Función docente ( PALOMINO ZAMUDIO, 2012 )

The switch from English to Bahasa Malaysia as the language of instruction led to the implementation of a common content syllabus for teaching English in 1971 in all national primary schools and national-type schools in West Malaysia and this syllabus was referred as “The English Syllabus for Use in Standard One to Standard Six of the Post 1970 National Primary Schools” (Foo & Richards, 2004). However, for

vernacular primary schools, the language of instruction remained in their vernacular languages and both Bahasa Malaysia and English were taught as subjects; English was only introduced in Primary 3. The result of the change led to teachers teaching in Bahasa Malaysia and textbooks being made anew.

This new syllabus adopted the structural-situational approach in teaching and was extended to the secondary syllabus called The English Syllabus for Tingkatan / Form One to Form Three of the Secondary Schools in Malaysia in 1973, and The English Language Syllabus in Malaysian Schools Tingkatan Empat (Form Four)—Tingkatan Lima (Form Five) in 1980to ensure continuity. However, in keeping ahead with the

situational approach was replaced with the task-oriented situational approach with a slant towards a communicative syllabus (Foo & Richards, 2004; Pandian, 2002). The structural-situational approach according to Abraham, as cited in Pandian (2002), focused on learning grammar discretely and normally, the learning objectives are a list of language structures and words. The language structures are presented verbally, and usually in a context or situation. Language drills are employed as practice for the new structures. The approach was very teacher-centred. The students learn the sentences in isolation and found it hard to use the language in meaningful sentences despite doing well in classroom activities.

The task-oriented situational approach with a slant towards a communicative syllabus, otherwise referred to as the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, concentrated on using meaningful communicative activities to teach and learn the English language with the aim of getting the students engaged in real-life

communication in the English language (Darmi & Albion, 2013).

In the effort to change the education system and the language of instruction to

promote unity and nationalism due to the pluralistic society of Malaysia, the students' proficiency in English suffered (Omar, 1996; Foo & Richards, 2004; Omar, 1982). This scenario further led to various changes in the education system – changing the syllabus and approaches in teaching as well as the emphasis. The teaching of the English language emphasised oral activities and the introduction of the new syllabus in 1983 - Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah (Primary School New Curriculum)

and Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah (IntegratedSecondary School

Curriculum) - focused on skills and knowledge to enable students to enter the job market or continue their education after school. The changes were associated with aims that would enable the pupils to converse, express their ideas, and question well

and with ease in the English language (Foo & Richards, 2004). By the millennium, with the rapid growth in information and communications technology (ICT) and the beginning of globalisation, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and the Cabinet decided that English would become the language of instruction for two subjects - Science and Mathematics (Foo & Richards, 2004; Gill, 2007; Hashim, 2009; Heng & Tan, 2006).

This resulted in the introduction of an elective paper, English for Science and

Technology (EST), in the year 2003 as a prelude to the introduction of a new language policy i.e. English as the language of instruction for the subjects of Mathematics and Science (Heng & Tan, 2006). The introduction of EST as an elective subject and using English as the language of instruction for Science and Mathematics were met with a mixture of reactions. Heng & Tan (2006) quoted from Harakah Pas Newsletter that the Chinese educationists had cited that the change in the language of instruction would be a threat to characteristics of Chinese schools and cultural identity, and eventually the demise of Chinese schools.

They further stated that members of national language associations such as GAPENA, PENA, and the Malaysian Linguistic Society as well as the Malay nationalists were also against the change in the language of instruction, as it would be a threat to the “Malay-ness” in terms of downgrading the national language Bahasa Malaysia, and erode Malay language dominance (p.313). Furthermore, their view was that it would not solve the low proficiency in the English language. Instead, it would lead to learning difficulties among the Malays. For the Indian community, on the other hand, Heng & Tan (2006) indicated that although the Indian community’s views were muted, they echoed the same reservations the Chinese community had cited in their defence for resisting the change i.e. that the change was a threat to the alternative

language schooling and it would have minimal impact on English proficiency.

