ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
language policy for preschools in Malaysia. The policy requires a 50:50 ration where the
use of Bahasa Melayu (BM) and English (BI) at national preschools (SK) is equal and at
a ratio of 30:30:30 for the use of Bahasa Melayu, English language and Chinese (BC) or
Tamil language (BT) at national type preschools (SJKC/SJKT).
The programme focuses on providing support in English language skills, knowledge
on English language teaching methodology and skills in applying suitable teaching
approaches, methods as well as techniques in carrying out assessment in the preschool
classroom for preschool teachers.
The participants for the EPT programme include 592 preschool teachers who obtained
grade A1 and A2 in the s UKBI conducted by TED in 2017 will be trained under the EPT
programme. The distribution of teachers to be trained from 2017 to 2020 is shown in the
chart below.
300 EPT TARGET (2017–2020)
250
200 272
150 200
100
100
50 20
0 2018 2019 2020
2017 (Pilot)
Number of preschool teachers
FIGURE 1. Distribution of preschool teachers to be trained (2017-2020)
(Source: EPT working paper presented at Mesyuarat Profesional KPM 2018)
49
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
The EPT programme emphasises on English Language Proficiency through the three
modules; English Language Proficiency (ELP), English Language Teaching (ELT)
Methodology and Instructional Language (IL). ELP focuses on basic language awareness
in which participants are given input and practice on the language. ELT Methodology
provides participants with approaches and activities to deliver content in the preschool
classroom. The third module which is IL focuses on the use of effective instruction in
the preschool classroom. The participants spend about 30 hours of interaction for each
of the modules. The underpinning principle for the three modules is to ensure that the
preschool teachers get sufficient practice in using the language. The programme also
offers opportunities for teachers to explore current issues related to the teaching and
learning of English for young learners.
The EPT programme is implemented in 3 phases. The face-to-face interaction is for two
weeks divided into two phases whereas the fieldwork is for 4 weeks. The following table
describes the framework of the EPT course for 2018.
PHASE MODE DURATION
1 Face-to-face interaction 1 week
2 4 weeks
3 Fieldwork 1 week
Face-to-face interaction
TABLE 1. Framework of EPT
Table 1 above shows the duration and allocation of hours for EPT. The total hours
allocated for EPT is 240. Face to face interaction is 90 hours divided into two phases
while another 150 hours is allocated for the fieldwork. Face to Face interaction involves
lectures, discussions, demonstrations, forum and presentations. During the fieldwork,
participants are required to design lesson plan and materials. They are also required to
record their lesson and write a reflection of the lesson recorded to be presented in phase
3.
50
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
METHODOLOGY
Respondent
This pilot project was conducted from the 12th to 15th of September 2017. Twenty teachers
teaching preschool in the schools in Selangor took part in the project. They were from
three districts: Klang, Petaling Perdana and Petaling Utama. Selection of these teachers
was done by the State Education Department. Most of these teachers held a degree
in Early Childhood Education. They have taught in the preschool for at least 2 years.
Instrument
There were three instruments used for this project. Firstly, a questionnaire was given to
the teachers in the form of google document. There were 26 items and respondents
had to tick the options given. Secondly, a semi structured interview was carried out
with the respondents. There were 15 questions and responses were recorded. The third
instrument was written reflections. There were 5 questions for the respondents to reflect
and these written reflections were collected.
Data analysis
The three instruments were analysed simultaneously. Data from the questionnaire was
tabulated and presented as bar graphs. Data from the interviews and the reflections were
analysed thematically. Findings from the questionnaire, interviews and reflections will be
reported here based on the components in the module. The components are:
I. Module content
II. Theories and approaches
III. Training approaches
FINDINGS
This section discusses the responses recorded from the respondents. Based on the three
instruments distributed which were the survey, semi-structured interview and individual
reflections, the findings will be discussed according to three themes which are i) the
content of the EPT module, ii) the theories and approaches introduced throughout the
programme and iii) the training approaches for the programme. Through this discussion,
the strength of the programme in developing preschool teachers’ proficiency in delivering
the content in the preschool classroom is highlighted along with some implications for
teacher training.
51
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Module content
FIGURE 1. Module content
Based on the survey, many of the respondents agreed that the EPT module is helpful
and offers sufficient support in their English language proficiency. The feedback from
semi-structured interview concurs with this finding as the respondents also found the
content of the module suitable for preschool curriculum and is explained thoroughly
with examples and suggestions on classroom application. The respondents also agreed
on the importance of the English Language Proficiency course in giving them support
to improve their proficiency as some of them expressed apprehensiveness towards their
weak English proficiency in the reflection instrument. The responses recorded through
the reflection instrument also demonstrate that the respondents felt the module is helpful
in addressing the NPSC through one of the units that unpacks the syllabus. However,
through the semi-structured interview, the respondents commented that there is a need
to upgrade the content for English Language Proficiency (EPS 1011) unit as they found
52 it to be simple for them. They also suggested to improve on the cosmetic aspects of the
module such as inserting more graphics and using larger fonts.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Theories and approaches
FIGURE 2. Theories and approaches
Based on the survey responses recorded under the component of Theories and 53
Approaches, 18 respondents felt that the programme puts emphasis on the EEE Model,
explains the model well and provides ideas on how to implement it in their lessons. 90%
of the respondents also agreed that the programme emphasises on the NPSC and gives
detailed explanation of language learning theories which assist them to understand how
young learners learn. Furthermore, the findings of semi-structured interview reported
that 85% of the respondents agreed that the programme focuses on the methodology of
teaching language skills and appropriate approaches in preschool classrooms. Responses
recorded for the reflection instruments also showed that 14 respondents agreed that the
EPT programme introduces new strategies for teaching preschool lessons. Nevertheless,
the respondents also suggested in their reflection instrument that more articles on theory
should be provided throughout the programme to aid their knowledge in language
learning theories.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Training approaches
FIGURE 3. Training approaches
For items regarding training approach in the survey, 95% of the respondents reported
that the activities conducted during the EPT programme provided the platform for
fruitful discussions on second language teaching and learning and principles of teaching
preschool children. Majority of them felt the programme allowed them to practise
effective use of instructional language in preschool classroom and 21st century skills. In
the semi-structured interview, the respondents reported that the activities were varied
and learner-centred as they were given plenty opportunities for classroom participation
and language use. They were also given the opportunity to plan lessons based on the
syllabus. In relation to teaching skills, 90% of the respondents agreed that the activities
throughout the programme improved their confidence in teaching and enhanced their
teaching skills in preschool classroom. For EPT programme improvement, the respondents
reflected that they would prefer for more hands-on activities to be conducted so that
54 they can practice applying the theories and strategies learnt into classroom activities.
They also suggested that the duration of the course to be extended for more productive
end results.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
DISCUSSION
The findings of this evaluation study demonstrate the usability of the module for
EPT in training preschool teachers. It also emphasises some implications towards the
enhancement of the teacher training curriculum for preschool. Based on the findings, it
is concluded that the materials provided are sufficient to assist the teachers. Moreover,
the responses gathered also advocate the usefulness of the English Language Proficiency
course in giving support for preschool teachers to improve their proficiency. This is
because some of the respondents expressed their concern towards their weak English
proficiency. Therefore, they look forward for more proficiency training to elevate their
skills in using the language in their preschool classrooms. This shows the cruciality of the
proficiency course towards preschool teachers.
Some gaps were also identified in the module which proposes for modification for 2018
implementation. Firstly, the content of English Language Proficiency course (EPS 1012)
should be upgraded to cater to the level of the preschool teachers as they found the
content to be relatively easy. Next, more interactive activities should be carried out
to encourage more language practice among the teachers with the aim to increase
their confidence in English and improve their speaking skills. It is also suggested that
more hands-on activities to be carried out so that the course participants can apply the
strategies they learnt during the programme and identify their strengths and weaknesses
in their preschool lessons.
Implications for preschool teacher training curriculum
Though this is a small-scale study, there are considerable findings which can be useful for
the development of the preschool teacher training curriculum. Firstly, it is important to
include the teaching of English language proficiency and methodology as a main subject
in the curriculum. Preschool teacher trainees should be taught the specific theories,
approaches, strategies and principles of teaching the language skills. Only then, they
will be able to deliver the preschool curriculum using the correct instructional language.
This pilot study showed that the participants did not have knowledge on theories and
approaches in second language teaching and learning.
Secondly, there should also be assessment for proficiency built in the teacher training 55
curriculum. Preschool teachers should attain a certain level of English proficiency before
leaving the teacher training institutions. As stated in the Roadmap, young learners need to
learn from teachers who are well equipped with language. Thirdly, the preschool teacher
training curriculum should provide opportunity for teacher trainees to explore advance
level reading materials related to preschool areas such as second language development
among young children, second language methodologies and best practices for preschool
learners. This is also indicated by the participants through the reflections.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
CONCLUSION
EPT is an initiative by the ELTC to help preschool teachers improve their quality of
teaching and learning through the enhancement of their English language proficiency.
It is through designing and reflective practises that teachers can demonstrate their
understanding of theories of language learning in the preschool English language
classroom. The EPT programme too functions as a platform for these teachers to apply
different approaches for English language teaching based on the NPSC which will refine
their teaching skills. In the future, it is hoped that these preschool teachers can initiate
small scale action research studies in their own classrooms related to the aspects of
curriculum and pedagogy and share best practises with other preschool teachers. To this
end, ELTC will continue to support the preschool teachers.
