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

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

Teaching mathematics and science in English in Malaysianclassrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on classroom practices

and student learning

May Tan a,*, Ong Saw Lan b

aDepartment of Integrated Studies in Education, Faculty of Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Rm 244, Montreal,

Quebec H3A 1Y2, Canadab 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 Malaysianeducational system switched to using English to teach Mathematics and the Sciences in its schools. This new policy is known by itsBM acronym, PPSMI. To ease transition, bilingual high-stakes exit exams are being used as an accommodation measure, with theobjective of eventually having English-only exams. This paper examines the perceptions and beliefs of upper secondary Math andScience teachers (MST) whose students are the first and second cohorts to learn Mathematics and Science in English. Results fromsurveys, 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 emphasison keywords during teaching. These practices enhance the learning of academically and linguistically strong students but negativelyimpact the content and language development of weaker students. These methods may also increase the content comprehension ofstudents over the short term, but limit the development of their speaking and writing abilities. In closing, measures to improvestudents’ learning of EAP are proposed.� 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 majorissue (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002); as one of these countries, Malaysia is no exception. In 2003, after more thanthirty 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 � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.11.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.11.001

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap



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. Thispolicy is commonly known by its Malay acronym, PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalamBahasa Inggeris). In English, it means “English as the Language of Instruction for Mathematics and Sciences”. Thepolicy has two main objectives: to produce a new generation of students who are scientifically and technologicallyknowledgeable 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 theeconomic growth and development of the country.

PPSMI had simultaneous entry points at three levels in the school system: Standard One, Form One and LowerForm Six. Mathematics and Science teachers (MST), therefore, became change agents responsible for ensuring thattheir students would be competent enough to function in these subject domains in English: MST are now expected toplay the role of teachers of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in their classrooms. This poses quite a challenge inthe Malaysian context since English is not the first language of the teachers themselves, or that of their students. Theyare all English Language Learners (ELL). Moreover, even though many MST have been given short, in-servicetraining to improve their English proficiency, in terms of teacher education, MST are trained principally as subjectspecialists, not language teachers.

What further complicates the issue is that due to socio-historical and economic factors linked to its past as a Britishcolony, English is a language which is more present in urban contexts, and is rarely used in less developed regions. Theimplementation of the PPSMI policy, however, applies equally to all schools in Malaysia, regardless of the socio-linguistic environment. Teachers and students from non-urban areas, therefore, are likely to face greater challenges intheir teaching and learning process under this policy. Consequently, it is important to examine the impact that thegeographic location of a school has on students’ learning of mathematics and science within a policy that uses Englishas the language of instruction.

The educational system in Malaysia is very exam oriented, and the Malaysian Ministry of Education (MMOE) hasharnessed the intense pressure of major public exams to speed up the implementation of the PPSMI policy and topromote change in teaching practices in the classroom. In order to do so, and as a measure to linguistically accom-modate students who are not proficient enough to perform well uniquely in English, the Form Five high-stakes exitexams, 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 theForm Five students sitting for the SPM exams at that time were still being taught in BM. When this study wasconducted, only students in the Science streams were required to take an additional English course e English forScience and Technology.

This paper presents partial data drawn from a larger longitudinal study examining the classrooms of MSTwho areteaching Mathematics and Science in English at the Form Five level for the first time, to find out how MST view thepolicy and exams after five years of policy implementation. Their students are the first cohort to have been taughtMathematics and Sciences in English throughout their secondary schooling from Form One to Form Five. Note thatwhile the SPM exams are bilingual, the MMOEmandates all MST to conduct instruction in English; they should onlyuse BM if their students request clarification in that language. Schools must also carry out monthly internal assess-ments 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 thelanguage of instruction and the bilingual exam. This paper examines the beliefs of MST and student comments fromthe perspectives offered by two bodies of literature. The first deals with teacher beliefs and how these inform theirclassroom practices. The second concerns the literature on teaching and learning languages in content classrooms, andmore 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 matterare important factors in classroom decisions (Sato & Takahashi, 2004; Tsui, 2003). Studies across both languageclassrooms and subject matter classrooms demonstrate that teachers’ views about these key areas are determinant inthe planning of lessons, and the teaching and learning activities that happen in the classroom (Cole, 2009; Sato &

7M. Tan, O. Saw Lan / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10 (2011) 5e18

