Another group of participants included six instructors from the Department of Economics and Finance who were experienced in the delivery of lectures and tutorials to first year undergraduate students. In this paper the names of all participants are pseudonyms.     

Data collection
Multiple methods of data collection were used. I observed four EAC classes, two conducted by each of the language teachers who participated in the study, for 12 weeks throughout Semester 1 of the 2005-2006 academic year. Interviews were also conducted with both the students and their teachers. An initial interview was conducted with students and EAC teachers seeking background biographical information as well as their thoughts and feelings about participating in classroom discussion. Both the students and EAC teachers were also interviewed every week through the semester in which they reported their immediate reactions to each class. I also interviewed economics instructors once to determine their views on the oral participation of their first year students within the economics classroom. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. In addition, audiovisual recordings were made of two EAC classes throughout Week Five to Week Nine of the semester. Selected segments of the audiovisual material which were thought to be helpful in answering the research questions discussed above were transcribed. Finally, the data base also included relevant documents such as statements of university language policy, the undergraduate prospectus, the EAC course handbook as well as classroom handouts.     

Data analysis
Data collection and analysis were closely linked in an iterative and on-going process that occurred throughout the entire semester in which the study was conducted. Initial coding of data involved the search for themes across the set of data that was being collected. These themes were initially represented using “indigenous concepts” (Patton, 2002, p. 454) employed by the participants themselves. As data were read and re-read more theoretical categories emerged, such as ‘modes of participation’ and ‘resources for participation’. Data was coded according to these theoretical categories and tentative propositions were developed with the aim of constructing a coherent understanding of classroom discourse as it was experienced by the participants in this study. These emerging understandings were then tested against the data by searching for alternative explanations and negative cases. This was assisted by the steps taken to triangulate data sources and methods of collection. This allowed for data to be compared across different sources and locations – teachers, students and classes - as well as through different methods of collection - interviews, observations and classroom documents. 

Findings
The role of speaking in content and language classrooms
The data revealed complex relationships between language, learning and students’ participation in spoken activities within language and content classrooms. Student participation in classroom discussion appears to be highly valued by the economics as well as the English language teachers. All of the economics instructors, for instance, spoke of the importance of students’ oral participation in the classroom as a medium for learners to challenge and question economic theory and practice. One economics instructor, Kenneth, summarized this view: “students should be discussing things, getting behind some of the issues and asking the good questions” (interview, 12/9/05). In practice, however, all of the economics teachers conceded that their own individual classrooms are frequently dominated by a transmission mode of delivery. When asked to reflect on the tutorials she conducted, Debbie, an economics instructor, reported that “most of our tutorials are rather one-way, I would just teach this, and then the students just sit there and absorb the thing” (interview 29/9/05). Reasons offered by the economics teachers include large class size, the shyness of Hong Kong students, learners’ limited English language proficiency and lack of content knowledge.  

Turning to the language classroom, English for Academic Communication (EAC) appears to leave students with little choice over whether or not to participate in such discussion; 40% of assessment in EAC is based on oral tasks and activities while the remaining 60% is comprised of various written tasks. These institutional requirements for student participation in classroom discussion were supported and reinforced by the beliefs of both EAC teachers about the role students should fulfill within the classroom. As one EAC teacher, Karen, explains:

I would like them (students) to participate in class. I would like them to raise questions. I think participating in class is very important. I would like them to share opinions and encourage other people. (Karen, interview 8/9/05)

The other EAC teacher, Anne, agreed, arguing that students “should be contributing to classroom discussion, we place a lot of emphasis on that in every class” (Anne, interview 10/9/05). Given the apparent importance of students’ oral participation in EAC, the remainder of this section explores how one group of Chinese learners negotiated the requirements for spoken discourse that confronted them within their undergraduate language classroom.