56
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
REFERENCES
Curriculum Development Centre (2017). National Preschool Standard Curriculum
(2017 review). Retrieved on May 14, 2018 from http://bpk.moe.gov.my/index.php/
terbitan-bpk/brosur
Cambridge English (2013). Result Report: Cambridge Baseline 2013. Cambridge:
Cambridge English.
Copland, F., Garton, S. & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young
learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 48 (4).
Retrieved on May 3, 2018 from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/
tesq.148
English Language Teaching Centre (2017). English for Preschool Teachers Module.
Negeri Sembilan: ELTC.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2009). Dokumen Standard Prasekolah: Kurikulum
Standard Prasekolah Kebangsaan. Kuala Lumpur: Bahagian Pembangunan
Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Lily Muliana Mustafa & Mohamed Nor Azhari Azman. (2013). Preschool education in
Malaysia: Emerging trends and implications for the future. American Journal of
Economics Vol. 3(6). Retrieved on April 30, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/267538645_Preschool_Education_in_Malaysia_Emerging_Trends_
and_Implications_for_the_Future
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2015). English Language Reform in Malaysia The
Roadmap 2015-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025.
Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Nunan, D. (2015). What is wrong with approaches to teaching English to young learners 57
today? Retrieved on May 3, 2018 from http://www.pearson.pl/ourdiscoveryisland/
download/Art_What%20is%20wrong.pdf
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Robinson, P., Mourão, S. & Nam, J. K. (2015). English learning areas in pre-primary
classrooms: An investigation of their effectiveness. ELT Research Papers Vol.15(2),
1-54.
Rohaty Mohd Majzub (2013). Critical issues in preschool education in Malaysia. Recent
Advances in Educational Technologies. Retrieved on May 3, 2018 from http://www.
wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2013/CambridgeUSA/EET/EET-26.pdf
Sharifah Nor Puteh & Aliza Ali. (2013). Preschool teachers’ perceptions towards the
use of play-based approach in language and literacy development for Preschool.
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction Vol. 10, 78-98.
Dr. T.Vanitha A/P Thanabalan
English Language Teaching Centre (ELTC), Ministry of Education
[email protected]
Nor Izni Binti Mohd Hassan
English Language Teaching Centre (ELTC), Ministry of Education
[email protected]
58
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
4
EMPLOYING
DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTION IN
DESIGNING LESSONS
FOR LINUS2.0 PUPILS
ZIKRI EFFANDY BIN ZAINUDIN 59
YUSNAMARIAH MD YUSOP
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to examine teachers’ ability to differentiate lessons for low
proficiency Year One pupils. The study involved ten Year One pupils and two English
teachers in two public schools in Mersing, Johor. Data collection included video recordings
and interviews with teachers. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interviews data.
Two main themes emerged which are teachers’ preparation and lesson planning. The
themes described the elements needed by teachers in designing their lessons to cater
the needs of the LINUS 2.0 pupils in employing the differentiated instruction
Keywords: LINUS2.0, differentiated instructions, reading, remedial online materials
INTRODUCTION
The Primary School Standard Curriculum, Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) was
introduced by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia (MoE) in 2011. The implementation of
this new curriculum is to develop pupils’ ability to listen, speak, read, and write in English
meaningfully, purposefully and with confidence. Realizing the importance of mastering
these skills, and at the same time being aware of the issue of pupils who are still having
problems mastering the skills especially the reading skill in English, the MoE has taken
the initiative to expand the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS) programme to
include English Literacy (LINUS2.0) in 2013.
LINUS 2.0 (LBI) aims to ensure all pupils master Malay literacy, English literacy and
numeracy at the end of Year Three (Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013). The pupils are
screened twice a year when they are in Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 to determine their
level of literacy and numeracy. Those who fall behind will have to go through remedial
classes until they are qualified to be placed in the mainstream curriculum. The objective
of this early intervention programme is to improve the quality of teaching and learning of
English as well as to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning remedial English.
In year 1, pupils are either streamed based on their achievement on a placement test
at the beginning of the school or they are placed based in the class on a first come first
serve basis. The latter scenario creates a situation whereby classes consist of pupils with
mixed abilities. Having mixed ability pupils in a classroom, requires teachers to teach two
groups of pupils which are: the group that fulfils the LBI 2.0 screening requirements and
the one that does not. Unlike the LINUS programme, where the pupils will attend separate
remedial class during Bahasa Melayu and Mathematics lessons taught by remedial
teachers, pupils who do not fulfil the LBI 2.0 constructs will stay in the class together with
60 other pupils learning the same lesson during the English period. In a baseline study done
in the year 2014 it was found that only 50.1% of Year One pupils who had their first LINUS
2.0 screening in March qualified to be in the mainstream curriculum based on the results
of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills, and 63.3% in September screening
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
(Ministry of Education, 2014). This meant that being in the same class as mainstream
screened students did not have any positive impact on students’ learning. for LINUS
2.0 set by the MoE was 83% and the cohort was unable to meet the set KPI. (Ministry of
Education, 2016).
Furthermore, having mixed ability pupils in one classroom requires teachers to be able
to design a lesson based on the pupils’ proficiency levels. In an effort to help the pupils
acquire these skills, the Ministry of Education developed a Teacher’s Module specifically
to cater for the needs of the pupils with remedial learning during the lesson (Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2014). However, in spite of having the Teacher’s Module and
remedial courses for 7750 English teachers conducted by MoE where they are taught
techniques in English remedial teaching, the results of the second screening of the first
cohort of 2014 LINUS 2.0 pupils showed that 78.3% of the pupils cleared the screening.
The Key Performance Index (KPI)
Against this background, this paper demonstrates ways teachers might design lessons to
address the problem of teaching pupils of mixed ability. In particular, this paper discusses
ways to use online materials to teach groups of low proficiency pupils. The focus of
this paper is to examine teachers’ ability to differentiate lessons for low proficiency Year
One pupils in selected Malaysian classroom. Teachers are required to select and apply
differentiated instructional strategies to address the needs of LINUS 2.0 pupils. The
differentiation which has been incorporated in the lesson design is a key part of the
investigation reported in this paper. Teachers’ capacity to design lessons for construct 1
to 5 is examined closely in this paper.
LITREATURE REVIEW
LINUS2.0 Programme
Literacy and Numeracy Screening for English Language (LINUS2.0) programme is one
of the initiatives by Ministry of Education in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-
2025 to increase the rate of literacy in English Language among Malaysian lower primary
pupils. It was introduced in 2013 to help Year 1 pupils to master basic skills in English
Language after three years of primary education. (Buku Pengoperasian LINUS2.0, 2015).
In order to achieve this, the pupils need to be screened twice a year; namely in March
and September.
There are two components in LINUS 2.0: the oral and written test screening. There are 61
12 constructs in both instruments for the oral as well as for the written screening. The
instruments emphasise on phonics, phonemes blending and segmenting which are
considered as the fundamental aspects of the English KSSR syllabus. For the pupils to
pass the oral and written screening they are required to master phonemic skills. Hence,
teachers need to find materials that can draw pupils’ attention and interest in learning
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
these basic language skills which support reading. These twelve constructs are as follow:
Construct 1 : Able to identify and distinguish shapes of the letters of the alphabet
Construct 2 : Able to associate sounds with the letters of the alphabet
Construct 3 : Able to blend phonemes into recognizable words.
Construct 4 : Able to segment words into phonemes
Construct 5 : Able to understand and use the language at word level
Construct 6 : Able to participate in daily conversations using appropriate phrases
Construct 7 : Able to understand and use the language at phrase level in linear texts
Construct 8 : Able to understand and use the language at phrase level in non-linear
texts
Construct 9 : Able to read and understand sentences with guidance
Construct 10 : Able to understand and use the language at sentence level in non-linear
texts
Construct 11 : Able to understand and use the language at sentence level in linear texts
Construct 12 : Able to construct sentences with guidance
(Ministry of Education, 2015)
FIGURE 1: The difference between LINUS and LINUS2.0 Programme
62
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
It is thus vital for teachers to understand the issues faced by pupils with reading difficulties.
As each pupil is unique and has his/her own strength in reading, teachers need to have
the capability to recognise each pupil’s needs and to tailor instruction to meet his/her
needs. As learning to read is built on a strong foundation of oral language, children have
to be immersed in conversation, talking, singing, being read to and playing from birth
(Services, 2011). The differences in the reading proficiency of individual pupils require
teachers to design forms of remedial teaching. However, not all English teachers have
the knowledge of English Language literacy and remedial teaching to be able to identify
the elements for lesson design.
Developing Phonemic Awareness
Phonemic awareness development is a crucial skill that needs to be taught to young
learners. Adams et. al (1998) stated that doing it is difficult, but it has the strongest
correlation to learn how to read. The purpose of exposing phonemic awareness is to give
the pupils the basic knowledge of the language. Hence, they will be able to differentiate
different letters with different sounds. Phonics in this study is to raise accuracy of decoding
and fluency in word recognition via the use of online materials.
