English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

INTRODUCTION

School students ability (or inability) to use English effectively in real-life settings is a topic usually argued about. Based on these arguments, it is safe to assume that Malaysian students are expected to be able to apply the skills learned in English language lessons for actual interaction outside the classrooms. It is a known fact that in Malaysia, teachers are bound by the specifications of the syllabus document prepared by Curriculum Development Centre, Ministry of Education when conducting their classes. They usually set their objectives and plan their activities based on the prescribed content of the syllabus. Since the expectation is on students capability to use English in their everyday lives, English lessons in schools must prepare students to acquire these skills. Since teaching is conducted based on the prescription of the syllabus document, there is a need to study the document to determine the focus of teaching and learning of English in Malaysia. It would not be fair for us to expect students to be able to interact effectively in English if they are not actually prepared to acquire such skills while in school. The analysis of the syllabus document answers the following question: What type of syllabus and which pedagogical approaches to English language teaching and learning are represented in the Malaysian ESL syllabus document? THE MALAYSIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL ESL SYLLABUS DOCUMENT The Secondary School English Language syllabus in Malaysia was first introduced in 1988. The current syllabus that is used in schools was published in 2003 by the Malaysian Curriculum Development Centre, Ministry of Education. It has been developed for students in Malaysian secondary schools starting from Form One (aged 13) to Form Five (aged 17).
18

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

The Malaysian Secondary School English Language syllabus states that the objectives of learning English is to enable learners to: i. form and maintain relationships through conversation and correspondence; take part in social interactions; and obtain goods and services; ii. obtain, process and use information from various audio-visual and print sources; and present the information in spoken and written form; iii. listen to, view, read and respond to different texts and express ideas, opinions, thoughts and feelings imaginatively and creatively in spoken and written form; and iv. show an awareness and appreciation of moral values and love towards the nation. (Curriculum Specifications, 2003:1) The above objectives suggest that the English language is taught in Malaysian secondary schools as a means to achieve some of the purposes which correspond to Richards & Rodgers (2001) functional view of language the view that language is a vehicle for the expression of functional meaning (21). Based on these objectives, it may be assumed that the focus in classrooms is to get students to practice various ways of using language for communicative purposes through written or spoken language, as can be seen for example in objective (i); to form and maintain relationships through conversation and correspondence; take part in social interactions; and obtain goods and services (Curriculum Specifications, 2003:1). Students are also expected to show abilities to read and listen for information in order for them to be able to use English for communication as demonstrated, for instance, in objective (ii); obtain, process and use information from various audio-visual and print sources; and present the information in spoken and written form (Curriculum Specifications 2003:1). The emphasis on function as shown in objectives (i), (ii) and (iii), suggests that the syllabus adopts Breens (1987) functional syllabus which stresses the importance of learning a language for
19

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

the purposes of achieving communicative competence. In addition, the emphasis on appreciation of moral values and love towards the nation in the fourth objective conforms to Breens (2001) idea that a syllabus is a contextualized document as it relates to educational settings and society. The fourth objective suggests that teaching and learning of English in Malaysia should be able to help students to be aware of the context in which they live. As such, it could be asserted that the content and the specification of the Malaysian Secondary School English Language Syllabus may have been constructed to reflect the context of the Malaysian society. All four objectives also suggest that in classrooms, the English language may be presented in an analytic manner exposing students to language which they can use for communication, rather than in a synthetic way teaching linguistic forms in an accumulative manner until students build up the whole structure of language (Wilkins, 1976 and Lawrence, 1995). This characteristic can be traced in, for example, the first objective in which students are to learn English so that they can use it in a context where they can form and maintain relationships. Given that the objectives of the Malaysian Secondary School English Language syllabus suggest an analytic manner of language presentation, one implication of this orientation is that it would lead to the focus on use rather than usage of language (Widdowson, 1978). Use refers to the emphasis on getting students to produce language appropriately for different social interactions (Widdowson, 1978). Usage on the other hand, focuses only on getting students to produce correct forms of language (Widdowson, 1978). For example, a focus on use may require students to be involved in communicative activities such as exchanging information about a topic of interest. In this kind of activity, the students main intention would be to get the information regarding the topic conveyed to all participants involved in the activity. In the classrooms, the students should get the opportunity to practice using language that resembles the way they may use it in actual contexts. This means that whether or not the language students use to convey the information is grammatically correct may not be of
20

