jurnal mt 1

8/8/2019 jurnal mt 1

1/19


2/19

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 1(2009)

144

other subjects is due to (i) The English Language being the language of knowledge and international

communication, and (ii) the need to improve the command of the Scientific English Language within

teachers and students to enable them to obtain the latest knowledge in Science and Mathematics.The implementation of PPSMI is important in the countrys effort to produce work force and to

develop the technocratic community which are able to interact and are competitive in the international

level. Moreover, the policy is also in line with the national Science and Technology policy whichintends Malaysia to make a leap into the developed country status from the developing country status

by the year 2020. The instruction of the implementation of PPSMI in schools starting from the year2003 has been sent out by the KPM through (i) the Compendium No. 11/2002 Circular Letters dating27th November 2002 for the implementation to begin in Primary One in National Schools (SK) and

Tamil National Type Schools [SJK(T)], Form One in Secondary Schools and Form Lower Six, and (ii)

the Compendium No. 12/2002 dating 27th

November 2002 for the implementation to begin in PrimaryOne in Chinese National Type Schools [SJK(C)].

The change from the National Language to the English Language as communication medium in

the education policy has caused confusion and defiance especially from the educationists, politicians

and nationalists because they believe that the change would not only cause the country to movebackwards but would also contradict the Federation Constitution: The Malay Language as the National

Language.

Matter 152 (1) of the Federation Constitution which has allocated Malay as the NationalLanguage and the language has to be used as the official language and Matter 152 (6) of the Federation

Constitution allocated official purposes means all Government purposes, regardless of whether it

is Federation Government of the State Government, and inclusive of any public authority purposes.

This is in relation to the National Language Act 1963/67: The National Language as The Official

Language.

1.2. Problem Statement

The policy legislators are confident and they believe that the usage of Computer Technology (CT) and

Communication can facilitate and smoothen the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English(PPSMI). This policy has been implemented but without any reference to any study and discreet

consideration about its implication towards the teachers teaching and students learning process. With

the implementation of the policy, the government has allocated a total amount of RM 5.2 billion to

ensure the success of PPSMI in primary and secondary schools in the whole country. (Comment by theDeputy Minister of Education (LRT) in October 2008).

A study done by the Curriculum Development Centre (PPK) (Sharifah Maimunah, 2003) five

months after the implementation of the PPSMI policy has shown that the achievements of students inboth the stated subjects which is implemented in the English Language medium is satisfactory.

Although some has argued about the accuracy of the results in the study due to the short period of

implementation that is not adequate to measure the success of a program implementation, the results ofthe study has encouraged the government to propose the continuation of the PPSMI policy (Wan

Esuriyanti. 2003).

With the collaborative monitoring and guiding of the PPSMI program implementation year

2007 by the Schools Inspectors Municipal, KPM towards Cohort 1 (2003) students of national schoolsin tests or examinations in the school level, it is also found that the achievements of the students areonly on the average level for Science, Mathematics and English. Similar trends were also found by a

study done by the State Education Department and District Education Office.

Quality wise, if we were to compare the achievement between Rural National Schools and

Urban National Schools, it is clear that the Urban National Schools performed better than theircounterparts. The SJK(C) performed better than the SJK (T) whilst the SK is the last behind the

formers.


3/19

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)

145

The TK equipments has been prepared with a very high allocation; portable computers and

LCD projectors has been supplied to all PPSMI teachers. Not only that, the Education Subjects

Incentive Payment (BISP) is also given to the PPSMI teachers (Ministry of Education Circular LetterNo. 3 year 2003). However, the usage of TK within teachers is a culture that has caused its usage to go

beyond rather than limiting it in classrooms. Besides that, the skill level of teachers in using TK has yet

to be improved.Issues still existing within the teachers regarding the implementation of PPSMI until now are;

inadequate skills in speaking the English Language within the PPSMI teachers, lack of interest inlearning Science and Mathematics in English, and teachers not sufficiently mastering the Science andMathematics subjects in English. The teachers also lacked skills in using TK and in efficient teaching

and learning while also lacking facilities to improve the command of the English Language and to

execute teaching and learning.

1.3. The Conceptual Framework of Study

The whole evaluation process of the teachers and students competency who followed the PPSMI isconcluded in a relationship between involved variables form, which is shown in the conceptual

framework of study in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework of Study

The conceptual framework of study determines the relationship between the teachers teaching

process and its effect towards students learning, taking their respective exogenous factors in account.The teachers competency is measured and evaluated through classrooms teaching observations andself evaluations. As for the students, they are evaluated based on a PPSMI standard test whilst making

self evaluations using the Students Self Evaluation instrument. The gap between the output and the

outcome are used as the determinant in analyzing the teachers competency and its implication towardsstudents achievement.


4/19


146

1.4. The Objective of Study

Generally, this study is to evaluate the PPSMI implementation status by teachers and its implicationstowards students learning and achievements in Science and Mathematics subjects. Specifically, the

objectives of the study are as follows:

(i) To measure the competency level of teachers who teach Science and Mathematics in English.(ii) To evaluate the teachers efficiency in using Computer Technology in teaching Science and

Mathematics in English.(iii) To evaluate students performance in the PPSMI program with respect to schools in urban orrural areas.

1.5. Study Questions

Exclusively, this study is to provide answer to the following questions:

i. What is the competency level of teachers who teach Science and Mathematics in English?ii. What is the efficiency level of teachers in using computer technology for teaching Science and

Mathematics in the English Language?iii. What is the achievement level of students in the PPSMI program based on their school

locations (i.e. urban or rural)?

1.6. The Importance of the Study

This study is made to see the teachers commitments and their efficiency in using the English

Language to teach Science and Mathematics in primary and secondary schools of both rural and urbanareas. The execution of the study is important as the implementation of the PPSMI program has been

said to cause problems not only in the education policy, but also towards the students by directly

affecting their performance in both of the subjects. It also gives a major implication towards thedevelopment of the countrys human capital as Science and Mathematics are the major blueprints for

the core of the nations development.

2.0. Literature Survey2.1. Introduction

Competency is defined as the potential or ability of a person in handling their jobs and producing the

best results. Competency is a criterion possessed by an individual who involves good behavior

knowledge and an attitude which is able to present excellent results. Competency is derived from theword competence which meant to be suitable. A few researchers defined competency as good and

complete assignment and responsibility (Boyatzis; Homby & Thomos, 1989; Burgoyne, 1989 and

Woodruff, 1993). In their opinion, competency is the ability in executing their duties which are relatedto necessary activities.

Gilbert (1978) stated that individual competency is a function towards achievement. He

suggested the Competency Theory which includes matters like; (i) The real value of individualcompetency is a result of achievement and not because of behavior; (ii) A major achievement has no

real value if it involved high cost of the behavior or activity; (iii) The system which acknowledges an

individual because of behavior and not because the real result of the behavior which maintains no

competency.According to Charles (1993), competency is a dimension of behavior which is related to a good

performance in ones work. It is the knowledge, skills and ability possessed by a person. Mazlan

(1994) National Training Board of Australia stated competency as the ability to execute an activity inones job or function with a desired standard.


5/19


147

2.2. PPSMI

The PPSMI was recorded as a decision of the Malaysian government policy done by the SpecialMeeting of the Municipal of Ministry on 19 July 2002. The implementation of PPSMI is done in

stages, beginning on the year 2003 school sessions, and the pioneers of this program were all Primary 1

students in the Primary School level and Form 1 and Form Lower 6 in Secondary Schools level. Thefull implementation of the PPSMI is done in year 2007 for the Secondary School level and year 2008

for the Primary School level respectively. The rational of the change for the teaching medium tochange from the Malay Language to the English Language for teaching Science and Mathematics are

because of the governments concern towards the manpower source development to achieve thedeveloped country status and also as a preparation from the early stages of school to be able to compete

in the era of globalization.

It is generally known that Science and Mathematics are fields that has become the foundationand has important purposes in a countrys development. Various innovation and new discoveries in

these fields has happened quickly and most of this information about its expansions is in the English

Language medium. Moreover, the English Language is the international communicating language andmastering this language helps in knowledge attainment in this field. As a conclusion, the decision of

the policy to implement the PPSMI is to ensure better mastery of Science and Mathematics within

students since the majority of the sources are in English. Indirectly, the implementation of the PPSMIis hoped to improve the command of the English Language within the students.

2.3. Human Capital Development

The Prime Minister Y.A.B. Dato Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi has initiated the idea revolution

by stressing the effort towards developing human capital as a pathway to future generation excellence.

The future generation is Malaysias human asset and is the most important factor in the governments

effort to realize the existence of a -developed, excellent, glorious and well known nation arrivingtowards the VISION 2020.

To realize the goal, the country has continually provided quality workforce with the possession

of knowledge in various fields including Science and Technology. The human capital is the individual

who is knowledgeable, confident, possesses high moral values, good etiquettes and good manners,disciplined, dynamic, innovative, creative, healthy, patriotic, just, progressive, steadfast, and

competitive. This is the human capital which possesses the ultimate personalities. It is these individualswho will determine the direction of the country in the future.