Phonics is correlated to the bottom-up theory of reading that views learning to read
progressing from children learning the parts of language (letters) to understanding whole
text (meaning). (Barachers 1998:14). The bottom-up approach treats developing reading
skills as a sequential process. Students must first learn the basics of phonics and how
to decode words before more complex skills such as reading comprehension can be
mastered. It focuses on the belief that children who have strong understanding of the
relationship between letters and sounds will be successful when they encounter unfamiliar
words. Therefore, automatic word recognition and rapid reading rate are the goals of
the bottom-up approach. The bottom-up approach plays an important role in reading
because this method is a suitable method to teach the beginning of reading (Barachers,
1998). Taken from this perspective, the implications for reading instructions are that
children need to begin reading by learning the letter names, associating the letter names
with their sounds, and then be shown how to blend these sounds together into words.
To reach this aim, explicit instruction in phonics and spellings is crucial. (Grabe, 1991).
63
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Comprehension of Text
Reading Full Text
Reading Paragraphs
Reading Sentences
Reading Words
Reading Letters
FIGURE 2: Bottom-Up Theory of Reading
This echoes to the Ehri’s Stage Model (Ehri and McCormick, 1998) in observing the
progress of reading in beginner readers, the process of reading comes in four stages
namely the pre-alphabetic stage whereby beginner readers look at words as logos and
there is no direct association of letters to sound connection and the readers will use
salient letters they recognise to read the word. Next is the partial-alphabetic stage, where
the readers know the letter-sound correlation and begin to join the sounds. In addition,
according to Beech (2005), in this very stage, the initial and final sounds of the letters are
the most important for the readers to join the letters into words, hence it is advantageous
for pupils who already starting to develop their phonemic awareness. Thirdly, the full-
alphabetical stage is where the readers fully understand the relation between graphemes
to phonemes in words that they encounter several times. They can achieve more reading
accuracy as they recognise each letter and because of that too, they can read new words
by blending the generated pronunciation when they recognise the grapheme-phoneme
connection as it is essential for them. In the consolidated-alphabetical stage, the recurring
letters that are unitized help readers reduce their memory load while continuing practicing
reading the words. Lastly, in the automaticity stage the reader is able to recognize the
words automatically and is able to read the words proficiently and accurately.
Based on the above model proposed by Ehri (1998), she highlighted the importance of
recognizing the letters, the sounds and the relation between letters and sounds that later
develop the readers’ ability to read words practiced and new words they will encounter.
Besides that, Saine et. al (2011) also stated that in order to develop the reader’s literacy
64 skill, word recognition is vital as it is the main component of beginning reading. Thus,
based on the above stages, readers need to master each as it provides the knowledge
before they continue to the next stage. As each stage complements the other, the pupils
with reading difficulties will be able to later develop to become skillful readers.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Prealphabetic phase
Partial alphabetic phase
Full alphabetic phase
Consolidated alphabetic
phase
FIGURE 3: The Ehri’s Reading Model
Differentiated Instructions in Reading
Dealing with mixed ability pupils requires teachers to be able to differentiate their
instruction to cater for pupils’ ability. It is crucial because different pupils have different
needs and intelligences (Morgan, 2014). There are four classroom elements that can
be used by the teachers to differentiate their instructions and these four elements are
linked closely to student readiness, interest, or learning profile. The first element, the
content, is what the student needs to learn or how the student will get access to the
information. Secondly, the process of the activities have to be carried out in which the
student engages in order to make sense of or master the content. Thirdly, the product
that allows the students to rehearse, apply, and extend what he or she has learned in a
unit and lastly the learning environment where students feel comfortable and conducive
through the lesson. (Carol, 2014)
This is because pupils tend to lose focus if the teacher fails to use instructional strategies
that match pupils’ learning styles. Unfortunately, the increasing diversity of children in
the primary classroom and the large class size is sometimes unable to address the needs
of some children, thus teachers should be able to employ systematic differentiated
instructions as the fundamental for effective remedial teaching and learning.
According to Tomlinson (2010), differentiated instruction is very impactful if teachers 65
implement three strategies: emphasizing pupils’ interest, using the right starting point
and allowing pupils to work at their own pace. This is supported by Valiandes (2015) in
her study which indicates that differentiated instructions raise effectiveness through the
provision of quality and equity education.
In addition, Joseph et.al (2013) argue that one of the key elements of differentiated
instruction is content differentiation. Teachers are required to modify or to adapt the
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
materials used in their lessons by giving pupils access to the materials. Teachers may
choose to differentiate the content by grouping the pupils into small groups and use the
internet as the main source developing the pupils understanding and knowledge of the
topic (Valiandes,2015).
Online Materials
The LINUS 2.0 pupils receive different quality of instructions due to the complexity of the
curriculum to match their ability. Although the pupils are considered as ‘digital natives’
because they are born with various technologies in front of their eyes (Hicks, 2011) it does
not ensure the pupils to be literate (Warschauer, 2001). The use of technology is able
to help pupils with difficulties in reading as it teaches the pupils in a new and exciting
environment (Muniandy et. al, 2009). The computer technology has the capability to
provide highly personal and specialized instruction and assist pupils who are at risk of
reading failure as it supports and helps them at word level reading instructions (Torgesen
et. al, 2010).
Additionally, teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their classrooms as we move from
an era where printed materials dominated the literacy landscape to digital materials
inseparable from literacy development. This paradigm shift in learning inevitably requires
corresponding paradigm shift in teaching and teachers’ roles. Their teaching is facilitated
in a way that their potentials can be maximised to cater for pupils’ learning. According to
Lubis et al. (2008), teachers are the key to the successful integration of ICT into education.
Teachers’ full participation in adopting new technologies to enhance education requires
a commitment to ongoing professional development of teachers. Thus, teachers should
be more competent to use technology as one of the components in their teaching (Chun,
2011). All teachers should employ ICT to enrich their teaching and their pupils’ learning
needs and to develop specific remedial materials in order to make the teaching and
learning process effective.
However, the reason for not using the computers also comes back to the teachers’ lack
of knowledge in modifying the lesson plan and only focusing on the traditional classroom
activities. The lack of knowledge and skills can be facilitated by modelling and application
of the remedial online materials developed in educational websites and as according
to Blackwell et. al (2014) the internet acts as a rich source of information in teaching
the language. The remedial materials available online are able to help teachers without
remedial teaching skills because some of the materials come with instructions on how to
teach and information of the suitability of the materials. Thus, when teachers teach using
technology, teachers’ role to facilitate and guide these pupils is executed well as each
pupil learns to do the activity through computer with the teacher’s guidance.
66
However, we also need to understand that there is no ideal teaching method or materials
that are fit for all. According to Chun (2011) although there has been research proving that
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
computer-based materials have direct positive effects on second language acquisition,
there is no proof saying that a certain medium or tool that fits for all types of learners
exists. In this light, it should be understood by every teacher that every child is unique,
with different learning styles and preferences and due to this understanding, teachers
need to integrate differentiated instructions in their teaching and learning process
(Morgan, 2014).
METHODOLOGY
FIGURE 4: The process of the intervention and collecting the data
Two teachers from two different schools and their 10 pupils had participated in the study.
The two female English teachers underwent training in TELL 2 programme (native speaker
mentoring program under the Brighton and MOE collaboration) and were selected as
they had undergone a mentoring period of two years, and were trained in the teaching
of phonics to the pupils. The pupils selected for the study were those who were not able
to acquire the LINUS2.0 second screening in September 2016.
Each teacher was given access to a Padlet that contained five separate pages. The Padlet 67
page contained lesson objective(s). The teachers were responsible to select and choose
online materials available in each Padlet page in order to achieve the objective of each
lesson. The online materials used were carefully selected based on these criteria: 1) free
access 2) could be accessed using the internet connection provided by MOE 3) allowed
by government facilities 4) suitable online materials based on pupils’ proficiency level and
the objective(s) of each lesson. Three types of online materials were gathered namely:
Videos, Interactive Activities and Assessment-Based Activities.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Briefing sessions were given to the teachers for at least a day, prior to the lesson they
planned to conduct. Teachers also received lesson guidance that contained lesson steps
and URL links of the suitable online materials for each step that had explanations of the
purpose of the online materials selection.
Additionally, the teachers were given authority to design and conduct their lessons based
on the objective(s), online materials and lesson guidance provided. Hence, they could
either project their lesson on the screen or the pupils could access the lesson through
individual computers. There were online activities and online exercises conducted in the
class and the teachers could gauge if the lesson objective(s) were achieved based on the
online assessments at the end of each lesson.
The first data collection method was a structured observation through video recordings
with an adapted checklist (Robb et. al, 2013). This included researcher notes as the
observation the schedule was predetermined and the objectives of each lesson were
developed based on the theory (Mulhall, 2003). Besides classroom observation, the
teachers were involved in standardised, open-ended interviews. The interview questions
were aligned with the classroom observation checklist whereby the questions dealt with
these domains: Teachers’ Practice, Online Materials Use, and Technology Skills and
Proficiency.
The data obtained from the observations through video recording and the transcriptions
of the interviews were analysed using Thematic Analysis through Atlas TI 8.0. A Priori
Codes and new codes emerged from the analysis. The A Priori Codes that emerged were
technology skills and online materials use.
The objective(s) of the lessons were as follows:
Day Lesson Objective(s)
1 • Recognizing the alphabets
2 • Recognizing the graphemes-phonemes relations
3 • Blending two initial phonemes (body)
• Recognizing the final phoneme (coda)
• Blending using body-coda
4 • Recognizing the initial phoneme (onset)
• Blending two final phonemes (rime)
• Blending using onset-rime
68 5 • Blending phonemes
• Read the word using phonemes blending
TABLE 1: Lesson Objective (s)
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
No. Emergent Codes
1. Materials Differentiation
2. Materials Familiarisation
3. Proficiency Driven Materials
4. Objective Driven Materials
5. Time Allocation
6. Teaching Aids
7. Online Materials Preparation
8. Teachers Facilitate
9. Time Allocation
10. Materials Searching
TABLE 2: The emergent codes
FINDINGS
The qualitative data was analysed thematically and included analysis of observation
videos, interviews. The findings are divided into two parts namely: Teachers’ Preparation
and Lesson Planning.
The Emergent Codes put under each theme were as follows:
Theme Emergent Codes Frequency
Teachers’ Preparation Online Materials Preparation 14
1
Materials Searching 10
3
Materials Familiarisation 2
11
Materials Differentiation 4
1
Teaching Aids 5
Time Allocation
Lesson Planning Materials Searching
Teachers Facilitate
Pupils’ Authority 69
TABLE 3: Theme and the emergent codes
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Teacher’s Preparation
Based on the themes that emerged from the analysis, for the teachers to employ
differentiated instructions, they needed to be able to understand the process of preparing
the lesson that could cater for needs of the LINUS2.0 pupils. In this light, the analysis
showed that teachers needed to find materials that could draw pupils’ attention and
interest in learning the basic language which supported their reading skills. Besides that,
teachers needed to understand the needs of these pupils in reading and their difficulties
as each pupil is unique and has his or her own strength in reading. Teachers also needed
to have the capability to teach the pupils based on the pupils’ ability levels. This included
preparing the online materials that they wanted to use, suitable for the pupils’ proficiency
level and the objectives of each lesson. The lesson designing is a process whereby the
teachers need to really understand both conditions and to make sure that they understand
the concept of content differentiation used in teaching LINUS2.0 pupils. The process is
shown below.
Teachers’ Preparation
Time Allocation Online Materials Materials Searching
PreparatioOnline n
Materials familiarisation Materials Differentiation Teaching Aids
FIGURE 5: Teachers’ Preparation Theme
In preparing the lesson for LINUS2.0 pupils, teachers needed to first understand the
pupils’ proficiency level. This was to ensure that, the materials selection was focused
on developing pupils’ phonemic awareness. The teachers also needed to experience
the materials themselves as it helped them during the teaching and learning process.
Besides, the teachers needed to realise that the pupils needed more attention and more
focused activities, and hence choose materials that really helped the pupils in developing
phonemic awareness.
“…and then I’m going to like you have to google, you have to surf to find the suitable
materials that you can use and you have to try it first before you ask the pupils to try to do it…”
Teacher F
The Teachers’ Preparation requires the teacher to allocate suitable time to teach the
70 pupils using online materials based on the pupils’ proficiency level, as each stage of the
lesson requires teachers to ensure that it could be done by LINUS2.0 pupils.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
“…when you are using certain times to mark your erm your progress in your lesson it is
actually make it easier and you can attract the pupils’ attention so that they stay focus with
whatever you are doing.”
Teacher F
Apart from using online materials, the teacher used non-digital materials like flashcards
and worksheet to strengthen the pupils learning as the pupils need to use their kinesthetic
intelligence beside their visual and auditory intelligences. The teacher believed that the
pupils need to use both types of materials which the online and non-digital materials are,
“…like flashcard, printable worksheet, singing, interesting pictures and also audio and
videos.”
Teacher A
“…you can maybe 20 to 30 percent of teaching time is online and after that you can use
worksheet to make sure that they are learning on that day.”
Teacher F
Lesson Planning
In planning the lesson for LINUS2.0 pupils, teachers needed to consider two conditions
namely: the proficiency of the pupils and the objective of the lesson. These two conditions
were also needed in selecting the online materials to develop pupils’ phonemic
awareness. The materials used in this study were based on the pupils’ proficiency levels
whereby teachers searched the materials and after thorough professional judgement of
the materials, it was then used in their lesson.
Lesson Planning
Materials selection Teacher facilitation Pupil’s Authority
FIGURE 6: Lesson Planning Theme
“…I should say a bit of better and a bit of both better and learning at their own pace because 71
at first we can choose the materials according to their own ability. Meaning you can use easier
online games and then when they show improvement then you can choose online materials
that can make them better in the language that they are learning.”
Teacher F
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
The teacher used the materials and manipulated them as the online materials in their
lesson were not only used individually but also as a whole class approach.
The pupils in both classes needed teachers’ assistance in doing the online activities.
Although the materials were carefully selected based on the pupils’ proficiency level,
some of them do still need assistance in answering the questions as they were given first
the authority to do the online activities on their own, teachers still need to facilitate them
in fulfilling the task.
“…with digital materials, pupils have more freedom and you as a teacher is like erm just erm
watching them and be there when they need you to assist them. Okay it’s like I mentioned
earlier 99 percent is the pupils are doing their self-discovery with whatever skills or whatever
we want them to learn on that certain lesson.”
Teacher F
The role of the teacher as a facilitator is crucial for the teachers. In this study, the
pupils were mainly doing the activities with the assistance of the teachers as facilitator.
Nevertheless, the pupils would benefit from the remedial online materials if the teachers
as facilitators showed positive attitude towards the usage of technology in the classroom.
In Malaysia, the Ministry of Education is concentrated on developing ICT tools in support
of a richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, stronger links between school and society,
and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners (Chan 2002). The Ministry believes that
properly designed and implemented computing and communications have the potential
to revolutionise education and improve learning. At the same time, the Malaysia National
Philosophy of Education calls for developing the potential of individuals in a holistic
and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually,
emotionally, and physically balanced and harmonious (Curriculum Standard Document,
2011:4). In order to support the country’s ICT master plan and in line with the country’s
drive to fulfil Vision 2020, the education system need to be transformed. Hence, by
incorporating technology into teaching, we are adding another means of teaching and
learning but not changing the prior process of literacy. This would be an advantage as
studies have shown that the use of technological innovation by teachers has resulted in a
significant increase in pupils’ achievement (Earle 2002).
72
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
DISCUSSION
Teacher’s Preparation
i) Materials Familiarisation
The incorporation of online materials into the teaching and learning required teachers
to familiarize themselves with the materials. Material familiarization includes materials
searching and materials evaluation. Teachers searched materials available online and
later decided the materials’ suitability based on the pupils’ proficiency. Teachers decided
whether or not to use any part of the Padlet platform and incorporate them in their
lesson. They decided the technologies that were beneficial and the strategies they could
use when teaching (Noble, 1996). They experienced the materials first thus enabling
them to handle and explain the remedial online materials provided for the pupils to learn
that day.
ii) Time Allocation
The daily lesson plan and the classroom management need to be planned according
to the time allocated for each lesson. This practice needed teachers to be alert on each
lesson development stage so that the learning could take place effectively as the online
remedial materials for each Padlet platform were already selected to be used in every
stage to help the pupils develop their literacy skills. According to Levitch and Milheim
(2003) educators need to understand the differentiation in time management between
the traditional classroom and a classroom that uses computer as a medium. Educators
need to develop new time management skills as technology requires proper preparations.
Shi et. al (2006) also suggested few time management strategies in the classroom that
uses online materials. One of related strategies is that teachers need to be very clear on
their objectives of the lesson and understand the time each activity consumes so that the
stage of the lesson can be executed according to the objectives. The teachers need to
be clear with the timing of each activity.
iii) Materials Searching 73
Teachers are encouraged to use ICT in their classroom as we move from an era where
printed materials dominated the literacy landscape to digital materials inseparable from
literacy development. This paradigm shift in learning inevitably requires a corresponding
paradigm shift in teaching and teachers’ role. Their teaching is facilitated in a way that
their potentials can be maximised to cater for pupils’ learning. According to Lubis et
al. (2008), teachers are the key to the successful integration of ICT into education.
Teachers’ full participation in adopting new technologies to enhance education requires
a commitment to ongoing professional development of teachers. Thus, teachers should
be more competent to use technology as one of the components in their teaching (Chun,
2011). All teachers should employ ICT to enrich their teaching and to develop specific
remedial materials in order to make the teaching and learning process effective.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
iv) Online Materials Preparation
When it comes to teacing using online materials, teachers need to come out of their
comfort zones. ICT materials require them to familiarize themselves with the online tools
and strategies that they need to use during the lesson. Teachers need to be aware that
ICT is able to effectively capture the pupils’ attention as compared to the former textbook
based learning. This is supported by Wood (2001) who agreed that online games should
be used as learning tools and are able to gather pupils’ attention in contextual learning
while playing because young learners tend to favor ‘edutainment’ learning (Krasilovsky,
1996).
v) Teaching Aids
Apart from the use of online games, videos and assessment, other teaching aids such
as flash cards and worksheets were also being used to support and enrich teaching and
learning through technology. Lei (2009) supported the usage of other types of materials
in computer-based classrooms and suggested that non-digital teaching methods should
never be replaced with technology although technology is now being part of their lives.
vi) Materials Differentiation
The content knowledge of this study focused on basic reading skills as the pupils
selected were those who had difficulties in reading. Thus, the materials that were chosen
for them, besides being suitable for the pupils’ proficiency level, were a bit different
compared to the mainstream pupils. According to Tomlinson (2000), in classrooms
with various proficiencies, some students will struggle to learn while others will perform
beyond others. This differentiation requires teachers to be aware of the situation and
understand the students’ needs. Hence, she added that by using different materials, it
enables teachers to support the students’ learning and helps students in fulfilling the task
according to their own levels as it provides additional support for the struggling learners.
