Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigated Malaysian preschool teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes toward the use of the English language as a medium of instruction (EMI) and proposed a model of how different variables were related to their use of English in the classrooms. In order to obtain a broad picture of the nature and scope of preschool teachers’ use of EMI, a survey study was undertaken. The research instrument was a questionnaire that was distributed to randomly-selected preschool teachers throughout Malaysia. The process of modeling was based on the empirical data and a theoretical model that was constructed on the basis of the two theoretical aspects, that is self-efficacy and attitudes-behavior relation. The theoretical model served as a bridge between the abstractions from theory and the development of the model. The model suggested that strong self-efficacy influenced preschool teachers’ use of English to teach. In addition, the model also indicated that those preschool teachers with positive attitudes also felt self-efficacious in using English to teach and negative attitudes had the opposite effect. Those preschool teachers who had a positive attitude that teaching using English would be useful for the children perceived that they had greater ability toward handling classroom management issues. In addition, they believed too, that they were confident to use appropriate assessment tasks in the classroom when English was used as the medium of instruction. It would appear that self-efficacy and attitudes were mutually related to preschool teachers’ use of English to teach.

Keywords

English as a medium of instruction preschool teachers ECCE Malaysian preschools self-efficacy attitudes-beliefs

Introduction

Preschools for children between 4 and 6 years of age (or better known as “Tadika” in the Malay language) in Malaysia follow a similar National Preschool Standard Curriculum which started in 2010. While the curriculum content is standardized, the content focus and instructional approaches may vary among the preschools. However, with the move to increase the number of hours for the teaching of English in schools, which started in Year One in 2011, preschool teachers are encouraged to instill the use of English at the preschool as a strategy to get children ready to master the English language before Year One (The Star, 2010). In fact, recent studies have indicated the importance of English language development and impact of early language use on later proficiency of the language among preschool children (Goh, Loy, et al., 2020; Lee & Christiaan, 2018; Neuman, 2010).

Prior to 2010, there was an ongoing push led by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia with the intention to encourage the use of English as a medium of instruction in the preschools. However, it was only in 2010, through the National Preschool Standard Curriculum, that it was made mandatory that out of the 1,200 minutes of time allotted for instruction per week, the Malay language (600 minutes) and the English language (600 minutes) were equally allocated as the medium of instruction for the all preschools. However, the national type preschools, which use Mandarin and Tamil as the medium of instruction, have to allocate equal instruction time using either Mandarin or Tamil (400 minutes), the Malay language (400 minutes) and the English language (400 minutes). In Malaysia, the adoption of English as a medium of instruction is generally driven by practical and political decision-making. Here, language policies have been implemented to enable future citizens of Malaysia to be ready toward an industrialized nation status and eventually into a knowledge economy in which English is widely used (Puteh, 2010).

However, despite the considerable effort put into training by the government, there is a still a lack of evidence that preschools teachers have embraced the use of English as a medium of instruction (Mustafa et al., 2018) or that progress of its use has often been described as mediocre (Ngajib et al., 2018). In fact, preschool teachers in Malaysia do not often use the English language to teach or engage in activities that support English language use and development in the early years (Pandian, 2006). Many reasons for this lethargy have been reported. Some writers (e.g., Gooch, 2009; Tharmalingam, 2012) have described the lethargy in terms of waves where different policies have promised to deliver a revolution in teaching and learning in the English language. However, after a series of wavering policies, have resulted in disappointment and little substantial educational change. Others have written about factors with regards to preschool teachers’ own competency factors such as lack of proficiency of the language (Azman, 2016; Mustafa et al., 2018; Siti Nursyafiah Amirah, 2017) and the limited number of teachers with the expertise to use the language to other factors such as teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about how to use English as a medium of instruction (Kepol, 2017). It could be argued that the history of using English as a medium of instruction in schools has tended to promise a great deal but delivered far less.

This gap between the optimism of using English as a medium of instruction and the current lack of progress of its use has inspired researchers to focus on the preschool teachers and the issues they encounter in their use of English to teach (Goh, Loy, et al., 2020; Kepol, 2017; Mustafa et al., 2018). In identifying the factors explaining English language use, or the lack of, as a medium of instruction can be seen as a way of answering the question of why some preschools experience success in the 2010 implementation while other preschools have not achieved the aspiration of the government. These factors could well be language-related teacher characteristics, for example, language use is also often related to teachers’ self-efficacy, their beliefs and attitudes (Hu, 2019; Lee, 2009).

The present study focusses on the teacher characteristics but tries to distance itself from viewing preschool teachers as the main hindrance in using English as the medium of instruction. Despite the problems that might plague preschool teachers from using the language as the medium of instruction, there are teachers who have attempted to do so with their preschool children in the schools, and who are somewhat successful. This study is interested to investigate the factors that can help explain why some preschool teachers have seamlessly used English as the medium of instruction while some have found it very problematic (Mustafaet al., 2018). Therefore, the driving question for this study is: What are the factors influencing preschool teachers’ use of English as the medium of instruction as stipulated by the National Preschool Standard Curriculum 2010?