Learners’ participation in the EAC classroom
EAC students argued that their participation in spoken activities represented an important part of their identity as members of the EAC classroom community:

It (EAC) is really a spoken class, so for students in EAC, we need to actively reply to the teachers’ questions and to talk with the classmates. (Pauline, EAC student, interview 16/9/05)

Students should all be active in class. I think we (students) need to take all the chances to speak that the teacher gives us. (Victor, EAC student, interview 20/9/05) 
           
As a member of this class (EAC) I should listen to the teacher, ask questions and be willing to discus the topics with other students. (Ivy, EAC student, interview   

                
   Learners were positioned as active oral participants in EAC partly as a result of the classroom practices of both of the English language teachers. For example, Karen’s classroom talk made it clear that an active oral role for students was an essential part of her expectations about classroom relations. Students were required not only to respond to inquiries from the teacher but to take responsibility for the learning outcomes of the entire group. Karen frequently expressed the belief that “we (the class) learn more if we work together” (EAC classroom observation), often urging her students to “help each other, don’t rely on me” (EAC classroom observation). The other language teacher, Anne, developed several small group tasks that required students to teach each other core components of the syllabus, such as how to cite and refer to material within an academic essay (EAC classroom observation). Anne used this approach because she believed it helped overcome the shyness some students might initially feel, describing how her students “really get into it (oral discussion) if they have to do the teaching for a change” (Anne, interview 20/9/05).
   The students appeared to welcome the role of active classroom participant because of the confidence it gave them. Reflecting on one oral task, Elizabeth suggested that “we (students) just don’t have time to be shy and nervous, we just have to go around and teach each other that material, talk to each group and move on because they’re relying on us to do a good job of the explanation” (Elizabeth, EAC student, interview 13/11/05). Another student, Amanda, spoke of the freedom this provided: “the teachers just give you the bones of the topic you need to develop what you say and how you say and it just makes the whole class a lot more freedom for us and more interesting and fun, so coming to this class doesn’t feel like a chore” (Amanda, EAC student, interview 26/10/05).   

Resources for participation
In the EAC classroom oral fluency, rather than linguistic accuracy, appeared to be highly valued by both EAC teachers. As Anne explained:

I’ve never seen the fact that their (students’) language use is not good as a bad thing. I say wow; the fact that they’re out there saying it is a good thing. (Anne, EAC teacher, interview 27/9/05)

   Karen also placed a premium on fluency, encouraging her students to “make all the (linguistic) mistakes you want here (in the classroom)” (classroom observation 20/9/05). The emphasis on fluency meant that EAC students’ participation in classroom discussion was not defined entirely in terms of their linguistic capability. Rather, students were able to draw upon a broad range of knowledge, skills and experiences to support their participation in spoken interaction. Particularly important was the knowledge and understanding of economics and finance that learners brought to the EAC classroom. For example, in the following small group discussion within the EAP classroom, one student, Patrick, outlines the reasons for his choice of ‘investment’ as the topic for an assessed individual oral presentation each student was required to make to the class:

Patrick: My topic is about value investment
Student 1: Value investment.
Patrick: Yeh.
Student 2: So professional.
Patrick: You know who is Warren Buffett?
Student 2: The second richest man in the world.
Patrick: Yeh, yeh.
Student 3: Oh really.
Patrick: So what he is using is value investment.
Student 2: What is value investment?
Patrick: Value investment is that he chooses some share that the company is potential to grow in the future that means the company is really good but the value of the share price is understated.
Student 2: Doesn’t reflect their value?
Student 4: Underestimated price?
Patrick: Yeh.
Student 3: Oh.
Student 1: Do you have some shares that you describe?
Patrick: Yeh Petro China.
Student 1: Do you want to buy now?
Patrick: Yeh.
Student 2: How much have you invested?
Patrick: A few thousand.
Student 1: IPO or secondary market?
Patrick: Yeh, secondary market.
Student 1: What is the price that you paid lower than Warren Buffett?
Patrick: Warren Buffett bought at two dollars per share I was three point something.
Student 2: What’s the price now?
Patrick: Six point something.
Student 3: I see.
Student 1: It is a great profit.
Student 4: 100 per cent.
Student 2: What’s his expectation on the price?
Student 1: Unfortunately Petro China stock price falls to five point zero five point nine zero today.
Student 2: Now?
Student 1: Yes, because Hang Seng Index has fallen 200 points.
Student 4: Yes, below 15,000.
Student 3: Really?
Patrick: Why I choose this topic is because my dream is to become [ ] Warren Buffett.
Student 3: Chinese Warren Buffett.
(EAC classroom recording 19/10/05)