Lesson Planning
i) Materials Selection
Guerrettaz and Johnston (2013) divided materials into two areas namely: content analyses
of materials that are isolated from the process and classroom interaction and publication
of materials development, the design and evaluation. Understanding the differences
in the role played by materials, selecting materials for teaching and learning requires
teachers to understand the needs of the pupils in the classroom. This is important as
materials selection plays an imperative role in combining the participants (students),
lesson structure, and learning process whereby the students and teacher share experience
within the lesson (Guerrettaz and Johnston, 2013). This had been explained by Lee and
74 Bathmaker (2007) whereby individual teacher and student’s complex relationship and
characteristics determine their responses towards the materials selected to be used.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
ii) Teachers Facilitation
The role of teachers in the classroom changes over time when technology especially
computer becomes the medium. Teachers play the role of the facilitator in three ways as
explained by Lai (1993), teachers as the planner whereby teachers need to understand
the objective of using the computer, be knowledgeable and resourceful in managing
the classroom computing resources. Besides, teachers play the role of participants too
as teachers are no longer the main source of knowledge and need to cater for pupils’
needs based on the pupils’ responses and respond to the output hence, teachers need
to observe the learning and facilitate when needed. Lastly, teachers act as a guide. In this
situation, computer-based learning provides pupils with the acquisition of metacognitive
knowledge of the learning process and teachers need to ask appropriate questions to
help pupils throughout their learning. Teachers’ then can make a difference by facilitating
the pupils because they influence the pupils and expose meaningful experience, and this
is supported by David and Kuyini (2012) who mentioned that teachers’ assistance in the
classroom allow pupils to learn better and produce better outcome whether or not the
pupils have disabilities or not.
iii) Pupils’ Authority
The usage of computer in the classroom needs teachers to monitor the learning
process thoroughly especially when they are teaching young learners that have reading
difficulties. Close monitoring is needed as these pupils require more guidance compared
to mainstream pupils. However, computer is a personal medium and somehow, teachers
need to give authority to pupils during lesson. Hargreaves (2014) argued that when
teachers applied skillful autonomy-promoting teaching and learning, pupils were able to
give ideas independently, being proactive in learning and encourage better engagement
with the topic they were learning.
CONCLUSION
It is vital for teachers who are teaching LINUS2.0 pupils to understand the importance of
differentiated instruction in their teaching and learning session. Lesson planning requires
the teachers to consider elements that are beneficial in teaching the pupils literacy skills
that later help them in reading. The elements identified in this study could help teachers
in planning their lesson in the classroom that has mixed ability pupils and use them to
facilitate the LINUS2.0 pupils but at the same time not ignore other pupils with higher
proficiency level. The use of technology in their teaching and learning helps teachers
in differentiating their instructions in teaching and at the same time assist them in the
teaching as well.
75
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
REFERENCES
Barachers S.I. (1998). Teaching Reading: From Process to Practice. United States of
America: Wad Sworth Publishing Company.
Beech, J.R. (2005). Ehri’s Model of Phases of Learning to Read: A Brief Critique. Journal
of Research in Reading. 28:50-58
Blackwell, C., Lauricella, A. & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology
use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82-90.
Chun D. M. (2011). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In Handbook of Reseach in
Second Language Teaching and Learning Volume II, by Hankel E., 663-680. New
York: Routledge.
David, R. & Kuyini, A.B. (2012) Social inclusion: Teachers as facilitators in peer acceptance
of students with disabilities in regular classrooms in Tamil Nadu, India. International
Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 1-12.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The Integration of Instructional Technology into Public Education:
Promises and Challenges. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook Then Englewood
Cliffs Nj-, 42(1), 5-13.
Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows (2001). Systematic Phonics Intervention Helps Students
Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of
Educational Research 71 (3):393-447
Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern
Language Journal, 97, 779–796
Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive
whiteboards, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 102–117.
Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., and Hopkins, D.W. (2014). International
76 Handbook of Educational Change: Part Two. Springer Science and Business Media.
Hicks, S.D. (2011). Technology in Today’s Classroom: Are you A Tech Savvy Teacher?
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
The Clearing House 84:188-91
Joseph, S.,Thomas,M.,Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated
Instruction in A Teacher Education Setting: Successes & Challenges. The International
Journal of Higher Education,_,28-40.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2015). Buku Pengoperasian Program LINUS2.0.
Putrajaya. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Krasilovsky, P. (1996) A child’s garden of virtual reality, American Demographics, 20–22
Lai, K. W. (1993) Teachers as facilitators in a computer-supported learning
environment, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2, pp. 127-137.
Lee, R. & A. Bathmaker (2007). The use of English textbooks for teaching English to
‘vocational’ students in Singapore secondary schools: A survey of teachers’ beliefs. RELC
Journal 38.3, 350–374
Lei, J. (2009). Digital Natives as Preservice Teachers: What Technology Preparation Is
Needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. Vol. 25, pp 87 – 97.
Levitch, S., & Milheim, W. D. (2003). Transitioning instructor skills to the virtual
classroom. Educational Technology, 42-46.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya.
Ministry of Education.
Morgan, H. (2014). Maximizing Student Success with Differentiated Learning. The
Clearing House, 87: 34–38.
Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of
advanced nursing, 41(3), 306-313.
Noble, D. D. (1996). Mad rushes into the future: The overselling of educational 77
technology. Educational Leadership, 54(3).
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Robb, M., Catalano, R., Smith, T., Polojac, S., Figlar, M., Minzenberg, B. and Schomburg,
R. (2013). Checklist for Identifying Exemplary Uses of Technology and Interactive
Media for Early Learning. Retrieved from http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/
wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/Tech_Integration_Checklist_-_Final.pdf
Services & D.O.E. a. C.S. (2011). Engaging in and Exploring Reading: Reading in the Early
Years: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers. Literacy Secretariat.
Shi, M., Bonk, C. J., & Magjuka, R. J. (2006). Time management strategies for online
teaching. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.
Retrieved from http://itdl.org/Journal/Feb_06/article01.htm
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., and Lindamood, P. (2010).
Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in pupils at risk
for dyslexia: Outcomes Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001).
Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://
doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393 two instructional approaches. Annals of
dyslexia, 60(1), 40-56.
Warschauer, M. (2001). Online communication. The Cambridge guide to teaching
English to speakers of other languages, 207-212.
Wood, J. (2001) Can software support children’s vocabulary development?, Language
Learning & Technology, 5(1), 166–201.
----------.Pencapaian LINUS2.0 Tahun Satu Meningkat. Berita Harian. 2015
Zikri Effandy bin Zainudin
Mersing District Education Office, Ministry of Education Malaysia
[email protected]
Yusnamariah Md Yusop
78 English Language Teaching Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia
[email protected]
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
5
CLIL: THE CONTENT
TEACHERS’
PERSPECTIVES
RASHIDAH BINTI RAHAMAT 79
JECQULINE ANAK GELAU
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
ABSTRACT
The Malaysia Education Blueprint Education 2013–2025 highlights the aims of initiatives
in equipping teachers with up-to-date skills to meet the needs of the alpha generation,
the children of millennial. Content delivery for Science and Mathematics through the
second language has been going through changes in the Malaysian educational context:
from PPSMI to the Dual Language Programme (DLP). DLP, a CLIL-like initiative, which
focuses on one main issue which is language. The art of weaving the content using the
first language with second or third language is a skill needed by the content teachers.
This paper aims to highlight the Science and Mathematics teachers’ views towards using
the English Language in delivering their content. Data collected and analyzed from 132
science and mathematics teachers from different geographical locations show varying
views towards using the target language in their teachings. Findings of the negative
stand towards using English in their teaching are further explained in their responses to
some demotivating factors. However, the constructive reply from a few respondents
offer good insights for the Ministry of Education to continue this CLIL-like initiative with
some adaptions to current structure of implementation.
Keywords: CLIL, language, perspectives, language roles, DLP.
INTRODUCTION
“CLIL is not a new form of language education”
Coyle et. al (2011)
It is true. CLIL is not another form of language education for any language. The position
of the second “L” in the acronym CLIL, does highlight the important roles of language
in almost everything- be it in verbal or non-verbal form of language. In the Malaysian
education context, the negotiation tension of language has evolved over the years.
Hussaini Abdul Karim (2013) argued that Malaysian education policy is “dynamic“ as it
shows “…the seriousness to produce human capitals who can meet current and future
demands…” (Hussaini Abdul Karim, 2013).
Creating a CLIL-like initiative is believed to be a powerful renewal in school towards the
concept of 21st century teaching and learning. As Coyle (2011) states, CLIL benefits both
teachers and students where it can help improve language skills by incorporating active
student centred learning concepts/strategies. This paper aims to present the science and
mathematics teachers’ views towards the use of English as the second language in their
teaching and learning.
