Education Reforms and the Mismatch between
Policy and Practice of
English Language Teaching (ELT) in Malaysia
by Norhayu binti Norany (Ph.D)
Normazidah Che Musa, Koo Yew Li and Hazita (2012) found that there is a mismatch between policies and practices regarding
the teaching of English in the Malaysian context. Due to that, the researchers
recommend educators and policy makers to re-examine their theories and
strategise suitable interventions to improve the teaching and learning of
English in Malaysia.
There were four major education reforms
spanning in the last four decades in Malaysia involving the teaching and
learning of English. In 1982, the Integrated Curriculum for Primary schools or Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah (KBSR) was
introduced. The emphasis of the English curriculum was on language use for
communication purposes rather than focusing primarily on the acquisition of
grammatical knowledge as in the previous curriculum. Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) approach was the pillar of the teaching of English under KBSR.
The primary principles of CLT is learner centeredness and contextualized
language use (Nunan,
2004).
This is reflected in the learning outcomes of KBSR as they are locally
contextualised to make learning purposeful and meaningful to Malaysian pupils’
everyday lives. KBSR is designed
based on ‘situated task-based approaches’(Hazita
Azman, 2016). However, ten years into its implementation, mismatch was
reported between the curriculum objectives and CLT principles with the actual
classroom practices and language assessment (Normazidah
Che Musa, Koo Yew Lie & Hazita Azman 2012). Mohd
Sofi Ali (2003)
also reveals that there is no connection between how English is supposed to be
taught as stated in the curriculum, how it is actually taught in classrooms and
how performance in the language is assessed. He points out that while the
policy gives great emphasis on real daily communication, the classroom practice
focuses on examination. This is a clear case of fluency (communicative
competence) versus accuracy (grammatical competence.
The second curriculum reform was introduced at the onset of
the millennium, with emphasis given to the use of technology in education.
Smart schools were initiated throughout the nation with the purpose to narrow
the gap between urban and rural pupils in terms of educational opportunities. Azizah et al. (2005) as cited in (Hazita
Azman, 2016) reveals that, on top of the hardware issues, English
teachers found the subject courseware were inappropriate for their students in
terms of level of proficiency as well as content. They also found that the
majority of the students still preferred face to face interaction with their
teachers. Pupils had difficulties understanding the instructions and content delivered
in English through the computer based lessons. Additionally, teachers and pupils
focused more on preparing for the exam.
Faced with English communicative
incompetency issues among Malaysian school leavers and graduates (Normala Othman & Mohamed Ismail Ahamad Shah, 2013), Malaysian government introduced a bilingual education programme
called ETeMS (Teaching of Science and
Mathematics in English ) in 2003 (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2002). This programme did not achieve the desired outcomes due to several
factors as reported in the following studies. A survey conducted by Mohd Nazri Latiff Azmi and Mahendren Maniam (2013) involving 50 teachers and 13 state and district education officers
in Terengganu indicated that the failure of ETeMS was mainly due to teachers
factors. The first factor is the English proficiency level of the Science and
Mathematics teachers that did not meet the required standard to teach
Mathematics and Science in English. In addition, their reluctance to participate
in the Buddy Support System, a peer mentoring programme to enhance English
proficiency, is also cited as one of the factors that contributed to the
failure of ETeMs. To support teachers’ low proficiency level, they were
provided with courseware. The failure however, was not attributed to the
expensive courseware developed specifically for ETeMS since majority of
teachers in the survey did not attempt to use them in their classroom. (Mohd Nazri Latiff Azmi & Mahendren Maniam, 2013).
Ong Saw Lan and May Tan (2008) state that the lack of English competency among Science teachers as
one of the most problematic issues in the teaching of Science in English. So it
was not surprising when parents and educators expressed grave concern on the
quality of the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English when
both teachers and students were not proficient in English (The Star, 2006 as
cited in Ong Saw Lan & May Tan, 2008). This concern was legitimate by looking at the students’ language
preferences in answering questions set in public examinations. After learning
the Mathematics and Science in English for three years, only 33 % of Science
candidates and 27% of the Mathematics candidates chose to answer the papers in
English. The rest chose to answer the exam questions either in Bahasa Melayu or a mixture of both
languages. (The Star, 2005 as cited in Ong Saw Lan & May Tan, 2008).
Thus, the major
contributing factor of ETeMS failure seems to rest on the shoulders of the
teachers for their lack of English proficiency in undertaking this challenging
task. One has to remember that the teachers had been teaching both subjects in Bahasa Melayu (BM) for three decades
prior to the implementation of ETeMS in 2003 (Ong Saw Lan & May Tan, 2008). So, it is understandable why the teachers had great difficulty
with the terminologies of both subjects in English. Switching from BM to English in teaching Mathematics
and Science after a few series of short courses did not help to ease the
problem.