Theoretical Frameworks

Studies which look at teachers’ use of the English language as the medium of instruction have identified the complex interrelationship of various factor which could contribute toward these teachers’ successful (or unsuccessful) use of the language. These factors have been reported and categorized into factors that encouraged or hindered these teachers in their use of the language. Some have been classified as the teaching environment (e.g., Çankaya, 2017; Kyeyune, 2003; Othman & Saat, 2009) while others have touted that it is the manifestation of the teachers’ own personal characteristics—such as self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes (e.g., Darwish, 2017; Ismail & Shaban, 2016; Nam Siong & Hui Min, 2017) that are the influencer. In this study, it is the personal characteristics that are of interest, specifically from the perspectives of cognitivism that are particularly relevant. One is Banduras’ social cognitive theory about self-efficacy and the other is the Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) attitude-behavior relation.

Self-Efficacy

Bandura’s social cognitive theory seeks to explain how people acquire and maintain behavioral patterns (Bandura, 1997). Bandura saw behavior as explicable via relationships of reciprocal causation between behavior, cognition and personal factors, and environmental influences. He theorized that these factors interact with one another and therefore people are both producers and products of their environment (Bandura, 1986). From this theory comes the concept of “self-efficacy.” Perceived self-efficacy is an individual’s context-dependent belief in their ability to coordinate and undertake the actions required to produce desired effects/attainments (Bandura, 1997; Block et al., 2010). Bandura held that people decide how to behave in line with their perceptions of their abilities not their actual abilities (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is not static and it can be general or task specific, thus this allows an individual to have different levels of self-efficacy beliefs at any given time. This varying self-efficacy beliefs does impact the individuals’ thoughts, feelings and motivation. This can lead to significant contrasts in behavior between individuals with differing levels of self-efficacy. Those with higher or stronger levels of self-efficacy beliefs expend more effort upon endeavors, persist longer when presented with obstacles, are more resilient in dealing with setbacks, and experience lower levels of stress/depression when dealing with demanding situations (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, those teachers who perceived a higher levels of self-efficacy indicate a positive stance toward their own functioning as teachers (Goh & Canrinus, 2019).

A distinction was made by Bandura (1997) between “self-efficacy” and “confidence.” According to Bandura (1997), “confidence is a nondescript term that refers to strength of belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about” (p. 382) while “perceived self-efficacy [refers] to belief in one’s power to produce given levels of attainment” (p. 382). Bandura’s differentiation of these two terms was to discern other personal traits such as “self-concept” and “self-esteem” from “self-efficacy.” However, Bandura asserted that confidence is sometimes difficult to be disassociated from self-efficacy. For instance, in performing tasks related to teaching (e.g., teaching using the English language), these two traits oftentimes seem to overlap each other. Most educational researchers recognize this overlap (e.g., Milner & Hoy, 2003) and have used these two terms interchangeably. This study adopts the concept of self-efficacy to provide a useful theoretical framework for an empirical approach to Malaysian preschool teachers’ confidence in using the English language during teaching.

Attitude-Behavior Relation

The model presented by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), named the “Reasoned Action Model,” show the relationship between attitude and behavior through their “reconciliation approach.” They argue that attitude can either influence behavior toward some objects or that attitudes are able to guide the behavior. The intensity of an attitude change can either increase or decrease. On the other hand, some attitude change can also be either positive or negative. Nevertheless, these changes in attitudes have an adverse effect on a one’s performance and their profession. In the context of teaching, teachers’ attitudes toward the profession have an effect on their teaching practice (Lee & Christiaan, 2018). Positive and negative attitudes toward the profession can affect performance in that profession. However, certain conditions that can reinforce the attitude-behavior relation include motivation and believing that the attitude is correct, sometimes positively or negatively (Doll & Ajzen, 1992).

A study by Goh (2019) found that supporting the development of positive attitudes and beliefs amongst preschool teachers encouraged them to use the English language in their classroom. A teacher’s confidence in speaking or using English might be related to their positive attitudes toward either speaking or using it and that negativity would have the opposite effect (Walker et al., 2004). Lee (2009) found that, for those preschool teachers with the same levels of pedagogical and subject matter knowledge, their beliefs about their own capabilities to teach the English subject or to use it to teach was not only dependent on their proficiency but also their attitudes of whether the language was useful (for their pupils) or whether it was necessary at all to use the language in the classroom. In other words, provided that other factors were the same, two teachers with different attitudes might present different degrees of behavior or intent in using English in teaching (Lee & Christiaan, 2018). Preschool teachers’ use of English to teach saw attitudes as having either a direct or indirect impact on its use in the classrooms (Goh, 2019). An indirect example saw how preschool teachers’ attitude encouraged their motivation to use English as the medium of instruction. These teachers’ felt that the earlier the children heard and spoke English would enable them to become more fluent in the language. Motivation, in this case was the direct encouragement to their use of English to teach. In addition, in the same study, Goh found that attitudes also encouraged the preschool teachers to be quite innovative in how they articulated English when the preschool children found it hard to comprehend learning tasks.