80
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Development of Language Policies In Malaysian Education
Prior to its independence from the British, Malaysia acceded English as the official
language and Malay, Tamil and Chinese were recognized as vernacular languages in
the early 1900s. Vernacular schools for the Malay, Tamil and Chinese communities were
established and the education system was designated in various mainstreams with English
as the second or foreign language. After the independence in 1957, the Malay language
(Bahasa Malaysia) took its role as the National Language in Malaysia. According to Heng
& Tan (2006), Malay language was the most spoken language by the local people in
the country. Thus, Malay language became a tool which united a nation’s multicultural
community (Heng & Tan, 2006).
Over decades, the Malaysian Government has implemented several language policies to
institute Bahasa Malaysia as the official language and to be used as medium of instruction.
Several reforms were made to the Education Act to regulate the education policies in
terms of the main language to be used in schools. This resulted with the endorsement
of the Education Act 1961 where, the Malay Language was enacted as the medium of
instruction to be used in schools. To enhance the implementation of using Malay language
as the medium of instruction, the National Education Policy 1970 was established. This
provision of change led to the abolishment of the English medium schools to be replaced
by national schools starting with the pupils in Standard One. English Language was made
a compulsory subject instead. Another reform occurred in 1982 where the education
system made Malay Language as a compulsory subject especially for all those who were
going to get the school-leaving certificate. Ramiza Darmil and Albion (2015) pointed this
as the turning point for the decline of English Language exposure to Malaysian learners
as they were only learning the language as a subject in schools.
In order to, serve both the primary and secondary schools, the government came up with
a new curriculum in 1983, which was Kurikulum Baru Sekolah Rendah (KBSR) for primary
level, and Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah for secondary school in 1989. Both
the curriculars were aimed at developing learners’ English Language proficiency as well
as to enhance their repertoire of language usage involving the four language skills. The
KBSR curriculum provided the basic skills and knowledge of the English Language and
the KBSM curriculum acted to “extend the learners English proficiency in order to meet
their needs to use English in certain situations in everyday life, for knowledge acquisition,
and for future workplace needs” (Malaysia Ministry of Education, 2000).
81
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
The Beginning of CLIL-like Initiative in Malaysia
In 2003, the Ministry of Education introduced the teaching of Mathematics and Science in
English (PPSMI) to help improve learners’ language competency especially in preparing
young learners for tertiary education and employability. However, the government ended
the six-year English policy in 2009 when the grades for Science and Mathematics papers
deteriorated in the SPM examination. Thus, the teaching of Science and Mathematics
reverted to Malay to address the problem. The phasing out of the policy strengthened
the Malay Language resulting in a limited exposure to the English language usage among
Malaysian learners.
In early 2016, the Dual Language Programme (DLP) was introduced as the Ministry of
Education’s initiative under the ‘Upholding Bahasa Malaysia and Strengthen English’
policy’ MBMMBI. This CLIL-like initiative mainly aimed to provide a platform for students
in selected national primary and secondary schools to have the opportunity to use either
English or Malay in other content subjects such as Science, Mathematics, Information
Technology and Communication, and Design and Technology. The implementation
of this initiative although optional, is expected to boost the standards of English via
other content subjects. The learners are hoped to master English language and at the
same time, able to proliferate future employability market when these learners have
completed their tertiary education.
What is CLIL?
CLIL is the abbreviation for Content and Language Integrated Learning. The acronym can
be referred to “...educational settings where a language other than the students’ mother
tongue is used as a medium of instruction...any second or foreign language can become
the object of CLIL...” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007: 1). It is generally meant for other subjects
being taught in the second or foreign language (Dale, Liz & Tanner, 2012). According
to Dalton-Puffer (2011), CLIL has a dual-focused approach; it is not only meant to teach
the language per-say but to improve the language via other content subjects such as
Science, Mathematics, History or any other language subject. A few scholars define CLIL
as
...a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the
learning of both content and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process,
there is a focus not only on the content, and not only on the language. Each is interwoven,
even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time.
(Coyle et. al, 2011)
The representation of this dual-focused approach would be best taken from Dale et. al
82 (2012), the visual of Sky and Water 1 by Esher (1988). The display of the visual shows that
the focus is on the connection between content and language; it is interwoven between
the fish and the bird. The bird would represent the language and the fish representing the
content. It is undeniable that the content teacher most of the time puts more attention
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
on the content and less on the language; there will be times he or she would stress on
the language. If the content is on the fish, then the focused will be more on the fish
compared to the birds.
FIGURE 1: Sky and Water by Esher (1988)
CLIL is also claimed as the umbrella which describes learning of another subject through 83
another language; and that “another” language is referred to the language which is
not the mother tongue of the learners. According to Dale and Tanner (2012), CLIL has
the educational potential based on the claim from general learning theories as well
as language learning theories. There are few benefits of CLIL for learners as listed by
these two writers. The benefits are seen as CLIL learners a) are motivated, 2) develop
cognitively, 3) develop communication skills, 4) make new personal meanings in another
language, 5) progress faster in learning a language, 6) receive a lot of input and work
effectively with that input, 7) interact meaningfully, 8) learn to speak and write, 9) develop
intercultural awareness, 10) learn about the ‘culture’ of a subject, 11) are prepared to
study in another language and 12) learn in different ways (Dale and Tanner, 2012).
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
The Basic Principles of CLIL
The basic principles of CLIL relies on the 4Cs: Content, Communication, Cognition and
Culture (Coyle et. al, 2013). Content in CLIL is referred to as the subject which is being
taught. The term content would refer to the common subjects listed in the curricula like
science, mathematics, geography or history. The second C is communication. To deliver
the respective content to the learners, teachers need a medium which is language.
Language is vital in ensuring that teachers and students are communicating. A teacher
needs a medium to deliver his or her content and this is done through the communication
which can be categorised as the core element in CLIL.
Cognitive is the third “C” of the CLIL principle. Based on Coyle (2013), the complex and
challenging tasks in subject lessons allow individuals to construct their own understandings
and be challenged-whatever their age or ability. CLIL provides authentic settings
which develops thinking skills in both Basic and Interpersonal Communication Skills
(BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). Learners are challenged
beyond comfort and engaged in Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS); problem solving
and reflecting. The fourth C in CLIL is the Culture. Why the need of culture in CLIL?
Byram (1993), explains that, there are seven categories of culture and they are: belief
and behavior, social interactional levels of formality, national history, social identity
and social groups, social and political institution, stereotypes and national identity, and
national geography. According to Susiana Kweldju (2015), culture exists in the classroom
whether the teacher or the students like it or not. The following graphic is the overall
representation of the 4Cs principles in CLIL.
84
FIGURE 2: The 4Cs of CLIL (Source: Coyle et. al, 2013)
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Language Roles in CLIL and CLIL-Like Initiative
In CLIL, the language is referred to the additional language of the learners’ mother tongue;
it can be the second, third or a foreign language (Llinares, Morton & Whittaker, 2012). The
focus principles of language in CLIL are language of learning, language for learning and
language as learning. In CLIL, language used can be divided into two categories: Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP). BICS is referred to the daily conversation or the social conversation which one
carries with other people around such as greetings, giving instructions or following
orders. Whereas, CALP is where the use of language is “cognitively demanding” such as
demonstrating an experiment, giving instructions for a science project which require the
person to use more of the academic terms (Dale & Tanner, 2012).
The concepts of BICS and CALP are derived from the theory of second language
acquisition by Jim Cummins (1984). According to Cummins (1984), teachers must provide
context rich instruction to enable students to perform both BICS and CALP successfully.
In addition, this scholar also summarized his view of BICS and CALP by adapting the
iceberg model. The use of BICS and CALP would assist both the teacher and students to
grasp the use of social language and academic language (Haynes, 2007). Clegg (2009)
highlighted in his writing that for a learner learning a subject through the medium of
English as a second language, they will need three kinds of language skills which are:
basic second language skills, academics second language skills and metacognitive skills.
85
FIGURE 3: The Iceberg of CALP and BICS (Source: Source: Dale & Tanner, 2012
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Malaysian CLIL Classroom
The CLIL classroom provides a natural environment for language learning as students
engage with the language as it is used daily. Students are in control of the classroom
activity (Coyle, 2010) and they can produce the language which stretches their current
levels of competence (Ortega, 2009). With reference to Mortimer and Scott’s framework in
science education, knowledge is presented in classroom talk; an interaction and dialogue
through which the teacher and learners communicate about the content. Language is not
taught separately but infused as a medium of instruction and classroom communication.
The consistent help from teachers nourish the opportunities for learners to familiarise
themselves to various terms in science and mathematics. Content subject teachers
explore chances for language learning through reading texts. Learners’ participations
are enhanced through the classroom context practices as they are given the platform
to deliver ideas on the topic for a variety of purposes via interaction between the
teachers and students. Thus, language is the wheel to generate talk in BICS and CALP.
As mentioned in Kolb (1984), genuine learning comes from experiences and in Malaysia,
this experiential learning takes place in classrooms.
METHODOLOGY
This small-scale study was deployed using the quantitative design method aiming to
measure the teachers’ perceptions towards the use of English Language in their content
subject teaching. The following sub-headings in this section will focus on the related
samples, instrument, data collection and data analysis.
The samples
The selection of samples was done through the purposeful sampling technique. The
participants involved were the content teachers who took part in the online course for the
Dual Language Programme (DLP) organized by the Ministry of Education. The participants
consisted of 162 teachers from both primary and secondary levels throughout Malaysia.