Other than the
reason of ETeMS failure found by Ong Saw Lan & May Tan, (2008), another
possible reason is our failure to understand the reality in multilingual
classrooms. It is important to recognize that bi/multilinguals use the
different languages in their repertoire fluidly and dynamically to make sense
of what they come into contact with in the real world. In the case of emergent
bilinguals, the dominant language will guide their cognitive processes and
inner speech. So, there is a tendency to code-switch and translanguage. (Martin, 2005)
captures the essence of this problem by describing about code switching in Malaysia
as the following:
The
use of local language alongside the “official” language of the lesson is a
well-known phenomenon and yet, for variety of reasons, it is often lambasted as
‘bad practice’, blamed on teachers’ lack of English language competence...or
put to one side and/or swept under the carpet. (Martin, 2005, p. 88).
The implementation of EteMS also created
bigger gap between urban and rural school students due to mainly the difference
in socio-economic status between the two localities. Higher socio-economic
status results in greater exposure to English Language. EteMS was gradually abolished starting 2012.
The teaching of Mathematics and Science was reverted to Bahasa Melayu. This was due to the greater urban-rural divide and
the pressure mainly from the Malay and the Chinese groups’ fearing the
perceived threat to the importance of
their mother tongues by the EteMS policy.
ETeMs was not deemed successful ((Mohd Nazri Latiff Azmi & Mahendren Maniam, 2013). ETeMs was then replaced by a new programme called ‘To Uphold
Bahasa Malaysia and To Strengthen English’ (MBMMBI) (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2010). The Malaysian government was very committed in improving the
quality of English teaching in schools by allocating a large sum of money under
MBMMBI. One of the measures taken was announced by the Prime Minister in 2011
speech budget as the following:
The government has allocated a sum of RM 213
million to enhance the proficiency of Bahasa Malaysia and strengthen the
English Language (MBMMBI). In regard to this, the government will recruit 375
native speaking teachers including from United Kingdom and Australia to further
enhance the teaching of English. (Ministry of Finance, 2011, p. 21).
After the implementation of MBMMBI, a
bilingual programme similar to ETeMs was revived in 2015 and rebranded as Dual
Language Programme (DLP) (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015b). Critical subjects that are Science and Mathematics are to be
taught in English instead of Bahasa Melayu.
A pilot project involving 300 schools was conducted in 2015. The difference
between DLP and ETeMS is school leaders and parents are given option whether or
not to implement this programme depending on the suitability of their contexts.
The question remains: Why DLP would succeed when a similar programme, ETeMS,
did not?
Realizing a need for a major shift in
regards to English language teaching and learning in Malaysia, Malaysian
government reveals the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 in its quest to transform
the education system in order to face the global challenges of the 21st.
century. To be globally competitive, it is crucial to master the international
lingua franca which is the English language (Ministry of Education, 2012). Great
importance is given to English language proficiency as reflected in the second
of the eleven shifts of the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025, that is, bilingual proficiency.
The introduction of the MEB brought about
the third education reform for
primary education that was the introduction of the Primary School Standard-Based
Curriculum or Kurikulum Standard Sekolah
Rendah, KSSR, referred to as SELC henceforth, in 2010. SELC was introduced in stages starting from 2011 and was fully implemented in all
primary school years in 2016 (Ministry of
Education, 2012) replacing the previous curriculum, Kurikulum
Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah (KBSR) [Integrated Primary School
Curriculum].
Under SELC,
teaching is carried out using modular approach compared to whole language
approach in KBSR. Modular approach is
based on constructivism in which one skill is taught at a time to increase the
chance of mastery of that particular skill before another skill is taught
within a similar theme. Mastery learning
is one of the underlying principles of this new curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2011). Another
rationale of this modular approach is to scaffold the next skill taught. For
example, listening and speaking skills are taught first as to prepare pupils to
master other language skills.
SELC is introduced as a part of an effort
to achieve national aspirations of unity and of embracing diversity which are
crucial in multiracial Malaysia. In the quest of becoming a developed nation as
stated in the Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025) and the Vision 2020,
Malaysia needs to produce high quality human resources that can meet the
globalization challenges of the 21st. century. This is where education plays a
vital role in producing global citizens who excel in many aspects and one of
them is communication. This explains the rationale of the second educational shift of Malaysia
Education Blueprint (2013-2025) that aims to ensure every child is proficient
in Bahasa Malaysia as a language of
unity and English as an international language and a language to access world
knowledge (Ministry of Education, 2012).
