INTRODUCTION
Since 1970s, the National Education Policy
implemented has mandated the use of Malay as the general medium of
education whilst simultaneously maintained the use of mother tongues in
Chinese and Tamil primary schools as the medium of instruction.
Following an article that suggested the ineffectiveness of the present
education system to produce students and graduates with good English
proficiency (Awang Sulung, May 2002), this policy has been revised to
allow the use of English language in the teaching Mathematics and
Science starting from the primary school. The new policy was first
mooted in May 2002 and implemented in January 2003. According to the
former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the move was aimed at
arresting the decline of English among the younger generation (New
Straits Times, 19th June 2002). It is also believed that English is the
language of knowledge especially in the science and technology field
(New Straits Times, 17th Nov. 2002).
From the introductory stage of the policy to
the implementation stage, it merely took a period of nine months for
the government to materialize it. The authority eventually finalized
that the inevitable step to revert back to English-medium instruction
for Science and Mathematics is based on two situations:
a) the deterioration in the command of the English language that has spread to the upper echelons of the civil service, and
b) the need to ‘leap-frog’ to higher levels of economic development to achieve global competitiveness.
In other words, the implementation of this
new policy is deemed to improve the English language proficiency besides
enhancing the content learning of Science and Mathematics.
To discuss whether the teaching of
Mathematics and Science in English starting from primary school would
enhance content and language learning, it is most imperative to point
out that content is present with the language learning. This paper tried
to investigate the issue above from the perspective of second language
acquisition (SLA).
THE APPROBATION: Theories On Second Language Acquisition
Most linguists, psycholinguists and
psychologists agree that in the acquisition of language ‘critical
period’ plays an important role. The Critical Period Hypothesis claims
that there is a biological timetable of life when language can be
acquired relatively easily. Beyond this period, which ends around
puberty, language acquisition and learning can be increasingly difficult
(Brown, 1994). This is due to certain language abilities do not develop
before and after the critical period (Lenneberg, 1967; Bicherton, 1981,
cited in Brown, 1994). Second language researchers suggest that there
is also a critical period to SLA, after which learners seem to be
incapable of acquiring native-like accent and fluency (Scovel, 1988;
Long, 1990; Johnson, ,1992; Fledge, 1987; Morris et al, 1983; Patkowski,
1982, 1990; Walsh & Diller, 1981; Jacobs, 1988; Cummins, 1980;
Thomson, 1991). Therefore, exposing school children to English in an
early stage can be said as fitting because it helps the children who are
still within the critical period to master the language.
Another area to consider is the neurological
aspect. Scholars suggested that brain lateralization could influence
the ability to acquire a second language (Brown, 1994). The
lateralization of the brain starts at two years old and is completed
around puberty (Lenneberg, 1967, cited in Brown, 1994). Because of the
plasticity of the brain before lateralization takes palace around
puberty, it enables children to acquire not only the first language but
also a second language (Scovel, 1969, cited in Brown, 1994). The
accomplishment of lateralization makes it difficult to some people to be
able to easily acquire fluent control of a second language. Therefore
in this light, the teaching and learning, and exposure to a second
language should begin as early as possible. The teaching of Mathematics
and Science in English starting from primary school seems to be a good
way in allowing students to acquire the language.
Likewise, Guiora et al (1972, cited in
Brown, 1994) proposed ‘language ego’, the identity a person develops in
reference to the language he speaks. In monolinguals, language ego
involves the interaction of mother tongue and ego development. This
self-identity is bound to the speakers’ language and ego development
because in the communicative process, such identities are confirmed,
shaped and reshaped. Guiora suggests that a child’s ego is dynamic,
growing and flexible through puberty. As a result, a new language does
not threat or inhibit that ego, and adaptation is relatively made
easily, as long as there is no damaging attitudes towards the language
at young age. Based on Guiora’s proposal, we can say that an excellent
time to teach and expose a child to a second language is before puberty.
Therefore, ideally, English as a medium of instruction in Mathematics
and Science can provide the students with the necessary input to acquire
the language.
Attitude is another factor that determines
the success or failure of language acquisition or learning. Most
attitudes are taught, either consciously or subconsciously, by parents,
other adults and peers. Having negative attitudes towards a target
language (in this case English) can affect success in learning it. Young
children have not developed enough cognition to possess ‘attitudes’
that may affect the language acquisition (Brown, 1994). Thus, in this
light, we can say that to ensure the success of acquisition and learning
the language, it is important to teach and expose young children a
second language before their attitudes towards the language could affect
the acquisition process.
THE CHALLENGES
Other than exposure to a second language at a
young age, there is also a need for sufficient opportunity to engage in
meaningful use of the target language in a relatively anxiety-free
environment in order to make the language acquisition and learning
successful (Krashen, 1982, cited in Brown, 1994). The role of quality
input as equally important in language learning (Flege, 1987; Morris,
1986, cited in Brown, 1994). In Mathematics and Science classrooms,
because content is seen as more important to acquire, the language
aspect of it is often neglected. The reality is, there are teachers who
merely use mathematical and scientific terminologies in English but
construct the sentences in the first language. For example, according to
a teacher in an A-type urban school, some teachers phrase mathematical
solutions as ‘two campur two sama dengan four’.
The anxiety-free environment, which is
proposed by Krashen is hardly seen in our schools due to the fact that
our education system is exam-oriented. It is especially rare in a
classroom where the teachers are struggling for the English proficiency
while teaching Mathematics and Science. This may actually impel the
interests of the students if the teacher could not provide the
elaborated explanations on the subject matter when it is requested.
