Brief History of TeSME Programme in Malaysia Using English language medium to teach a subject in Malaysian classroom is not a new

thing which needed broad publicity. If we refer to the history of Malaysian education, we can notice the usage of English language in Malaysian education system dated back from 1961 until 1979. The re-adoption of English language as the medium instruction for Mathematics and Science subjects is in line with the global emergence of scientific and technological development. As a policy enacted by the government, teachers need to abide to the decision without any challenge. PPSMI (also known as ETeMS) was conceptualized by the Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's and was introduced in 2003 as a government policy aimed at improving students' command of English in primary schools and secondary schools. The policy emphasizes the Malaysian Cabinet has decided to use English as the medium to teach math and science, leading the implementation of PPSMI held from July 19, 2002, they will start in the academic session 2003 2008. Beginning 2003, all primary and secondary schools, introduced Sixth Form Under the new curriculum, the Science, Mathematics and English through lessons with a laptop computer and LCD projector. Surprisingly, for the Chinese-medium schools SJK (C), Mathematics and Science subjects, can be taught in Chinese and English. The KBSR syllabi was reformed and this will continue until the year 2008 and 2007 respectively, when all primary school pupils will answer the questions of science and mathematics in English for the first time in the UPSR and SPM. However, STPM students will answer the questions of Mathematics and Science in English from 2004. The implementation of the teaching and learning of Mathematics and Science in English has created quite a stir in education. It is argued that this reform program will explain the position of Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of instruction in schools. Moreover, as the English language is weak among students, especially students of primary school pupils in Primary One. In addition, many teachers of Science and Mathematics who are familiar with Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction will be in trouble when switching into English during the teaching of Mathematics and Science. However, in order to increase efficiency in the use of English teachers to teach science and mathematics, the Ministry of Education and the State Education Department to take steps to organize in-service training for teachers of Science and Mathematics. In addition, to encourage more teachers teach Science and Mathematics in English, incentive payment of 10% and 5% of teachers' salary each will be given as monthly allowance. The Cabinet on August 5, 2009 has agreed to implement the mechanism of "soft landing" for the Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics to help students overcome the policy shift. The mechanism of "soft landing" is as follows:

Teaching and Learning Science and Mathematics can be implemented in bilingual from 2010 in primary and secondary schools. (the use of Bahasa Malaysia and English in the Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in primary school and secondary school, and the use of the mother tongue and the English language for SJK (C) and SJK (T)). The policy commenced in 2012 for students in Year 1, Year 4, Form 1 and Form 4. For Mathematics UPSR examination will continue to be implemented in bilingual until 2016. The PMR for Mathematics and Science subjects will continue to be implemented in bilingual until 2015.

This means, Malaysia in national schools and fluency and native language for SJK (C) and SJK (T) in the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics will be fully implemented, including the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in secondary schools from 2016. However, the teaching of Science and Mathematics for Form 6 and Matriculation will remain in English. The Ministry of Education had formed a nation-wide training for Mathematics, Science and English teachers to overcome the problems faced regarding the implementation of PPSMI. However, the main stakeholders; the students were not getting the same privilege as given for the teachers. The students were not supplied with adequate materials to support their learning thus denying their opportunities to progress along the inception of this program. Cummins (1986) suggested two levels to accommodate language learning proficiency; basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and CALP (cognitive academic language proficiency). According to Cuumins, the exploration of CALP is really beneficial in effectively performing Mathematics and Science teaching. CALP promotes the usage of language that is contextual-based and highly demanding of learners cognitive thinking. Bernama (2011) reported that 2011 school session for all students in marking the end of the Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI). Beginning this year, which is a year earlier than the 2012 that was announced, all the students in Year One will learn the two subjects in Bahasa Melayu in national schools. In the vernacular schools, the Science and Mathematics will be taught to students in their respective ethnic languages, namely Mandarin or Tamil. This reversal occurred after PPSMI last seven years since it was first introduced in 2003. However, the abolition of the PPSMI was announced in July 2009, is not welcomed by some, particularly those who are not convinced elite Malay ability to develop Malaysian nation. People see things from different perspectives. No matter how well we studied a specimen like PPSMI, there will always be a flaw in some stages of its implementation. It is up to the policy makers to give in or stand still in this issue as there will always be two sides of one coin.

Recent Findings on Issues Pertaining CBI Programme In a case where content plays a crucial role, the students mastery of contents has to be viewed as a primary objective. In the case of CBI programme for PPSMI, the mastery of English language is not placed in the witness stand. It is obvious here that the mastery of English language is not assessed accordingly even though the language is primarily exploited to convey the knowledge of Mathematics and Science to the learners. This has created a lot of problem which can arguably question the decision made of implementing it in the first place. The first issue which created quite a stir in Malaysia a few years back during the early stage of implementation would be the state of readiness among the stakeholders (teachers and learners). Since that Malaysia practices a top down approach in education policy inception, teachers opinion was denied thus resulting mixed principles in carrying out the programme. Ambigapathy and Revathi (2003) found out that the main problem encountered by teachers was in explaining concepts of Mathematics and Science in English where the textbook and multimedia courseware provided by Ministry was perceived as too brief and lack of inadequate examples thus making it less useful especially for Low English Proficiency students. The implementation of CBI approach in language learning must be in form of continuation where each modification or curriculum reform should facilitate the present existing curriculum and not in isolation. Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) ruled out a few language-driven programs such as total immersion, partial immersion, sheltered, adjunct and theme-based. Sheltered content instruction for L2 learners is the expectation of L2 learners to learn content apart from language used. This signifies the similarity of CBI approach being put into practice in PPSMI implementation. The second issue which should not be belittled as the impact caused had definitely transformed the way stakeholders perceived the whole inception of a CBI approach. The issue is highly associated with the content of the lesson. Jaafar (2010) concluded in his research that 70% of Malay students will not master concepts and knowledge in the long run, a prediction based on conjectures and invalid arguments. As a result of this issue, the nation witnessed the blossoming of a new industry where a publisher whom managed to simplify Mathematics and Sciences terminologies and concepts will triumph. Stict (1997) stated that CBI teaching should be perceived as improving general language learning outcomes apart from language teaching per se. According to Stict, language acquisition can be improved when integrated with content-based learning, but from what I have mooted out above learners will not be making any meaningful progress in language mastery if most of the concepts and terminologies used are being simplified along the way. One of the questions raised would be why only certain subject content needed a CBI approach and why not all other subjects like Geography, History or even Islamic Religions. The selective approach of only Mathematics and Science to be sheltered with English language was simply to accommodate the learning of Mathematics and Science and not improving second language acquisition like being mentioned by some politicians during the early stages of PPSMIs inception.

The third issue here lingers around the learners themselves. As discussed earlier, the teachers were of their state of readiness which leads to mixed principles in carrying out the teaching of CBI in their lessons. Another stakeholder with the same weightage would be the learners involvement in the process. Phillips (2009) in his Roundtable Report on PPSMI said that the implementation of CBI approach for PPSMI has led students to experience a dull life as the subjects (Mathematics and Science) are taught in English. This statement is supported by a research done by Catlin (2002) who suggested that Asian learners on CBI classes are not entirely satisfied of the marks they get for their English language subjects. These students also mentioned that their English language skills were also deteriorating after a series of CBI classes making them feeling less knowledgeable of the second language itself. This proved that the presence of teachers is highly important to guide these leaners but since that some teachers poses mixed principles of this instalment, students will be less motivated. Probable Reasons For The Failure of CBI Programme It is impossible for any researchers to identify the definite reason which caused the failure of any CBI programme. The justification is made simply because there are a lot of factors which contributed to the success or a failure of any CBI programme implementation. However, for this discussion, I will divide the probable factors into two groups; internal factors and external factors. Internal factors here involve primarily about the link between the materials and the activities involving the students. Students are the receiver in this implementation, although not the end user of the cycle. However, the success or failure of any CBI programme can empirically be assessed through the students performance. Therefore, the implementation of a CBI programme should benefit the students because they are bound to use the language outside the classroom compound. Regardless of how ideal it may be perceived, CBI implementation merely does not focus on language acquisition. Most probably some learners might feel that they are not improving in their second language acquisition or even worse when some of the learners think that CBI programme is a replacement for the present second language classes. The confusion heightens when the consolidation of difficult grammar points and the usage of low frequency words are integrated within the materials used. Chaudron (1988) said in his research that it is important to be aware that learners are not necessarily conscious in everything that they want, especially everything that involves language acquisition. Teachers as gatekeepers play important role in selecting appropriate materials which suits the level and purpose of the study. This can create a problem which leads to the failure of any CBI program if learners are not supplied with proper materials and references in which promote the sustainability of self-access learning beyond the four walls in the classroom. Another possible internal factor would be expectations of the instant outcome. Policy makers and other stakeholders might wrongly assume the result from the implementation of any CBI programme can be seen overnight. This wrong

perception can lead to a series of stressful circumstances for the teachers and the learners themselves. Miyazato (2001) through her study have found out that no corelation existed between English language proficiencies and motivational factors when linked to any content-based or non-content-based course. In a monolingual classroom, teacher and students might have exploited the usage of the first language even more compared to enriching their vocabulary on new words, phrases and terminologies in which might be a new experience for them. In addition, it would be quite difficult to simplify terms using second language approaches to cater the needs of low proficient users in the language. As for the external factor, it consists of something that is quite impossible to control because most probably the prior knowledge of every learners is different. Through CBI learning approach, the learners background knowledge should be of the utmost importance. If English language is to be used as the medium language for teaching the content of a certain subject, the present level of English language acquisition among the learners should be measured first. Short (1991) found out that among most of the EFL learners in Asia have little knowledge or lacking familiarity of the contents presented during a lesson. It proves that a learners background knowledge had to be determined before any implementation because the knowledge and culture practices of a second language will reflect the effectiveness of the lesson. Failure in comprehending towards the elements may result in a failure through the whole process. In some way, learners might feel that they were forced to learn through CBI approaches. Most of the weaker learners might resort into copying the prepared information without complete comprehension of what is being taught. Without nurturing the critical thinking among the learners, CBI learning approach can be moving toward a disaster. The second external factor is failure to understand the purpose of the applications where although the policy makers had ruled out specific objectives to be achieved. The learners and teachers need to understand the primary reason of CBI programme inception so that the teaching learning process can be a meaningful one for appropriate purpose. Swales (1990) said that tasks being developed for CBI classes should benefit the learners at large. If the learners fail to see the main purpose of the CBI programme, they might not focus seriously on the lesson. Teachers and learners must be briefed on the importance of the programme to facilitate their second language acquisition or even preparing them for the working sector. Due to lack of understanding of the primary objective, teachers and learners carry out the lesson without their conscience. Sometimes in a worst case scenario, teachers might opt to practice code-switching thus contribute to the failure of the CBI programme. Pedagogical Implications For The Future CBI Program Although through my discussion, it is evident that CBI programme does not promote self-access learning, an approach which can promote learner independence learning can be integrated into CBI approach. Beyond any doubt, CBI programme

has already succeeded through a variety of inceptions such as sheltered approach and content-centred syllabus. However, the discussion here focuses on the pedagogical implications for future CBI program. Pedagogically, CBI program is seen as another creative approach towards enhancing the percentage of second language acquisition apart from traditional teacher-centred syllabi. With the emergence of CLT, people value the messages conveyed through the content and not primarily on the accuracy of the language being used. This can be seen as another evidence that implementation of CBI program will remain as one approach to SLA in certain countries. The issue of preparing qualified teachers has been discussed extensively throughout most forums. Cloud (1998) reviewed that experience plays the most important part in preparing teachers for CBI compared to content-based knowledge. Policy makers should take note that the integration of content and language would be quite challenging for trainee teachers and more approaches of training on both content and language skills must be put into practice. It would be an impossible task to separate content and language. The most important question here is to find the best way to promote language acquisition using various genres. Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) agree that the promotion of language growth should be carried out by content-based educators and not by language teachers under the impression that language teachers lack of knowledge regarding the content. But, another argument here is that whether content-based teacher have mastered certain proficiency level of language acquisition? If content-based teachers are unable to instil language mastery in any of their lesson, CBI implementation will lead to a disastrous effect when put into practice in any future endeavour. Takagi and Tanabe (2007) supported that claim after they found out in their study that Japanese students English proficiency was not fully developed even after a certain period of CBI implementation in Japanese schools. Met (1991) viewed that content may be viewed by EFL teachers as a medium of instruction for English teachers to impart knowledge of L2 language which may be forgotten over time. As English teachers most probably use a variety of genres during their lessons, they may not view the content as something important which can be attributed in fulfilling the learners learning experiences. This attitude will lead to another danger in integrating CBI approach in promoting second language acquisition. Kinsella (1997) argued that CBI approach in language teaching will definitely deny the student-centred approach in teaching. CBI will lead to a teacher-centred approach whereby the teachers need to waste a lot of time to find authentic materials which can support the lesson and some teachers might neglect the approach of student-centred learning in which students are encouraged to learn on their own. Even if the teachers had innovatively found a way to infuse student-centred learning in his/her CBI classes, but for students who have not mastered the foundation of L2 language, it will definitely be demotivating for them to proceed with

the lesson. As a result, most of the important aspects of language-learning areas will be left unattended. Shah (2003) found out that teachers using CBI approach in TeSME inception in Malaysia seemed to neglect the importance of grammar in their lesson and the existence of corrective feedback from the teachers is treated as awkwardly practiced during class. This is another proven research to show the importance of teachertraining courses should be done extensively to support L2 acquisition in a CBI class. Another interesting issue being brought up by Echevarria, Vogt and Short (2004) is the concern over concept learning. They supported the claim that decoding of second language is primarily important if teachers wanted their students to be coherent in understanding a concept. This means that imparting knowledge of a concept should be carried out in isolation regardless of the medium of language used. If the teacher finds it difficult for the students to understand a concept through L2, they may code-switch it in L1 for the sake of learning. Plenty of researches had been carried out in concern of CBI implementation but most of the result circle back to the relative issues being discussed earlier. Amelsvoort (2004) discovered that most EFL students were not satisfied with the progress of their English language acquisition which leads them to find additional courses beyond the classroom walls to accommodate their L2 learning. According to Amelsvoort, the extra effort shown by the students proved that learners wish for the CBI teachers to focus more on language during their lessons. Creese (2005) argued whereby the blame should be put on the content experts as the design of curriculum which fosters CBI does not take into account the present expertise of the teachers and the state of readiness among the students. The amount of time used for the preparation of materials to suit the learning process can be considered taxing by the teachers without full support from the content experts. Eventually, teachers will use their own discretion to infuse their own teaching principles which not conform to the underlying pedagogical principles set by the content experts. A surmountable amount of research had been made possible has consistently narrowed to support that argument that language proficiency is significant in enhancing content-based skills performances and the existence of a clear link between English language proficiency and CBI implementations. Based on this conclusion, Freeman & Freeman (1998) sum that many EFL teachers are under the impression that they would have to sacrifice content when teaching language in order for them to meet the demand of language acquisition. A drastic approach in implementing CBI integration in classroom-based teachings should only take place after extensive research has been carried out. According to Taba (2005), the first step in designing a new curriculum is to identify the needs of the stakeholders and in any process of new curriculum implementation; curriculum developers must take into account the opinions and demands from all stakeholders.

References Ambigapathy, P. and Revathi, R., (2003). Mathematics and science in English: teacher voice. Universiti Sains Malaysia. Amelsvoort, M. V. (2004). Building and content-based college course. Bulletin of the College of Foreign Studies, 27. Bernama. March 21, 2011. http://mymalaysiabooks.com/education2/content/view/ Brinton, Donna M., Snow Marguerite A., and Wesche, Marjorie B., (1989). Contentbased second language instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Catlin, H. (2002). Language and/or content? Sustained content based education in English at a Japanese junior college. Bulletin of Morioka Junior College, 4. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cloud, Nancy. (1998). Teacher competencies in content-based instruction. In: Myriam met (ed) Critical Issues in Early Second Language Learning. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman-Addison Wesley. Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: a framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., and Short, D.J. (2004) making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.) New York: Pearson Education. Freeman, Y.S., & Freeman, D.E. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Jaafar, J. (2010). Research design of PPSMI flaws. http://www2.uitm.edu.my/drjj/ Kinsella, K. (1997). Moving from comprehensible input to learning to learn in CBI. White Plains, NY: Longman. Met, M. (1991). Learning language through content: learning content through language. Foreign Language Annals, 24(4). Phillips, J. A. (2009). Roundtable discussion on PPSMI. SEDAR Institute. Shah, M.I.A. (2003) language learning content-based English as a second language (ESL) Malaysian classrooms. Journal of Language and Learning, 1(2). Short, D. (1991). Integrating language and content instruction: strategies and techniques. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 7. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/pigs/pig7.htm Snow, Marguerite Ann, M. Met and F Genesee (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (2).

Stict, T.G. (1997). The theory behind content-based instruction. Focus on Basics. http://www.ncsall.net/?id=433

Swales, M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Taba, H. (2005).
Takagi, T. & Tanabe, N. (2007). High school freshmens responses to home economics conducted in a non-native variety of English: a three-year survey on content-based instruction in Japan. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9(2).

The Malaysian Insider. January 19, 2011. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/breakingviews/