The fiasco about Teaching Science and Mathematics in English (TSME, or in Malay known as PPSMI) is finally over. Although opinions in the country remained divided over this issue, it is highly unlikely that a flip-flop will happen and it is safe to infer that TSME is now a part of history. So what is next for the Malaysian education system?
Certainly, in this recent fiasco, it is heartening to see the Minister of Education publicly recognising our weakness in the proficiency of the English Language. Is the government really serious about improving the English language, or merely, just to divert the criticisms of reverting TSME? Anyway, giving politicians the benefit of doubt, I shall presume that this is a genuine effort to tackle the problem.
As this is a long article, I will summarise it here for those who read "efficiently":
First half - just critically "dissecting" some proposals;
Second half - constructively discussing other proposals.
The Minister of Education has outlined some proposals to strengthen the learning and teaching of English language in schools. Among those initiatives were: increasing time allocation for English, setting up laboratories for English, emphasising the grammar component, introducing the Contemporary English Literature Programme For Children (CELPFC), having English Day and summer camp during holidays. Are these initiatives going to improve our English proficiency?
First and foremost, the grammar component has always been part of the English Language curriculum. How are we going to further emphasise? Does that mean doing more grammar exercise of filling-in the blanks? Shamefully, I am a living testimony that 13-years of grammar exercises and scoring distinction in all public exams, do not equate to having proper understanding about the usage of grammar. I'm sure one can easily identify this weakness in my writing.
Second, English Day has always been part of the school's calendar. My primary and secondary school used to have English Week, but my English proficiency remains terrible. What else do we expect from just a day?
Third, what is the different between Contemporary English Literature Programme for Children (CELPFC) and the current literature component in the secondary school English curriculum?
Fourth, I am terribly surprised by the idea of setting up laboratories for the English language. How is the laboratory going to improve English proficiency? The Language Laboratory in the University of Oxford Language Centre is merely a computer lab that is equipped with more advance technology for teaching and learning of languages. Is it really necessary to be building another laboratory in schools just for English language, where most schools in Malaysia already have a big "white elephant" in the form of a computer lab?
Last, increasing the time allocation for English language. Is this going to help? Is the declining proficiency a result of the constrain in the timetable? Without any significant improvement to the curriculum, teaching method and teaching quality, increasing the time allocation is just a waste of time.
Well, it's half time. Enough of being overly critical. From here onwards, I will attempt to look at the issue more constructively. Second Half
While discussing this topic with a friend, he asked me this question, "If you were in the position of the Minister, what is the best initiative to improve English proficiency?".
The Minister of Education proposed to "import" 1000 teachers from overseas, hiring 600 retired teachers and producing additional 12,333 teachers. To be fair, this initiative is the most logical of all the initiatives suggested and I have kept this idea for discussion here. However, it is still far from perfect.
Firstly, how did the figure 12,333 teachers come about? Is it another "guesstimation", like what the Deputy Minister did a few weeks ago? Nonetheless, regardless of the figures, the idea of producing additional teachers does not tackle the core problem. We ought to remember that the core problem at stake is quality, not a shortage of English teachers. The more we emphasises the quantity, the more we are going to compromise the quality. Therefore, what the education system needs are more competent and qualified English teachers.
Secondly, it is also highly unlikely to improve English proficiency with the current stock of "human resources" that the country possess. It is important to note that the Malaysian education system has neglected the English language since mid-70s, which has been more than 30 years. Within this period, the quality of English language in our education system has continuously declined. A large majority of Malaysians, myself included, have been "taught English in Bahasa Malaysia" (a quote from RPK). Therefore, to produce more local teachers to teach proper English is a near-impossible task.
Similarly, even if we are to employ retired teachers, a large majority of them might not have the capability to restore the quality of English language, simply because, if they were capable of doing so, our standard would not have deteriorated over the years. To put it bluntly, Malaysia does not have the necessary resources to improve our English proficiency.
On the other hand, there are some positive aspects in this idea, which is acknowledging that we need external assistance. In answering to my friend's question, I felt that in order to impact the system throughout the country, the most practical initiative is hiring foreigners. Therefore, it left us with only one possible aspect of the Minister's initiative, which is to "import" English teachers.
However, three questions remain, "Who to employ?", "How many?" and "How long?" The most straight-forward answer to the first question is to hire teachers from countries where English is the native language - US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, we might only be able to hire "a handful" of English teachers from these countries, as we are taking into account the amount of English teachers needed for several thousand schools throughout the country. As such, perhaps it is more sensible to hire foreigners from countries like the Philippines or India, considering the cost-efficiency.