Under this new curriculum, primary school
education in Malaysia is divided into two stages. Stage One (Level 1) is from
Year 1 to Year 3 and Stage Two (Level 2) is from Year 4 to Year 6. The gradual
implementation of this new curriculum took effect in 2011 starting with Primary
Year 1, followed by Year 2 in 2012, Year 3 in 2013, Year 4 in 2014 and arrived
at its completion in 2016. SELC is a standard-based curriculum with modular
approach. The curriculum documents clearly specify the learning standards and
the content standards that the pupils should achieve and master in each
schooling year. The modules for Level 1 and Level 2 are as follow:
Level 1
|
Level 2
|
Module One : Listening and Speaking
Module Two :
Reading
Module Three :
Writing
Module Four :
Grammar
Module Five :
Language Arts
|
Module One:
Listening and Speaking
Module Two :
Reading
Module
Three: Writing
Module Four:
Language Arts (Children’s Contemporary
Literature)
Module Five:
Grammar
|
Grammar is only
taught starting Year Three. In Year One and Year Two, grammar is not taught
explicitly. The rationale is to strengthen the basic language foundation of the
pupils before they are exposed to grammar items (Ministry of Education,
2011). This
way the language is acquired in a natural way. This is also to ease learning
load of the young learners since they do not have the metalanguage (language to
talk about language i.e. grammar terminologies) (Thornbury, 2008). Grammar is taught
explicitly commencing in Year 3 as stated below
As English is the second language for pupils
in schools, it is believed to be prudent and pedagogically sound to defer the
learning of grammar to a later stage. Pupils need to first develop an awareness
of grammar in their first language and this is later exploited in Year 3 when
English grammar is introduced. By doing so, the load and stress of learning in
the early years will be reduced as the emphasis is on learning through fun and
play. (Ministry of Education, 2012, p. 7).
New textbooks were designed in accordance
with the principles of SELC. These textbooks were also written in line with the
National Philosophy of Education that aims to ensure the development of pupils’
full potential in a balanced and holistic manner (Textbook Division, Ministry
of Education official website, http://www.moe.gov.my/bbt/).
Problems were still looming despite all
these reforms. Rosseliah
Bokhari, Sabariah Md Rashid and Chan (2015)
reported that the pupils without learning disabilities were still unable to
acquire English language literacy at their lower primary school level. Due to
this, a remedial programme to address English
illiteracy among the underachievers of the lower primary pupils was introduced
in 2012 called Literacy and Numeracy Screening or LINUS
programme. In extension to this, a Literacy Intervention (LBI) 2.0 programme
was introduced by Ministry of Education in 2013. The aims of this programme
were to achieve 100% literacy in Bahasa Melayu
and 90% literacy in English Language among primary school children by the end
of year three. This was to enhance the literacy of identified lower primary
weak learners starting from Year One (Ministry
of Education, 2012).
LINUS 2.0 generated increased performance in the screening of English
literacy from 59% in Year One to 75% in
Year Two and 83% in Year Three. This, however, was not satisfactory because the
score was below the targeted 90% in the LINUS screening for English literacy and therefore, further remediation was required. (Hazita
Azman, 2016).
The forth reform is outlined in English Language Education
Roadmap for Malaysia 2015-2025. The roadmap functions as a guide for curriculum
developers and teachers to ensure Malaysian students achieve proficiency level
that meets international standard as outlined in the Common European Framework
of Reference or CEFR (Hazita
Azman, 2016). The common reference levels for CEFR are as follow
CEFR
Level
|
Name
|
User
|
C2
|
Mastery
|
Proficient
User
|
C1
|
Effective Operational Proficiency
|
|
B2
|
Vantage
|
Independent
User
|
B1
|
Threshold
|
|
A2
|
Waystage
|
Basic
User
|
A1
|
Breakthrough
|
Source: Ministry of
Education (2013) English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap
2015-2025.
The target level for primary school pupils at the end of six
year primary schooling is at least A2. The CEFR levels’ descriptors are based
on what the learners can do and achieve at their respective levels (Ministry
of Education Malaysia, 2015).
The A2 descriptors are as the following:
·
Can understand sentences and
frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g.
very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography,
employment).
·
Can communicate in simple and
routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar
and routine matters.
·
Can describe in simple terms
aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of
immediate need.
(Ministry
of Education Malaysia, 2015)
Prior to the release of The Roadmap
2015-2025, Cambridge Baseline Report was produced in 2013. Based on the report,
on average Year 6 pupils were at CEFR
level A1. The breakdown details were 32% of Year 6 pupils were below A1,
56% at A1/A2 and 13% are at B1/B2. The pupils in remote and rural areas
performed significantly worse than those in the urban areas (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013). It was also found that the English teachers’ lack of proficiency
affected the teachers’ effectiveness and pupils’ learning as shown in the
following statement:
Too much instruction in the classroom using
the learners’ first language due to the teachers’ lack of proficiency,
teachers’ perception that the learners cannot understand lesson conducted fully
in English and the nature of activities such as drilling and reading aloud
deprived learners from using the language communicatively. (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013, p. 168-169).
Based on Cambridge Baseline Report 2013, on average, English teachers
were at B2. Majority of the teachers involved in this study (84%) were in the
range between CEFR level B2 and C2, 2% were below B1, 45% were at B1/B2 and 52%
were at C1/C2. Teachers in urban schools were found to perform better,
achieving C1 level compared to B2 for teachers in rural and remote schools.
Furthermore, 29% of the primary teachers CEFR level is below B2 and 31.7% of
the English teachers are not English optionists. The teachers in the study have
the tendency to be teacher-dominated and this goes against the principle of
learner-centeredness of the SELC. (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment