Teaching mathematics and science in English in Malaysian classrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on classroom practices and student learning

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18 www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Teaching mathematics and science in English in Malaysian classrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on classroom practices and student learning May Tan a,*, Ong Saw Lan b a

Department of Integrated Studies in Education, Faculty of Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Rm 244, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y2, Canada b School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia Available online 3 December 2010

Abstract In 2003, after more than thirty years of using Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the medium of instruction for all subjects, the Malaysian educational system switched to using English to teach Mathematics and the Sciences in its schools. This new policy is known by its BM acronym, PPSMI. To ease transition, bilingual high-stakes exit exams are being used as an accommodation measure, with the objective of eventually having English-only exams. This paper examines the perceptions and beliefs of upper secondary Math and Science teachers (MST) whose students are the first and second cohorts to learn Mathematics and Science in English. Results from surveys, teacher interviews and classroom observations illustrate how MST perceptions and beliefs influence classroom practices. The data shows that exam policy, teacher perceptions and their beliefs interact to encourage the use of translation and an emphasis on keywords during teaching. These practices enhance the learning of academically and linguistically strong students but negatively impact the content and language development of weaker students. These methods may also increase the content comprehension of students over the short term, but limit the development of their speaking and writing abilities. In closing, measures to improve students’ learning of EAP are proposed. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: EAP; Content-based instruction; Teacher beliefs; English Language learners; Linguistic accommodation; High-stakes assessment

1. Introduction For many developing countries, ensuring that their graduates can function in English in the workplace is a major issue (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002); as one of these countries, Malaysia is no exception. In 2003, after more than thirty years of using Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the medium of instruction for all subjects, the Malaysian educational Abbreviations: BM, Bahasa Malaysia or Malay, Malaysia’s national language; PPSMI, a new language of instruction policy that uses English as the Language of Instruction for Mathematics and Sciences; MST, Mathematics and Science Teachers; ELL, English Language Learners, a term used to designate ESL or EFL students; MMOE, Malaysian Ministry of Education; SPM, A high-stakes exit exam taken by all Form Five students for secondary school certification. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 (514) 398 5263; fax: þ1 (514) 398 4529. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Tan), [email protected] (O. Saw Lan). 1475-1585/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.11.001

6

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

system implemented a policy that made English the medium of instruction for Mathematics and the Sciences. This policy is commonly known by its Malay acronym, PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris). In English, it means “English as the Language of Instruction for Mathematics and Sciences”. The policy has two main objectives: to produce a new generation of students who are scientifically and technologically knowledgeable and fluent in English. These youth can continue accessing scientific and technological knowledge, even after leaving school. They therefore become a workforce capable of continued learning, contributing to the economic growth and development of the country. PPSMI had simultaneous entry points at three levels in the school system: Standard One, Form One and Lower Form Six. Mathematics and Science teachers (MST), therefore, became change agents responsible for ensuring that their students would be competent enough to function in these subject domains in English: MST are now expected to play the role of teachers of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in their classrooms. This poses quite a challenge in the Malaysian context since English is not the first language of the teachers themselves, or that of their students. They are all English Language Learners (ELL). Moreover, even though many MST have been given short, in-service training to improve their English proficiency, in terms of teacher education, MST are trained principally as subject specialists, not language teachers. What further complicates the issue is that due to socio-historical and economic factors linked to its past as a British colony, English is a language which is more present in urban contexts, and is rarely used in less developed regions. The implementation of the PPSMI policy, however, applies equally to all schools in Malaysia, regardless of the sociolinguistic environment. Teachers and students from non-urban areas, therefore, are likely to face greater challenges in their teaching and learning process under this policy. Consequently, it is important to examine the impact that the geographic location of a school has on students’ learning of mathematics and science within a policy that uses English as the language of instruction. The educational system in Malaysia is very exam oriented, and the Malaysian Ministry of Education (MMOE) has harnessed the intense pressure of major public exams to speed up the implementation of the PPSMI policy and to promote change in teaching practices in the classroom. In order to do so, and as a measure to linguistically accommodate students who are not proficient enough to perform well uniquely in English, the Form Five high-stakes exit exams, called the SPM exams, for all Mathematics (Mathematics and Additional Mathematics) and Science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Science) have been in bilingual format (BM and English) since 2003, even though the Form Five students sitting for the SPM exams at that time were still being taught in BM. When this study was conducted, only students in the Science streams were required to take an additional English course e English for Science and Technology. This paper presents partial data drawn from a larger longitudinal study examining the classrooms of MST who are teaching Mathematics and Science in English at the Form Five level for the first time, to find out how MST view the policy and exams after five years of policy implementation. Their students are the first cohort to have been taught Mathematics and Sciences in English throughout their secondary schooling from Form One to Form Five. Note that while the SPM exams are bilingual, the MMOE mandates all MST to conduct instruction in English; they should only use BM if their students request clarification in that language. Schools must also carry out monthly internal assessments solely in English. The objective of the MMOE is to eventually have unilingual, English SPM exams. In this context, therefore, it is important to examine what the perceptions and beliefs of MST are concerning the language of instruction and the bilingual exam. This paper examines the beliefs of MST and student comments from the perspectives offered by two bodies of literature. The first deals with teacher beliefs and how these inform their classroom practices. The second concerns the literature on teaching and learning languages in content classrooms, and more specifically, EAP in Mathematics and Science classes for ELL. 2. Literature review 2.1. Teacher beliefs and classroom practices The literature in this field show that teacher beliefs and theories about teaching, learning and their subject matter are important factors in classroom decisions (Sato & Takahashi, 2004; Tsui, 2003). Studies across both language classrooms and subject matter classrooms demonstrate that teachers’ views about these key areas are determinant in the planning of lessons, and the teaching and learning activities that happen in the classroom (Cole, 2009; Sato &

