Colonial Legacy And The History Of Education In Malaysia

downloadDownload
  • Words 2591
  • Pages 6
Download PDF

Globalization has been one of the most debated issues pertaining to the adjustments and changes arising in most states recently. Globalization is the assimilation of national economies, movement, political structures, ideology and aspects capitalist organisation which was coined by Appadurai in 5 scapes: ethnoscape, finances cape, technoscape, ideoscape and mediascape (Appadurai 1996: 27–47, formerly published in 1990). It is the ongoing developments in the cultural and political facets of populations around the world. As a result, countries exposed to globalization have alleviated inequality in various degrees. These were through advocating and enforcing reforms in policy to challenge in the globalised economy.

The education system in the 21 st century has been affected by the globalization and education if found to contribute towards the economic improvement and advancement of most states. Thus, globalization has infiltrated the education discourses. Government and multi-national corporations are examining the demand for education to match the international economy’s demands. Most of the world’s government’s share similar educational plans, such as investing in the education sector, which may promote human skills (ideoscape) and support economic expansion (financescape).

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

In the same vein, Rizvi & Lingard (2010) affirms that ‘educational purposes have been reconsidered in terms of a narrower set of concerns about human capital development, and the role education must play to meet the needs of the global economy to make sure the competitiveness of the national economy’. According to Hamid (2016), English is a language found to be adopted and a strengthening element in advancing human capital, while improving the economic growth of a state. In addition, with English language policy, pupils have higher career opportunities within the region and across the world.

Malaysia is in a related situation to the above. Malaysia is a region in Southeast Asia rich with natural reserves and now moving through a paradigm shift from agriculture manufacture to an industrialised state. To attain this paradigm transformation and the 2020 vision, Malaysian policymakers have emphasised on the English language as a policy and practice through implementing phases of reforms in the education sectors.

As a result, educational policies in Malaysia responded further towards the globalization process rather than to satisfy the desires of the people. This paper illustrates the paradox of globalization in background to the educational policy of Southeast Asia regions, to the situation of Malaysia and how the globalization affected the nationwide educational policies in the past and.

Colonial Legacy

The first segment of this paper illustrates the history of the English language in Malaysia. The second segment of the paper lens into the English Language education reforms in Malaysia. Interweaving into the third part of the paper explaining the significant theoretical frameworks for nation-state education policy reforms and comparative case studies involved in the education policy reversals.

Malaysia’s education philosophy started in 1874 during colonial heritage. The main goal of the education system under colonial rule was only to prepare a few trained locals, sufficient to assist the colonisers to maintain their authority/power. As a result, there was no major development or transformation done towards the education system for the society during this period. Before independence, the education system in Malaysia had two domains:-

  • English medium of education: among these were the elite colleges such as the King Edward VII College of Medicine, founded in Singapore year 1905, Raffles College established in Singapore year, 1928.
  • Malay medium of Education: Teacher Training College established in the year 1901 in Malacca, Matang Teacher Training College, established in the year 1913 and Sultan Idris Teacher Training during the year 1922 in Perak.

Education reforms in Malaysia after independence in 1957

Malaysia a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation has embraced a bilingual education policy (Bahasa Malaysia and English) to provide the stability between the nations and to meet the demands of English language policy and practice. Under Article 152 of the Malaysian Constitutional Act, Bahasa Malaysia is the official language needed for official and English has been the second official language. Teaching, training, and need for other languages such as Mandarin, Tamil and Japanese are still permitted officially in Malaysia (Government of Malaysia, 1957). According to Thirusakan & Yunus (2014), even though English has been the official language, it has never been recognised as one of the Malaysian dialects.

The education organisation in Malaysia comprises kindergarten, primary, secondary, post-secondary and tertiary levels under the surveillance of the Ministry of Education (MOE). The English language was established in the kindergarten stage and it is a compulsory independent subject in the national curriculum at the primary, secondary, post-secondary and in the tertiary level of education. The English language was not a mandatory subject for the pupil to pass at both the primary and secondary school level. Thus, de rigueur for pupils to pass with credit in the National Language (Bahasa Malaysia) to proceed on to the higher level in education. As a result, pupils pay less attention and importance to the English language subject. Supporting this, Gill & Kirkpatrick (2013), claims that there has been a significant deterioration in the English’s standard language proficiency among students despite most of the pupils have successfully completed formal education in English as a subject from the early years to tertiary education. The poor competence in the English language may be due to the role of English as an independent subject taught in schools instead of a medium of instruction.