Therefore the next question is "how many?". In order to strengthen the impact nationally, at least one foreigner per level in a school is needed. Only 1,000 foreigners as the Minister proposed, is not even sufficient to distribute them in every school. (What the Minister proposes is teachers; not trainers or instructors in teachers' training). It is way too small to impact the system. Moreover, this proposal should not be short-term. We need at least one whole cycle of students to have the slightest chance of improving the overall standard of English, that is at least 10 years. Therefore, such a short-term initiative is merely educational gimmick with no hope of success.
What other initiatives could we have?
My friend suggested to send all potential English teachers overseas to pursue a degree in English, as part of the teacher's training, after which bond these teachers for 10 years. The suggestion to send these teachers overseas is to enable them to immerse themselves in the culture to enhance their learning. This could be one possible ways of strengthening teaching and learning. In fact, to my understanding, there is already such a scheme within the Ministry of Education. Still, will such an initiative have sufficient impact to improve the entire system? The English language problem has become a national issue. Probably a five to ten-fold increment to the existing programme is needed.
Another possible suggestion is to enhance teachers' training and provide continuous professional development. This suggestion will work, provided there is a concurrent revamp to the assessment in the education system. Currently, teachers already have numerous trainings and workshops to enhance their professional development. However, after attending all the courses, who actually assess the teachers and ensure that what they learn were implemented in the classrooms?
The more we think about what could be done, the more pessimistic the situation seems to be; without even taking into account the expected costs.
Simply, all that is left in me after this long article is this question: "Is it really possible for the quality of English language in Malaysia to improve?" I am doubtful!
Certainly, in this recent fiasco, it is heartening to see the Minister of Education publicly recognising our weakness in the proficiency of the English Language. Is the government really serious about improving the English language, or merely, just to divert the criticisms of reverting TSME? Anyway, giving politicians the benefit of doubt, I shall presume that this is a genuine effort to tackle the problem.
As this is a long article, I will summarise it here for those who read "efficiently":
First half - just critically "dissecting" some proposals;
Second half - constructively discussing other proposals.
The Minister of Education has outlined some proposals to strengthen the learning and teaching of English language in schools. Among those initiatives were: increasing time allocation for English, setting up laboratories for English, emphasising the grammar component, introducing the Contemporary English Literature Programme For Children (CELPFC), having English Day and summer camp during holidays. Are these initiatives going to improve our English proficiency?
First and foremost, the grammar component has always been part of the English Language curriculum. How are we going to further emphasise? Does that mean doing more grammar exercise of filling-in the blanks? Shamefully, I am a living testimony that 13-years of grammar exercises and scoring distinction in all public exams, do not equate to having proper understanding about the usage of grammar. I'm sure one can easily identify this weakness in my writing.
Second, English Day has always been part of the school's calendar. My primary and secondary school used to have English Week, but my English proficiency remains terrible. What else do we expect from just a day?
Third, what is the different between Contemporary English Literature Programme for Children (CELPFC) and the current literature component in the secondary school English curriculum?
Fourth, I am terribly surprised by the idea of setting up laboratories for the English language. How is the laboratory going to improve English proficiency? The Language Laboratory in the University of Oxford Language Centre is merely a computer lab that is equipped with more advance technology for teaching and learning of languages. Is it really necessary to be building another laboratory in schools just for English language, where most schools in Malaysia already have a big "white elephant" in the form of a computer lab?
Last, increasing the time allocation for English language. Is this going to help? Is the declining proficiency a result of the constrain in the timetable? Without any significant improvement to the curriculum, teaching method and teaching quality, increasing the time allocation is just a waste of time.
Well, it's half time. Enough of being overly critical. From here onwards, I will attempt to look at the issue more constructively. Second Half
While discussing this topic with a friend, he asked me this question, "If you were in the position of the Minister, what is the best initiative to improve English proficiency?".
The Minister of Education proposed to "import" 1000 teachers from overseas, hiring 600 retired teachers and producing additional 12,333 teachers. To be fair, this initiative is the most logical of all the initiatives suggested and I have kept this idea for discussion here. However, it is still far from perfect.
Firstly, how did the figure 12,333 teachers come about? Is it another "guesstimation", like what the Deputy Minister did a few weeks ago? Nonetheless, regardless of the figures, the idea of producing additional teachers does not tackle the core problem. We ought to remember that the core problem at stake is quality, not a shortage of English teachers. The more we emphasises the quantity, the more we are going to compromise the quality. Therefore, what the education system needs are more competent and qualified English teachers.