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

7

Kleinsasser, 1999). They influence choices concerning what to teach; how and when to teach it; and how to deal with students’ problems and misunderstandings (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Johnson, 1992; Shulman, 1986; Sullivan & Woods, 2008; Woods, 1996). However, teachers’ ability to implement their beliefs may also be subject to other factors such as the school culture and institutional constraints (Ahmad Zanzali, 2003; Cimbricz, 2002) since they are required to respect the norms prevalent in their institutions and also teach according to the requirements of a specific curriculum. This may limit their scope for implementing teaching practices which are consistent with their own pedagogical stance. 2.2. Literature on EAP in mathematics and science As mentioned previously, teachers and students in Malaysia do not have English as their mother tongue. Within the context of this study, therefore, it is important to examine literature from EAP in mathematics and science classrooms, especially as they relate to ELLs. Studies from the field of EAP point to the idea that mathematical and scientific discourses are specific registers (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Pimm, 1987), each with their own fields, audiences and modes of communicating. According to Martin (1993, p.168), “one of the most important pieces of technology used by scientists, and one that is often overlooked, is language.” In order for successful learning of mathematics and science to occur, students must first master the language of science (Lemke, 1990). However, Brown and Kelly (2007) point out that this may be particularly difficult for ELLs because they have to learn words and language as applied to concepts unfamiliar to their daily lives. Sherer et al. (2009) have pointed out that many scientific texts are written for a highly literate audience, making them inaccessible for those who do not possess the requisite skills. This is especially true of ELLs who do not have access to the same kinds of linguistic resources available to first language speakers within their home environment or social networks. 2.3. Implications What the literature shows is that, due to ELLs’ linguistic difficulties, mathematics and science teacher may feel obliged to make specific adjustments such as simplifying language or focusing on vocabulary to facilitate comprehension of content. Richardson Bruna, Vann, and Perales Escudero (2007) argue that these measures to constrain the kind of language input students receive may be counterproductive to learning content as well as appropriate academic discourse. They highlight the importance of examining teacher beliefs about language in content instruction for ELLs. As Lee (2004) points out, for ELLs, the role of the teacher and the impact of their teaching practices in the classroom are crucially important in students’ mastery of subject-specific discourses. 3. Research questions To understand how MST’s beliefs about the policy and the bilingual exam influence teaching practices in their classrooms, this paper poses three questions regarding the implementation of PPSMI: 1) How do MST perceive English as compared to BM as the language of instruction? 2) How do MST perceive the bilingual Mathematics and Science exams - the BM version as compared to the English version - as instruments for measuring student abilities? 3) How do their perceptions affect their classroom practices, and consequently, student learning? For each of these questions, there is an interest in knowing if there are differences between urban and non-urban MST. 4. Methodology 4.1. Research method A mixed methods approach that involved both quantitative and qualitative data collection and data analysis (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003) was used. It was felt that this methodology would be best suited for capturing the

8

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

complexity of the phenomenon being studied (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007; Creswell, 2009) since it has effects at the systemic level, and impacts what happens in school and classroom contexts as well. The study used a complex research design which tried to ensure that there could be comparisons made between and within all designated levels and categories across data collection periods and across the different kinds of data whenever possible. 4.2. Duration of the study The research took place over the course of one school year. Three periods of data collection were designated: 1) T1 e the beginning of the school year (January to mid-April) 2) T2 e the middle of the school year (July to August) 3) T3 e the end of the school year (October to November), about a month prior to the SPM exams.

4.3. Participants 4.3.1. Quantitative data (survey) The survey participants were Form Four and Five MST in 41 secondary schools from 3 states on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. These MST came from two groups of schools within each state. The first group is composed of urban area schools, meaning that they are situated in towns or cities with a high population density, a good system of infrastructure and public services. The second group consists of non-urban schools in areas with low population density. They are located in areas where infrastructure and public services, while they exist, may be less extensive or of a relatively lower quality. Table 1 shows the number of urban and out-of-town schools from each state: 4.3.2. Qualitative data (case studies) Qualitative data was obtained from two case study schools, SMK Kayu Manis and SMK Gaharu. SMK Kayu Manis is located in a non-urban area and SMK Gaharu is a town school. In SMK Kayu Manis, 7 MST, the Buddy System coordinator, the Head of the Math and Science panel and the exam coordinator participated in the study. Group interviews were also conducted with thirteen Form Four and Five students. In SMK Gaharu, 6 MST, an ESL teacher, the Buddy System coordinator, the Head of the Math and Science panel and the principal were participants of the study. Ten Form Four and Five students were also interviewed. Two of the MST profiles reported here come from participants in SMK Kayu Manis and another two are from SMK Gaharu. The profiles were selected from among those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Pseudonyms have been used for all participants. 4.4. Instruments 4.4.1. Quantitative data To obtain quantitative data, a survey using a two-part questionnaire was used. The first section asks teachers for information concerning their academic background, teaching experience and school linguistic environment. The Table 1 Number of schools per state. State