Methodology

A quantitative method through a survey was used to obtain the nature and scope of preschool teachers’ use of English as a medium of instruction. A survey was used to better obtain information from a larger sample of preschool teachers. Surveys are generally seen as a good method if the aim of the study is to acquire information about participants’ perspectives such as efficacy, attitudes, or beliefs (Fowler, 2009).

The Research Model

The process of modeling was based on the empirical data and a theoretical model that was constructed on the basis of the two theoretical aspects, that is, self-efficacy and attitudes-behavior relation. This model acted as a connection between theory and the development of the structural model (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Process of modeling.

Target Population

The target population was preschool teachers (who taught children aged 4–6 only) from preschools in Malaysia that were registered with the Ministry of Education Malaysia (obtained from https://eprasekolah.moe.gov.my). To ensure that there were demographic variations typical of the country, a total of 130 preschools were randomly selected from the compiled list of preschools. Random selection was conducted with the help of Microsoft Excel through its random number function (RAND). A letter of invitation was then sent out to these schools. Headmasters of these preschools were then contacted by phone to gauge their interest to participate in the study. Those headmasters who indicated interest, subsequently granted permission, and provided the number of teachers working in their schools. Each preschool that participated distributed the questionnaire to their teachers. However, the Headmasters made it clear that the participation of their teachers were voluntary and that all survey forms must be sent to the schools and not to individual teachers to ensure the teachers’ privacy.

Instrument

The items in the questionnaire of this study came from interviews with preschool teachers by a previous study by Goh (2019). The questionnaire consisted of 33 items in four sections. The first section was items related to preschool teachers’ readiness to use English as a medium of instruction (5 items), while the second section looked at their self-efficacy in teaching (14 items). The third section asked about their attitudes-behavior toward using the English language to teach (8 items). The final section covered standard questions which included gender, age range, number of years’ experience as preschool teachers, academic qualifications, attendances at professional development and amount of time they use the English language to teach in a week. Respondents answered their readiness (first section) and their self-efficacy (second section) through a five-point Likert scale of 5 (a great deal), 4 (quite a bit), 3 (some influence), 2 (very little), and 1 (not at all). Section three asked the respondents to agree or disagree with a series of statement through a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5—strongly agree to 1—strongly disagree.

Procedure

Altogether 650 questionnaires were sent out. A total of 204 preschool teachers returned the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 31.3%. There were reasons reported back from the preschools that some of the teachers were not able to respond due to their burden of work and other activities that impinged their time. Although a higher return rate would have been desired, Dillman et al. (2014) indicated that low response rate should be expected when using a questionnaire sent by postal services. A low response rate seemed to be no threat to the validity of a study (Groves & Peytcheva, 2008; Hox et al., 2012; Rindfuss et al., 2015) nor would it have much of an influence on its results in terms of means, internal consistency of scales, and other basic psychometric properties (Af Wåhlberg & Poom, 2015).

Data Analysis

There were three main steps used in the analyses. First, a stepwise regression analysis was used in order to investigate the most appropriate pattern of predictive variables. Any poor predictors would be eliminated on a stepwise basis and the best predictors would be selected based on the statistical criteria. The criterion variable was derived from the set of five questions about preschool teachers’ readiness to use English as a medium of instruction and was titled as “Teach in English.” Each “Teach in English” question asked preschool teachers their readiness to use English to teach, for example: “How ready are you to teach using the English language only?,” “How well can you use the English language to teach without difficulty?,” “To what extent can you help your pupils achieve learning objectives when you use the English language to communicate?,” “How well can you teach listening and speaking during an English language lesson?,” “How well can you teach reading and writing during an English language lesson?.” The Cronbach’s alpha for this 5 items was high at α = .86.

Second, a factor analysis was used to explore the structure of the preschool teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes to the use of English as a medium of instruction. The third step aimed to understand and explain how preschool teachers’ use of the English language to teach can be influenced by the self-efficacy-attitude-behavior relations. Upon completion of the factor analysis and regression analyses, which helped to modify this study’s theoretical model based on two theories of cognitivism, the final step involved the use of AMOS 23 for the analyses of structural equation models. The derived model showed the expected patterns of relationships between the observed and latent variables.

Results

Stepwise Regression

The theoretical model (Figure 2) was formulated based on the theories of self-efficacy-attitude-behavior relationships. Factors 1 and 2 in the model represented the factors influencing preschool teachers’ use of the English language in their classroom. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted using preschool teachers’ use of the English language in the classroom as the criterion variable. Self-efficacy toward the use of English had the largest correlation to the criterion variable and it explained 74.2% (p < .001) of the variance. Together with the second variable, attitudes toward the use of English, these two variables explained a further 0.7% (p < .01) of the variance. The absolute values of the standardized estimate (β) from the largest to the smallest were self-efficacy toward the use of English β = .89, p < .01 and attitudes toward the use of English had β = .10, p < .05. Variables such gender, age range, number of years’ experience as preschool teachers, academic qualifications, attendances at professional development and amount of time they use the English language to teach in a week (Factor 3) were eliminated during the entry requirement.

Figure 2.

Theoretical model.

Factor Analysis

The factorability of the 14 items related to self-efficacy were examined followed by the 8 items attitude-behavior relations questions. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.89, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant at χ² (91) = 1,360.9, p < .001 for the 14 items and 0.71 with a test of sphericity of χ² (28) = 437.9, p < .001 for the 8 items. The communalities (proportion of item’s variance explained by the extracted factors) were all above 0.30 for the two different questionnaires, further confirming that each item of the questionnaires shared some common variance with other items (see Tables 1 and 2). Given these overall indicators, factor analysis was regarded to be suitable with all the self-efficacy and attitude-behavior relations questions.

Table 1.

Factorability, Cronbach Alpha, AVE, and CR Scores of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire.

Items		EMBC	EA	GE	Communality	α	AVE	CR
E1	How well can you get your pupils to follow classroom rules when you use the English language?	.75			.64	.89	.58	.70
E2	How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in learning when you use the English language to motivate?	.71			.60
E3	How well can you control disruptive behavior in your class when you use the English language?	.68			.67
E4	How much can you do to calm a pupil who is disruptive or noisy when you use the English language in your class?	.82			.73
E5	How well can you establish a classroom management system with your pupils when you use the English language in class?	.80			.72
E6	How well can you control disruptive behavior in your class when you use the English language?	.81			.75
E7	To what extent can you create good questions for getting responses from your pupils when you use the English language in your classroom?		.75		.65	.85	.55	.69
E8	How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies when you use the English language in your classroom?		.79		.70
E9	To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when your pupils are confused when you use the English language in your classroom?		.71		.67
E10	How well can you implement alternative strategies in your class when you use the English language in your classroom?		.72		.70
E11	How much can you do to get your pupils to believe they can do well in their studies when you use the English language to communicate?			.70	.50	.70	.48	.65
E12	How well can you help your pupils value learning when you use the English language to communicate?			.77	.61
E13	How well can you assist parents to help their children learn when you use the English language to communicate?			.52	.45
E14	To what extent can you help your pupils achieve learning objectives when you use the English language to communicate?			.69	.59
Eigenvalue		6.39	1.58	1.07
Percentage explained		28.98	21.60	14.02
Cumulative percentage explained variance		28.98	50.58	64.66

Note. Factor loadings <.40 are suppressed. EMBC = Efficacy in Managing Behavior and Classroom; EA = Efficacy in Assessment; GE = General Efficacy.

Table 2.

Factorability, Cronbach Alpha, AVE, and CR Scores of the Attitude-Relations Questionnaire.

Items		PUAtt	NEGAtt	Communality	α	AVE	CR
A1	It was a correct decision to start using the English language to teach in preschool classrooms.	.78		.64	.78	.55	.69
A2	Preschool pupils learn English best when the class is entirely conducted in the English language.	.64		.44
A3	Developing and keeping pupils interested in English is to use it constantly in the classroom.	.67		.54
A4	The Ministry of Education has done a good job in getting preschool teachers ready for teaching in the English language.	.79		.63
A5	It’s necessary to use Bahasa Melayu as well as English for maximizing pupils’ learning in the preschool classes.	.78		.62
A6	English language should be used only when the subject is taught.		.78	.62	.71	.71	.65
A7	It is unnecessary to allocate so much time toward using English as the instruction language		.88	.79
A8	I don’t understand why some teachers think teaching in English is more important		.68	.48
Eigenvalue		2.80	1.97
Percentage explained		34.78	24.93
Cumulative percentage explained variance		34.78	59.71

Note. Factor loadings <.40 are suppressed. PUAtt = Positive_Useful Attitude; NEGAtt = Negative_Attitute.

Three factors from the 14-item self-efficacy questionnaire, which accounted for 64.7% of the overall variance, were extracted with eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.00. None of the 14 items were eliminated because they all met a minimum criteria of having a primary factor loading (how much a factor explains a variable) of .4 or above. Solutions for the three components were examined using Varimax rotation of the factor loading matrix. The factor loading matrix and the Alpha Cronbach coefficient each of the three factors is presented in Table 1. These three factors appeared to be representing different dimensions of preschool teachers’ self-efficacy toward using English as a medium of instruction. Factors 1 and 2 appeared to be specific capability to organize or conduct some form of actions toward a specific teaching task when English was used as the medium of instruction. Items such as “How well can you get your pupils to follow classroom rules when you use the English language?” or “How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in learning when you use the English language to motivate?” were indicative of those teachers’ efficacy in relation to their capability to manage behavior and their classroom. This factor was named “Efficacy in Managing Behavior and Classroom” (6 items). The second factor was named “Efficacy in Assessment” (4 items) as the items reflected those teachers who had the beliefs that they have the abilities to bring about student learning through appropriate student assessment. Indicative items were “To what extent can you create good questions for getting responses from your pupils when you use the English language in your classroom?” and “How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies when you use the English language in your classroom?” Factor 3 on the other hand seemed to represent those teachers with the general beliefs that they have the capability to perform their teaching in the English language, and was thus specified as “General Efficacy” (4 items).

In the attitude-relations questionnaire, two factors accounted for 59.7% of the total variance with eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.00. All the 8 items were used as they all met a minimum criteria of 0.4 and above (Table 2). Factor 1 can be thought of as representing those dimensions where the preschool teachers who were positive about the use of English as a medium of instruction and felt that it would be useful for their young care. Indicative items were “It was a correct decision to start using the English language to teach in preschool classrooms” and “Preschool pupils learn English best when the class is entirely conducted in the English language.” This factors was named Positive_Useful Attitude (5 items). The second factor, on the other hand represented those teachers who did not think that it was necessary to use English as an instructional language and were resistant to its use such as “English language should be used only when the subject is taught” or “It is unnecessary to allocate so much time toward using English as the instruction language.” This factor was named Negative_Attitute (3 items). Table 2 provides the factor loading and its accompanying alpha values for the two factors.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the Cronbach’s α of every subscale ranged from .70 to .99 was above or equal to the acceptability value .7 (Nunnally, 1978). The average variances extracted (AVE) which ranged from .50 to .99, were all within the commonly accepted range of equal or greater than .5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), although “General Efficacy” (EA) has a slightly lower value of .48. Hair et al. (2014) suggested that a composite reliability (CR) should be calculated to reveal the internal consistency among all indices. This study’s CR ranged from .65 to .70 which was only slightly below the suggested CR of .7 as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981).

Testing the Theoretical Model

In Figure 2, a theoretical model is hypothesized based on the two theories of cognitivism. According to these theories, first, self-efficacy is the belief that teachers have the ability to do a task, therefore, teacher self-efficacy is a teacher’s judgment that he or she has the capability to competently teach (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). In this study, teacher self-efficacy are separated into “Efficacy in Managing Behavior and Classroom,” “Efficacy in Assessment,” and “General Efficacy.” The theoretical model assumes that these three factors have a direct effect on teachers’ use of English as an instructional medium.

Attitude, on the other hand, can predict behavior. That is, positive attitudes are important factors toward encouraging and motivating them in classroom based task (in this study, the attitudes toward using English as an instructional medium). Similarly, attitudes are divided into Positive_Useful Attitude and Negative_Attitute. The theoretical model also assumes that these two factors have a direct effect on teachers’ use of English as an instructional medium. Therefore, the relationship in the theoretical model has been tested for best fit using a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) against the data using IBM SPSS Amos 23.

The structural relationships among the research variables and the standardized path coefficients are presented in Figure 3. It shows that “Efficacy in Managing Behavior,” “Efficacy in Assessment” and “General Efficacy” have a positive relation to the use of English. Positive_Useful Attitude represents the attitude that English as an instructional medium is useful for preschool children is strongly related to the use of English and to the three efficacy factors. However, Negative_Attitute is negatively related to both the use of English and to the two of efficacy factors and very weak relationship to “General Efficacy.”

Figure 3.

The structural model.

To assess the overall goodness-of-fit of the model, several fit indices such as the relative/normed chi-square (χ²/df) with an acceptable ratio for this statistic ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 and the RMSEA value of between .08 and .10 are used (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Wheaton et al., 1977). According to MacCallum et al. (1996) .08 to .10 provides a mediocre fit and below .08 shows a good fit. The comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) were also used. According to Hair et al. (2014), levels of CFI and TFI equal to or above .90 are acceptable. Table 3 presents the fit indices of the present study. Although a more robust fit indices would have been ideal, it must be noted that Marsh et al. (2004) and Hayduk et al. (2007) have argued that rejection of any model based on the cut-off values may be premature if the structural model have been formulated with respect to substantive theories (as in this study).

Table 3.

Fit Indices.

Fit indices	χ²	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Recommended value	—	2.0–5.0	.90	.90	.08 to .10
This study’s model	714.22	2.28	.88	.85	.07

Discussion

This study started with the premise that there are influential factors that could influence preschool teachers’ use of the English language as a medium of instruction. The contribution of this study is the very teasing out of those factors that are talked about but seldom investigated empirically. Therefore, the aim then is to identify these factors that are considered to have affected preschool teachers’ use of the language to teach. The study uses a quantitative design for the collection and analyses of the data. According to Bryman (2008), quantitative data oversimplified the collected data and therefore has criticized that such methodology can lead to an over-simplification of social realities and in this case—the over-simplification of those factors that have affected preschool teachers’ use of English as a medium of instruction. Nevertheless, the authors in this study feel that this very criticism of “over-simplification” could reduce the complexity to collect data (although Bryman may have criticized as a negative consequence) on a particular aspect of preschool teachers’ reality that are of interest. In addition, using such methodology enabled the authors in this study to identify patterns that could otherwise be difficult to discover.

From this study, preschool teachers’ use of English as a medium of instruction is influenced by a few interrelated factors. Self-efficacy and theories about how attitudes seem to predict behavior are used in the attempt to predict the reasons preschool teachers’ would use (or otherwise) the English language to teach. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy focusses on the ability to perform an action and not only to depend on the skills one possesses. This is also advocated by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) where teachers with high self-efficacy incorporate their own judgment to apply teaching skills to teaching tasks. Self-efficacy, in this study, refers to the specific course of action of using English in teaching, and not preschool teachers’ use of English outside the school environment as this particular predictors were not part of the study. However, other demographic backgrounds, such as gender, age, and academic qualification have been eliminated in the stepwise regression analysis, and it could be inferred that these variables are more likely to be independent of teachers’ use of English as a medium of instruction.