Kleinsasser, 1999). They influence choices concerning what to teach; how and when to teach it; and how to deal withstudents’ 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 otherfactors such as the school culture and institutional constraints (Ahmad Zanzali, 2003; Cimbricz, 2002) since they arerequired to respect the norms prevalent in their institutions and also teach according to the requirements of a specificcurriculum. This may limit their scope for implementing teaching practices which are consistent with their ownpedagogical 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 thecontext 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 scientificdiscourses are specific registers (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Pimm, 1987), each with their own fields, audiences andmodes of communicating. According to Martin (1993, p.168), “one of the most important pieces of technology usedby scientists, and one that is often overlooked, is language.” In order for successful learning of mathematics andscience 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 toconcepts unfamiliar to their daily lives. Sherer et al. (2009) have pointed out that many scientific texts are written fora highly literate audience, making them inaccessible for those who do not possess the requisite skills. This is especiallytrue of ELLs who do not have access to the same kinds of linguistic resources available to first language speakerswithin 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 feelobliged to make specific adjustments such as simplifying language or focusing on vocabulary to facilitate compre-hension of content. Richardson Bruna, Vann, and Perales Escudero (2007) argue that these measures to constrain thekind of language input students receive may be counterproductive to learning content as well as appropriate academicdiscourse. 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 classroomare 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 theirclassrooms, 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-urbanMST.

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


complexity of the phenomenon being studied (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007; Creswell, 2009) since it has effects atthe 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 andwithin all designated levels and categories across data collection periods and across the different kinds of datawhenever 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 ofurban area schools, meaning that they are situated in towns or cities with a high population density, a good systemof infrastructure and public services. The second group consists of non-urban schools in areas with low populationdensity. They are located in areas where infrastructure and public services, while they exist, may be less extensive or ofa 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, SMKKayuManis and SMKGaharu. SMKKayuManis

is located in a non-urban area and SMK Gaharu is a town school. In SMK Kayu Manis, 7 MST, the Buddy Systemcoordinator, the Head of the Math and Science panel and the exam coordinator participated in the study. Groupinterviews 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 thestudy. Ten Form Four and Five students were also interviewed.

Two of the MST profiles reported here come from participants in SMKKayuManis and another two are from SMKGaharu. The profiles were selected from among those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Pseudonyms have beenused for all participants.

4.4. Instruments

4.4.1. Quantitative dataTo 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 9b 6

PERAK 6 6

JOHOR 7a 8

Total 22 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.b During T3, one of the urban schools experienced a problemwith the postal service and the researcher did not receive the questionnaires that were

sent.


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

This scale was deliberately set up to avoid ambiguity or fence sitting in MST’s responses. The comments spaceafter each statement allows teachers to give a more nuanced view of their choices. One page is provided at the end forextended 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 thelanguage 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 dataQualitative data comes from videotaped observations of classroom teaching in SMKKayuManis and SMKGaharu

and audio-taped, semi-structured interviews conducted with participating Form Four and Five MST. The interviewsexplore MST’s academic and teaching background, their students’ backgrounds, school environment and how theseinfluence 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 thepolicy, teacher opinions and teaching practices. Group interviews and informal conversations with students aresources 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 usuallymade by these individuals and not the teachers themselves. These questionnaires were either collected in person orreturned by mail.

In each of the case study schools, Form Four and Five MST were observed and interviewed once over the threeperiods of data collection: T1, T2 and T3. Interviews usually took place during MST’s free periods in the schoolstaffroom or any other available room. Classroom observations were generally conducted before the interviews, butdue to the teachers’ time constraints, this order could not always be respected. The classroom observations werevideotaped. An observation grid was also completed by the researcher as the lesson progressed. In addition, theresearcher spent one to twoweeks in each school, getting to knowmore about the school [its history and ethos, and the


physical surroundings], its staff [teaching and support staff] and students. Interviews with students took place duringT2 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 toarea, period of administration (T1 or T3) and so on, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and factor analysiswas 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 aslanguage of instruction, opinions on their students’ linguistic proficiency and so on. These sections were selectivelytranscribed. For the second step, these transcripts were read to distinguish sub-themes within each section. Variousstatements 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 responsesacross themes and sub-themes across data collection periods. The same method was used to compare differentteachers’ responses within the same data collection period. It was used once again to compare and contrast theresponses 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-readbecause it often had notes on specific incidences of language use (by both students and teacher) that happened duringteaching. It was, therefore, helpful as an advance organiser of sorts for the more detailed axial coding. The focus of thisstage of coding was mainly on linguistic events. Events of interest were things such as, “Did teaching happen inEnglish, BM or both languages?”; “Did teachers translate, code-switch or use other ways to help students under-stand?”; “Who initiated translation or code-switching?” Teachers’ means of preparing students for their Form Fivehigh-stakes exams were also coded. The coding was related to specific queries that I had concerning classroominteraction such as: “Did teachers lecture, conduct small group and/or pair work?”; “Did they use other materials orrely only on textbooks or exam revision books?” and “Were students given time and opportunities to discuss and askquestions?”