Urban schools

Out-of-town (OOT) schools

PENANG PERAK JOHOR Total

9b 6 7a 22

6 6 8 20

a

During T1, one of the urban schools in this state lost the surveys due to a clerical error. This school was subsequently dropped from the T3 survey. During T3, one of the urban schools experienced a problem with the postal service and the researcher did not receive the questionnaires that were sent. b

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

9

second section comprises 31 statements, each accompanied by a four-point Likert scale. These statements probe MST’s beliefs and opinions concerning aspects related to the PPSMI policy such as the appropriateness of English versus BM as language of instruction; perceptions regarding their own linguistic proficiency and that of their students or the effect of measures designed to support policy implementation. An example of one of the questions as it appears in the questionnaire is given below:

This scale was deliberately set up to avoid ambiguity or fence sitting in MST’s responses. The comments space after each statement allows teachers to give a more nuanced view of their choices. One page is provided at the end for extended comments. Two versions, one in English and the other in BM, were made available to participants. To answer the research questions, responses to four statements regarding the language of instruction and the language of testing are examined. These are: S13 English is the best language for teaching Mathematics and Science. S14 Bahasa Malaysia is the best language for teaching Mathematics and Science. S24 The English SPM Mathematics or Science exam questions are instruments that accurately measure my students’ skills and capacities in these subjects. S25 The Bahasa Malaysia SPM Mathematics or Science exam questions are instruments that accurately measure my students’ skills and capacities in these subjects.

4.4.2. Qualitative data Qualitative data comes from videotaped observations of classroom teaching in SMK Kayu Manis and SMK Gaharu and audio-taped, semi-structured interviews conducted with participating Form Four and Five MST. The interviews explore MST’s academic and teaching background, their students’ backgrounds, school environment and how these influence their perception of the PPSMI policy and SPM exam. Field notes are additional sources of information. Informal chats with teachers in the staffroom and school corridors also help provide insight into certain aspects of the policy, teacher opinions and teaching practices. Group interviews and informal conversations with students are sources of qualitative data as well. 4.5. Data collection procedure Batches of 6e30 questionnaires were hand delivered to each school in T1 and T3. They were left with the principal, senior subject teachers or administrative staff. Therefore, the choice of language for the questionnaires was usually made by these individuals and not the teachers themselves. These questionnaires were either collected in person or returned by mail. In each of the case study schools, Form Four and Five MST were observed and interviewed once over the three periods of data collection: T1, T2 and T3. Interviews usually took place during MST’s free periods in the school staffroom or any other available room. Classroom observations were generally conducted before the interviews, but due to the teachers’ time constraints, this order could not always be respected. The classroom observations were videotaped. An observation grid was also completed by the researcher as the lesson progressed. In addition, the researcher spent one to two weeks in each school, getting to know more about the school [its history and ethos, and the

10

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

physical surroundings], its staff [teaching and support staff] and students. Interviews with students took place during T2 and T3. During T1, they had come to know the researcher better and had become less shy. 4.6. Data analysis 4.6.1. Quantitative data (surveys) Results from the survey were entered into a spreadsheet and tabulated according to state zone and period of data collection. Descriptive statics were obtained for each statement. In order to see if MST responses varied according to area, period of administration (T1 or T3) and so on, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and factor analysis was performed on the data. However, for the purposes of this paper, only descriptive statistics for the four questions (S13, S14, S24 and S25) selected to answer the research questions are presented here. 4.6.2. Qualitative data (Teacher interviews) The interviews underwent a two-step coding process. The first step involved open coding to identify sections containing main themes of interest such as MST’s views of themselves as subject teachers, comfort with English as language of instruction, opinions on their students’ linguistic proficiency and so on. These sections were selectively transcribed. For the second step, these transcripts were read to distinguish sub-themes within each section. Various statements within each section were coded for the sub-themes they represented (axial coding). After the coding process, a constant comparative method was used to compare individual teacher’s responses across themes and sub-themes across data collection periods. The same method was used to compare different teachers’ responses within the same data collection period. It was used once again to compare and contrast the responses across participants across data collection periods. 4.6.3. Qualitative data (classroom observations) A procedure similar to that used for the interviews was employed for the videotaped observations. However, after the process of open-coding, the observation grid that had been completed during classroom observation was re-read because it often had notes on specific incidences of language use (by both students and teacher) that happened during teaching. It was, therefore, helpful as an advance organiser of sorts for the more detailed axial coding. The focus of this stage of coding was mainly on linguistic events. Events of interest were things such as, “Did teaching happen in English, BM or both languages?”; “Did teachers translate, code-switch or use other ways to help students understand?”; “Who initiated translation or code-switching?” Teachers’ means of preparing students for their Form Five high-stakes exams were also coded. The coding was related to specific queries that I had concerning classroom interaction such as: “Did teachers lecture, conduct small group and/or pair work?”; “Did they use other materials or rely only on textbooks or exam revision books?” and “Were students given time and opportunities to discuss and ask questions?” Once again the constant comparative method was used for each teacher, to compare his/her pattern of language use and exam preparation during classroom teaching over the three data collection periods. These patterns were compared across participants within the same school and between participants in the two case study schools. 4.6.4. Triangulation Quantitative and qualitative results were triangulated to find similarities and differences in patterns of responses within the larger sample of MST and what was said and done by teachers from the case study schools. The results from the qualitative analyses were triangulated at two different levels. On a more general level, these results, along with field notes and information from document analysis were triangulated to create a case for each school. Within each case study, at a more specific level, triangulation led to the delineation of individual profiles for the participating MST. 5. Results 5.1. Quantitative data The figures for the distribution and return of questionnaires during T1 and T3 are presented in Table 2.