In response to the deterioration in English language proficiency nationwide, in 2003, the MOE took a radical change in implementing language policy for science and math. This means that the medium of instruction of both science and math was from Bahasa Malaysia to English. The primary aim of the policy was to increase the standard of the English language proficiency, but indirectly the policy shift was directed towards globalization and to develop a contemporary industrialised nation.

Rashid et al., (2017) affirmed that this controversial in the education reform in the language policy not only overwhelmed the educators, thus it had a negative impact towards the pupils resulting to poor academic achievements in both the subjects in the rural zones (Gill, 2012). In addition, the schoolteachers were not equipped to teach math and science subject in English and had poor proficiency level in English language skills.

In response to the failure in the policy, in 2012 the MOE reversed the policy, where the English language was given a recognition and Bahasa Malaysia was the predominant language used in the education system and a symbol of national unity. English for teaching maths and science was replaced and implemented with a new policy known as MBMMBI.

Further to this, Azman (2016) highlighted that the main aim of the reverse in policy was to have an innovative approach in learning and strengthening the English language as a second language (Ministry of Education Malaysia Blueprint, 2015(b): 62).

To set up the global standards and to strengthen the English Education system, Malaysia adopted to the global policy borrowing of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in context to the English language education. With this policy, the Malaysian ministry aimed to establish that all Malaysian pupils are competent in two languages upon completing their secondary school and higher education. Language competence was evaluated in accordance with the standard of curriculum and assessment of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

In addition, the framework underpins the theoretical background which was necessary in the dissemination of education policy. The first implementation in the language policy in Malaysia was a failure because of the quick fix decision using the “top-down” process by the government and was not based on any theoretical framework. Thus, the CEFR framework was found to be effective and was implemented into the current education system in Malaysia (Ministry of Education Malaysia Blueprint, 2015(b): 62).

The Council of Europe established cEFR in the year 2001, with an aim to provide a common basis for the learning of English language using the syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, assessments and textbooks used across Europe (Council of Europe, 2001 p.1.) With the explosion of the globalization, such as techno scape (movements of people all around the world), ideoscape (various ideas shared among the political level), finance scape (education used as the economic source) the framework was used not only in Europe but across the world. Vietnam was the first country in Southeast Asia to adopt the CEFR policy, however, the policy was a failure because of the nation’s circumstances and these factors are explained later in the article (Nguyen & Hamid 2015).

The CERF is a comprehensive learning approach on how the language learners should use language in their daily communication and the skills required to be developed in order for the learner to have good communication skills. These are done in the cultural context of the learners. Learners are assessed at each stage of learning. The framework comprises 6 levels. These are A1 and A2, B1 and B2, C1 and C2. In addition to these, 5 levels of communication skills are in the framework, listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing. Language proficiency was measured in regards to the 5 skills on a scale starting with A1, and progressing through A2, B1, B2, and C1 to C2. Proficiency in every ability was outlined at each level by a series of “can do” statements (Council of Europe, 2001).

The CEFR was used as a framework of reference in the English curriculum system in Malaysia: teaching and learning, assessment, increased contact hours for English learning and the training of the teachers who were the main agents in the dissemination of the system. The implementation of the framework was carried out in four phase’s effective from the year 2013 and will end in the year 2028. The program is predicted to develop teaching and learning to surface the quality for assessment and teacher training by 2025.

All these phases were carried out as per the Malaysia Education Blueprint guidelines (2013–2025). The government formed a committee known as ELSQC to plan and make sure that these agendas in the framework were implemented efficiently for the next 10 years (Don et al., 2015). It was compulsory for all teachers to attend the training provided by the Master trainers appointed by the MOE.

The first phase of the framework was implemented in the structural changes (2015-2016) in the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment across the universities in Malaysia (Don et al., 2015). The ELSQC conducted training programs and workshops in all public universities in Malaysia explaining the process of current reform in English education following the CEFR framework. University students were then trained to be the Master trainers in disseminating the program.