Once again the constant comparative method was used for each teacher, to compare his/her pattern of language useand exam preparation during classroom teaching over the three data collection periods. These patterns were comparedacross participants within the same school and between participants in the two case study schools.

4.6.4. TriangulationQuantitative 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 eachschool. Within each case study, at a more specific level, triangulation led to the delineation of individual profiles forthe 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.

Table 2

Figures for survey during T1 and T3.

Data collection period Number of copies distributed Returned Rate of return

English Bahasa Malaysia Total

T1 275 172 447 366 81.8%

T3 252 198 450 367 81.5%


The response from Form Four and Five MST during both periods when questionnaires were administered wasgood. The rates of return are high, averaging approximately 82% for both T1 and T3. The figures show that, onaverage, 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 thestatements 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 asa language of instruction for Mathematics and Science. However, they are more likely to think that English is not thebest language for teachingMathematics and Sciences. During T1, approximately 52% of them either strongly disagreeor disagree with S13, while 48% agree or strongly agree. The combined percentage for these two categories ofresponses goes up to 54% during T3. The opposite holds true for urban MST: during T1, almost 63% of them eitheragree 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 theurban MST who are divided about the role of Bahasa Malaysia. During T1, approximately 48% of them disagree orstrongly disagree with this statement, while 52% agree or strongly agree. These figures remain practically the same forT3. Non-urban MST, on the other hand, are very supportive of this statement: a little more than 74% of them eitheragree or strongly agree that this is the best language for teaching Mathematics and Science during T1. However, thissupport 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 SPMexams will measure the abilities of their students well (S24). Slightly more than 64% of urban MST and a little morethan 54% of non-urban MSTagreed or strongly agreed with this statement. For T3, the combined percentage for thesetwo categories actually goes up to more than 69% for urban MST but drops, however, to approximately 47% for non-urban MST.

For S25, we can see that both urban MST and their non-urban peers consider the Bahasa Malaysia version of theSPM exams will accurately measure their students’ abilities. During T1, the combined percentage of out of townMSTwho agree or strongly agree with S25 is very high, almost 85%. So is that for urban MST, approximately 74%. Thesesame percentages drop slightly during T3 to about 84% for non-urban MST. However, there is a bigger drop for urbanMST; the figure goes down to 64%.

Table 3

MST Responses (in percentages) to S13, S14, S24 and S25.

Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Missing values

T1 T3 T1 T3 T1 T3 T1 T3 T1 T3

S13

Urban 8.10 7.25 28.10 23.67 39.52 41.55 23.33 25.12 0.95 2.42

O.O.T 16.56 15.03 35.10 39.22 39.74 34.64 7.28 9.80 1.32 1.31

S14

Urban 11.43 12.56 36.67 39.13 33.81 28.99 13.81 14.01 4.29 5.32

O.O.T 0.07 3.92 23.18 30.72 49.01 44.44 25.17 18.30 1.99 2.61

S24

Urban 1.32 5.31 25.24 25.12 56.67 60.87 7.62 8.21 1.91 0.48

O.O.T 11.26 15.03 33.11 36.60 49.01 42.48 4.64 4.58 1.99 1.31

S25

Urban 4.29 4.83 18.57 27.54 57.62 50.73 16.19 13.04 3.33 3.87

O.O.T 2.65 1.96 10.60 11.77 63.58 62.75 21.19 20.92 1.99 2.61


MST comments concerning the impact of bilingual SPM exams on students’ performance varied. One teacher froman 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 Malayespecially my subject would be a problem to my students as they have learned the subject in Eng for the past 2years.

Another urban teacher puts it evenmore strongly: “Students will confuse and waste time if the exam questions wereprepared in BI & BM. Some of the terms they couldn’t understand in BM.” This contrasts with a comment from one ofthe non-urban MST. For them, the bilingual version could aid the students: “I’m teaching at rural area where studentscan’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 GaharuMr. 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 inBritain. He began his career teaching in English before switching to Malay. Therefore, he is quite at ease with thePPSMI policy and fully supports its implementation. He finds that his students’ understanding of the subjectmatter 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 sentenceconstruction first.”