   The way in which Patrick links his participation in EAP classroom discourse to the use of discipline specific language and knowledge provides his oral contribution with a degree of credibility; as one student noted, his topic appeared to be “so professional”. In addition, all members of the group were able to share in this credibility as each introduced and displayed knowledge in the use of specialized terminology. This included references to shares, the Hang Seng Index, underestimated price, buying and selling prices, IPO, and the secondary market. Furthermore, Patrick was able to establish his professional credibility with the group by reporting what was described as a “great profit” from his investment activities. By drawing upon their disciplinary expertise, learners, both as individuals and as a group, were able to create opportunities to shape the products and processes of classroom discourse in ways that did not appear to be available to them in the Economics classroom.

Perceptions of participation
EAC learners’ perceptions about their participation in classroom discourse appear to be partly shaped by the degree of control they believed they were able to exercise over the processes and outcomes of their investments in classroom discourse. The perception of control appeared to take two related forms; ‘freedom from’ teachers control over the products and processes of oral interaction and ‘freedom to’ shape these products and processes in ways that they themselves determined. First, all learners reported appreciating the oral independence and freedom that their teachers approach to classroom discourse permitted them:

I like to be given space to think independently (of the teacher). (Ivy, EAC student, interview 13/10/05)

Speaking in this class (EAC), it’s a very free environment, its not a chore when you come to class and everyone’s just having fun and I think that’s the best environment if you’re trying to learn a new language. (Victor, EAC student, interview 30/9/05) 

   Another student, Amanda, endorsed these views, going on to argue that freedom meant limited teacher involvement in the processes and outcomes of discussion:

The teacher doesn’t give you all the straight answers, like what to do - do this, do that - but just gives you an outline and then you can explore everything that you want to talk about. (Amanda, EAC student, interview 16/10/05)

   These comments underline the importance for these learners of ‘freedom from’ teacher control of the processes and outcomes of classroom discourse. A second closely related theme was control over decision-making. Rather than referring to ‘freedom from’ teachers’ control, this category describes learners’ ‘freedom to’ take control of a range of decisions before and during their participation in classroom discussions. Four learners mentioned that they welcomed the opportunity to make their own decisions in relation to what and how discussion proceeded in the EAC classroom. Pauline suggested that one particularly enjoyable aspect of the EAC classroom was that “we (students) can decide which topic (to discuss) and we can do some research on the sources before lessons and bring it to the lesson and to discuss with my classmates or (the teacher)” (Pauline, EAC student, interview 4/11/05). Amanda reported a similar positive attitude towards the fact that students were able to select their own examples to discuss in class, while Elizabeth welcomed the opportunity for her and her classmates to make their own decisions over where to “lead the discussion” (Elizabeth, EAC student, interview 23/9/05). The EAP classroom therefore might provide a successful case study of how learners’ participation in oral activities could be enhanced in language and content classrooms at English medium tertiary institutions, an issue discussed in greater detail below.