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

11

Table 2 Figures for survey during T1 and T3. Data collection period

Number of copies distributed

T1 T3

English

Bahasa Malaysia

Total

275 252

172 198

447 450

Returned

Rate of return

366 367

81.8% 81.5%

The response from Form Four and Five MST during both periods when questionnaires were administered was good. The rates of return are high, averaging approximately 82% for both T1 and T3. The figures show that, on average, about one in every three questionnaires distributed was in BM. MST responses to the four statements, S13, S14, S24 and S25 are provided in Table 3. Since the responses to the statements in the survey are actually on a binary scale (agreement or disagreement), for the purposes of this analysis, the two categories of agreement (Agree, Strongly Agree) and disagreement (Strongly disagree, Disagree) respectively, were collapsed to allow for easier discussion of the results. The figures in Table 3 show that MST from non-urban schools are somewhat divided as to the role of English as a language of instruction for Mathematics and Science. However, they are more likely to think that English is not the best language for teaching Mathematics and Sciences. During T1, approximately 52% of them either strongly disagree or disagree with S13, while 48% agree or strongly agree. The combined percentage for these two categories of responses goes up to 54% during T3. The opposite holds true for urban MST: during T1, almost 63% of them either agree or strongly agree with this statement. This goes up to almost 67% during T3. Looking at the responses to S14, we can see that it is almost the mirror image of S13 responses. In this case, it is the urban MST who are divided about the role of Bahasa Malaysia. During T1, approximately 48% of them disagree or strongly disagree with this statement, while 52% agree or strongly agree. These figures remain practically the same for T3. Non-urban MST, on the other hand, are very supportive of this statement: a little more than 74% of them either agree or strongly agree that this is the best language for teaching Mathematics and Science during T1. However, this support drops to approximately 63% during T3. From Table 3, we can see that during T1 both urban and non-urban MST think the English version of the SPM exams will measure the abilities of their students well (S24). Slightly more than 64% of urban MST and a little more than 54% of non-urban MST agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. For T3, the combined percentage for these two categories actually goes up to more than 69% for urban MST but drops, however, to approximately 47% for nonurban MST. For S25, we can see that both urban MST and their non-urban peers consider the Bahasa Malaysia version of the SPM exams will accurately measure their students’ abilities. During T1, the combined percentage of out of town MST who agree or strongly agree with S25 is very high, almost 85%. So is that for urban MST, approximately 74%. These same percentages drop slightly during T3 to about 84% for non-urban MST. However, there is a bigger drop for urban MST; the figure goes down to 64%. Table 3 MST Responses (in percentages) to S13, S14, S24 and S25. Statement