His comfort level in both English and Malay is evident when he is teaching in class. He was observed teaching 5Science 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 studentsalso seemed comfortable with being taught in English. Most students used English when addressing him andresponded to questions in English. The excerpt below during a lesson on the uses of the cathode ray oscilloscopeillustrates 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 inEnglish, 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. Theymight be well-versed with the other language, so we give them a chance.

Encik Hamdane Encik Hamdan has a first degree inMathematics. He has been teaching in SMKGaharu for fifteenyears. He has a very positive opinion of PPSMI. He has no problems implementing it. This is his second yearimplementing PPSMI. He started teaching Form 4 in English last year and it is his first time teaching Form 5 inEnglish. He feels that this policy does not have much of an impact on his classes because teaching and learningMathematics is not so much about language. It is about numbers. For him, PPSMI would have a bigger impact on theScience subjects:

Mathematics doesn’t have that much [to do with] PPSMI.Mathematics uses lots of numbers.because theydon’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:


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. Hewas also observed in 5 Humanities 2 (5H2), one of the weakest classes in the form, during T1 and T3. When observedin class, Encik Hamdan teaches much of the time in English in 5S1 lessons, about 80% of the time. However, his use ofBM increases noticeably when he is in 5H2. Although he will sometimes switch to BMwhile teaching in 5S1, he doesso more often when students pose a question in BM during whole class instruction or when they approach himindividually. Typically when teaching in BM, he retains the English mathematical terms. Occasionally, he provides theBM equivalent of the term. The excerpt below, where he is teaching 5H2 about the elements of a matrix, is an exampleof this pattern.

En Hamdan: Elements in matrix. Every number it, every number it (he points to the numbers he has written forthe 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 bothclasses preferred to address him in BMwhen they spoke to him. During T3 for both 5S1 and 5H2, the entire lesson wascentred on exam revision - doing past year exam questions. Either Encik Hamdan or his students would read out thequestion 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 thembecause 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 Englishfrom Standard 1 (Grade 1) onwards. They will not need bilingual translation anymore because they wouldn’t know theMalay terms anyway, unlike the students in Form 5 at present.

5.2.2. SMK Kayu ManisMr. 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 25years of experience teaching Chemistry and is completely comfortable teaching it in English. Mr. Ang is also verysupportive of the policy e he welcomes it “with open arms” because it is good for the future development of thecountry. However, he has some concerns about how much his students are able to learn when he teaches them inEnglish:

If I were to use BM to teach certain things, he’ll just understand just 80%. No problem.Now, I’m usingEnglish to teach him. I believe that if I were to do, teach the same thing you know,.he might only understand70% 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. Histeaching experience and ease in English (and also Malay) come through in the classroom. He was able to explain insimple and clear English to his students. During T1 and T2, Mr. Ang taught almost exclusively in English. The excerptfrom 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 thewhite part is copper sulphate. Anhydrous copper sulphate. When you add water, when you add water, you’llget 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 usingEnglish to respond to question although they made efforts to do so during T1. In order to answer his questions, somestudents 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 Englishphrases. During T3 teaching however, Mr. Ang handed out notes in BM. He also used BM terms and encouragedstudents to use Malay to express themselves if they were unable to do so in English; something he had never done in


T1 or T2. He explains that weaker students did not perform well on the short answer and essay questions during theirmid-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 itwould be helpful for his students: “(P)ersonally, if I were to tell, if my students were to answer all in English, theywould give me blank answers”. On the other hand, he also has worries as to how this will affect his students’ examperformance: theMalaysian Examinations Board had not issued any guidelines on this matter, and his anxiety is due tofears 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. Shereceived her primary and secondary schooling in English but went to university in BM. She had always taught in Malaysince startingher career until PPSMIcamealong.PuanSarjit taught in urbanareas before beingposted toSMKKayuManis,where shehas been teaching for fourteenyears. Sheenjoys teaching inEnglish. Shewas observed teaching5Vocational andTechnology 2 (5VT2), classified as average to weak in this school. Puan Sarjit is very fluent in English but her students, incontrast, are not. She feels part of theproblemmaybe that the class she is teaching is not very academicallymotivated either:

.basically I feel the problems that I’m facing now I also faced when I was teaching Math and Science, when Iwas teaching Science in Malay.So, it’s basically just getting the content across. Whether it’s in English orwhether 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 inEnglish and BM. Puan Sarjit often explains a point in English and then translates the same idea into BM. This isillustrated in the following example, when she explains Bernoulli’s Principle to her students: “As the water flows in thehorizontal 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. Atleast 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: “Rightnow, I don’t care if you choose to read in English or BM, it doesn’t matter. I want the correct answer.” (translated fromBM).