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

utmost importance. On the other hand, when students are engaged in usage focused activities, the priority would be on producing the correct form of sentences or utterances with, possibly, minimal communicative intention, if any. Because the stated objectives of the Malaysian Secondary School English Language Syllabus may be seen to promote a functional view of language, it may be assumed that many of the activities that would take place in Malaysian English language classrooms would involve students in various activities where they need to display ability to use language appropriately for communicative purposes. In addition to a focus on use rather than usage, an analytic language presentation may also result in more cognitive rather than mechanical activities in classrooms. Cognitive activities according to Lawrence (1995:79) are those activities in language learning which require the learner to think creatively as opposed to mechanical activities where all that students need to produce is repetition of responses to given stimuli. It is stated in the third syllabus objective that students should be able to use language to express ideas, opinions, thoughts and feelings imaginatively and creatively (Curriculum Specifications, 2003:1). This objective suggests that in the classrooms, teachers activities would not focus on getting students to, for example, memorize different grammatical rules. Instead, students would be geared towards producing language which may help them to use it for real life purposes. Based on these syllabus objectives, it may be assumed that the activities in Malaysian English language classes would be designed to achieve the purposes of learning English for communication. These activities are specified in the Learning Outcomes and Specifications section. One example of the activities suggested in this section is Talking about oneself such as past experiences and preferences in clothes, sports, music, movies and idols (Curriculum Specification, 2003:18). This activity would seem to resonate with the first objective of forming and maintaining relationship through conversations and correspondences. I suggest that a relationship exists between what the objectives specify on the one hand and the activities in that students are expected to engage in on the other during teaching and learning.
21

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

In addition to the objectives and the learning outcomes and specifications, the syllabus also specifies the language content that students need to learn. This content is divided into four main sections grammar, suggested sentence patterns, sound system and word list. The presence of prescribed language content to be taught to students relates to Breens (2001:151) notion of syllabus as a document that may provide a clear framework of knowledge and capabilities selected to be appropriate to overall aims as well as Continuity and a sense of direction in classroom work for teachers and students. In other words, the specification of content in the syllabus document should also serve as a guide for Malaysian English language teachers in planning their lessons. Even though the objectives of the syllabus suggest an inclination towards the functional view of language, the language content section is presented separately from the Learning Outcomes and Specifications section. For example, the grammar section consists of a list of grammatical items that students need to learn as can be seen from the following excerpt:

(Curriculum Specifications, 2003:22)

Figure 1 Language Content: Grammatical Items

22

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

These items are not listed as part of the objectives or the activities suggested. In other words, there is no specific reference to when and how Nouns or Articles need to be taught to students while engaging in the suggested activities. Similarly, the word list section consists of a list of words which may be introduced to students during teaching and learning as presented in the following excerpt: Based on Figure 2, it may be assumed that these words are chosen at random as there is no apparent pattern either thematically or semantically. There is also no specific reference as to how these words should be introduced to students in classrooms. In addition to Grammatical Items and Word List, the syllabus document also provides a specific list of the English language sound system that students need to learn. In addition, features such as stress and intonation patterns are also presented as demonstrated in the excerpt that follows:

(Curriculum Specifications, 2003: 31)

Figure 2 Language Content: Word List

23

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

(Curriculum Specifications, 2003: 28)