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Strongly agree

Missing values

T1

T3

T1

T3

T1

Agree T3

T1

T3

T1

T3

S13 Urban O.O.T

8.10 16.56

7.25 15.03

28.10 35.10

23.67 39.22

39.52 39.74

41.55 34.64

23.33 7.28

25.12 9.80

0.95 1.32

2.42 1.31

S14 Urban O.O.T

11.43 0.07

12.56 3.92

36.67 23.18

39.13 30.72

33.81 49.01

28.99 44.44

13.81 25.17

14.01 18.30

4.29 1.99

5.32 2.61

S24 Urban O.O.T

1.32 11.26

5.31 15.03

25.24 33.11

25.12 36.60

56.67 49.01

60.87 42.48

7.62 4.64

8.21 4.58

1.91 1.99

0.48 1.31

S25 Urban O.O.T

4.29 2.65

4.83 1.96

18.57 10.60

27.54 11.77

57.62 63.58

50.73 62.75

16.19 21.19

13.04 20.92

3.33 1.99

3.87 2.61

12

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

MST comments concerning the impact of bilingual SPM exams on students’ performance varied. One teacher from an urban school commented in the T3 survey that it might not make much difference for her students: Although BM is my students’ mother tongue, I strongly believe that writing down answers for M & S in Malay especially my subject would be a problem to my students as they have learned the subject in Eng for the past 2 years. Another urban teacher puts it even more strongly: “Students will confuse and waste time if the exam questions were prepared in BI & BM. Some of the terms they couldn’t understand in BM.” This contrasts with a comment from one of the non-urban MST. For them, the bilingual version could aid the students: “I’m teaching at rural area where students can’t understand English very well. So, answering in (M)alay can sho(w) student skills & capacities.” 5.2. Qualitative data: MST profiles 5.2.1. SMK Gaharu Mr. Wong e Mr. Wong is a very experienced, senior teacher who has taught for about 30 years. He was educated when English was still the language of instruction in schools in Malaysia, and went to university in Britain. He began his career teaching in English before switching to Malay. Therefore, he is quite at ease with the PPSMI policy and fully supports its implementation. He finds that his students’ understanding of the subject matter may be influenced by the demands of the subject matter and their proficiency in the language: “Actually, facts and figures are important, but when, when you want to explain to them, you must say it, you need a sentence construction first.” His comfort level in both English and Malay is evident when he is teaching in class. He was observed teaching 5 Science 1 (5S1), the best class in the whole form. Observed during T1 and T2, he conducted the lessons almost 100% in English, but made one or two very brief translations when students requested clarification in Malay. His students also seemed comfortable with being taught in English. Most students used English when addressing him and responded to questions in English. The excerpt below during a lesson on the uses of the cathode ray oscilloscope illustrates a typical exchange between Mr. Wong and his students in 5S1: Mr Wong: What is the function of the filament? Students call out (various voices): OK. To give out the cathode. Emit electron. Mr Wong: The function of the cathode? Students call out: to emit electron Mr Wong: OK, to emit the electrons. He finds that the bilingual SPM exam format is helpful for students: During any transition stage, they need both languages, so that when they answer, when they couldn’t answer in English, they can switch to Malay. But normally when the examiner, they examine both, both the answers. Because they, they know during transition stage, some people they might not be good in one language. They might be well-versed with the other language, so we give them a chance. Encik Hamdan e Encik Hamdan has a first degree in Mathematics. He has been teaching in SMK Gaharu for fifteen years. He has a very positive opinion of PPSMI. He has no problems implementing it. This is his second year implementing PPSMI. He started teaching Form 4 in English last year and it is his first time teaching Form 5 in English. He feels that this policy does not have much of an impact on his classes because teaching and learning Mathematics is not so much about language. It is about numbers. For him, PPSMI would have a bigger impact on the Science subjects: Mathematics doesn’t have that much [to do with] PPSMI.Mathematics uses lots of numbers.because they don’t need to write a sentence in Mathematics. Because, what’s the point of writing a sentence e only numbers (translated from BM) In any case, even during T1, he states his teaching objective baldly:

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

13

I teach Maths, and mainly, Add Maths. I focus more on answering the exam. That’s all. To answer the exam (translated from BM) Encik Hamdan was observed teaching 5 Science 1 (5S1), the best class for all three periods of data collection. He was also observed in 5 Humanities 2 (5H2), one of the weakest classes in the form, during T1 and T3. When observed in class, Encik Hamdan teaches much of the time in English in 5S1 lessons, about 80% of the time. However, his use of BM increases noticeably when he is in 5H2. Although he will sometimes switch to BM while teaching in 5S1, he does so more often when students pose a question in BM during whole class instruction or when they approach him individually. Typically when teaching in BM, he retains the English mathematical terms. Occasionally, he provides the BM equivalent of the term. The excerpt below, where he is teaching 5H2 about the elements of a matrix, is an example of this pattern. En Hamdan: Elements in matrix. Every number it, every number it (he points to the numbers he has written for the 2  2 matrix on the board) [is] this element, in that, in that particular matrix. What is element in BM? Student: Unsur (Element in BM) (excerpt translated from BM) When teaching in 5H2, this switch happens more frequently, without prompting by students. His students in both classes preferred to address him in BM when they spoke to him. During T3 for both 5S1 and 5H2, the entire lesson was centred on exam revision - doing past year exam questions. Either Encik Hamdan or his students would read out the question in English and proceed to work out the solution. For the SPM exam, he thinks the bilingual format is helpful for the present cohort of students: “It will help them because they can, uh, answer it in Malay.and read the question in Malay if they cannot understand the, the English.” However, he feels that it will no longer be necessary with the students who started learning these subjects in English from Standard 1 (Grade 1) onwards. They will not need bilingual translation anymore because they wouldn’t know the Malay terms anyway, unlike the students in Form 5 at present. 5.2.2. SMK Kayu Manis Mr. Ang e Mr. Ang, a Chemistry teacher, was educated when English was still the language of instruction in Malaysian schools. However, before the introduction of PPSMI, he had always taught in Malay. He has more than 25 years of experience teaching Chemistry and is completely comfortable teaching it in English. Mr. Ang is also very supportive of the policy e he welcomes it “with open arms” because it is good for the future development of the country. However, he has some concerns about how much his students are able to learn when he teaches them in English: If I were to use BM to teach certain things, he’ll just understand just 80%. No problem.Now, I’m using English to teach him. I believe that if I were to do, teach the same thing you know, .he might only understand 70% or maybe 60%. Because when I use English, he might not able to understand fully. He was observed teaching 5 Science and Technology 1 (5ST1), also the best class in Form 5 in this school. His teaching experience and ease in English (and also Malay) come through in the classroom. He was able to explain in simple and clear English to his students. During T1 and T2, Mr. Ang taught almost exclusively in English. The excerpt from classroom teaching during T2 illustrates his use of English during teaching. Mr Ang: Now, I write down, ah, CUSO4 (writes this down on the board) is anhydrous. Actually, actually the white part is copper sulphate. Anhydrous copper sulphate. When you add water, when you add water, you’ll get blue colour. Why it is blue colour? Because it is hydrated copper sulphate. His students, on the other hand, seemed to understand his explanations but did not appear very comfortable using English to respond to question although they made efforts to do so during T1. In order to answer his questions, some students resorted to reading the textbook, line by line or would take a long time to formulate their answers. By T2, some of his students were starting to show greater ease with English, responding to his questions with short English phrases. During T3 teaching however, Mr. Ang handed out notes in BM. He also used BM terms and encouraged students to use Malay to express themselves if they were unable to do so in English; something he had never done in