She explains in her T3 interview: “And at the end of the year, the students actually approached me to teach them inMalay. Although they had been exposed to all the terminology and all that in English, they were like, desperate, youknow.” As with Mr. Ang above, Puan Sarjit is trying to ensure that students do not give up hope simply because they donot pass or do well in their English-only exams in school. Like Encik Hamdan, she also keeps the English terms whentranslating into BM, but usually, she explains to the students entirely in BM. Puan Sarjit concurs with other MST’sopinion 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, theydon’t understand the question and they don’t answer.Simple as that.” However, like her colleague Mr. Ang, PuanSarjit 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 thesame time, if they’re being taught the Sciences and Maths in English, the terminology is all in English, how arethey 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 papersIn 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 themarking schema of SPMexampapers. This is because studentsare awarded points for each specific keyword included in their short answer or essay responses (for science subjects, shortanswer 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).


Therefore, these teachers often put verbal stress or repeat these words in their sentences to draw students’ attention tothem.TheMSTin both schoolswere of the sameopinion as theMST surveyed. For them, the bilingual format of the SPMwas good for their students, allowing them to understand the questions, and giving them the possibility of answering inBM. The MST surveyed and observed also pointed out that students were quite comfortable with multiple-choicequestions andwould attempt short answer questions aswell. However, only students from thegood classeswould answeressay questions. Weaker students simply handed in blank answer sheets.

6. Discussion

In response to the first question concerning English compared to BMas language of instruction, we can see thatMSTfrom urban and non-urban areas are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the appropriateness of the Englishlanguage as themediumof instruction forMathematics and Science.On this issue, urban teachers tend to favour Englishwhile non-urban teachers prefer BM. This is, of course, entirely comprehensible when the sociolinguistic context istaken into consideration. In urban areas, English can, and often does function as a lingua franca between students ofdifferent ethnic or linguistic backgrounds. This is not the case in outlying or rural regions in Malaysia. One non-urbanMST comments in the T1 survey: “Explanations given in English are less effective because not all students are fluent inthe 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 showthat MST are conducting their lessons mainly in English. How much English each teacher uses, though, can varydepending on the academic and linguistic capacities of their students, as the teacher profiles from SMK Gaharu andSMK Kayu Manis demonstrate.

It is quite clear from their comments and classroom practices that MST believe weaker students should be sup-ported in their learning via instruction in BM. Therefore, for certain groups of students, those less proficient in thelanguage who are also struggling with the subject matter, learning takes place in bilingual classrooms, usually viatranslation from English to BM. This happens in both urban and non-urban schools. In someways, this leads to a cycleof “the rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer”. This is because Pure Science students, who normally constitutethe 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 Technicalstreams, who are usually in the weaker classes, have less subjects taught in English (Science, Mathematics and maybeone or two technical courses). Over the course of the two-year upper secondary cycle, with a high-level of input inEnglish, Science students get considerably better in understanding subject matter in English, while students in theother streams may also improve, but not to such a great extent.

Furthermore, although the aim of theMST in carrying out bilingual classes is student comprehension, this approachalso comes at a cost: it can take twice as long to teach the same amount of content. In a system where the SPM exitexams include all topics taught over the upper secondary cycle, this practice may limit the number of topics thatteachers are able to complete. In fact, Encik Hamdan mentions that MST have the option of teaching their students theMinimum Adequate Syllabus (MAS), which means teaching them the topics from the syllabus which are absolutelynecessary for passing. Once again, this practice is only current with weaker classes, not the stronger ones. Inconsequence, 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 formeasuring their students’ abilities, MST from both urban and non-urban areas, in general, tend to see both versions ina positive light. For many teachers, they are practically the same. An urban MST comments: “Questions are the samee Bahasa Malaysia version is translated into Bahasa Inggeris (English). Both exactly the same and student can answerin either language.” It should be noted however, that the positive perception of non-urban MST concerning the Englishversion (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 beable 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 thenon-urban MST’s realisation that students are still struggling to answer in English two months away from the SPM. Itmay also be influenced by the MMOE’s decision to postpone unilingual Science and Math exams to 2012.