From the structural equation model (Figure 3), it is argued that those preschool teachers who perceived themselves as having the capability to use English as a medium of instruction used English (general efficacy in using English to teach) because they had beliefs in their own ability to use it. They also believed that it will help the preschool children if they started listening and using English early in their education (influence from factor 1—positive attitudes about the usefulness of using English early in the classroom). On the other hand, negative attitude (negative attitude toward using English to teach because the teachers’ felt it would be a waste of time or the hassle of having to translate back into the Malay language), also negatively influenced their use of the language in teaching. The predictive power from theories on attitudes on behavior could be used to support this finding. When attitudes are specific (positive or negative) regarding a particular behavior (in this case, using English to teach), they are also more likely to guide this behavior.

Research have found that self-efficacy and attitudes are synonymous with a specific behavior and that could explain the result of the structural model (e.g., Goh, 2019). It has shown that those preschool teachers who used English to teach who have positive attitudes about its use also felt self-efficacious in using it to teach (e.g., Goh, Loy, et al., 2020; Lee, 2009; Walker et al., 2004). Positive attitude (Factor 1) is also effective for increasing preschool teachers’ general self-efficacy, that is, overall, these teachers show greater confidence in themselves as teachers. In other words, with positive attitudes, their self-efficacy too increased and it impacted their confidence to use the language in teaching. This meant that the preschool teachers who had a positive attitude that teaching using English would be useful for the children, believed too, that they had greater ability toward handling classroom management issues (Self-efficacy in classroom management) and using appropriate assessment tasks (Self-efficacy in using appropriate assessment) in the classroom. According to Bandura (1997), one’s self-efficacy is not static and can be both general and highly domain-specific. Thus, when it comes to teacher’s self-efficacy beliefs, “teachers weigh their self-perceptions of personal teaching competence in light of the assumed requirements of anticipated teaching task” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007, p. 220) in their specific context. The significant relationship between the positive attitude and the preschool teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs seem to resonate with previous studies that have shown the link between their attitudes toward the English language and the perceptions and confidence in themselves as English speakers (Pavlenko, 2003).

The present model contributes to this area of inquiry by providing some research evidence that there is a positive relationship between attitudes and the preschool teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the specific context of the Malaysian preschool education. However, according to the model, it can also be seen that preschool teachers use of English as a medium of instruction is also impacted if the teachers themselves carry a negative connotations toward its use. Because of the teachers’ own negativity, they feel that it would not be beneficial for the children’s future. It can be said that preschool teachers’ use of English to teach in their classroom is underpinned by the influence of their positive attitude for the benefit of the preschool children and vice-versa. A person’s beliefs can be a force of motivation to perform a behavior (Bandura, 1997). In this case, preschool teachers who are using English to teach play an important role in the implementation of using English to teach—and this is the intention of the Ministry of Education for preschools in the National Preschool Standard Curriculum of Malaysia.

Conclusion

This study uses a multivariate methods to investigate the factors that could influence preschool teachers’ use of English as a medium of instruction. The preschool teachers are those who have direct experience of using English to teach in their classrooms. The model uses theories derived from attitudes-self-efficacy. The model that emerged during the analysis suggests that the association with these teachers’ work in the classroom is important as it highlights the attitudes preschool teachers have toward the use of the English language as a medium of instruction in preschool learning environment. What emerged shows that positive attitudes toward the usefulness of English language later for the preschool children are the kind of attitudes that seem to facilitate teachers’ use of English in their teaching. On the other hand, negative attitudes do not seem to have much of an impact or does the opposite. In addition, positive attitudes also impacted the preschool teachers’ self-efficacy. This finding implies that preschool teachers’ self-efficacy in using English to teach (especially during classroom management and during assessment) can be enhanced by improving their beliefs that starting the English language early in the preschools is beneficial and can help develop fluency in the English language for preschool children.

A relevant question concerns how the findings of the present research can be harnessed. The study on education has sometimes been characterized as “do and forget” where empirical research on education has documented few significant changes to actual educational practices. Whenever teachers are part of the research, they are often the people who are considered as the one to stall an implementation of something new or that they are the ones resistant to change (Goh & Blake, 2015; Goh, Canrinus, et al., 2020) On the other hand, teachers are also the most important people who can significantly influence any process of teaching and learning and to implement any educational change (Goh et al., 2014). As mentioned earlier, this study tries to avoid this contradictory picture from this study by starting with preschool teachers who are the ones directly affected. They are the ones who must use English as a medium of instruction because of the policy of the country. Therefore, this study tries to contribute toward knowledge building and how preschool teachers can become confident in using English as a medium of instruction in their everyday classroom practices.

