Monumento a José Batlle

After introducing the initiatives, MOE discusses the context behind the need for a transformation in the teaching and learning of English language which I have identified as the circumstantial premise (refer to Figure 5-6 above). The list below contains the circumstantial premises for the transformation and a detailed discussion of each circumstantial premises follows after. It is important to note that while some of the circumstantial premises listed below are verbatim, some are summarised from the Blueprint because they are located in various parts of the text. The verbatim texts are italicised for easy reference.

a. English language is a second language, and used in many parts of Malaysian professional and social life. This makes “the country well-positioned to develop a nation of people who are at least ‘operationally proficient’ in more

than one language.” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-10)

b. Globalisation – students need to participate fully in professional and academic life and maximise their employability in the global workforce.

c. Student performance in the English language is weak.

d. Students’ low performance in English is due to English language teachers who are not proficient in the language.

e. There is a mismatch between subjects that teachers were trained to teach and the subjects they end up teaching.

f. Malaysia’s instructional time in English language may be insufficient for students to build operational proficiency.

a. English language is a second language, and used in many parts of Malaysian professional and social life. This makes “the country well- positioned to develop a nation of people who are at least ‘operationally

proficient’ in more than one language.”((Kementerian Pendidikan

Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-10)

MOE, firstly, puts forth the point that the English language is a second language and because the language is being spoken widely in Malaysia, Malaysia can develop a people who are able to speak the language

proficiently. MOE further asserts with an embedded claim for action, using an impactful word ‘imperative’ in the statement, “it is imperative that Malaysia capitalises on its inherent advantages to strengthen its position in the global economy” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-10) (Refer to Figure 5-3) to convince readers into believing that an action is needed to ensure success – in this example, Malaysia needs to take advantage of the position Malaysia is in to be competitive in the global economy. To further substantiate their claim, MOE uses another impactful word, ‘increasingly’ in the next statement concerning the education systems in neighbouring Asian countries such as China, South Korea, and Singapore wherein they are “increasingly focused on developing students that are proficient in their national language, and the English language to maximise their employability in the global workforce” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-10) (Refer to Figure 5-3) to suggest an urgent need.

b. Globalisation – students need to participate fully in professional and

academic life and maximise their employability in the global workforce.

MOE, then, chooses globalisation as another circumstantial premise for the need for transformation in the teaching and learning of the English language. MOE portrays that it is necessary that Malaysians should be able to converse in the English language proficiently. There is no elaboration on Malaysia’s position in the global economy and this leaves the reader to assume a position. Then, the increasing focus on the English language of education systems from neighbouring countries i.e. China, South Korea, and Singapore, to maximise employability in the global workforce, is used as another circumstance supporting the need to develop students’ language proficiency in English. Evidently, as part of globalisation, MOE has put forth global competition and the need to compete as a rationale behind the goal to convince readers that a transformation of teaching and learning the English language is very much needed. In addition, while MOE has listed the countries which are increasingly focussing on the level of English language proficiency among their students, no evidence is being appended to substantiate the claim.

c. Student performance in the English language is weak.

The next circumstantial premise concerns students’ performance and the scenario concerning the teaching of English language. MOE uses statistics to show the low performance of students in the English language SPM 2010 (or as it is formally known, Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia, a written exam which the Fifth Formers (youths of aged 17) will complete at the end of the school year). i.e. only 28% of students achieved “a Credit benchmarked to Cambridge 1119”

(Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-11) (Refer to Figure 5-4). MOE further illustrated the various student performances in English language among the three major ethnic groups i.e. Malay, Chinese and Indians by indicating the percentages of performance of each ethnic group as another context to support the students’ performance. While I understand the need to show the overall students’ poor level of performance in the English language, MOE’s intention or motive for illustrating the level of English language proficiency performance according to the ethnic groups is not clear. Apart from that, MOE uses statistical results and a graph to illustrate the context to convince the readers of the Blueprint that a transformation is due.

d. Students’ low performance in English is due to English language teachers who are not proficient in the language

MOE asserts that the low students’ performance is “driven by low proficiency among English language teachers” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-11) (Refer to Figure 5-4). To substantiate this assertion, MOE claims that when a sample of “over 7,500 English language teachers took the Cambridge Placement Test (CPT), a significant number did not meet the minimum proficiency standard required for teaching English language.” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-11) (Refer to Figure 5-4). In short, MOE has indicated that the teachers’ level of proficiency is the cause of the students’ poor performance in the English language SPM paper. While the number of teachers used in the sample is stated, the “significant number” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-13) is not revealed. Moreover, relating the students’ proficiency to this “significant number” (Kementerian

Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-13) of teachers with low level proficiency, but not with research that actually illustrates or proves that teachers’ level of proficiency does affect the students’ proficiency, is questionable and unfair to the teachers. In addition, a teacher’s level of proficiency may affect a student’s proficiency in terms of grammar and pronunciation but it cannot be the only reason for a student’s low performance as there are other aspects which may hamper a student’s language proficiency, such as techniques of teaching and the student’s inhibitions.

e. There is a mismatch between subjects that teachers were trained to teach and the subjects they end up teaching.