Malaysian Emeritus professor, Khoo Kay Kim, was also cited by Heng & Tan (2006) to the effect that using English to teach mathematics and science would make very little impact on the English language proficiency among the students.

Then, the Ministry of Education announced the reversal of the language of instruction for the subjects Mathematics and Science from English to Bahasa Malaysia which would effectively take place in the year 2010. The reversal was to be carried out in a gradual progression and by 2016, all pupils from Year 1 to Year 6 would be learning Mathematics and Science in Bahasa Malaysia. The reversal was based on several grounds as cited in a press release dated 8 July 2009 on the announcement of reversal made by the former Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Education, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Hj. Mohd Yassin:

• English was used as the language of instruction during the teaching of Science and Mathematics subjects by only a limited number of teachers.

• Overall, English was used between 53-58% of the time allocated to teach the subjects Science and Mathematics.

• Only a portion of English language teachers were found to be proficient in the language during the English language proficiency test for teachers in 2008. • There was a decline in the percentage of students in urban and rural schools

who obtained grades A, B and C for Science in the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah

Rendah (UPSR) 2008 exam from 85.1 to 82.5 and from 83.2 to 79.7

respectively. It was the same for Mathematics - the percentage of students from urban schools declined from 84.8 to 80.9 and students in rural school, from 80.9 to 77%. (Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (Primary School Achievement Test) or UPSR as it is better known is a national examination

that is administered at the end of Year 6 (12 years old), the final year of primary schooling (Malaysia Educational Planning and Research Division, 2008, 2014).)

• The gap in the level of performance for both subjects, Mathematics and Science, between schools from urban and rural areas has since widened. Apart from the above, the former Minister of Education also cited a Trends in

International Mathematics and Science Study 2007 report comparing performance

across different countries which found that the position of Malaysian students in the subject Science had dropped from the 20th _{position in 2003 to position number 21 in}

2007. Moreover, although not specifically indicating which studies, the Minister of Education claimed that research carried out by local universities found no significant improvement in the level of English language proficiency among the students in both primary and secondary schools throughout the country since the inception of using English as the language of instruction. This scenario was attributed to the fact that many of the students, who are mostly from rural areas, had low proficiency in the English language and this hampers their learning of both Mathematics and Science (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2009).

The Ministry of Education, acknowledging the importance of both languages, i.e. Bahasa Malaysia and the English language, decided to implement a new policy named

as Memartabatkan Bahasa Melayu, Memantapkan Bahasa Inggeris or in English, To

Uphold Bahasa Malaysia & to Strengthen the English Language (MBMMBI). With the implementation of this policy, many improvements have been made such as introducing the Literacy and Numeracy Screening programme wherein Primary One students are assessed on their proficiency after learning English for six months,

classroom and adding more contact hours from eight periods to 10 periods for English language lessons.

Surprisingly, despite the reversal, the MOE executed and distributed a circular

concerning a pilot programme entitled Dual Language Programme (DLP) for the year 2016. The circular revealed that a pilot programme on using English as the language of instruction for subjects Science, Mathematics, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Design and Technology was to be carried out. The programme involves students in primary schools, specifically Years One and Four as well as Secondary schools - Form 1 (MOE, 2015).

The question arises as to the reason for launching this programme as it seems to be a replication of Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik Dalam Bahasa

Inggeris (The teaching and learning of science and mathematics in English) or

PPSMI policy. The only difference is that this programme is a pilot project, it is being carried out on a smaller scale with only 300 schools involved and that it has been extended to other subjects, that is, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Design and Technology.

These shifts in the language policy in education illustrate that the goal posts have constantly been changing. Although the reasons for the shifts as explained are valid, it does appear that the Ministry of Education are willing to change policy frequently, reverting to former policies or imposing new policies whenever a desired outcome is not achieved.