14

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

T1 or T2. He explains that weaker students did not perform well on the short answer and essay questions during their mid-terms and Trial Exams: .at this stage, I can’t help it. I have to let them know that, er, they, not to give up but to use a bit of rojak (mixed) English. Where there are some English terms but when they start to explain, they might use the Malay. He also mentions directing some students to older reference books in the school library which are in BM only. During T3, when he was asked what he thought of the bilingual format of the SPM exams, he was of the opinion that it would be helpful for his students: “(P)ersonally, if I were to tell, if my students were to answer all in English, they would give me blank answers”. On the other hand, he also has worries as to how this will affect his students’ exam performance: the Malaysian Examinations Board had not issued any guidelines on this matter, and his anxiety is due to fears that his students will be penalised for mixing both languages in their responses. Puan Sarjit e Puan Sarjit is a Biology and Science teacher who has almost twenty years of teaching experience. She received her primary and secondary schooling in English but went to university in BM. She had always taught in Malay since starting her career until PPSMI came along. Puan Sarjit taught in urban areas before being posted to SMK Kayu Manis, where she has been teaching for fourteen years. She enjoys teaching in English. She was observed teaching 5 Vocational and Technology 2 (5VT2), classified as average to weak in this school. Puan Sarjit is very fluent in English but her students, in contrast, are not. She feels part of the problem may be that the class she is teaching is not very academically motivated either: .basically I feel the problems that I’m facing now I also faced when I was teaching Math and Science, when I was teaching Science in Malay.So, it’s basically just getting the content across. Whether it’s in English or whether it’s in Malay, as I mentioned earlier, the students are not focused on the actual.learning process. When she was observed teaching during T1 and T2 however, she spent almost equal amounts of time teaching in English and BM. Puan Sarjit often explains a point in English and then translates the same idea into BM. This is illustrated in the following example, when she explains Bernoulli’s Principle to her students: “As the water flows in the horizontal tube, the velocity increases. Semakin jauh air itu bergerak, halajunya semakin meningkat.” She tells her students during T1: If I ask you a question in English, try and answer in English. If you can’t, that’s alright. Answer in BM. At least I know you understand what I am saying. (translated from BM) However, during T3, about two weeks before students sit for the SPM, her attitude is completely different: “Right now, I don’t care if you choose to read in English or BM, it doesn’t matter. I want the correct answer.” (translated from BM). She explains in her T3 interview: “And at the end of the year, the students actually approached me to teach them in Malay. Although they had been exposed to all the terminology and all that in English, they were like, desperate, you know.” As with Mr. Ang above, Puan Sarjit is trying to ensure that students do not give up hope simply because they do not pass or do well in their English-only exams in school. Like Encik Hamdan, she also keeps the English terms when translating into BM, but usually, she explains to the students entirely in BM. Puan Sarjit concurs with other MST’s opinion that having bilingual SPM exams is a positive thing since it encourages students to at least attempt an answer. She says in her T3 interview: “You see, students who have a problem with the language, when it’s unilingual, they don’t understand the question and they don’t answer.Simple as that.” However, like her colleague Mr. Ang, Puan Sarjit is somewhat apprehensive about how her students will perform in the SPM even with bilingual support: “Mmm, for the weaker students, I guess they still have to fall back on the use of Bahasa [Malaysia]. But at the same time, if they’re being taught the Sciences and Maths in English, the terminology is all in English, how are they going to understand the questions when the terms are Malay terms?” 5.2.3. MST’s use of keywords and opinion of bilingual SPM exam papers In interviews with each and every one of these MST, they expressed the concern that their students have to learn the “keywords” in English because these are important in the marking schema of SPM exam papers. This is because students are awarded points for each specific keyword included in their short answer or essay responses (for science subjects, short answer questions and essay questions constitute about 50% of the marks. Multiple choice questions account for 40%, while lab reports make up the remaining 10% although these proportions may vary slightly depending on the subject).