The Instrument
The instrument used in this study was constructed and prepared via google form and
was labelled as Perceptions towards Teaching Other Content Subjects in English. The
instrument was divided into three sections which were: Demographic information of
the teachers, Perceptions based on a Likert scale and open-ended questions to further
gather information. The demographic section was mainly about the subject taught, years
of teaching experience and the location of their schools. There were 7 statements which
86 represented the perceptions construct applying a 5-point Likert Scale with the values
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The following table represents the
summary of the items found in the questionnaire.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
SECTION ITEM ASPECT NO. OF
ITEM
A Demographic Background Information 4
B
C Likert Scale Perceptions 8
Open-ended Perceptions 2
TABLE 1: The Summary of the Instrument
The reliability of the item was analysed using SPPS version 19 resulting in a value of 0.925
in the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. Therefore, the statistical analysis of the construct
provides a strong indicator that the items were reliable and measured what they were
supposed to measure. The following table depicts the summary of the reliability of the
items:-
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha Based on N of Items
Alpha Standardized Items
.925 .925 8
TABLE 2: The Reliability Statistics of the Instrument
Data Collection and Data Analysis
The data was collected online. The online instrument was sent through the personal
e-mails of the samples. The participants of this small-scale study were informed on the
purpose of the e-mail and they were given links to the instrument. The form was opened
to them from 10-20 September 2017. Descriptive analysis was carried out based on the
automatic results provided by the Google Form.
FINDINGS
The analysis of the data was based on the responses received from 137 teachers. The 87
initial teachers given were 162 but only 137 responded. The following are the findings
based on the responses. The results of the analysis also show that 61 (44.5 %) teachers
taught science, 59 (43.1 %) taught mathematics and the remaining 17 (12.4%) taught
both science and mathematics. Figure 4 exhibits the distributions of this finding.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
FIGURE 4: The Distribution of the Subjects Taught by the Participants
The analysis of the demographic information shows that the teachers who responded
to the questionnaire are were mostly less experienced teachers. The analysis revealed
that, 44 teachers had between 1 to 5 years of teaching experience as compared to the
others. The results showed teachers who had teaching experience between 6 to 10 years,
totaling up 33 teachers, 11 to 15 years of experience summing up to 24 teachers, 16 to
20 years totaling up to 12 teachers and those with more than 20 years of experience with
24 teachers. Figure 5 displays the summary of this analysis.
44 24 24
45 11 to 15 12
40 33
35 years 16 to 20 More than
30 years 20 years
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years
FIGURE 5: The Teachers’ Teaching Experience
The analysis of the perception items from 137 science and mathematics teachers
88 illustrated that generally the teachers were quite unreceptive towards using English as
the medium of instructions in the class.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Allow students to express thoughts in English 25 57
Students prefer to use English during lesson 55
Using English is beFer compared to Bahasa Melayu 18 36 84
Prefer to use mother tongue to explain content 76
Prefer to use English in teaching. 23 39 60
Using English during lesson is easy 35 71
Teaching in English is enjoyable 44
Teaching in English is easy
0 26 42
23 52 62
34 49
29 54
49 59
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Disagree Slightly Agree Agree
FIGURE 6: The Results for the Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions
towards Using English in Teaching
The responses gathered from 137 teachers concerning their views on the item Teaching
in English is easy showed that a total of 29 teachers agreed and strongly agreed to the
statement, 49 of them slightly agreed, 59 teachers disagreed and strongly disagreed. To
triangulate their views, the following item was analysed: It is easy to use English during
my lesson. The analysis revealed that, 23 of the teachers agreed and strongly agreed,
52 slightly agreed and the remaining 62 chose to disagree and strongly disagree with
the statement. As for the statement It is enjoyable to teach the content using English, a
total of 34 respondents agreed and strongly agreed, while 54 of them slightly agreed, 49
teachers disagreed and strongly disagreed to the statement.
Apart from those statements, 26 (19%) of the science and mathematics teachers agreed 89
and strongly agreed that they preferred to use English in their lesson, 42 (31%) slightly
agreed and the remaining 71 teachers (65%) disagreed and strongly disagreed. The
results for the item which directed them to compare the use of the Malay language or
Bahasa Melayu and English to deliver the content indicated that, only 23 of the teachers
agreed and strongly agreed that using English is better compared to Malay language
or Bahasa Melayu, another 39 slightly agreed and the balance of 76 teachers disagreed
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
and strongly disagreed with the statement. As for the item, I would use mother tongue
to explain some content, the analysis reported that 44 teachers agreed and strongly
agreed, 60 of them slightly agreed and, 35 teachers disagreed and strongly disagreed to
using their mother tongue to explain some of the content to their students.
In addition to that analysis, results of the exploration of the students’ preferences to
use English during the Science and Mathematics lesson revealed only 18 (13%) of the
teachers agreed and strongly agreed that the students used English during the lesson,
36 (26%) slightly agreed, whereas 84 (61%) of them disagreed and strongly disagreed. As
for the item which highlighted the teachers allowing the students to express their ideas
and thoughts in English, generally, 55 teachers (45%) agreed and strongly agreed, 57 or
41% slightly agreed and, 25 of them (18%) disagreed and strongly disagreed. Figure 6
displays the summary of the analysis for all the items.
DISCUSSIONS & IMPLICATIONS
This section discusses the main findings of this small-scale survey which highlighted a few
interesting aspects. Despite the not-so encouraging feedback on the content teachers’
preference not to use English in their teaching and learning, the discussion shall be more
focused on how the findings can relate to the 4Cs of CLIL.
The results of the analysis disclosed that, basically, the content teachers who were
involved in this survey were not so positive towards using English in their practice to
deliver the content. However, it was also notable that there were some who preferred to
use and admitted the enjoyment of using English during their Science and Mathematics
lessons. Thus, one of the 4C’s in CLIL’s framework, which is the communication, was
evident during the teaching and learning process. It can be concluded that, the use of
Basic Interpersonal Communications Skills (BICS) and the Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP) took place to assist both teachers and students to grasp the use of
social language and academic language (Haynes, 2007). These content teachers had
helped in giving students more exposure towards the correct language to be used in a
different context. This is as stated by Cummins (1984) “…the context rich instructions…”
from the content teachers will facilitate the success of BICS and CALPS. From the
90 findings, the content teachers did make some rooms for the students to exchange ideas
and thoughts, either between teachers and students or among students in English. This
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
is another attention-grabbing point from the data. Communication takes place during
the classroom talk. There is thus evidence to indicate that English is widely used in
the classroom during Science and mathematics lessons. Classroom talk enhances the
language users’ level of confidence to correspond using the second language in various
contexts.
When the teachers show the effort to use the language, they create the next C in the 4Cs
of CLIL framework which is the Culture. The culture of using the second language which
is in this context, English Language. Teachers need to be the trendsetters to ensure
students will use the language not only during the English language lesson. As Papaja
(2013: pg.1) pointed, “…The role of a teacher in the CLIL classroom is important”. The
culture created by the content teachers will give some impact on the students’ linguistic
competence as well as the habits of using language other than the mother tongue. The
content teachers need to understand that they are establishing the change of students’
habits towards learning a second language, as well as the teachers’ own approach in
the teaching and learning of the content subjects. CLIL teachers, in this context, the
Science and Mathematics teachers, need to seek a better approach and materials to be
used to ensure the delivery of the content helps the students in both ways: improvement
in language ability and comprehension of the content. To furnish the students with
the content and the correct lexicons, will require the teachers to take another step in
their pedagogical practice: they need to rethink redesigning their approaches. This is
the concept “The Tip of the Iceberg” as mentioned by Dale and Tanner (2012). The
pedagogical content knowledge will be scrutinized to ensure the BISCS to be used will
help the CALPS. Content teachers will need to ask themselves some crucial questions
such as: “Will the choice of translating from mother tongue to English all the time be
effective all the time?” “Will my students understand better using this approach?” “Will
the students be able to perform the tasks” “Will they enjoy the tasks and learn at the
same time?” “How can this material be used to enhance understanding of the content
using English?” and many other questions.
The data from the National Transformation 2017 Review (National Transformation 91
Programme, 2017) reported encouraging results of the Dual Language Programme
especially on the students’ outcomes both for language as well as the subjects (Science
and Mathematics). The English scores improved by 36.4% among primary school students
and 46.4% among the secondary school students for the year 2017. This shows that
using dual language has proven to have some positive impact on students’ proficiency.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Therefore, the content teachers should not deny the idea of using English to deliver
the content. The results from this small case study may not be representing the whole
nation’s point of view however, it can be used as a positive indicator towards the use
of English language in a CLIL-like-initiative which should be retained in the Malaysian
education context. Killing two birds with one stone is another way of simplifying the
benefits of using English as a second language to deliver other content subjects. It opens
another path for English Language practitioners to assist the content teachers build up
their BICS and thus, sharpening their CALPs.
92
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
REFERENCES
Byram, M. (1993). Language and culture: the need for integration. In M.Byram (Ed),
Germany: Its representation in textbooks for teaching German in Great Britain.
Frankfurt: Diesterweg.
Clegg, J. (2009). Skills for CLIL. http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/
articles/article-skills-for-clil/501230.article. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
Coyle, D. (2011). Teacher education and CLIL methods and tools. http://www.cremit.it/
public/documenti/seminar.pdf. Retrieved 18.1.2016.
Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: an investigation into successful learning across
CLIL contexts, Journal of Bilingual education and Bilingualism, 16:3, 244-266.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2013). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities: A resource for subject and language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haynes, J. (2007). Explaining BICS and CALP. http://www.everythingesl.net/
inservices/bics_calp.php. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
Heng, C.S & Tan, H. (2009) English for Mathematics and Science: current Malaysian
language-in-education policies and practices. Language and Education, 20, 306-
321.
Hussaini Abdul Karim. (2013). Evolution of the Malaysian education policy. May 15,
Retrieved from:.https://hornbillunleashed.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/45687/
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning:experience as the source of learning and
developmental. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher-order-thinking. Theory into Practice, 93
32(3), 131-137.
Llinares, Morton & Whittaker, (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge
Language Teaching Library: Cambridge University Press.
Malaysia Ministry of Education. (2000). Sukatan pelajaran kurikulum bersepadu sekolah
menengah. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum: Kuala Lumpur.
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
National Transformation Programme. (2017). Annual Report 2017 Review. Civil Service
Delivery Unit: Putrajaya.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Hodder
Education.
Papaja, K. (2013). The role of a teacher in the CLIL classroom. Glottodidactica Xl/1
Adam Mickiewicz University Press Poznań. Retrieved from: https://repozytorium.
amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/11048/1/strony%20odglottodidactica_xl-12.pdf
Ramiza Darmil & Albion, P. (2015). English Language in the Malaysian Education
System: Its Existence and Implications. Noor, Rahman & Ismail (eds). 3rd Malaysian
Postgraduate Conference, 3-4 July, Malaysia Hall Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
Susiana Kweldju. (2015). Teaching thinking skills and culture (PPT). Specialist Certificate
on Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5-23 Oct 2015, SEAMEO RELC
Singapore.
Rashidah Binti Rahamat
English Language Teaching Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia
[email protected]
Jecquline Anak Gelau
SMK Taman Ehsan
[email protected]
94
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
7
A CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK FOR
EVALUATING THE
SCHOOL SUPPORT
PLAN USING THE
DISCREPANCY
EVALUATION MODEL
HASREENA ABDUL RAHMAN
95
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
ABSTRACT
The paper aims to present how the discrepancy evaluation model is used as the framework
to evaluate an in-service programme, School Support Plan (SSP), under The English
Enhancement Programme for Schools (Program Peningkatan Kemahiran Bahasa Inggeris
Di Sekolah - PPKBIS). Initially PPKBIS focused on training School Improvement Specialist
Coaches Plus (SISC+) to coach and mentor English teachers. In 2015, the programme was
expanded to English teachers under the SSP. The objective of SSP is to focus on student
outcomes by providing more focused support to English Language teachers in hotspot
schools. The discrepancy model is used in this study to compare the programme standard
with the programme performance. A proposed conceptual framework is presented as a
guideline to evaluate SSP.
Keywords: continuing professional development; English language teachers;
programme evaluation; Provus; Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
INTRODUCTION
The Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB) 2013-2025 is a comprehensive review of the
Malaysian education system conducted by the Ministry of Education (MoE) Malaysia
(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013). Eleven shifts were identified in the MEB where
shift two emphasises on ensuring every child is proficient in the English language (Ministry
of Education Malaysia, 2013). One of the initiatives introduced in 2014 was The English
Enhancement Programme for Secondary Schools (Program Peningkatan Penguasaan
Bahasa Inggeris di Sekolah Menengah – PPPBISM) that focuses on increasing students’
proficiency levels (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015).
The focus of PPPBISM is “… on targeted interventions in 1,191 “hotspot” schools
nationwide.” (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015). These hotspot schools are schools
with below 77% passing rates for the SPM English Language paper (Ministry of Education
Malaysia, 2015; English Language Teaching Centre, 2016a). The PPKBIS comprises the
In-Class component and Out-of-Class component. (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015).
Under the In-Class component, School Improvement Specialist Coaches (SISC+)
were trained in 2014 on Differentiated Teaching and Learning, as well as Coaching
and Mentoring to guide teachers in enhancing their teaching and learning strategies.
Beginning 2015, the target participants for the In-Class training shifted from the SISC+
to upper secondary English Language teachers from the hotspot schools. A total of
300 English teachers from hotspot schools were given direct interventions by English
96 Language Teaching Centre (ELTC) while the remaining English teachers from other
hotspot schools were continuously guided by their respective SISC+. This first batch of
300 English teachers from 300 hotspot schools were trained to design “… differentiated
in- class interventions based on the students’ language proficiency.” (Ministry of
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
Education Malaysia, 2016). The training was further extended to 169 English teachers in
2016 (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2017).
The Out-of-Class component focused on “… cocurricular activities to boost students’
confidence and proficiency in the English language.” (Ministry of Education Malaysia,
2015). To achieve this, 565 English teachers were trained in the Newspaper in Education
programme in 2014 to integrate the use of newspaper as a resource to improve student
proficiency (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015). In 2015, English-In-Camp was
conducted for 680 secondary students “… to enhance their understanding of the literature
component of the SPM English Language paper.” (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2016).
In 2016, the programme was renamed as The English Enhancement Programme for
Schools (Program Peningkatan Kemahiran Bahasa Inggeris Di Sekolah - PPKBIS). The
In-Class component was known as the School Support Plan (SSP) while the Out-of-Class
component was discontinued (English Language Teaching Centre, 2016).
In 2017, a study on SSP was conducted by a local university. One of the findings stated in
the report was that the information and skills that were taught in SSP were poorly or not
disseminated effectively to other English teachers in the selected schools (Nair & Doss,
2017). From this finding, it can be implied that information and skills taught in the SSP
were not practised in schools as teachers did not receive the required guidelines and
input from those already trained. There was a huge gap (or discrepancy) between the
programme performance (what really happens in schools) and the programme standard
(what should happen in schools). When the information and skills gained from the SSP
training were not applied in schools, it signified that the SSP was not being practiced
in assisting teachers to design interventions in fostering student’s skills development in
the classroom. Hence, there is a need to conduct programme evaluation to compare
between the operational aspects of SSP with the desired standards or outcomes set for
the programme.
In accordance to the needs of this programme, the Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
is proposed in this study as a suitable model to be used for programme evaluation. The
simple concept of DEM is to compare “what really happen” with “what should be.” (Marrs
& Helge, 1978; Steinmetz, 1976). DEM is a suitable model to evaluate SSP as there is a
noticeable discrepancy between the performance and the standard of the programme.
The purpose of this paper is to apply DEM to evaluate SSP. A conceptual framework is
proposed to serve as a guide to conduct programme evaluation for SSP.
97
ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Discrepancy Evaluation Model or also known as DEM was the idea of Malcolm Provus
(Gwynne-Atwater, 2011; Klein, 2012; Provus, 1969, 1971; Singh, 2013) who outlined
three main purposes of assessment: to determine the programme benefits to students, to
garner sufficient operational information, and to make a prognosis to determine whether
the programme will be a success or a failure. The basic concept of DEM is to identify
the gap(s) between how an actual performance of a programme is working and how a
programme should be working according to the desired standard (Kpolovie & Obilor,
2014; Singh, 2013).
In DEM, three key features are introduced: standard, performance, and discrepancy
(Hasreena A.R. & Ahmad, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2016b; Marrs & Helge, 1978; Singh,
2013; Steinmetz, 1976). These three features are used to evaluate programme outcomes
through three steps: i) define programme standards, ii) determine whether a discrepancy
exists when comparing the performance with the standards of the programme, and iii) use
discrepancy information to identify weaknesses so amendments can be recommended
(Gwynne-Atwater, 2011; Klein, 2012).
Standard is defined as what is intended to happen and is measurable (Marrs & Helge, 1978;
Steinmetz, 1976; Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014). Standard is also known as the programme
design (Yavorsky, 1984). The standard is compared with the performance which refers to
operational information on how a programme occurs or is conducted (Fox, 2011; Marrs &
Helge, 1978; Steinmetz, 1976; Stufflebeam & Coryn, 2014). According to Marrs & Helge
(1978), an ideal programme should have the performance that equals to the standard (s =
p). However, there is a possibility that the performance does not equate to the standard
(s ≠ p). Any incongruence that occurs after the comparison of the performance with the
standard indicates that there is a discrepancy (s ≠ p) → d.
There are five stages of evaluation in DEM which consist of programme design (Stage
I), programme installation (Stage II), programme process (Stage III), programme product
(Stage IV) and cost-benefit analysis (Stage V) (Provus, 1971; Yavorsky, 1984). Stage I aims
to gather information on the programme design which will be the programme standard.
Stage I comprises three main criteria of the programme which are input, process, and
output. Stage II is when the first comparison between the performance and the standard
occurs to evaluate the programme installation, and to identify any problem or known as
discrepancy (Alter, 1998; Provus, 1969, 1971). This stage is also known as the programme
input. Stage III evaluation involves assessing whether the process can turn input to output
to ensure that the resources and techniques implemented are consistent with programme
98 goals. (Alter, 1998; Provus, 1969, 1971). This stage revolves around the process in the
programme. In the next stage (Stage IV), evaluation is conducted to determine whether
the programme objectives have been achieved (Alter, 1998; Gwynne-Atwater, 2011;
Provus, 1969, 1971). At this stage, the programme output will be evaluated. The final
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Innovations in ELT Practices
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search