Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.
Benjamin Lee Whorf
As we know the government recently decided to revert the teaching of science and mathematics back to Bahasa Malaysia (BM) from the brief time period of those subjects being taught in English, dubbed teaching and learning science and mathematics in English (PPSMI) (For those wondering why the acronym does not tie up with the words, it’s because the acronym is in BM. How clever...). I, personally, do not agree with this decision. I believe, it is in the interest of the students, the country and our future that those subjects be thought in the English language, rather than BM.
This is not to say I am against BM. It is an interesting language in it’s own way, and useful for communication. What I am trying to push forth here is that the future of the next generation and even our nation hangs in the balance here. Let’s first look at the findings of studies and observations on PPSMI. It says that it’s implementation could not achieve the desired results. Here’s a closer look, direct from theSun, July 9, 2009.
“What has been implemented was PPSMI/BM, whereby teachers where teaching science and maths in both languages, English and BM,” he (Deputy Prime Minister and education minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin) said.
Among the observations made were:
- Only a small percentage of teachers use full English in the teaching of science and maths;
- Only 53% to 58% of the whole period allocated for the two subjects were conducted in English;
- Only some of the mathematics and science teachers who took the English Proficiency Level Assessment test reached the proficiency level; and
- The gap between the performances of the urban and rural schools in mathematics and science has widened.
He said surveys by local universities found the improvement in pupils’ English proficiency was nominal at 3% during the implementation of the PPSMI.
Now if you wonder why PPSMI is considered a partial failure, the results itself gives some clues to why they did not manage to achieve their objectives.
First two points and Tan Sri’s statement. One reason why it did not manage to increase the proficiency of English is because the teachers are not doing what their supposed to, that is to teach in English. Only a small percentage of them do. And the rest teach in a mesh up of English and BM. I am fine if you have to explain at times in BM, to help the students understand, but you still have to teach it in English. The main points must be carried across in English, not BM. Having some experience teaching both those subjects, I know that sometimes it is necessary to explain in BM. In fact I also have to explain in Mandarin too (which was a pretty big challenge since I am not well versed in Mandarin). But it is to supplement the understanding of the subject, not to be used as the main medium by which you teach.
Why do the teachers teach in both languages? Clue is in point three. Not all the English proficiency of the teachers are up to par. So because of the that, they are unable carry out the classes in English. The sentences formed become unclear, disjointed at times. The students are then unable to get what the teacher is teaching, let alone grasp it. If you reflect for a moment, the teachers inability to teach in English, is actually a product of those subjects being taught in BM. You see, most teachers actually come from a generation where science and mathematics was taught in BM to them. So you can say you are seeing the effects of those subjects being taught in BM already, which in turn cause the problem we have now, where they are unable to deliver in English. If you are going to revert back to the old ways, you will get the same results again, creating a further spiral.
On the gap widening between urban and rural students, it’s because those in the rural areas do not have as high a proficiency in English as some of the urban students do. Which is sad, because if you survey the English standard of the urban students themselves, the result may not be very high too, which means the standard of English in rural areas is even worse. Not to put down, rural students here. There are cases where those in rural areas excel as well. If you look at the tops students in public exams, those right at the top are actually from small towns, not exactly urban students. So what’s stopping the rural students if they can grab the top spots from city students?
Improvement being nominal at 3% is because PPSMI was not implemented in it’s entirety.
Also, the time frame used for the PPSMI studies I find is not long enough. To date, there is only two batches that have gone through PPSMI, and that is those from Form 1 up to Form 5. A full, all out PPSMI product from Standard 1 all the way to Form 5 has not been produced yet. Two batches of SPM graduates I feel is not enough to get a wholesome picture, what more that those two batches only started in Form 1 and not from Standard 1 in English. So the results we have now is not really a good representation of the PPSMI programme yet.
One problem I find why some students cannot cope with science and maths being in English is because their level of English is not up to par. While teaching those two subjects, I find that the students are unable to string together sentences to get their point across. That’s why they do not do well in the subjective parts of the exams when they can fair pretty well in objective parts. They are unable to also understand somewhat what is required of them when faced with questions because of the lack of understanding and proficiency of English. So the standard of English really needs a boost, more than nitrogen oxide in cars.
Then add the technical side of science that needs to be particular. I find that the way the papers are marked are too rigid, where there is a specific way to answer the questions. Now yes, there needs to be some form of structure so that science can be uniform. However, the structure set has been to rigid. One person is marked wrong because they did not follow the exact sentence structure specified to answer a specific question, when if you read the answer, you get the point, which is correct. Under such rigid circumstances, the proficiency of English is unable to develop, because it becomes a memory game, where you remember the specific way how the sentences used to put the answer together is.
Why all this fuss about these two subjects being in BM? Well it is because our future is at stake. As we all know, English is the international language. It is also the medium used in the scientific and mathematical world. If we are to stick to our own language, we will form a bubble in which our knowledge is inhibited. New knowledge from the outside world will have to go through a tough time of being translated to our own language so that people can understand it and vice versa where inside knowledge must go through the same process to get out. This will cause a time period to form before there is any exchange in knowledge, and thus will cause a lag in our knowledge. And so we, Malaysians are forced to lag behind others in regards to breakthoughs in the real world.
The teaching and learning of science and mathematics in English also makes it easier to adapt to tertiary education life. In colleges and universities, English is used as the main medium. Most subjects will be taught in English, especially the science related subjects. This is because the studies in those fields have been done in English. And so, the terms in those subjects are in English, except for the Latin names of species and the like. Even in Form 6, which university entrance requires and is on par with international pre-university studies, the medium used for science related subjects and maths is English. Why wait until you have reached that level only change and learn English, getting a huge culture shock in the process, when preparation could and can be done much earlier? Furthermore, the things that are learnt in pre-u studies are a lot harder than at secondary school, which is supposed to prepare the students to face pre-u and later university. If the ground work is not done in secondary school, you will be effectively adding a whole lot more workload on to the students, who are pretty much packed already in pre-u and university. Do you want them to be even more bogged down than they already are?
So as a whole, we see many disadvantages to changing the teaching and learning of science and maths back to BM. It may yield (supposed) benefits in the short term, but in the long term we’re just going to lose out. It’s not a matter of the language per say, it’s about being relevant and competitive in our ever advancing world. We don’t want Malaysia to fade into oblivion now do we?
Language is the roadmap of a culture. It tells you where its people came from and where they are going.
Rita Mae Brown

Like
Share on Facebook