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

15

Therefore, these teachers often put verbal stress or repeat these words in their sentences to draw students’ attention to them. The MST in both schools were of the same opinion as the MST surveyed. For them, the bilingual format of the SPM was good for their students, allowing them to understand the questions, and giving them the possibility of answering in BM. The MST surveyed and observed also pointed out that students were quite comfortable with multiple-choice questions and would attempt short answer questions as well. However, only students from the good classes would answer essay questions. Weaker students simply handed in blank answer sheets. 6. Discussion In response to the first question concerning English compared to BM as language of instruction, we can see that MST from urban and non-urban areas are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the appropriateness of the English language as the medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science. On this issue, urban teachers tend to favour English while non-urban teachers prefer BM. This is, of course, entirely comprehensible when the sociolinguistic context is taken into consideration. In urban areas, English can, and often does function as a lingua franca between students of different ethnic or linguistic backgrounds. This is not the case in outlying or rural regions in Malaysia. One non-urban MST comments in the T1 survey: “Explanations given in English are less effective because not all students are fluent in the use of English. [The explanations] need to be translated into BM.” (translated from BM). On the other hand, regardless of their personal opinions on the subject, the observations of classroom teaching show that MST are conducting their lessons mainly in English. How much English each teacher uses, though, can vary depending on the academic and linguistic capacities of their students, as the teacher profiles from SMK Gaharu and SMK Kayu Manis demonstrate. It is quite clear from their comments and classroom practices that MST believe weaker students should be supported in their learning via instruction in BM. Therefore, for certain groups of students, those less proficient in the language who are also struggling with the subject matter, learning takes place in bilingual classrooms, usually via translation from English to BM. This happens in both urban and non-urban schools. In some ways, this leads to a cycle of “the rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer”. This is because Pure Science students, who normally constitute the strong classes, already take seven subjects that are taught in English (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Additional Mathematics, English for Science and Technology and English). Students in Humanities and Technical streams, who are usually in the weaker classes, have less subjects taught in English (Science, Mathematics and maybe one or two technical courses). Over the course of the two-year upper secondary cycle, with a high-level of input in English, Science students get considerably better in understanding subject matter in English, while students in the other streams may also improve, but not to such a great extent. Furthermore, although the aim of the MST in carrying out bilingual classes is student comprehension, this approach also comes at a cost: it can take twice as long to teach the same amount of content. In a system where the SPM exit exams include all topics taught over the upper secondary cycle, this practice may limit the number of topics that teachers are able to complete. In fact, Encik Hamdan mentions that MST have the option of teaching their students the Minimum Adequate Syllabus (MAS), which means teaching them the topics from the syllabus which are absolutely necessary for passing. Once again, this practice is only current with weaker classes, not the stronger ones. In consequence, it impacts the level of achievement of these students on the SPM exams. As for the second question regarding the English or BM version of SPM exam questions as instruments for measuring their students’ abilities, MST from both urban and non-urban areas, in general, tend to see both versions in a positive light. For many teachers, they are practically the same. An urban MST comments: “Questions are the same e Bahasa Malaysia version is translated into Bahasa Inggeris (English). Both exactly the same and student can answer in either language.” It should be noted however, that the positive perception of non-urban MST concerning the English version (S24) is marginal during T1, only 54%, and actually drops to 47% during T3. .many students cannot answer the questions given because they don’t understand the questions. They may be able to translate the words they don’t know with the help of a dictionary but often, the students fail to interpret (the meaning of) the question. (translated from BM) The observations of Mr. Ang and Puan Sarjit show that this drop in the approval of the English version is due to the non-urban MST’s realisation that students are still struggling to answer in English two months away from the SPM. It may also be influenced by the MMOE’s decision to postpone unilingual Science and Math exams to 2012.

16

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

It should also be kept in mind that this first cohort of Secondary Four and Five students began their Mathematics and Science learning process in primary (elementary) school using BM. Moreover, their other subjects are also taught in BM. That is why MST such as Encik Hamdan and Puan Sarjit, who teach average to weak students, resort to translating their teaching to BM. By doing so, they hope to increase their students’ comprehension of the content taught and improve their exam performance. The MST interviewed all expressed the view that bilingual SPM papers are a good option for students who did not start learning Sciences and Mathematics in English in elementary school. For them, if students do not understand a question in English, they can refer to the BM version, and then proceed to answer in either one of the languages. This leads us to the third question: How do their perceptions impact classroom practices and student learning? Classroom observations show how MST’s belief that BM and English versions of SPM “are the same” influence their teaching practices: they resort primarily to translating from English to BM to help students grasp the content being taught. There is also a tendency for MST to focus on keywords, as a means of circumventing students’ linguistic problems. However, the first of these classroom practices may be problematic because it rests on two implicit and possibly erroneous assumptions. One of these assumptions is that since students are able to understand better in BM, they will be able to express their understanding in this language when placed in exam situations. The second is that students do not need much preparation for answering questions in BM e they can do it on their own because it was their first language of instruction and it is the first language for many students. Student views on this matter contradict these beliefs. For them, it is not always possible to make that linguistic shift. Even though 5ST1 students in SMK Kayu Manis (non-urban school) said in their T3 interview that they would refer to the BM version if necessary, one of them indicated that this may not be as straightforward as it seems. Comments from two students in SMK Kayu Manis when asked if they would answer their SPM in BM illustrate this: Chong Ming: I don’t think I can understand. The chemical terms, I not sure what natrium [sodium], kalsium [potassium] is. We learn this in English. Halimi: I prefer English. Like I said, we’re used to it from Form One, right, so we can’t change it. We already understand the term right. So when we transfer from BM, we really don’t understand what it is. (translated from BM) 5S1 students in the urban school, SMK Gaharu, said the same thing but mentioned that for them it was just “biasa” [normal/habitual] to answer questions in English. It must be stressed once again that throughout much of the two-year upper secondary cycle, students are tested only in English and do not actually sit for a bilingual exam until their Trial Exams, about two months before the SPM. The second classroom practice - making students remember keywords - points to teachers’ limited conception of what constitutes scientific and mathematical literacy. This also has effects on student learning. MST’s persistent efforts to have students retain keywords in their domains are helpful because it allows students to enlarge their mathematical and scientific vocabulary. It is useful in aiding students obtain more points during the SPM exam as well, since these are graded using specific answer schema. However, it also has negative effects: focusing only on vocabulary may obscure the ability of the student to make meaningful connections between various scientific processes and mathematical operations (Richardson Bruna, et al., 2007). One Form Four student, Syimah, very perceptively points this out: “It’s, whether we understand it or not. We can’t [just simply] memorise those terms in English ah, but in fact we don’t understand what we are writing, right.” (translated from BM) This may also be a factor in explaining why even students in good classes have problems writing essays e an exercise which demands the ability to link multiple facts and steps within a process into a coherent whole. 7. Conclusion The results and the discussion show that in both urban and non-urban contexts, teachers have adapted their classroom linguistic practices based on what they believe to be necessary for content learning and what is most effective in terms of student comprehension. However, these practices, along with the academic stream in which students find themselves, widen the differences between high-performing and average to low-performing students. This combination has a twofold impact on the learning of the latter group of students. They receive reduced linguistic input in terms of English and impoverished academic content as teachers reduce and simplify both language and content in an effort to help