The second phase of the framework was in implementing and monitoring the changes (2017-2020). Focuses on the development in phases 1 and implementing these efforts and the monitoring of how these were disseminated. Course material with contents suitable for the Malaysian context and classrooms were developed. Teachers were consistently monitored in their professional skills. All existing teachers and graduates were assessed based on the CEFR skill scale. English teachers were monitored in terms of their language skill and communicative skills. All teachers intending to teach the English language in schools must meet a certain level following the scale in the CEFR. The standardised benchmark will be reviewed yearly to make sure the teaching standard of the teachers. Students’ performances are graded and compared to the benchmark set by the framework. Data analysis is done to make sure the comparisons of the grades among students.

Final phases are the post phase (2026-2028) where the CEFR framework will be validated to the appropriateness to the Malaysian context. The final phases will decide if the framework was a success in terms of the teaching materials, textbooks, teacher training, curriculum, pedagogy, etc. Though the reform is found to have a positive impact on the Malaysian education system but several factors and future challenges are to be considered ensuring the effectiveness of the policy. According to Aziz, Rashid, & Zainudin (2018), the high cost involved in imported textbooks may impact the economic and foreign cultural contents in the textbook may cause culture shock among students and teachers.

Besides Malaysia, Vietnam adopted the CEFR framework into their local context. The aim of the implementation was to heighten the language skills in teaching and to increase the learning standard of English in the country. According to a report in 2013, Vietnamese were categorised as low proficiency country in English (EF Education First, 2013). This perception was seen to be a hindrance of their social and economic development. In order to address these issues, the Vietnam government decided to adopt and implement the CEFR framework to the country with a belief that this implementation may restructure and upgrade the human capital internationally (Pham, 2010, p. 56). Though it is to be noted that the impact of the policy borrowing may require time and effort, thus the government proceeded with the unplanned ‘quick fix’ to resolve the crisis faced by the nation. CEFR was implemented in the year 2001 in Vietnam however the policy was unsuccessful due to several factors. Nguyen & Hamid (2015) found that the failures may be due to the socioeconomic condition and the English language was perceived as a foreign language, thus the framework was found not suitable to be implemented in Vietnam. The study identified the limited facilities and professional skills in addressing to the curriculum and inadequate teaching materials. Furthermore, the English language was not an official L2 in Vietnam to begin the ELT and finally, the teachers were not facilitated with proper teacher training to perform professionally. Teachers had to spend more time in their communication skills than perfecting their language skills. Hence, teachers faced all these challenges and were not able to disseminate the framework as per plan.

Similarly, to upgrade the economic growth and the shift to an industrialised and modern outlook Taiwan adopted to CEFR framework as a source to achieve its nations target. All students from primary, secondary schools to university levels were all required to participate in the implementation. Taiwan is well known for its exam orientated culture and exams are considered as an important assessment (Wu & Wu, 2007). According to Wu (2012), the framework was used as an important tool for assessment, thus the learning and teaching domain was not addressed. This was perceived as a major obstacle as the learner was not able to perform to the benchmark level, particularly in the communication skills. In addition, English as a foreign language and the teachers were found to be struggling in their communication skills. There was a lack of supervision and coordination in disseminating the framework in the teaching materials and pedagogy. Professional trainers were not assigned to train the teachers and guide them through the framework. Hence, the framework failed to be implemented as planned by the government.

Unlike Taiwan and Vietnam, the Malaysia MOE appointed the team known as ELSQC, to supervise and monitor all the projects relating to the CEFR framework as to ensure that all implementation of the project is consistent with the Malaysian Blue Print. In addition, the ELSQC has to ensure consistency in the quality of teaching and teachers. Similarly, teachers should be encouraged to participate in the training session to further develop and master their professional skills. Though Malaysia had gone through faces in education reform, the CEFR was perceived to have a better outcome in the future. As the CEFR implementation is still ongoing and a new, consistent monitoring and support must be given to teachers and involved personnel to disseminate the project. Teachers may anticipate challenges over the curriculum and learning materials, hence the ELSQC plays a vital role in resolving these issues.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.