The other context which MOE reveals is a mismatch between “subjects that teachers were trained to teach and the subjects they end up teaching” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-11). MOE provides the percentage of current English language teachers who were not originally trained to teach English as 30% “while approximately 3,600 that were trained to teach English language are teaching other subjects” (Kementerian

Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-11). MOE claims that the mismatch is due to unavoidable circumstances but does not elaborate what the circumstances are. It is rather disturbing to find that MOE does not state who is responsible for this mismatch while MOE identifies explicitly that teachers’ proficiency level is the cause of students’ low proficiency performance in the English language SPM paper.

f. Malaysia’s instructional time in English language may be insufficient for students to build operational proficiency

Lastly, MOE quoted an international study that illustrated 15-20% instructional time in the English language, i.e. the percentage of instructional time spent in English language lessons, is not sufficient for students to build “operational proficiency” in the language (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4- 11). MOE did not elaborate on whose “international research” it is using to validate their context but it is used as an assertion and presented as the ‘truth’ to the readers. While the assertion that limited instructional time is insufficient to build a CEFR operational proficiency level may be true, I query whose

argument this assertion is taken from (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, pp. 4-11).

MOE has used various means of illustrating the circumstantial premises to convince readers of the Blueprint that the transformation of the teaching of English language is needed and inevitable. From the above mentioned, MOE has used statistical evidence e.g. the percentage of students showing low proficiency performance in the English language SPM 2010 paper and of current English language teachers who were not originally trained to teach English; globalisation and examples from neighbouring countries such as Singapore and China which are also giving attention to the English language education; identifying reasons for students’ low proficiency performance; international standards as benchmarks and cultural heritage. Some of the contexts put forth were not entirely credible but MOE has positioned them as the ‘truth’.

5.3.4 The Means-Goal Premises

one is in the Executive Summary chapter of the Blueprint on page E-10, while the other is on page E-12 of Chapter Four.

On page E-10 of the Executive Summary, MOE provides an explanation of how the 11 shifts were formed and developed to transform the education system of Malaysia in the Executive Summary chapter. MOE explains that “a broad range of stakeholders, from educationists and academics to parents and students” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, p. E-10) were consulted over the course of 15 months “on what would be required to deliver on the aspirations identified” (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2013, p. E-10) and these aspirations are explained in sub-section 5.2.2 of this thesis. However, only a few details are given of the content of these consultations or the underlying rationale for the specific initiatives like LINUS 2.0 for English language. The LINUS 2.0 programme is a literacy programme which is an extension of the LINUS programme for Bahasa Malaysia and Mathematics. The LINUS for Bahasa Malaysia and Mathematics is a programme that begins in Year One. Students are assessed for their literacy level in Bahasa Malaysia and Mathematics. If they do not meet the standard requirement, they will go through the LINUS programme during schools hours until they reach the standard level of competency. The LINUS 2.0 programme is a similar programme but concentrates on English language and the students who are identified for this programme will learn English language through the Phonics approach. The aim of the LINUS 2.0 programme for English language is to enhance the rate of literacy in English among the lower primary school students (Azman, 2016; Bokhari, Md Rashid, & Heng, 2015).

The nature of this text, i.e. the Blueprint, also lends itself to the absence or limited number of the means-goal premises as the text itself does not deliberate the actions or the initiatives. Instead, the Blueprint just puts forth what is planned as discussions had

taken place prior to the development of the text. As such, statements which describe how a plan, if put in place, will be achieved were not illustrated. Instead, a list of initiatives and plans are described to show what MOE has planned for the

transformation. Nevertheless, in some parts of the text, the means-goal premise is illustrated such as, “To overcome lower levels of Bahasa Malaysia proficiency in National-type schools, the Ministry rolled out a new KSSR Bahasa Malaysia

curriculum in 2011 for Year 1, and will complete the full rollout to all years by 2016” on page 4-12 of Chapter Four.