Therefore this could influence the attitudes of school children towards
English and make it difficult to enhance the language learning because
attitudes, social and cultural roles which a language play explain the
success (or failure) of language acquisition (Hill, 1970, cited in
Brown, 1994).
The classroom challenges experienced by
teachers teaching English and those teaching Science and Mathematics in
English stem from three distinct realities. First, students’ limited
English proficiency level. In 1953, UNESCO announced that,
“It is axiomatic that the best medium for
teaching a child to read is his mother-tongue. Psychologically, it is
the medium of meaningful signs that in his mind works automatically for
expression and understanding. Sociologically, it is a means of
identification among the members of the community to which he belongs.
Educationally, he learns more quickly through it than an unfamiliar
language (UNESCO, 1953).”
Utilizing a second language to teach the
students in the conceptual subjects like Science and Mathematics, is
therefore, probably resulting in the low achievement of their
cognitive/academic abilities (Hazita Azman, 2003). Scholars have proven
that there is a relationship between various classroom discourse
structures and the academic outcomes of limited English proficiency
students. The academic language is most difficult for limited English
proficiency students, when they are required to carry out a cognitively
demanding academic task in context-reduced situations (Au, 1980; Cadzen,
1988; Macias, 1990; Michaels & Collins, ,1984; McCollum, 1989;
Mohatt & Ericksin, 1981; Philips, 1983; Ripich & Spinelli, 1985;
Tattershell & Creaghead, 1985; Trueba & Delgado-Gaitan, 1988).
Second, there is the teachers’ limited
English proficiency level and knowledge of the subjects’ linguistics
demands. Cummins (1984, cited Hazita Azman, 2003) has drawn between
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), which characterizes the
interactional functions of communications, and Cognitive Academic
Language Proficiency (CALP), which refers exclusively to the
transactional functions of language. Put tersely, BICS is the everyday
use language where linguistic interactions are embedded in a situational
context whilst CALP is the language ability required for academic
achievement in a context-reduced environment. Before the policy of
teaching Mathematics and Science in English is introduced, the graduates
who have been saturated with the learning process in first language
(Malay) supplemented by English as a second language, are rebuked for
inadequacy and incompetence in English language (PROMUDA, 2002). When
the graduates are deficient in BICS, how would they proceed to acquire
CALP – an academic language which has no abundance of situational and
paralinguistics cues at the disposal to obtain meaning of the
context-reduces text (Hazita Azman, 2003)?
Third, there are the complexities of
developing and integrated content and language curriculum within a
‘boxed-in’ teaching culture framework (Hazita Azman, 2003). It seems
fairly obvious that if teachers are to be the ones responsible for
developing the curriculum, they need time, skills and support to do so
(Nunan, 1987). Many language educators cited the importance of a teacher
training module which highlighted the awareness for classroom
interactions on ‘student-centered’ basis. However the teaching and
learning in science classes of our country is very ‘teacher-centered’
with a high degree of teacher dominance in the learning process. “Any
attempt to involve students actively in the learning process seemed to
be limited to doing experiments and answering questions after the
teacher had told them about the observations and results of the
experiments” (Sahrifah Nor, 1999, cited in Saran Kaur Gill). This is an
obstacle for the students to achieve high competency in content and
language learning because they do not fully utilize the language for
communication.
On the other hand, the content schemata the
students bring to the Mathematics and Science classroom carry with them a
great deal of discourse knowledge. Unlike the first language knowledge,
the students who have no background knowledge on the second language
(in this case English) may result in negative transfer when the language
is found to be irrelevant in their process of learning (Scovel, 2001).
Worse still, if the subject teachers are incapable of mastering the
language, they may not be able to empathize with the students with their
plight, let alone help ease the students through the difficult process
of learning.
CONCLUSION
Based on the theories of second language
acquisition, it seems that the teaching of Mathematics and Science in
English starting at primary is an ideal way to allow students to acquire
the language. This is due to the fact that young children are still
within the critical period of language acquisition (first and second
language), the lateralization of the brain has yet to be completed,
their language ego has not been developed and their attitude towards the
second language has not been established. In this light, the teaching
and learning, and exposure to a second language should begin as early as
possible.
However, in reality, in mathematics and
science classrooms, the teaching and learning of content is given more
attention to than language teaching and learning. The anxiety-free
environment, which is proposed by Krashen is hardly seen in our schools
due to the fact that our education system is exam-oriented. There are
also other prevalent problems, such as the students’ limited English
proficiency level, the teachers’ limited English proficiency level and
knowledge of the subjects’ linguistics demands, and complexities of
developing and integrated content and language curriculum within a
‘boxed-in’ teaching culture framework. Therefore, in order to ensure to
success of the teaching of Mathematics and Science in English in both
content and language, the government needs to first address and overcome
the challenges.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, D.H. (1994). Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. London: Prentice-Hall International.
Ellis, R. (1998). Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hazita Azman. (2003). Mastering English for
Science and Technology in Achieving Global Competitiveness: Issues and
Realities. Paper presented at Help Institute, Kuala Lumpur (27-28th
September 2003).
Saran Kaur Gill. English for Science and Mathematics: Demystifying the Concerns of Society. A seminar paper presentation.
Scovel, T. (2001). Learning New Languages: Guide to Second Language Acquisition. Canada: Heinle & Heinle.
Vivian Cook (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: The Macmillan Press.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment