Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper reviews reforms related to English language teaching in the Malaysian education system. It begins by tracing the history of Malaysia as a former British colony which has had significant influences on the status of English in the country. Then, it reviews the key educational reforms which have mainly centred on language policy, thus putting pressure on teachers who are at the front-line for the implementation of the new reforms. This is followed by the discussion on the changing approaches in the curriculum and methodology of English language teaching. This paper also reviews the formal professional development programmes which reveal that Malaysian teachers are not always given adequate and continuous support to cope with the ongoing reforms. The paper concludes that even though the changes in policies aimed to improve the quality of education, implementation was often made in haste, causing a loud public outcry from teachers.

Keywords

Educational reforms Malaysia English language teaching social support teacher professional development educational policy

Introduction

In preparing students for the future, there have been various educational reforms in many parts of the world including the Asia-Pacific Region. Some of these reforms are documented by Albury and Aye (2016), Lund (2014), O'Neill (2015) and Pherali and Garratt (2014). Pherali and Garratt for instance, put forth how the education system in Nepal went through reforms to focus on the construction of national identity whilst Lund highlights the changes in the policy related to the role of sports in New Zealand secondary education. In relation to English language teaching, major reforms have been observed in the non-English-speaking regions where the language is gaining its prominence such as Africa (see Coyne, 2015), Korea (see Moodie and Nam, 2016), Japan (see Butler, 2015) and Malaysia (see Selvaraj, 2010). As pointed out by Spolsky and Moon (2014: 345), ‘the recent accelerated spread of English language education in Asian regions has been phenomenal’ and Asian English users represent the highest number of English users in the world. Even though the reforms of English language teaching (ELT) in Malaysia have been documented by Selvaraj (2010), his review does not cover the most recent developments and ignores the teacher professional development programmes which are closely related to the ELT reforms. This paper attempts to fill in this gap by providing a more comprehensive and recent review of ELT reforms in the country.

Malaysia as a former British colony

In order to provide a context for this paper, this section briefly recounts the history of Malaysia, its geography, demography and the languages used in the country. As a former British colony with close diplomatic relations with the UK, Malaysia has a high regard for the English language. Keeping up the standard of the language has been one of the government's main concerns.

Malaysia has a long and complicated history. The Portuguese were the first European colonial powers to establish themselves in Malaysia, capturing Malacca in 1511, followed by the Dutch. However, it was the British who ultimately secured their hegemony. The Federation of Malaya gained its independence in 1957 after being a British colony for about two centuries. Eight years later, in 1963, Malaysia was formed from the Federation of Malaya (now known as the Malay Peninsula) and two British protectorate states in Borneo, Sabah and Sarawak (now known as East Malaysia).

During the British colonization, infrastructure development mostly focused on the central and southern regions. These two regions continue to be the most developed regions in the country where students have better exposure to English compared to those in the less developed east coast and northern regions. As pointed out by Rashid, Vethamani, and Rahman (2010) the teaching of English in these less developed regions can be very challenging due to students' poor proficiency and the lack of facilities in schools. In these areas, it is likely that the teachers may be in need of support given the likely difficulties in their teaching situation.

As of December 2014, the total population was 30,374,472. The Malays and other indigenous peoples who make up 67.4 per cent of the population play a dominant role politically and form part of a grouping known as bumiputera (the son of the soil); Chinese form 24.6 per cent; and Indians form 7.3 per cent of the population in the country (Department of Statistics, 2014). The existence of multi-ethnic groups in the country nowadays has its roots in the large scale immigration practised by the British during the colonial era when labourers from China were brought in to work in the tin industry whilst labourers from India were imported to work on rubber plantations. The multi-ethnic society in the country is another factor which makes the effort to maintain English language standards challenging. Contemporary newspaper articles raise the concerns of each ethnic group, especially the Chinese Malaysians, who fear their mother tongue will suffer because of the special emphasis placed on English in the education system (e.g. Jessy, 2014; Utusan, 2013). For instance, the Chinese vernacular schools refuse to accept the extension of contact hours for English language learning proposed by the Ministry of Education (MoE) as they feel that this damages Mandarin as a subject (Tahir, 2013). Consequently, English language teachers posted to these schools face time constraints in the sense that they have to continue teaching the language with shorter contact hours compared to the hours in national and Tamil vernacular schools.

The majority of the population speak Malay, which is an Austronesian language spoken by Malay people living in the Malay Peninsula, the Philippines, southern Thailand, Sumatra, Riau and parts of Borneo. Bahasa Malaysia, which is a standardized form of the Malay language, is the official language of the country whilst English is the official second language. Chinese Malaysians mainly speak a dialect of Chinese from the southern provinces of China. Other common dialects in the country are Cantonese, Mandarin and Hokkien. On the other hand, Indian Malaysians mainly speak Tamil. Nonetheless, middle and upper-middle class Malaysians usually speak English as their first language as pointed out by Basree (2007). Since only those from middle and upper-middle class families speak English as their first language, the majority of students are not proficient in English, which has made the teaching of the language taxing (Rashid, 2016).

Reform of Malaysian education system

Since Malaysian independence, English language teachers have conducted their classes against a backdrop of continual education reforms. The most significant of these reforms was the change of the medium of instruction from English to Bahasa Malaysia in 1961, which has affected the standard of English in the country. The change of the medium of instruction produces an education system which is more ‘nationalistic in nature’ (Pandian, 2002: 36); however, Mohamed et al. (2008) point out that pupils' proficiency has decreased following the change of medium of instruction. Ironically, the media blame English language teachers for the decreasing standards rather than the system itself (e.g. Aruna, 2014; Jalleh, 2013). A similar phenomenon happens in Thailand where English language teachers are blamed for the poor standard of English in the country (see Baker, 2008).

Recent reforms in the Malaysian education system have mainly centred on language policy, which has put more pressure on English language teachers as they are at the front-line for the implementation of the new reforms. The most controversial reform is the policy that changed the medium of instruction for teaching Mathematics and Science from Bahasa Malaysia to English. This policy, referred to as ETeMS (acronym for English for Teaching Mathematics and Science) was first implemented in 2003. The main aim was not to improve the mastery of the English language but to enable the students to learn Mathematics and Science in its most significant lingua franca to prepare them to compete in the era of globalization and hence improve the standard of human capital in the country. Even though the focus of the policy was not on English as a subject, it added to the pressure put on English language teachers as they had to ensure that the students reached a particular level of proficiency for them to be able to use the language in Mathematics and Science classes. As pointed out by Norfaizah and Marzilah (2010), those who disagreed with the policy were mainly worried that the less proficient students would perform badly in Mathematics and Science due to their difficulties in understanding the medium of instruction. Furthermore, teachers who were not proficient and were not trained to teach Mathematics and Science through English found it difficult to deliver the contents (Selvaraj, 2010). However, these teachers appreciate the support given to them by English language teachers in the school (Tan, 2011). Some schools have introduced the buddy system to ensure the success of ETeMS where language teachers serve as language resource persons to the Mathematics and Science teachers (Tan, 2011). In the attempt to cope with the challenges of this new policy, teachers engage in collaborative works which are useful for their professional development.

The ETeMS policy was implemented in stages starting with the beginning of the 2003 school session at both the primary and secondary level. Those who were in Standard One and Form 1 in that year became the first cohorts under this new system. It was then fully implemented for all secondary students in 2007 and for all primary students in 2008. In 2012, four years after ETeMS had been fully implemented at all levels of education, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, who was the new Minister of Education under a new Prime Minister, abolished the policy hence reversing the medium of instruction back to Bahasa Malaysia. The MoE argued that this reversal was needed as ETeMS had resulted in lack of mastery of Mathematics and Science as reflected in the results of the national exams where the number of students who scored good grades for the two subjects had decreased significantly. Among other reasons for the abolition of ETeMS policy, as stated in the MoE's official website, are:

Studies conducted by various parties found that the implementation of ETeMS was not carried out as desired. Studies also disclosed that pupils found it difficult to learn Mathematics and Science in English as they were not proficient in the English Language. This has forced teachers to teach both the subjects in the Malay Language as this helped pupils understand the subject matter better. This problem was prevalent in the rural as well as urban areas. If the ETeMS policy is continued, a larger number of our pupils will fail to master Mathematics and Science and will eventually be left behind. Our studies have shown that most schools have carried out the teaching and learning of Mathematics and Science in the Malay Language.

(Ministry of Education, 2015: para 4)

The abolition of ETeMS received objections from middle and upper-middle class parents who favoured the policy and proposed that students should be given options whether to learn Mathematics and Science in English or Bahasa Malaysia. The parents believe that ETeMS has an important role to play in further developing proficient students so that they can keep pace with the fast developments in science and technology (Nor et al., 2011). The proficient students themselves reported that they have a better understanding of scientific concepts when taught in English (Ihsan, 2012). Nevertheless, the proposal to give options to students was not taken up, reflecting the ‘top-down’ approach to reforms in the Malaysian education system, where every decision is solely made by policy-makers. The government's constant ‘tinkering’ with the education system is confounding to many stakeholders, including teachers, as the changes are implemented without input from relevant parties.

English for Teaching Mathematics and Science was replaced in 2012 with a new policy known as MBMMBI, the acronym for Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia Mengukuhkan Bahasa Inggeris (Malay for Upholding the Malay language and strengthening the English language). Under the MBMMBI policy, which aims to ‘ensure the usage of Malay language as a medium of communication in all schools, and to ensure that each child can master both Malay and English languages well and fluently’ (Ministry of Education, 2015: para 1) the medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science has been reverted to the Malay language. The introduction of MBMMBI is useful for the majority of students in the country who are struggling to master Mathematics and Science subjects due to the limited English proficiency. It is believed to narrow the gap in the achievement of Science and Mathematics subjects between rural and urban schools caused by the implementation of EteMS (Ahmad et al., 2012). Ahmad et al. (2012) who surveyed the opinions of 441 students reveal that the students are taking a positive standpoint in upholding the Malay language and at the same time strengthening their command of the English language. However, this new policy returned the education system to its post-1961 landscape, where the Malay language is used as the medium of instruction for all subjects and English is given special emphasis. This leaves the Philippines and Brunei to be the only two countries in Southeast Asia with bilingual policy at school level (see Vu, 2012) whilst Singapore remains the only country in the region which uses English as the sole medium of instructions (Chew, 2005).

With the implementation of MBMMBI, extra contact hours have been allocated for Malay and English, and from 2016, English will be a must-pass subject for the award of the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) (Malay for Malaysian Certificate of Education). Even though making English as a must-pass subject gives additional pressure to the teachers, it is a positive effort taken by the MoE to ensure that students work hard to master the language. Whilst the termination of ETeMS received objections from middle and upper-middle class parents of all races, they did not object to the introduction of MBMMBI except for a minority of Chinese activists who viewed the extension of contact hours for English and Malay as not doing justice to Mandarin. Consequently, the additional contact hours are only to be implemented in national schools and Tamil vernacular schools.

Another recent reform that has had implications for English language teaching is the introduction of School Based Assessment (SBA) in primary and secondary education from 2011. This new policy has brought a significant change to the existing assessment system, which had received frequent criticism, mainly from academics and politicians, as having been too exam-oriented. After more than 50 years of having public examinations administered at the end of Standard Six (12-year-old students), Form Three (15-year-old students) and Form Five (17-year-old students), these examinations are set to be gradually abolished with the implementation of SBA.

Similar to the implementation of ETeMS, SBA was introduced in stages, beginning with primary Standard One (seven-year old students) in 2011 and secondary Form One (13-year-old students) in 2012. These students will no longer be sitting for the summative examinations, which have been replaced by continuous assessment carried out during the teaching and learning process using materials and instruments designed by students' own teachers, who will also grade the assessment. Learner achievements are measured by the teachers against a Performance Standard set by the MoE which determines what learners are expected to achieve. This marking system can be taxing for English language teachers in secondary schools as Rashid (2011) points out, many students still have limited vocabulary despite spending six years learning English in primary education. In contrast, the secondary school students are ‘expected to understand the grammar of the English language and be able to use it accurately [and] they are required to speak internationally intelligible English with correct pronunciation and intonation’ (Ministry of Education, 2002: 5).

School Based Assessment is an interesting policy as it gives ‘autonomy and due recognition for teachers to carry out formative and summative school-based assessment at their discretion’ (Ministry of Education, 2015: para 6) and it has been practised successfully in other countries, such as Finland and Canada. As highlighted by Mansor et al. (2013), SBA encourages teachers' and learners' personal progress, and develops positive attitudes towards teaching and learning and enhances leaners' collaborative skills through the various forms of continuous assessments in the classroom. However, its sudden implementation in Malaysia caused uproar. Neither teachers nor parents were given enough information about how it would work in practice. For example, Raman and Yamat, who conducted semi-structured interviews involving 17 English language teachers in three urban secondary schools, revealed that teachers viewed the motives of SBA positively but were ‘unhappy’ with its implementation which put them under ‘too much pressure’ (Raman and Yamat, 2014: 69). The majority of the teachers in the country felt overburdened since they had to prepare extra materials and documents. As required by the MoE, teachers have to prepare ‘a life-time database and store all information pertaining to pupils' progress, from Standard One to Form Five’ (Ministry of Education, 2015: para 8). Initially, the database needed to be prepared manually using a paper and file format, which meant that teachers had to spend most of their spare time in school arranging and sorting the documents. Only after many complaints from teachers was an online recording and storing system introduced. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Raman and Yamat (2014), teachers still found it hard to cope with this new online system due to internet access problems, especially for those teaching in rural areas.

Changing approaches to English language teaching (ELT) in Malaysia

The previous section looked at key educational reforms in general. This section looks at the associated reforms in the curriculum and methodology within the sphere of ELT in Malaysia. Selvaraj (2010) identified three phases of ELT curriculum reform based on instructional methods and approaches emphasized in ELT policies. However, we have found that the specific time frame within which policies emphasizing each method were introduced and ended is difficult to trace due to lack of information transparency.

English language teaching policies in Phase One (1957–1970) emphasized the use of different instructional methods: the Grammar Translation Method; Direct Method; and Situational Language Teaching (SLT) approaches. Memorizing grammar rules was the main technique employed in the classroom during the use of the Grammar Translation Method and little attention was given to speaking and listening (Selvaraj, 2010). Similarly, rote-memorization and the Grammar Translation Method were widely applied in the English language classroom in Thailand (Methitham, 2014) and Singapore (Chew, 2005) till the 1960s. As pointed out by Chew, ‘elsewhere in the English teaching world, the early sixties were the heyday of structural linguistics’ (Chew, 2005: 5).

Hussein highlights that the Grammar Translation Method was criticized as being ‘too methodical and arithmetical’ (Hussein, 2004: 1). Realizing that this method was ineffective in producing a workforce with effective communication skills, the government later switched to the Direct Method which, according to Stern (1983), emphasizes the use of the target language as a means of instruction and communication in the classroom by avoiding the use of translation. Thailand which was under the influence of United States of America shifted from the Grammar Translation Method to an army-based teaching approach, known as the Audio-Lingual Method (Methitham, 2014). Both the Direct Method and Audio-Lingual Method emphasize learners' oral ability. Similarly, Singapore changed its earlier emphasis on ‘high literary text to one which emphasized the oral text’ (Chew, 2005: 4). ELT developments in other Southeast Asian countries, such as Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and East Timor are ‘less well-documented’ (Vu, 2012: 59).

The Direct Method employed in Malaysia was found to be counterproductive as it led to many wasted hours of teachers trying to explain a single new word in English as use of the students' mother tongue was prohibited (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). Towards the end of Phase One, the Direct Method was replaced with the SLT approach which, according to Richards and Rodgers (1986), emphasizes the mastery of high frequency vocabulary. The change to SLT brought back the drilling technique employed during the Grammar Translation Method with typical lessons under the SLT approach involving repeating structural patterns through oral practice (Brown, 2000).

The ELT in Phase Two (1971–1990) emphasized the communicative approach and this is similar to the ELT development in Thailand (see Segovia and Hardison, 2009) and Singapore (see Vu, 2012). The main focus of this approach was on communicative competence, instead of linguistic competence where learners need to know underlying grammatical principles, how to use the language in a social context and how to combine utterances and communicative functions (Canale and Swain, 1980). This led to the use of ‘a functional syllabus’ organized according to the ‘functions the learner should be able to carry out in English, such as expressing likes and dislikes and offering and accepting apologies’ (Richards, 2006: 11). Typical activities in ELT classrooms in this phase were pair work, group work and oral exercises, whilst grammar rules were to be acquired indirectly during the communicative process (Richards, 2006: 11). In line with this approach, the examination format for English at SPM level was revised to include reading, writing and speaking (oral) components whilst listening skills remained untested.

Selvaraj (2010) points out that ELT policies in Phase Three (1991–present) emphasize the use of two different instructional approaches: Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in order to prepare students to cope with advancements in the field of science and technology; and the Aesthetic approach in order to inculcate reading habits and creative and critical thinking skills in students. This is in contrast to the recent ELT policy in Thailand which emphasizes the use of English for international communication in order to support the tourism industry in the country (Methitham, 2014). CBI is an approach where language is used as a means of teaching content (Brinton et al., 1989) and in line with this approach, teachers were required to integrate content related to science and technology in their lessons. It was at some point in this phase that English was used as the medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science, as discussed in the previous section.

The emphasis on the Aesthetic approach, which aimed at promoting language appreciation in students, was reflected in the introduction of the English Language Reader Programme, incorporated into the ELT curriculum in 1990. Ten years later, in 2000, the MoE incorporated a literature component into the English language syllabus, which remains in place until now, despite its failure to achieve the intended outcomes (see Hwang and Embi, 2007; Rashid, Vethamani, & Rahman, 2010). The incorporation of the literature component added to the challenges faced by teachers and students. As argued by Rashid, Vethamani, and Rahman (2010) even without the incorporation of the literature component into the syllabus, ‘the students were already struggling learning the language and the incorporation of the literature component is adding another burden’ (Rashid, Vethamani, & Rahman, 2010: 87). In a similar vein, teachers face stressful experiences trying to teach literature, especially to less proficient students without the complex skills needed to read literary texts. However, the positive side of the integration of literature component in the ELT curriculum is that it provides a more interesting and challenging experience to proficient ESL learners (Rashid, Vethamani, & Rahman, 2010: 87).

The recently implemented MBMMBI policy, as discussed in the earlier section, makes ELT a more challenging profession than ever. Besides the extension of contact hours for English from 240 minutes to 270 minutes a week and making English a must-pass subject in SPM, consequently increasing teachers' workloads and pressure, teachers also face demands to improve the standards of their own English skills. This is because the MoE believes that teachers' lack of proficiency is the main cause of students' poor command of the language (Talib, 2013). In 2012, all 61,000 English language teachers in the country were asked to undergo the Cambridge Placement Test, which was administered online, to gauge their knowledge about the language. It was reported that 40,666 teachers (about two-thirds) failed this test and the government used the results of the test to identify less proficient teachers to be retrained by the British Council (Jalleh, 2013). Despite feedback from teachers that the results did not reflect their true competency and proficiency as the problematic online server in the school had prevented them from answering and completing the questions in time (The Star, 2014) the MoE still sent the teachers for retraining without negotiating or considering their willingness. Given these demanding situations, it is reasonable to suggest that teachers might seek social support in their attempts to survive in their profession.

The next section will appraise the formal professional development programmes in Malaysia which are supposed to provide adequate and continuous support for the teachers as they grapple with ‘immense emotional, intellectual and social demands’ to cope with the ongoing government reforms (Day et al., 2006: 614).

Formal professional development programmes for Malaysian teachers

Teacher professional development (TPD) is broadly defined by Davidson as ‘activities that develop an individual's skills, knowledge, expertise and other characteristics as a teacher’ (Davidson, 2009: 49). Teacher education and teacher training in Malaysia are managed by three main divisions of the government, which work collaboratively to improve teacher quality. The divisions are:

Teacher Education Division (TED), which is responsible for deciding policies related to the quality and professional development of pre-service and in-service teachers;

Institute of Teacher Education (ITE), which is responsible for providing training for prospective primary teachers;

Institute Aminuddin Baki (IAB), which is responsible for training related to school leadership.

Currently, there are 27 ITE campuses located across the country providing training for prospective primary school teachers. Secondary school teachers are not trained by ITE as they are under the jurisdiction of the higher education sector of the MoE and therefore trained by universities. The minimum requirement to enroll in degree programmes in ITE is at least a distinction in any five subjects, a pass in English and at least a credit in Bahasa Malaysia and History in SPM. However, if the candidates apply to B.Ed. TESL programmes, they must get at least grade B in English. Shortlisted candidates will also undergo a Teacher Eligibility Test which consists of three components: Teaching Personality Inventory; Self-Validation Index; and Physical Fitness Test. The Teacher Eligibility Test is important in the recruitment process as it helps to ensure that only candidates with the appropriate personality are recruited regardless of their academic excellence.

As for in-service teachers, their professional development programmes are designed by TED based on the Continuous Professional Development Master Plan (CPDMP). Osman and Kassim point out that the typical training mode under CPDMP is sending teachers to attend courses where they are presented with ‘prescriptive modules that give precise instruction to teachers on the “what” and “how” to teach specific subjects and content’ (Osman and Kassim, 2013: 17). Ironically, Osman and Kassim who are also officers in TED and IAB are critical of the current practice of TPD programmes. They highlight how:

[The] practice restricts creativity and autonomous learning among participants. The unintended consequence is a higher risk of developing a cohort of teachers with a dependent mind-set, who lack creativity, and have less inclination to take risks in changing their teaching practices. […]. The challenge in moving forward is to ensure teachers' creativity is enhanced and critical thinking strengthened by doing away with prescriptive modules that are commonly practiced in the current CPD activities (Osman and Kassim, 2013: 17).

This suggests serious shortcomings in the current TPD programmes for in-service teachers. It appears that teachers are being spoon-fed and instructed in what they should do in the classroom, which gives them little opportunity to tailor the instructional approach to meet the needs of their students. It seems that TED uses a ‘one size fits all’ approach in designing the TPD programmes teachers are sent on to learn ‘the right way’ to teach regardless of different school backgrounds. It is not surprising that TED still uses this ineffective approach in (dis)empowering teachers as ‘the programmes and modules do not adhere to any specific quality process and are not managed in a systematic way’ (Osman and Kassim, 2013: 17).

Jamil (2014) who conducted a nation-wide teacher survey involving 467 Malaysian primary and secondary schools teachers reveals several obstacles for professional development as perceived by the teachers. Whilst ‘too much working load’ and ‘too populous classes’ were reported to be the main two obstacles, the teachers also highlighted ‘obstructive attitude of federal or state education authorities’, ‘poor quality of training activities’ and ‘great disparities between my practical problems and the issues addressed at training activities’ as the other main obstacles for their professional development.

Osman and Kassim (2013) point out that the implementation of the training has produced many complaints from teachers, mainly because the face-to-face training requires teachers to leave their classrooms to attend the courses, an added burden to other teachers who need to spend more time as relief teachers, taking over the classes of those on training courses. Furthermore, the same teachers are often called to attend training courses more than once due to the absence of facilities to track the movement of teachers attending courses.

Another weakness in the current TPD programmes is pointed out by Lim et al. (2010: 6), that they are ‘one-shot, superficial, fragmented, quick fix, disconnected and episodic in nature’. This weakness resonates with the ‘deficient planning’ identified by Osman and Kassim whereby the training programmes ‘lack the development and growth approach that allows participants to track progress, continuity, and articulation for further advancement that contributes to career growth and talent management’ (Osman and Kassim, 2013: 17). To date, the only TPD programme that seems to provide adequate time and follow-up support is the year-long Professional Up-skilling of English Language Teachers organized by the MoE in collaboration with the British Council. Due to many weaknesses in the design and implementation of TPD, as reviewed above, it is therefore not surprising that there are still ongoing debates about the efficiency of TPD in Malaysia (Khalid et al., 2013; Rashid, Rahman, & Rahman, 2016).

Conclusion

This paper has concerned itself with an examination of the implementation of ELT policy in Malaysia. While the reforms are discussed periodically in this review, there is often a merging of the old and new approaches before the latter gains ascendancy. Overall, the Malaysian education system has gone through constant reforms where new policies have been introduced since independence from Britain (1957). Unfortunately, the strong need for social support and guidance in order for teachers to cope with the reforms is not always adequately met by existing sources of support. Perhaps, the MoE, together with the State Education Authority, can come up with a formal support system at the school level, made up of education officers/teachers who are highly trained in the new initiatives. These officers can act as a “one-stop centre” to provide support for teachers if they have inquiries or questions.

At the same time, the teachers suffer from the heavy workload and the lack of opportunity to professionally develop themselves due to the inefficient formal TPD programmes. Even though the changes in policies are aimed at improving the quality of education in the country, implementation was often made in haste without considering the voices and opinions of the wider society, causing a loud public outcry and strongly challenging teachers at the front-line of the new policies.

There are some implications drawn from this review which are pertinent to the effective ELT policy implementation in Malaysia and other similar contexts where English is taught as a second/foreign language. Firstly, the transmission of generalized ideas and approaches that originated outside the respective school setting should not be the main focus of TPD programmes. Different teachers have different challenges at school depending on the characteristics of their students. For example, teachers from urban areas often do not share similar problems with teachers from rural areas and this means that the generalized ideas and approaches transmitted during the TPD programmes are less meaningful to them. As suggested by Jamil (2014), a new concept of workplace learning should be built, based on the current problems and needs of practising educators so that the teachers can engage in meaningful learning which is useful for their professional development. In other words, there is a need to review the TPD programmes in Malaysia and revise priority areas and focus on the most relevant issues to address the need. Secondly, there is a need for teachers to be involved in the planning of new policies. This review has shown that the top-down approach that is currently being employed in the country is problematic. For instance, even though policy-makers and teachers have positive attitudes towards the newly introduced SBA, its implementation is reported to be very burdensome for teachers. If teachers were involved in the planning of this policy, they could provide insights into the implementation process based on their professional experiences at school so that this policy can be implemented more successfully. This can be done through structured focus group interviews or online surveys, preferably at the planning stage, prior to the implementation of any new initiatives, so as to obtain feedback and opinions of teachers who are in the system and who will be responsible in making it happen. Lastly, reforms should not be too swift or too short-lived as the real change may be hindered. The ETeMS policy, for instance, was replaced with a new policy too soon that one has yet to see the effectiveness of the policy. It is wise for the government to improve the implementation of ETeMS and let it reach its ‘maturity’ level so that its long term effects can be examined rather than replacing it with a totally new policy.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks his PhD supervisors Mary Bailey and Jane Evison from the University of Nottingham, UK for their valuable comments and feedback on this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education under the SLAB/SLAI funding.

Radzuwan Ab Rashid is a lecturer at the School of English Language Studies in the Faculty of Languages and Communication, UniSZA. He obtained his PhD from the University of Nottingham, UK and the PhD research focused on teachers' co-construction of social support on a social networking site. His research interests include teacher education and professional development, technology enhanced learning, and contemporary discourse.

Shireena Basree Abdul Rahman is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Education, UiTM Puncak Alam. She obtained her PhD from the University of Reading, UK. Her areas of expertise are Teaching English as a Second Language, Literature Teaching and Learning, Literacy and Elementary Education.

Kamariah Yunus is currently the Deputy Dean of Research and Innovation at the Faculty of Languages and Communication, UniSZA. She obtained her PhD from the University of Malaya, Malaysia. Her research interests include Teaching English as a Second Language and applied linguistics.

References

Albury

Aye

(2016) Malaysia's national language policy in international theoretical context. Journal of Nusantara Studies 1(1): 71–84.

Ahmad

Majid

Mamat

NJZ

(2012) Transformation of language in teaching and learning policy. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 59(1): 685–691.

Aruna P (2014) No emphasis and poor teachers the causes, say employers. The Star, 11 December 2014. Available at: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/12/11/Fresh-graduates-struggling-No-emphasis-and-poor-teachers-the-causes-say-employers/ (accessed 1 January 2015).

Baker

(2008) A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: The role of cultural awareness. Regional Language Centre Journal 39(1): 131–146.

Basree S (2007) The implementation of the contemporary children's literature program in Malaysian secondary schools. PhD Thesis, University of Reading, UK.

Brinton

Snow

Wesche

(1989) Content-Based Second Language Instruction, Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Brown

(2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, New York, NY: Longman.

Butler

(2015) English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004–2014). Language Teaching 48(3): 303–342.

Canale

Swain

(1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1–47.

10.

Chew

(2005) Change and continuity: English language teaching in Singapore. The Asian EFL Journal 7(1): 4–24.

11.

Coyne

(2015) Language education policies and inequality in Africa: Cross-national empirical evidence. Comparative Education Review 59(4): 619–637.

12.

Davidson

(2009) The professional development of teachers. In: Davidson

Jensen

(eds) Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results From TALIS, Paris, France: OECD, pp. 47–63.

13.

Day

Kington

Stobart

(2006) The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal 32(4): 601–616.

14.

Department of Statistics (2014) Statistical releases social and demography. Available at: www.statistics.gov.my (accessed 2 January 2015).

15.

Hussein

(2004) Using simple poems to teach grammar. The Internet TESL Journal 10(5): Available at: http://iteslj.org/Hussein-Poems.html (Accessed 12 December 2013).

16.

Hwang

Embi

(2007) Approaches employed by secondary school teachers to teaching the literature. Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan 3(4): 1–23.

17.

Ihsan I (2012) Implications of the PPSMI policy for the performance of Malaysian secondary schools in mathematics and science subjects. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick UK.

18.

Jalleh J (2013) Majority of teachers not proficient in English. The Star, 2 June 2013. Available at: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2012/09/26/Majority-of-teachers-not-proficient-in-English/ (accessed 1 January 2015).

19.

Jamil H (2014) Policy and practice of teacher professional development in Malaysia: The ongoing effort of enhancing teacher quality. Available at: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/170th-seminar-handout.pdf (accessed 18 June 2016).

20.

Jessy R (2014) A Malay dilemma: Just who is threatening whom? Malaysia Today, 3 December 2014. Available at: http://www.malaysia-today.net/a-malay-dilemma-just-who-is-threatening-whom/ (accessed 3 January 2015).

21.

Khalid

Joyes

Ellison

(2013) Teachers' involvement in communities of practice: An implication with regard to the current approach of teachers' professional development in Malaysia. Asian Social Science 9(16): 102–111.

22.

Lim

Abas

Mansor

(2010) Online in-service teacher professional development in Malaysia: A new possibility? In: Abas

Jung

Luca

(eds) Proceedings of Global Learn 2010. 4025–4034. Available at: http://www.editlib.org/p/34494/ (accessed 3 February 2013).

23.

Lund

(2014) Regulation and deregulation in education policy: new reforms and school sports in Swedish upper secondary education. Sport, Education and Society 19(3): 241–257.

24.

Mansor

Leng

Rasul

(2013) The benefits of school-based assessment. Asian Social Science 9(8): 101–106.

25.

Methitham P (2014) Survey the landscape of ELT in Thailand: Offering new possibility for change. In: WEI international academic conference proceedings, Budapest, Hungary, pp.26–34. Available at: http://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Phongsakorn-Methitham-Full-Paper.pdf (accessed 4 April 2016).

26.

Ministry of Education (2002) Curriculum Specification for Secondary Schools, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Curriculum Development Division.

27.

Ministry of Education (2015) SBA concept. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.my/en/soalan-lazim-view?id=147&keyword=& (accessed 10 January 2015).

28.

Mohamed

Tumin

Omar

(2008) Success structure for accelerated acquisition of English by young ESL learners. Educational Research and Review 3(4): 169–181.

29.

Moodie

Nam

(2016) English language teaching research in South Korea: A review of recent studies (2009–2014). Language Teaching 49(1): 63–98.

30.

Nor

Aziz

Jusoff

(2011) Should English for teaching Mathematics and Science (ETeMS) in Malaysia be abolished? World Applied Sciences Journal 12(Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based society): 36–40.

31.

Norfaizah

Marzilah

(2010) ETeMS: The implications on learners. Research in English Language Teaching 1(4): 1–9.

32.

O'Neill

(2015) The New Zealand experiment: assessment-driven curriculum – managing standards, competition and performance to strengthen governmentality. Journal of Education Policy 30(6): 831–854.

33.

Osman

Kassim

(2013) Transforming the Teaching Profession in Malaysia, Genting Highlands, Malaysia: Institute Aminudin Baki.

34.

Pandian

(2002) English language teaching in Malaysia today. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 22(2): 35–52.

35.

Pherali

Garratt

(2014) Post-conflict identity crisis in Nepal: Implications for educational reforms. International Journal of Educational Development 34: 42–50.

36.

Rashid RA, Vethamani ME and Rahman SBA (2010) Approaches employed by teachers in teaching literature to less proficient students in form 1 and form 2. English Language Teaching 3(4): 8–99.

37.

Rashid RA (2011) Vocabulary learning among less proficient young adults using children's stories. Mextesol Journal 35(1): 15–28.

38.

Rashid RA (2016) Topic continuation strategies employed by teachers in managing supportive conversations on Facebook Timeline. Discourse Studies 18(2): 188–203.

39.

Rashid RA, Rahman MFA and Rahman SBA (2016) Teachers' engagement in social support process on a networking site. Journal of Nusantara Studies 1(1): 34–45.

40.

Raman

Yamat

(2014) English teachers' voices on the challenges of the School-Based Assessment. Frontiers of Language and Teaching 5(1): 66–74.

41.

Richards

(2006) Language and Professional Identity: Aspects of Collaborative Interaction, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

42.

Richards

Rodgers

(1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A Description and Analysis, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Segovia

Hardison

(2009) Implementing education reform: EFL teachers' perspective. English Language Teaching Journal 63(2): 154–162.

44.

Selvaraj

(2010) English language teaching (ELT) curriculum reforms in Malaysia. Voice of Academia 5(1): 51–60.

45.

Spolsky

Moon

(2014) Primary school English-language education in Asia: From policy to practice. English Language Teaching 68(3): 345–348.

46.

Stern

(1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching: Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Applied Linguistic Research, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

47.

Tahir A (2013) Unhappy with blueprint? Study abroad. FreeMalaysiaToday,10 September 2013. Available at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/09/10/study-abroad-if-youre-unhappy-with-blueprint/ (accessed 11 January 2015).

48.

Talib H (2013) English proficiency: Teachers must admit weaknesses and improve. NewStraitsTimes, 20 September 2013. Available at: http://www2.nst.com.my/7-day-news/wednesday/english-proficiency-teachers-must-admit-weaknesses-and-improve-1.359590 (accessed 11 January 2015).

49.

Tan

(2011) Mathematics and science teachers' beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research 15(3): 325–342.

50.

The Star (2014) Upset over English test. The Star, 9 March 2014. Available at: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2014/03/09/upset-over-english-test/ (Accessed 7 February 2015).

51.

Utusan (2013) Bahasa Melayu perlu diperkasakan (Malay language should be strengthened). Utusan, 28 November 2013. Available at: http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/Dalam_Negeri/20131128/dn_03/Bahasa-Melayu-perlu-diperkasakan (Accessed 3 February 2015).

52.

Vu PT (2012) English in Southeast Asian countries. Available at: http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-00931949 (Accessed 18 June 2016).