Secondly, it is also highly unlikely to improve English proficiency with the current stock of "human resources" that the country possess. It is important to note that the Malaysian education system has neglected the English language since mid-70s, which has been more than 30 years. Within this period, the quality of English language in our education system has continuously declined. A large majority of Malaysians, myself included, have been "taught English in Bahasa Malaysia" (a quote from RPK). Therefore, to produce more local teachers to teach proper English is a near-impossible task.
Similarly, even if we are to employ retired teachers, a large majority of them might not have the capability to restore the quality of English language, simply because, if they were capable of doing so, our standard would not have deteriorated over the years. To put it bluntly, Malaysia does not have the necessary resources to improve our English proficiency.
On the other hand, there are some positive aspects in this idea, which is acknowledging that we need external assistance. In answering to my friend's question, I felt that in order to impact the system throughout the country, the most practical initiative is hiring foreigners. Therefore, it left us with only one possible aspect of the Minister's initiative, which is to "import" English teachers.
However, three questions remain, "Who to employ?", "How many?" and "How long?" The most straight-forward answer to the first question is to hire teachers from countries where English is the native language - US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, we might only be able to hire "a handful" of English teachers from these countries, as we are taking into account the amount of English teachers needed for several thousand schools throughout the country. As such, perhaps it is more sensible to hire foreigners from countries like the Philippines or India, considering the cost-efficiency.
Therefore the next question is "how many?". In order to strengthen the impact nationally, at least one foreigner per level in a school is needed. Only 1,000 foreigners as the Minister proposed, is not even sufficient to distribute them in every school. (What the Minister proposes is teachers; not trainers or instructors in teachers' training). It is way too small to impact the system. Moreover, this proposal should not be short-term. We need at least one whole cycle of students to have the slightest chance of improving the overall standard of English, that is at least 10 years. Therefore, such a short-term initiative is merely educational gimmick with no hope of success.
What other initiatives could we have?
My friend suggested to send all potential English teachers overseas to pursue a degree in English, as part of the teacher's training, after which bond these teachers for 10 years. The suggestion to send these teachers overseas is to enable them to immerse themselves in the culture to enhance their learning. This could be one possible ways of strengthening teaching and learning. In fact, to my understanding, there is already such a scheme within the Ministry of Education. Still, will such an initiative have sufficient impact to improve the entire system? The English language problem has become a national issue. Probably a five to ten-fold increment to the existing programme is needed.
Another possible suggestion is to enhance teachers' training and provide continuous professional development. This suggestion will work, provided there is a concurrent revamp to the assessment in the education system. Currently, teachers already have numerous trainings and workshops to enhance their professional development. However, after attending all the courses, who actually assess the teachers and ensure that what they learn were implemented in the classrooms?
The more we think about what could be done, the more pessimistic the situation seems to be; without even taking into account the expected costs.
Simply, all that is left in me after this long article is this question: "Is it really possible for the quality of English language in Malaysia to improve?" I am doubtful!
1 comment:
"Is it really possible for the quality of English language in Malaysia to improve?"
I read your article 3 times. I like your ideas, criticism and your writing style hehe.
I've been thinking about the question above for so many times. I can't answer it but yet i have another question. Do we want all Malaysian to be fluent in English? Do we really need for a kampong man to speak English every time. For me, as long as they can understand a little bit, giving direction, understand simple instruction, for me it's ok. The most worrying is the English usage by the so called "educated" people. University student, our professional, our DVC (hehe). These target people should be emphasize more.
I am from kampong. I rarely (or maybe never) use English. What do I need it to as a Kampong boy. But, it is important for me now when I "need" to use English to improve in my study. English is the medium for almost all knowledge in the world. So, I must have good English. University students must have good English. Therefore, government should emphasize more in improving English to the university student. We have the basic. Just we don't want to use it. We never try. Afraid, shy, "takut salah cakap" and so many stigmas in our head. I only learn English when I entered the University and I think I learned it a lot from you. When En. Yusoff suggested to have a meeting in English, we accept the challenge. And that is the start for me to improve in English and now even though not good enough, when I ask the Americans, how is my English, they will say "yours is good" hehe.
Apa aku merepek ni? hehe (again, i'm not a good writer).
That is why I am very frustrated when they "hapuskan" the PPSMI. PPSMI was introduced not to improve the English but to improve the Science and the math.
Masalahnya, yang minta hapus ni sebab risau kononya bahasa melayu akan terhakis (sorry I used Malay because I GERAM sangat). I learned Sc and Math in Malay and I found out very hard to understand Sc and Math terms which are English.
Entahlah..nanti I comment lagi about this. And this is my personal opinion. Sorry, i dah letih hehe. Good luck to you. Keep on writing. Really like it.
Post a Comment