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

17

students understand their lessons. These findings support what Richardson Bruna et al. (2007) have remarked, namely, that simplifying language or focusing only on keywords or terms, decreases students’ opportunities to engage with subject-appropriate discourse and consequently, reduces their ability to function in that domain. Although MST address content comprehension in their lessons, they have not considered what linguistic support students as ELLs need in order learn EAP. This is especially true in terms of oral and written production. Their unproblematic assumption that student comprehension in BM will automatically transfer into performance in the exam context contradicts what students themselves say they can do. Also, because the linguistic focus of MST’s classroom teaching is on the acquisition of specific keywords, this does not fulfill what students need to know in terms of truly understanding ideas and expressing their understanding in English. Students themselves are aware of this, and comments from teachers such as Mr. Ang and Puan Sarjit indicate that teachers are conscious of this shortcoming too. The results also indicate that five years after the start of PPSMI implementation there is still a gap in terms of the linguistic learning of urban versus non-urban students. Survey comments, classrooms observations and student comments show that students are experiencing less difficulties adapting to instruction in English in urban contexts. In non-urban area schools, however, even teachers who are highly proficient in English are still not able to teach fully in English in Mathematics and Science classes. The results of this study have shown the need to re-consider certain measures related to the implementation of PPSMI. This is relevant to both urban and non-urban area schools. It was pointed out in the introduction that only Science students take an additional English course e English for Science and Technology. However, Science students are already in input-rich learning contexts as far as English is concerned. A modified version of this course may prove helpful for non-Science students as far as mathematics and science learning in English is concerned. Consideration also needs to be given to how to make MST, who are only trained in subject teaching, become more aware of language in content learning. This is consonant with what other research on mathematics and science instruction for ELLs has shown (Lee, 2004; Richardson Bruna et al., 2007): MST need to learn ways other than the keyword and direct translation methods to help students with language issues. In addition, the varied linguistic practices of MST and the difference between language of testing in school and languages of testing in the SPM exams, raise questions as to what the bilingual exams are measuring exactly. Therefore, there needs to be a reconsideration of how MST linguistic practices in class, in-school testing practices and the linguistic accommodation measures used in the SPM exams can be aligned to provide optimal support for those students who are less proficient in English. This will enable students to learn both language and content effectively, and allow the bilingual SPM exams to validly claim to be mainly testing students’ content knowledge. Funding sources Fieldwork for this research project was supported by funding from the McGill Internal SSHRC Research Grant and the SSHRC Standard Research Grant: Investigating the use of high-stakes tests in educational innovation (P.I. e Dr. Carolyn Turner). References Ahmad Zanzali, N. A. (2003). Implementing the intended mathematics curriculum: teachers’ beliefs about the meaning and relevance of problem solving. The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project e Proceedings of the International Conference. Brno, Czech Republic, September 2003. Brown, B., & Kelly, G. (2007). When clarity and style meet substance: language, Identity and the appropriation of science discourse. In W. M. Roth, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Science, learning, identity: Sociocultural and cultural-historical perspectives (pp. 283e300). Rotterdam/ Taipei: Sense Publishers. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State Mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved from. http:// epaa.sau.edu/epaa/v10n2.html on 12.05.06. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, W. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255e296). New York: Macmillan. Cole, K. (2009). The writing on the wall: the daily calendar as science practice. In K. Bruna, & K. Gomez (Eds.), The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science (pp. 69e92). New York: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

18

M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 1e12. Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practice during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour, XXIV(1), 83e108. Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65e95. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in Science: learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday, & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 166e202). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge. Richardson Bruna, K., Vann, R., & Perales Escudero, M. (2007). What’s language got to do with it?: a case study of academic language instruction in a high-school “English Learner Science” class. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 36e54. Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 494e517. Sato, K., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Teacher beliefs, practices and student Outcomes: The power of alternative assessment. Paper presented at 2004 Ontario Conference on Applied Linguistics. Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University. Sherer, J. Z., Gomez, K., Herman, P., Gomez, L., White, J., & Williams, A. (2009). Literacy infusion in a high school environmental science curriculum. In K. Bruna, & K. Gomez (Eds.), The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science (pp. 93e114). New York: Routledge. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4e14. Sullivan, P., & Woods, T. (2008). Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development. Rotterdam: Sense. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of Second Language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision making and classroom practice.