Figure 3 Language Content: The Sound System

The instruction under the sound system section states: Armed with the knowledge of how letters and combination of letters are to be sounded, students should then make an attempt to apply the knowledge of these sounds in speech (Curriculum Specifications, 2003:28). This suggests that teachers should first introduce students to, for example, the consonants and the vowels individually before students are allowed to combine these sounds for pronunciation practice in actual speech. The fact that the language content section is presented as a separate item from the objectives indicates, I suggest, a tendency towards Richards & Rodgers (2001) structural view of language the view that language is a system of structurally related elements for the coding of meaning (21). This would imply that in the context of the Malaysian English language teaching and learning, the ability to produce accurate forms of language may be considered as more important than the ability to produce socially appropriate language. As such, the English language may not be presented in an analytic manner as would appear to be implicit by the objectives, but, rather, in a synthetic manner. The synthetic manner of language presentation
24

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

may, thus, result in a focus on usage rather than use, mechanical rather than cognitive activities and deductive rather than inductive approach in the teaching of grammar rules. This may also mean that the Malaysian ESL syllabus document (Curriculum Specifications, 2003) embraces the characteristics of Breens (1987) formal syllabus which focuses on harnessing students ability to produce accurate forms of language. The stress on the teaching and learning of grammar, vocabulary and the sound system of English suggests that there is an awareness of how the knowledge about the different linguistic items may help students notice the differences between their language productions to the ones which are considered accurate (Ellis, 1993). From the above analysis, it is suggested that the focus of the teaching and learning of English in the Malaysian ESL syllabus document (Curriculum Specifications) is on both functions and forms. The focus on functions can be observed in the section that specifies the objectives that need to be achieved as well as the activities that teachers and students need to engage in classrooms. The focus on forms is observed in the section that lists all the language items that students have to learn, but, importantly, there seems to be no link between these two sections. This lack of linking leads to the discussion below that focuses on issues arising from my analysis of the syllabus document.
ISSUES ARISING

Having analysed the Malaysian ESL syllabus document (Curriculum Specifications, 2003), there are two main issues that I highlight here. The first concerns a possible mismatch between the syllabus intention and syllabus implementation in classrooms. The second issue points to a potential conflict within the syllabus document as a result of the focus on both language functions and language forms.

25

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

A MISMATCH? What emerges from the foregoing analysis is a possible mismatch between the syllabus intention as reflected in the official Malaysian ESL syllabus document (Curriculum Specifications, 2003) and its implementation by teachers. This mismatch may be the case because of the attempt to harness a communicative methodology to a grammatical or structural syllabus (Willis, 1990:2). Even though the stated objectives of the Malaysian Secondary School English Language Syllabus reflects a functional view of language, the presentation of the language content section displays a tendency towards a structural view of language. For example, one of the objectives of the Malaysian ESL syllabus document (Curriculum Specifications, 2003) is to enable students to use language to form and maintain relationships, thus implying that the focus in classrooms should be on getting students to practice various language functions so that they can achieve this particular aim. One of the suggested activities in the syllabus in response to this objective is for students to talk about their interest in music and clothes. At this stage, there seems to be a harmonious relationship between the objective and the activity as both carry communicative value. Nevertheless, given the observed tendency for the focus on accurate language forms, the main question that arises is whether or not teachers would actually focus on the students exchange of ideas within the activity as implemented in the classroom. According to Willis (1990), there is a tendency that teachers may place an emphasis on the students ability to produce accurate forms of language even though the activities are created for communicative purposes and interactional exchanges. In other words, the activities may not be truly communicative but simply vehicles for the practice of forms. As such, when Malaysian students are talking about their interests in music for instance, would their teachers focus on their ability to express themselves appropriately in that situation or would they pay more attention to the accuracy of their language?

26

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

The mismatch may be further intensified by the existence of what Johnson (1989:9) claims as hidden syllabuses. He states that,
In many education systems the key question for students, teachers, parents, school administrators, and even inspectors is not Are students gaining in communicative competence? but, Are they on course for the examination?

The above statement suggests that besides the aims specified in the syllabus document, there may exist other aims, albeit implicit, which may not be stated in the document but are expected by the general public. As a result, even though the specifications in the syllabus focus on communicative ability, when it comes to teaching and learning in classrooms, teachers may focus more on fulfilling the objectives of the hidden syllabuses such as passing the examinations. The effect of examinations on teaching and learning (known as washback effect) is pervasive (Rea-Dickins & Scott, 2007 and Alderson & Wall, 1993). According to Rea-Dickins & Scott (2007), examinations affect both, the content of teaching and methodology even though evidence shows the former suffers more effects than the latter. This means that if passing the examination is considered important by both teachers and students, the syllabus specifications may not be implemented in actual classroom practices. Even though Johnson coins it as a hidden syllabus, in Malaysia it may not be hidden at all. It is widely accepted that getting straight As during major examinations is desirable. Schools all over the country strive hard to achieve this. During the announcement of PMR result (2008), various newspapers reported that school principals whose school achieved excellent results, set up special programme in their schools in which students did nothing much but practice on the past years questions. This situation suggests that even though the syllabus specifications clearly state the objectives of the teaching and learning of English in Malaysia, teachers, parents and students are more concerned with getting good results in the examination. When these people discuss the result of the examination, all they talk about is the grade
27

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

A or B or D. They do not ask whether those students who scored an A for their English subject for example, could actually communicate effectively in the English language as presecribed in the syllabus document. In one of the interviews I conducted for my research (Maizatulliza, 2008), one teacher claims that she cannot do much in her class because her hands are tied by the syllabus. The question that arises here is, which syllabus? Is she tied by the specifications of the syllabus document or is she tied by the specifications of the so called hidden syllabus the examination?
THE CONFLICT

The conflict within the Malaysian ESL syllabus document (Curriculum Specifications) exists as the language content section is presented separately from the specification of objectives and activities. This conflict may be illustrated, for example, by looking at the grammar section of the syllabus document. The grammatical items, though listed separately, are supposed to be taught in context as it is clearly stated in the syllabus that Teachers are encouraged to teach these grammatical items in the context of topics (Curriculum Specifications, 2003: 22, see Figure 1). This instruction for teachers suggests that students should be exposed to the contextualized use of language with the implication that grammar may be taught in an inductive manner. Inductive grammar teaching requires the learner to come to an understanding of, and formulate, a rule after seeing it in use (Lawrence, 1995:79). This corresponds with the stated objectives of the syllabus because the main focus is on the functions of language rather than on forms. It may be assumed that during teaching and learning, teachers may engage students in activities which enable them to learn about language forms while participating in functionfocused activities (i.e. learn about past tense when relating their experience during the last school holidays). However, the syllabus guidance also states that If extra practice is required for better understanding or retention, items can
28

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 17-30 ISSN 1823 6820

be taught in isolation (Curriculum Specification, 2003:22, see Excerpt 2.1). This provides us with an indication of a deductive approach to grammar teaching, defined by Lawrence (1995:79) as the teaching of rules in which learners are given a rule and told to apply it in exercise. Even though the instructions given to teachers state that grammar should not be taught in isolation unless it is necessary, there is a conflict here as the specifications of objectives and activities in the syllabus do not illustrate how these grammatical items may be integrated.
CONCLUSION

In this paper, I presented an analysis of the Malaysian ESL syllabus document as the first step to understand what may take place in Malaysian ESL classrooms. The conflict in the specifications of the syllabus document may be the reason that affects Malaysian students performances in using English. Because the focus of teaching and learning of English is not clearly stated in the syllabus document, there is a tendency for teachers to focus on a clearer objective passing the examination. This may explain why some students who scored an A grade in their SPM are not proficient English language users. These students may have learned English only to pass the examination rather than aiming to use it for actual communicative purposes. This analysis is far from complete because having analysed the syllabus, the next thing to do is to conduct an observation in the classroom in order to verify whether the conflicts discussed in this paper actually exist. I believe that this documentary analysis is important for researchers who intend to embark on an empirical study carried out in Malaysian ESL classrooms.

29