Different English-use related variables have been highlighted as important for promoting teachers’ use of the language in teaching. Some continuous provision, through suitable professional development or in supportive peer groups, is necessary. The provision of a training environment that is supportive and in a manner that can provide a “growth mindset” that motivates and facilitates teachers’ own teaching, needs to be given due attention (Conyers & Wilson, 2015; Goh, 2013; Goh et al., 2017). Preschool teachers do need access to the knowledge and skills now increasingly available through which they can upgrade their work when language acts as some form of barrier in the teaching context (Sheridan et al., 2009).

Limitations and Future Studies

When researchers search for factors that may inhibit preschool teachers’ use of English as the medium of instruction, there will be many differentiated factors that are portrayed in the literature and with various research designs (e.g., Goh, Loy, et al., 2020; Lee & Christiaan, 2018; Neuman, 2010). Some have indicated that these could be factors involving the teaching environment, others indicate teacher issues (e.g., Kepol, 2017; Ngajib et al., 2018). However, it is equally important to determine the relationship arising from the different factors to fully understand these interrelated factors, which this current study has done. Therefore, the results and the model derived from this study can serve as an initial starting point toward better understanding of both preschool teachers’ teaching environment and their personal beliefs toward the use of English as a medium of instruction. It could also be useful for future reference toward some sort of support mechanisms to help new preschool teachers to be competent in their use of English to teach. To fully understand the factors derived from this study at a deeper and broader level, future investigations must explore preschool teachers’ professional reality in their own teaching environment through interviews. Nevertheless, the present study can serve as a starting platform that makes patterns of variables visible at a general level.

It must be noted that the model is derived from only one set of data, and this may have affected the overall “goodness-of-fit” of the model. Although the measurement of the model is a valid model, the model has not fully met the “Fit” indices. The criteria fit for CFI and TLI only managed to meet the criteria of “marginal fit” (Maulana & Rufaidah, 2014) where its values are between .80 and .90. Therefore, this must be noted as a limitation. While a robust model fit would be ideal, the model can be influenced by external factors such as the respondents, the number of respondents, and the objectiveness of the respondents in answering the questionnaire (Maulana & Rufaidah, 2014). Therefore, further replication of this model on new and bigger samples is recommended. In addition, the present study has mainly investigated teachers’ own perspectives of their efficacy, beliefs and attitudes, the relationship between the language proficiency of teachers and their ability to teach in the language is equally important (Richards, 2017) and should also be addressed in future studies.

Footnotes

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 National Child Development Research Centre (NCDRC) of Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia (grant number: 2016009910604).

Ethics

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the research grant provider. All participation in the study was strictly voluntary.

ORCID iD

Pauline Swee Choo Goh

References

Af Wåhlberg

A. E.

Poom

(2015). An empirical test of nonresponse bias in internet surveys. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1111212

Azman

(2016). Implementation and challenges of English language education reform in Malaysian primary schools. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(3), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2016-2203-05

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Block

Taliaferro

Harris

Krause

(2010). Using self-efficacy theory to facilitate inclusion in general physical education. Journal of Physical Education Recreation & Dance, 81(3), 43–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2010.10598448

Bryman

. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Çankaya

(2017). Challenges in English medium of instruction from the teachers and students’ eyes. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 5(4), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.2096

Conyers

Wilson

. (2015). Smart moves: Powering up the brain with physical activity. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(8), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715583961

Darwish

S. A.

(2017). Teachers’ attitude toward a foreign language: Factors affecting the target language teaching process. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijelt.v5n1p1

10.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

11.

Doll

Ajzen

(1992). Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.754

12.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison Wesley.

13.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

14.

Fowler

F. J.

(2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

15.

Goh

P. S. C.

(2013). Conceptions of competency: A phenomenographic investigation of beginning teachers in Malaysia. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1519

16.

Goh

P. S. C.

(2019). Preschool teachers’ perspectives on using English language to teach. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(4), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1904-18

17.

Goh

P. S. C.

Blake

(2015). Teacher preparation in Malaysia: Needed changes. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1020780

18.

Goh

P. S. C.

Canrinus

E. T.

(2019). Preservice teachers’ perception of program coherence and its relationship to their teaching efficacy. Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanities, 27(T2), 27–45.

19.

Goh

P. S. C.

Canrinus

E. T.

Wong

K. T.

(2020). Preservice teachers’ perspectives about coherence in their teacher education program. Educational Studies, 46(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1584856

20.

Goh

P. S. C.

Loy

C. L.

Abdul-Wahab

Raja Safinas

R. H.

(2020). Preschool teachers’ use of English as a medium of instruction: A systematic review of barriers and strategies. Issues in Education Research, 30(3), 943–964.

21.

Goh

P. S. C.

Wong

K. T.

Hamzah

M. S. G.

(2014). The approaches to teaching inventory: A preliminary validation of the Malaysian translation. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n1.6

22.

Goh

P. S. C.

Yusuf

Wong

K. T.

(2017). Lived experience: Perceptions of competency of novice teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 20–36.

23.

Gooch

(2009, July 8). Malaysia ends use of English in science and math teaching. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/world/asia/09iht-malay.html

24.

Groves

R. M.

Peytcheva

(2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn011

25.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Anderson

R. E.

Babin

B. J.

(2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

26.