It should also be kept in mind that this first cohort of Secondary Four and Five students began their Mathematicsand Science learning process in primary (elementary) school using BM. Moreover, their other subjects are also taughtin BM. That is why MST such as Encik Hamdan and Puan Sarjit, who teach average to weak students, resort totranslating their teaching to BM. By doing so, they hope to increase their students’ comprehension of the contenttaught and improve their exam performance. The MST interviewed all expressed the view that bilingual SPM papersare 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 toanswer 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 theirteaching practices: they resort primarily to translating from English to BM to help students grasp the content beingtaught. There is also a tendency for MST to focus on keywords, as a means of circumventing students’ linguisticproblems. However, the first of these classroom practices may be problematic because it rests on two implicit andpossibly 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 thatstudents do not need much preparation for answering questions in BM e they can do it on their own because it wastheir first language of instruction and it is the first language for many students. Student views on this matter contradictthese beliefs. For them, it is not always possible to make that linguistic shift. Even though 5ST1 students in SMKKayuManis (non-urban school) said in their T3 interview that they would refer to the BM version if necessary, one of themindicated that this may not be as straightforward as it seems. Comments from two students in SMK Kayu Manis whenasked 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 alreadyunderstand 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-yearupper secondary cycle, students are tested only in English and do not actually sit for a bilingual exam until their TrialExams, about two months before the SPM.

The second classroom practice - making students remember keywords - points to teachers’ limited conception ofwhat constitutes scientific and mathematical literacy. This also has effects on student learning. MST’s persistentefforts to have students retain keywords in their domains are helpful because it allows students to enlarge theirmathematical 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 onvocabulary may obscure the ability of the student to make meaningful connections between various scientificprocesses and mathematical operations (Richardson Bruna, et al., 2007). One Form Four student, Syimah, veryperceptively points this out: “It’s, whether we understand it or not. We can’t [just simply] memorise those terms inEnglish ah, but in fact we don’t understand what we are writing, right.” (translated from BM) This may also be a factorin explaining why even students in good classes have problems writing essayse an exercise which demands the abilityto 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 classroomlinguistic practices based onwhat they believe to be necessary for content learning andwhat ismost effective in terms ofstudent 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 hasa twofold impact on the learning of the latter group of students. They receive reduced linguistic input in terms of Englishand impoverished academic content as teachers reduce and simplify both language and content in an effort to help


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 withsubject-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 supportstudents as ELLs need in order learn EAP. This is especially true in terms of oral and written production. Theirunproblematic assumption that student comprehension in BM will automatically transfer into performance in theexam context contradicts what students themselves say they can do. Also, because the linguistic focus of MST’sclassroom teaching is on the acquisition of specific keywords, this does not fulfill what students need to know interms of truly understanding ideas and expressing their understanding in English. Students themselves are aware ofthis, and comments from teachers such as Mr. Ang and Puan Sarjit indicate that teachers are conscious of thisshortcoming too.

The results also indicate that five years after the start of PPSMI implementation there is still a gap in terms of thelinguistic learning of urban versus non-urban students. Survey comments, classrooms observations and studentcomments show that students are experiencing less difficulties adapting to instruction in English in urban contexts. Innon-urban area schools, however, even teachers who are highly proficient in English are still not able to teach fully inEnglish in Mathematics and Science classes.

The results of this study have shown the need to re-consider certain measures related to the implementation ofPPSMI. This is relevant to both urban and non-urban area schools. It was pointed out in the introduction that onlyScience students take an additional English course e English for Science and Technology. However, Science studentsare already in input-rich learning contexts as far as English is concerned. A modified version of this course may provehelpful for non-Science students as far as mathematics and science learning in English is concerned. Considerationalso needs to be given to how to make MST, who are only trained in subject teaching, become more aware of languagein content learning. This is consonant with what other research on mathematics and science instruction for ELLs hasshown (Lee, 2004; Richardson Bruna et al., 2007): MST need to learn ways other than the keyword and directtranslation methods to help students with language issues. In addition, the varied linguistic practices of MST and thedifference between language of testing in school and languages of testing in the SPM exams, raise questions as to whatthe bilingual exams are measuring exactly. Therefore, there needs to be a reconsideration of how MST linguisticpractices in class, in-school testing practices and the linguistic accommodation measures used in the SPM exams canbe aligned to provide optimal support for those students who are less proficient in English. This will enable students tolearn both language and content effectively, and allow the bilingual SPM exams to validly claim to be mainly testingstudents’ content knowledge.

Funding sources

Fieldwork for this research project was supported by funding from the McGill Internal SSHRC Research Grant andthe 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.

http://epaa.sau.edu/epaa/v10n2.html

http://epaa.sau.edu/epaa/v10n2.html


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.

Documents

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