Discussion
The results of this study suggest that thinking about Chinese learners’ participation in classroom discussion needs to change if the language policy aims of English medium institutions in Asia are to be realized. Essentialized, reductive arguments which characterize Chinese learners as reticent must be challenged. Rather, a more dynamic, developmental view that resists overgeneralization and stereotyping is needed (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Such a view might begin by recognizing the need to ground the investigation of learners’ participation in spoken activities within the situated activities of individual classrooms. In this study a vital feature of the situated activity of the EAC classroom was the willingness and ability of this group of Chinese learners to participate in classroom discussion. This finding has implications for pedagogy regarding how Chinese learners’ participation in spoken activities can be promoted in both language and content classrooms. For example, in the case of the economics classrooms described earlier, students and their instructors could initially negotiate over some of the topics and materials covered in each class, allowing student’s greater scope to determine how and when they participate in classroom discussion. Economics students might then adopt specific oral roles in their content tutorials. Learners would be producers of classroom discourse as well as directors, shaping the particular topics, materials and outcomes achieved. This step, reflecting the desire of learners to shape the content and nature of their participation in oral activities, is consistent with Graham’s (2006) belief that providing students with greater control over classroom events “may foster feelings of ownership and agency, which may lead to greater participation” (2006, p. 27).
   The role of the teacher could be tailored to complement this student-centered oral production and direction. Instructors, for instance, should assist students in establishing connections between their unique and varied oral investments and established frameworks of economic theory and policy. This would ensure that students gain an adequate grounding in economic theory and practice and that the suggestions for teaching and learning made here do not result in content being compromised or diluted (Teemant, Bernhardt, & Rodriguez-Munoz, 1997). To accomplish this, instructors have available a long established body of research linking economic theory and policy to broader social issues and interests such as ‘immigration’, ‘school’, or ‘families’ (Coyle, 2002). Working within such traditions, teachers might function as a bridge, both cognitively and linguistically, to assist learners as they journey between the knowledge, skills, and experiences they bring with them to the classroom and the specialized techniques and language of economics and finance.
   To summarize, this section has proposed a form of bounded control by students over oral interaction in the content classroom. The process described here could address the need to build agency amongst learners by allowing greater choice over how their participation in classroom discourse is constructed and carried out.

Conclusion
Amongst the conclusions that can be drawn from this study is that Chinese learners do participate in undergraduate classroom discussion. In this respect the study supports the conclusions of Kember (2000), Kennedy (2002) and Lee (1999). However this paper extends their analysis by offering insights from the undergraduate classroom to show how such participation occurs in locally situated settings. As a result, classroom roles, resources and perceptions were identified that may have been responsible for enabling learners’ oral participation within these settings. These understandings could be of value in promoting students’ oral participation in those undergraduate classrooms in Hong Kong which have been traditionally dominated by a transmission mode of delivery. Further, because the problem of learner reticence in the classroom is thought be common in education settings throughout Asia (Jackson, 2002; Kim, 2006), the results and recommendations made in this paper should be of interest to teachers and students in other EMI tertiary institutions within the Asian region. More research however is needed to determine how classroom roles, resources and perceptions about oral participation in different educational settings enable and constrain learners’ participation in classroom discussion. In particular, there is a need for classroom research to assist in contextualizing what learners and instructors report in questionnaires and interviews. The results could play an important role in reducing the gap between the stated language policies of different EMI tertiary institutions within Asia and the realities of student participation in classroom discussion.

References
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435-446.

Coleman, J. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1-14.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coyle, D. (2002). Sex, drugs & economics. An unconventional introduction to economics. New York: Texere. 

Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6, 3-17.

Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners: What subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 31-55. 

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 345-373.

Graham, J. (2006). What does it mean when students don’t participate? Essential Teacher, 3(3), 26-29.

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 125-132.

Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations. System, 30, 65-84.

Jones, J. (1999). From silence to talk: Cross-cultural ideas on students’ participation in academic group discussion. English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 243-259.

Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students. Higher Education, 40, 99-121.

Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21 (5), 430-445. 

Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 479-489.

Kumaravadivelu, B., 2003. Problematizing cultural stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 709-719.

Lee, C. (1999). Learning through tutorial discussion and learners’ culture: Some preliminary observations from the views of Hong Kong Chinese tertiary students. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12(3), 255-264.

Li, N., Leung, D., & Kember, D. (2001). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong Universities: The mis-match between espoused theory and theory in use. Higher Education Policy, 14, 293-312.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Phillipson, R. (2006). English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages? European Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 13-32.

Teemant, A, Bernhardt, E., & Rodriguez-Munoz, M. (1997). Collaborating with content-area teachers: What we need to share. In M. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom. Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 311-318). White Plains: Longman. 

Tsui,A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom. (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

University of Hong Kong. (2004). Review of language education in the university. Report of the review panel on centres and units offering language enhancement and language proficiency courses. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.