Hayduk

Cummings

Boadu

Pazderka-Robinson

Boulianne

(2007). Testing! Testing! One, Two Three – Testing the theory in structural equation models! Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.001

27.

Hox

J. J.

de Leeuw

E. D.

Chang

H. T.

(2012). Nonresponse versus measurement error: Are reluctant respondents worth pursuing? Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 113(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106311426987

28.

(2019). English-medium instruction in higher education: Lessons from China. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 16(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.1.1.1

29.

Ismail

S. A. A.

Shaban

M. S.

(2016). Prospective teachers’ views toward the use of English as the medium of instruction in early childhood classes in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(5), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2016.1360

30.

Kepol

(2017). Quality Malaysian English language teachers: Examining a policy strategy. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14, 187–209. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2017.14.1.8

31.

Kyeyune

(2003). Challenges of using English as a medium of instruction in multilingual contexts: A view from Ugandan classrooms. Language Culture and Curriculum, 16(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310308666666

32.

Lee

Christiaan

(2018). Pedagogic challenges of English-mediated instruction in the Korean EFL context. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 15(1), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.1.16.217

33.

Lee

(2009). Teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching English, perceived English language proficiency, and attitudes toward the English language: A case of Korean public elementary school teachers [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5b56/f9125d9cab231c618c23ce9fa536065a7a2c.pdf

34.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.130

35.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

36.

Maulana

M. R. S.

Rufaidah

(2014). Co-creation of small-medium enterprises. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 115, 198–206.

37.

Milner

H. R.

Hoy

A. W.

(2003). A case study of an African American Teacher’s self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(02)00099-9

38.

Mustafa

M. C.

Ngajib

S. H.

Isa

Z. M.

Omar

Osman

Ahmad

N. A.

Arip

M. A. S. M.

Amran

A. N. F. M.

(2018). Early childhood teachers’ challenges in using English to interact with young English language learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(6), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i6/4179

39.

Nam Siong

Hui Min

(2017). Socio-environmental factors impacting on teachers’ attitudes towards code-switching in ESL classrooms in a rural district in Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 35(2), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.21315/km2017.35.2.6

40.

Neuman

S. B.

(2010). Lessons from my mother: Reflections on the national early literacy panel report. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 301–304. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27764600

41.

Ngajib

S. H. M.

Mustafa

M. C.

Isa

Z. M.

Omar

Osman

Arip

M. A. S. B. M.

Ahmad

N. A.

(2018). The needs of teaching English through effective interaction for early childhood teachers. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(11), 1877–1887. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i11/5379

42.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

43.

Othman

Saat

R. M.

(2009). Challenges of using English as a medium of instruction: Preservice science teachers’ perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v18i2.1331

44.

Pandian

(2006). What works in the classroom? Promoting literacy practices in English. 3L: Journal of Language Teaching, Lingustics and Literature, 11(1), 15–39.

45.

Pavlenko

(2003). I never knew I was a bilingual”: Reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of Language Identity & Education, 2(4), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0204_2

46.

Puteh

(2010). The language medium policy in Malaysia: A plural society model? Review of European Studies, 2(2), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v2n2p192

47.

Richards

J. C

. (2017). Teaching English through English: Proficiency, pedagogy and performance. RELC Journal, 48(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217690059

48.

Rindfuss

R. R.

Choe

M. K.

Tsuya

N. O.

Bumpass

L. L.

Tamaki

(2015). Do low survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan. Demographic Research, 32(1), 797–828. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2015.32.26

49.

Sheridan

S. M.

Edwards

C. P.

Marvin

C. A.

Knoche

L. L.

(2009). Professional development in early childhood programs: Process issues and research needs. Early Education and Development, 20(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802582795

50.

Siti Nursyafiah Amirah

M. A.

(2017). Spoken English proficiency of preschool teachers in the English proficiency for preschool teachers (EPPT) programme [Masters dissertation, International Islamic University Malaysia]. https://lib.iium.edu.my/mom/services/mom/document/getFile/MFbvzyko8HDxsu5FpfeuZf0o15U0mYse20171129121904511

51.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

52.

Tharmalingam

(2012, November). Language policy changes in Malaysia: Progressive or regressive? [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Linguistics, Literature, and Culture 2012 (ICLLIC 2012), Park Royal Hotel Penang, Malaysia. http://irep.iium.edu.my/26806/1/Language_policy_changes.pdf

53.

The Star. (2010, April 11). More hours in English to bring positive results. The STAR. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2010/04/11/more-hours-in-english-to-bring-positive-results

54.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

55.

Walker

Shafer

Liams

(2004). “Not In my classroom”: Teacher attitudes towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130–160.

56.

Wheaton

Muthen

Alwin

D. F.

Summers

G. F.

(1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/270754

Factors Influencing Malaysian Preschool Teachers’ Use of the English Language as a Medium of Instruction

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Frameworks

Self-Efficacy

Attitude-Behavior Relation

Methodology

The Research Model

Target Population

Instrument

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Stepwise Regression

Factor Analysis

Testing the Theoretical Model

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations and Future Studies

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethics

ORCID iD

References