2.4. Previous Studies

A study by Fadlina Mohd Azzizuddin (2008) about the Competency Level of Primary Schools

Teachers towards Teaching in Science and Mathematics in the English Language was done to

determine the competency level of primary schools teachers towards teaching Science andMathematics in English. This Study focuses on the questionings of study. The instruments of study

used were questionnaires designed to measure the competency level of its respondents. The

competency level is studied based on aspects related to usage of the English Language, teaching

methods and teaching support materials used in the teaching and learning process. A total of 73teachers who taught the Science and Mathematics subjects from five schools in the district of PortDickson, Negri Sembilan were chosen as respondents. The results of study showed that the

competency level of the primary school teachers in teaching Science and Mathematics are high for the

teaching methods and teaching support materials. In the case of the English language usage, the level

of competency is average.Hamidah Ab Rahman and her friends (2005) found that the teachers play an important role in

providing knowledge and new skills to the students. They are thought of as excellent and competent

teachers by the families of the students based on the academic achievements with the implementation


6/19


148

of the Teaching of the Science and Mathematics Subjects in the English Language (PPSMI) through

ICT integration in the year 2003. The competency levels of the teachers in teaching those subjects are

still in the probationary period. This is because most of the teachers at present lacked the exposure inteaching those subjects in English. Most of them has been taught the stated subjects in the Malay

Language medium and were also trained to teach in the Malay Language medium. To help the teachers

to teach easily, the government has introduced a few programs which will help in improving theirconfidence level in teaching those subjects in English.

3.0. Study Methodology3.1. Introduction

This paper also discusses on the methods or the approach, conduct, instruments, scope, location,

samples, period and analysis data of the study. For this explanation, a few matters have been proposed

to further describe the methodology of study

3.2. Methods of Study

The Interaction Survey Method is used in the study and is based on six determined approaches and

as many as 13 sets of study instruments were used. The involved steps were:(i) Conducting observations on the teachers (systematic random) as a whole towards the teaching

and learning process of Science and Mathematics in classrooms.

(ii) Supervising standard tests (Science, Mathematics and English) on the observed students in theprocess of teaching and learning.

(iii) Making interactional observations by distributing questionnaires (Teachers Self Evaluation) tothe observed teachers.

(iv) Making interactional observations by distributing questionnaires (Administration SelfEvaluation) to the efficient school administration.

3.3. Instruments of Study

13 sets of instruments of study were self-built by the group of researchers. The process of creating the

instruments began with the preparation on the Instrument Determiner Table, or the JPI, taking accountof the measurements or parameter intended to be evaluated, determining its construct, variables and

then determining the total amount of items needed for each construct.

The First Set of study apparatus is known as the PPSMI Management Instrument whichconsists of 20 items. The Second Set (Teachers Teaching Observation Instrument) encompasses the

Teaching Introduction component (5 items), the Interaction component (3 items), Students Role (4

items), Teaching Support Materials (4 items) and English Speaking Skills (8 items).

The Third Set of study instruments, i.e. the Teachers Self Evaluation Instrument measuresthe teachers efficiency based on Teaching Introduction (6 items), Mastery of the EnglishLanguage (8 items), Teaching and Learning (11 items) and Students Mastery (9 items). The

Fourth Set is the Students Self Evaluation Instrument which measures the students competency inthe process of learning Science and Mathematics in the English Language which consists of 22

items.The fifth to the thirteenth measuring tools are the students Cognitive Level Evaluation

Instruments in three main subjects namely the Science, Mathematics and English. Related subjects areAdditional Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry where each set contains 20 items.

3.4. Study Sampels

Study samples were determined in the strata random way following the level of standard of students,

i.e. Primary Schools (Standard 5) and Secondary Schools (Form Four). Students who are the samples


7/19


149

of study have gone through the learning process which has nearly been completed for both the Science

and Mathematics subjects. Because of that, the Standard 5 students and Form 4 students were taken as

samples of study. They are also the candidates to complete their education primary and secondaryschool level.

Based on the criteria determined by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), a total of 183 primary school

teachers and 221 secondary school teachers were taken as samples and observed through viewing theteaching and learning status in classrooms. A total of 4410 students in primary schools and 4946

students in secondary schools were involved in the study. They also took the standard test of study andanswered the questionnaires

4.0. Results of Study4.1. Course Status

The number of primary school teachers participated in the PPSMI program courses based on the types

of courses are shown on Table 1.

Table 1: PPSMI Program Courses Participated by the Primary School Teachers

Type of Course Participated (Percentage)Never Participated

(Percentage)Total (Percentage)

119 64 183PPSMI

(65.0%) (35.0%) (100.0%)

KOSM 54 129 183

(Science and

Mathematics Orientation

Course)

(29.5%) (70.5%) (100.0%)

78 105 183Computer Technology

(42.6%) (57.4%) (100.0%)

Table 1 shows the number of primary school teachers who participated in the courses related to

the PPSMI. Based on the types of courses, the percentage of participation of teachers for the PPSMIcourse are 65.0% (119 cases). For the Science and Mathematics orientation course, the study shows

that the percentage of teachers who never participated in this course is 70.5% (129 cases). For the

Computer Technology courses, the percentage of teachers who participated are 42.6% (78 cases) andthe remaining 57.4% (105 cases) did not participate in the course.To conclude, the study found that the

number of PPSMI teachers who were not exposed to the courses related to the PPSMI are still high and

this directly and indirectly causes constraint to the teaching and learning of the PPSMI.The numbers of secondary school teachers who participated in the PPSMI program courses

based on course types are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: PPSMI Program Courses Participated by the Secondary School Teachers

Type of Course Participated (Percentage)Never Participated

(Percentage)Total (Percentage)

152 89 241PPSMI

(63.1%) (36.9%) (100.0%)

KOSM 139 102 241

(Science and Mathematics

Orientation Course)(57.7%) (42.3%) (100.0%)

121 120 241Computer Technology

(50.2%) (49.8%) (100.0%)


8/19


150

Table 2 shows the numbers of secondary school teachers who participated the courses related to

the PPSMI. Based on the types of courses, the percentage of teachers who participated in the PPSMI

course is 63.1% (152 cases). For the Science and Mathematics Orientation Course, the study found thata number of 139 (57.7%) teachers participated. For the Computer Technology, the number of

participants is 121 (50.2%) cases.

The status of primary school teachers and secondary school teachers who participated in thePTP courses are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Teachers Who Participated in the PTP Program

Table 3 shows the number of primary and secondary school teachers who has taken the

Proficiency Level Evaluation (PTP) course organized by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia for the

PPSMI teachers. 23.6% of the teachers were exempted from the PTP. However, 32.3% of primary

school teachers and 7.9% of secondary school teachers have yet to take the examination. Thesecondary school teachers still leads the primary school teachers in numbers participating in the PTPcourse. The numbers of teachers exempted from the PTP are higher amongst the secondary school

teachers compared to the primary school teachers.

4.2. Proficiency Level Evaluation (PTP) Status

The PTP achievement level of primary and secondary school teachers with respect to their levels are

shown on Table 4.

Table 4: Teachers Achievement

Primary School Secondary SchoolPTP Achievement

No. % No. %

Level 1 * 25 21.7 46 25.9

Level 2 * 24 20.8 44 24.9

Level 3 28 24.3 33 18.2

Level 4 22 19.3 30 16.9

Level 5 16 13.9 24 13.5

Total 115 100 177 100

Note: * FAILED

Table 4 shows the number of teachers who gave response to the PTP achievement. The analysisshowed that 49 (42.5%) primary school teachers and 90 (50.8%) secondary school teachers failed in

the English PTP. However, they are still continuing their teaching of PPSMI. Generally the primary

school teachers showed better achievement compared to the secondary school teachers based on thelevels of PTP.

4.3. Demography of Students

A total of 4410 (47.1%) primary school students and 4946 (52.9%) secondary school students were

involved in the study. This is shown in Table 5.

Primary Schools Secondary SchoolsPTP Courses

No. % No. %

PTP Exempted 9 4.9 45 18.7

PTP Not Yet Taken 59 32.3 19 7.9

PTP Taken 115 62.8 177 73.4


9/19


151

Table 5: Number of Primary and Secondary School Students

School Level Number of Students Percentage

Primary School 4410 47.1

Secondary School 4946 52.9

Total 9356 100

The number of students involved in the study based on gender is shown on Table 6.

Table 6: Number of Students Based on Gender

Gender Number Percentage

Male (Primary School) 2147 22.9

Female (Primary School) 2162 23.1

Male (Secondary School) 2199 23.5

Female (Secondary School) 2848 30.5

Total 9356 100.0

Table 6 shows the number of students based on their gender. The numbers show that there were

more female students (5010) participating as samples for this study compared to the male students

(4346) by 7.4 percent.

4.4. Teachers Professionalism in the Teaching and Learning Process

The competency of the PPSMI teachers are measured and evaluated based on the researchers

evaluation, teachers self evaluation and students self evaluation (in the teachers teaching aspect)

which encompasses the teaching and learning process and the aspects related to universal education.The measuring unit used the semantic scale of 10 points. Because of that, the interpretation of the score

is based on the scale mean basic which is 5 and then added to the standard deviation value or the meanof 5 subtracted with the value of standard deviation (Kuebler and Smith, 1976). The conclusion of the

analysis and the results interpretation are shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 1: Analysis of the Statistic Calculation from the Respondents Response


10/19


152

4.5. Observation of the Teachers Teaching and Learning

The observation of the primary and secondary school teachers teaching and learning encompasses 6dimensions, i.e. the beginning of lesson, presentation of subject contents suitable to concepts and

meanings, interaction between friends and teachers, interaction of teachers and students with the

Computer Technology, usage of the English Language within teachers and the Computer Technologyusage status within teachers as shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Observations of Teachers by the Researchers

MatterPrimary School

Mean

Secondary School

MeanOverall Mean

Standard

Deviation

Beginning 5.7 4.7 5.1 2.2

Presentation 5.4 4.5 4.9 2.2

Students Interaction 4.1 3.6 3.8 2.0

Teachers Interaction 5.7 4.8 5.2 2.1

Teachers Usage of

English6.0 5.1 5.5 2.3

Computer Technology 5.5 5.2 5.3 1.5

Overall Mean 5.4 4.6 4.9 1.8

Table 7 shows the observation status of teachers teaching Science and Mathematics in English

for primary schools and secondary schools. For the Science Stream secondary schools, the observation

for teachers teaching and learning is done for Physics, Chemistry and Additional Mathematics whilefor the Arts Stream; observation is done for Science and Mathematics. For the primary schools, similar

observations were done for Science and Mathematics. During the observation, six dimensions of

teaching and learning were focused; the beginning of lesson, presentation of subject contents,

interaction between students and teachers, usage of the English Language during the teaching andlearning process and the Computer Technology usage during the teaching and learning process ofScience and Mathematics in the classrooms.

Overall the mean of teaching and learning process in English within the Science and

Mathematics teachers for the primary schools are 5.4 and for secondary schools are 4.6. However,during the teaching and learning process of Science and Mathematics in English, the level of Englishusage within Science and Mathematics teachers of primary schools achieved the average level

(mean=6.0). In relation to that, the aspect of using the correct, accurate and clear line of grammar can

still be improved. The same can be said for the interaction between teachers and students aspect whereaverage level is also achieved (mean=5.7). This is related to the fluency in explaining, elaborating

ideas and encouraging students to give response.

The study also found that the Science and Mathematics teachers of primary school achievedaverage level when on the beginning of their teaching sessions (mean=5.7) which lacked in instilling

awareness within students to learn and relating the subject contents with their experiences. In the

aspect of presentation and subject content integration with the curriculum cum the accurate elaboration

of Science and Mathematics concepts, the teachers achieved the average level (mean=5.4). However,in the aspect of encouraging students to actively ask questions and the teachers speaking skills during

teaching, the teachers are found to be less effective in doing this task and could only reach the poor

level which is the lowest of the achievement in the teaching process with the score of mean 4.1.In the case of Science and Mathematics secondary school teachers, they also showed different

level of achievement that are poor and average in the six aspects of teaching and learning. The

performance of Computer Technology usage is the highest compared to the other aspects, but is stillonly at the average level (mean 5.2). This is followed by the mastery of the usage of the English

Language during the teaching and learning process which also achieved the average level (5.1). For the

other four aspects, namely the beginning of teaching, lesson presentation, interaction of studentstowards the teachers and interaction of the teachers towards the students are poor. The weakness can


11/19


153

clearly be seen as the students were not able to successfully in explaining, elaborating ideas and were

not encouraged to give response. The teachers also showed little fluency in the condition of interaction

with the students. The condition of this aspect needs serious attention for improvement.

4.6. Students Self Evaluation towards Teaching

The evaluation of primary and secondary school students are done in four dimensions as summarized

on Table 4.6

Table 8: PPSMI Students Self Evaluation

MatterPrimary School

Mean

Secondary School

MeanOverall Mean Standard Deviation

The English Medium 5.6 6.3 6.0 1.7

Teachers English 7.1 6.9 7.0 2.7

Students English 5.0 4.6 4.8 2.3

Two Way Interaction 6.3 5.9 6.1 3.9

Computer Technology 5.4 5.3 5.3 2.4

Overall Mean 5.8 5.8 5.8 2.6

Table 8 shows the self evaluation by students of primary and secondary schools towards thePPSMI. Overall, the students of primary and secondary schools evaluation on the average level

(min=5.8) for 5 teaching and learning dimensions of teachers in classrooms. Throughout the teachingand learning process observed, the primary school students found that their teachers have used the

English Language medium at the good level (mean=71). However, the status of the English Language

of secondary school teachers are still on the average level (mean=6.9). To conclude, from the ofspeaking in English, teachers regardless of primary or secondary schools are more discreet and careful

in using concepts and terms in English.

In the aspect of the student-teacher and teacher-student interaction, students evaluated on the

ability of the teachers being able to generate a conducive teaching and learning environment to thelevel of average (overall mean=6.1). In the aspect of Computer Technology, students gave an average

level (overall grade=5.3) on how the teachers were able to use Computer Technology as a teachingsupport material. In most teaching and learning environments, the teachers read out the importantcontents and gave the same notes to be copied by students. Evaluation questions were also given by

power point through LCD projection.

4.7. Teachers Self Evaluation on Teaching and Learning

The four dimensions evaluated by the teachers towards the teaching and learning process are shown on

Table 9.

Table 9: Teachers Self Evaluation on PPSMi

DimensionPrimary School

MeanSecondary

School MeanOverall Mean

StandardDeviation

Teachers English 5.8 6.5 6.2 1.7

The English Medium 4.8 4.8 4.8 1.9

Students English 5.3 5.2 5.3 1.7

Computer Technology (ICT) 5.0 5.4 5.2 1.8

Overall Mean 5.2 5.4 5.3 1.7

Table 9 shows the self evaluation of primary and secondary school Science and Mathematics

teachers on their status of teaching in the context of PPSMI. Overall, the evaluation received was onthe average level; an overall mean of 5.2 for the primary school teachers and an overall mean of 5.4 for


12/19


154

the secondary school teachers teaching Science and Mathematics. Analysis of the difference showed

the overall mean of the secondary school teachers are higher compared to their primary school

counterparts with the difference gap of 0.2.Results of study shows that the secondary school teachers have better mastery of the English

Language compared to the primary school teachers. However, both categories of teachers were only

able to achieve the average level. One of the important aspects that the teachers have yet to achieve thelevel of good or excellent is the effective and relevant usage of Computer Technology (overall mean =

5.2). In the dimension of whether the students were able to use the English Language during interactionand elaboration with the teachers or their fellow students, it is shown that the usage of the language islimited with the overall mean of 5.3.

4.8. Competency of the PPSMI Teachers

Based on the triangulation analysis between the observation of teachers teaching in classrooms by the

researchers, the summary of the teachers self evaluation throughout the teaching process observed and

the self evaluation of students towards the teachers teaching process as shown on Table 7, 8, and 9, acompetency mean coordinate of 5.33 with the standard deviation of 2.0 is calculated. This value gives

an image and interpretation whereby then PPSMI teachers competency observed and evaluated shows

that they are ready to work towards the success of the instructional process of teaching Science andMathematics on the average level. Besides that, the teachers efficiency in using the English medium

assisted by the computer teaching support materials (Computer Technology) in realizing the Pedagogy

Content Knowledge (PCK) together with the students is at the 5.33 mean level (ten point scale) or

53.33 percent. This competency scale gives an image that the PPSMI teachers need at least another16.67 percent to achieve the minimum competency level of good. Because of that, more effort of

mastering the basic pedagogical skills is needed for a clearer presentation of subject contents, concepts,

sentence usage and English pronunciation. This also means that self confidence needs to be improve togenerate active two-way interaction between the teachers and students, taking account of the KBSR

core and the KBSM element.

4.9. Teachers Efficiency in Using the Computer Technology

The status of the teachers usage and efficiency in using the Computer Technology in classrooms were

evaluated and analyzed based on the school administration instrument, researchers, teachers selfevaluation and students evaluation as summarized on Table 10.

Table 10: Teachers Efficiency in Using the Computer Technology

EvaluationPrimary School

Mean

Secondary School

MeanOverall Mean

Standard

Deviation

Administration Evaluation 6.8 7.9 7.4 1.2

Researchers Evaluation 5.5 5.2 5.3 1.5

Teachers Self Evaluation 5.0 5.4 5.2 1.8

Students Evaluation 5.4 5.3 5.3 2.4Overall Mean 5.6 5.9 5.7 1.7

Table 10 shows the preparation and efficiency level of teachers in using the computertechnology as a process catalytic mechanism in the presentation of subject contents which can be

understood more easily to the students while improving the memorization towards the concepts and

facts discussed. For the primary school administrators, they have made an evaluation on the averagelevel (mean=6.7) for the PPSMI teachers efficiency in using Computer Technology. However, for the

administrators of the secondary schools, they stated that their PPSMI teachers were able to use the

Computer Technology at the good level (mean=7.9). Nonetheless, the overall mean for this aspect is7.4 (standard deviation=1.2). Compared to the overall evaluation in the aspect of Computer


13/19


14/19


156

The performance difference of students between the urban schools and rural schools for the

Mathematics subject is shown on Table 13.

Table 13: Comparison of Marks in Mathematics Test of Primary Schools

School

Location Standard

DeviationDifference DK t Sig. p

Urban 52.41 18.14

Rural 49.11 17.53 3.30 2786 4.29 .000

Note: *Significant on the level p < 0.05

The double test-t analysis on Table 13 shows that the mean score of the urban primary schoolstudents who took the Science test is 52.41 (N=707, Standard Deviation = 18.14) compared to the rural

primary school students, whereby the mean score of the Science test is 49.11 (N=2081, Standard

Deviation = 17.53). The performance difference between the two mean scores (3.30) is significantwhere the value of t is 4.29 (p=0.000). Thus, it is clear that the performance of rural school students are

lower compared to the performance of the urban school students for the Science test.

b) Arts Stream Secondary School Students Performance based on Location

The performance difference of students between the arts stream urban and rural secondary schools forthe English subject is shown on Table 14

Table 14: Comparison of Marks in English Test of Arts Stream Secondary Schools

School

Location Standard


Urban 45.07 15.89

Rural 41.47 15.243.67 1293 3.89 .000


The double test-t analysis on Table 14 shows that the mean score of the urban secondary school

students who took the English Language test is 45.07 (N=403, Standard Deviation = 15.89) comparedto the rural secondary school students, whereby the mean score of the English Language test is 41.47

(N=892, Standard Deviation = 15.24). The performance difference between the two mean scores (3.67)

is significant where the value of t is 3.89 (p=0.000). Thus, it is clear that the performance of ruralsecondary school students are lower compared to the performance of the urban secondary school

students for the English test.

The performance difference of students between the arts stream urban and rural secondaryschools for the Science subject is shown on Table 15.

Table 15: Comparison of Marks in Science Test of Arts Stream Secondary Schools

SchoolLocation

StandardDeviation

Difference DK t Sig. pUrban 36.23 14.36

Rural 33.48 13.312.75 1532 3.65 .000



students who took the Science test is 36.23 (N=475, Standard Deviation = 14.36) compared to the ruralsecondary school students, whereby the mean score of the Science test is 33.48 (N=1059, Standard

Deviation = 13.31). The performance difference between the two mean scores (2.75) is significant

where the value of t is 3.65 (p=0.000). Thus, it is clear that the performance of rural secondary school


15/19


157

students are lower compared to the performance of the urban secondary school students for the Science

test.

The performance difference of students between the arts stream urban and rural secondaryschools for the Mathematics subject is shown on Table 16.

Table 16: Comparison of Marks in Mathematics Test of Arts Stream Secondary Schools

School Location StandardDeviation

Difference DK t Sig. pUrban 63.75 21.97

Rural 44.02 18.4819.73 1616 19.10 .000



students who took the Mathematics test is 63.75 (N=559, Standard Deviation = 21.97) compared to therural secondary school students, whereby the mean score of the Science test is 44.02 (N=1059,

Standard Deviation = 18.48). The performance difference between the two mean scores (19.73) is

significant where the value of t is 19.10 (p=0.000). Thus, it is clear that the performance of ruralsecondary school students are lower compared to the performance of the urban secondary school

students for the Mathematics test.

c) Science Stream Secondary School Students Performance based on Location

The performance difference of students between the Science stream urban and rural secondary schools

for the English subject is shown on Table 17

Table 17: Comparison of Marks in English Test of Science Stream Secondary Schools

School

Location Standard


Urban 48.38 20.69

Rural 38.01 19.3010.37 16.99 10.05 0.000



students who took the English test is 48.38 (N=586, Standard Deviation = 20.69) compared to the ruralsecondary school students, whereby the mean score of the English test is 38.01 (N=1115, Standard

Deviation = 19.30). The performance difference between the two mean scores (10.37) is significant

where the value of t is 10.05 (p=0.000). Thus, it is clear that the performance of rural secondary schoolstudents are lower compared to the performance of the urban secondary school students for the

Mathematics test.

The performance difference of students between the Science stream urban and rural secondary

schools for Physics 1 is shown on Table 18

Table 18: Comparison of Marks in Physics 1 Test of Science Stream Secondary Schools

School

Location Standard


Urban 42.47 13.91

Rural 43.20 14.450.73 1658 -.995 .320



16/19


158


students who took the Physics 1 test is 42.47 (N=586, Standard Deviation = 13.91) compared to the

rural secondary school students, whereby the mean score of the Physics 1 test is 43.20 (N=1074,Standard Deviation = 14.45). The performance difference between the two mean scores (0.73) is not

significant where the value of t is -.995 (p=0.320). Thus, the performance of rural secondary school

students in Physics 1 has no significant difference to the performance of the urban secondary schoolstudents for the Physics 1 test.

The performance difference of students between the Science stream urban and rural secondaryschools for Physics 2 is shown on Table 18

Table 19: Comparison of Marks in Physics 2 Test of Science Stream Secondary Schools

School

tLocation Standard


Urban 51.62 18.26

Rural 46.09 16.925.53 1652 6.17 .000



students who took the Physics 2 test is 52.62 (N=584, Standard Deviation = 18.26) compared to therural secondary school students, whereby the mean score of the Physics 2 test is 43.20 (N=1070,

Standard Deviation = 16.92). The performance difference between the two mean scores (5.53) issignificant where the value of t is 6.17 (p=0.000). Thus, it is clear that the performance of rural

secondary school students are lower compared to the performance of the urban secondary school

students for the Physics 2 test.The performance difference of students between the Science stream urban and rural secondary

schools for Chemistry 1 is shown on Table 20

Table 20: Comparison of Marks in Chemistry 1 Test of Science Stream Secondary Schools

SchoolLocation StandardDeviation Difference DK t Sig. pUrban 46.41 18.59

Rural 44.61 19.171.80 1699 1.85 .064


The double test-t analysis on Table 20 shows that the mean score of the urban secondary schoolstudents who took the Chemistry 1 test is 46.41 (N=586, Standard Deviation = 18.59) compared to the

rural secondary school students, whereby the mean score of the Chemistry 1 test is 44.61 (N=1115,

Standard Deviation = 19.17). The performance difference between the two mean scores (1.80) is not

significant where the value of t is 1.85 (p=0.064). Thus, the performance of rural secondary schoolstudents in Chemistry 1 has no significant difference to the performance of the urban secondary school

students for the Chemistry 1 test.The performance difference of students between the Science stream urban and rural secondary

schools for Physics 2 is shown on Table 21

Table 21: Comparison of Marks in Chemistry 2 Test of Science Stream Secondary Schools

School

Location Standard


Urban 68.05 16.85

Rural 60.91 19.907.14 1697 7.40 .000



17/19


159


students who took the Chemistry 2 test is 68.05 (N=586, Standard Deviation = 16.85) compared to the

rural secondary school students, whereby the mean score of the English test is 60.91 (N=1113,Standard Deviation = 19.90). The performance difference between the two mean scores (7.14) is

significant where the value of t is 7.40 (p=0.000). Thus, it is clear that the performance of rural

secondary school students are lower compared to the performance of the urban secondary schoolstudents for the Chemistry 2 test.

The performance difference of students between the Science stream urban and rural secondaryschools for Additional Mathematics is shown on Table 22

Table 22: Comparison of Marks in Additional Mathematics Test of Science Stream Secondary Schools

School

Location Standard


Urban 55.00 19.68

Rural 53.40 18.071.60 1699 1.68 .092



students who took the Additional Mathematics test is 55.00 (N=586, Standard Deviation = 19.68)compared to the rural secondary school students, whereby the mean score of the Additional

Mathematics test is 53.40 (N=1115, Standard Deviation = 18.07). The performance difference betweenthe two mean scores (1.60) is not significant where the value of t is 1.68 (p=0.092). Thus, the

performance of rural secondary school students in Additional Mathematics has no significant

difference to the performance of the urban secondary school students for the Additional Mathematicstest.

5.0. SummaryOn the average, there are still many PPSMI teachers, primary (43.0%) and secondary (54.3%), who did

not participate in the PPSMI related courses and with that they do not have total information on theknowledge and skills required to execute effective PPSMI. The results are in line with Gilberts (1978)

explanation on the competency theory and the results of Hamidah Ab. Rahman et al (2005). This

practice should not happen continually as the PPSMI subjects emphasize on the concepts and termswith scientific and empirical elaboration.

The mastery of the English Language of the PPSMI teachers is critical especially for effective

teaching and learning. In this matter, the results show that 42.5 percent of primary school teachers and

50.8 percent of secondary school teachers failed in the English Proficiency Level Evaluation. Eventhough they failed, the teachers continued teaching and still receive the Education Subject Incentive

Payment allowance. This situation is worrying as it gives a direct affect towards the pedagogy and the

teaching effectiveness using the English Language as the language medium. The results did not fully

fulfill the objectives of the decision by the Special Meeting of the Municipal of Ministry on 19 July2002.

Overall the performance of teaching and learning of the PPSMI teachers in classrooms are atpoor level (mean score of 4.9) or at 49.0 percent. The results are contradictory to the study results by

Fadlina Mohd Azzizuddin (2008). Thus, the effort to improve the Pedagogy Content Knowledge

(PCK) needs to be increased, that is more than 21 percent to achieve the minimum level of good or

more than 31 percent minimum to achieve the level of excellent. This observes the aspects of thebeginning, presentation, and usage and interaction between students and teachers in the English

Language plus the usage and skills in Computer Technology. To double the effort, a period of more

than 10 years may be needed to achieve the ultimate aim of the PPSMI. In this period, thousands of


18/19


160

students will become victims to the teachers incompetency teaching Science and Mathematics in

English. The doubling effect should be taken as a lesson and meta-evaluation should be done by the

policy makers and the implementers of the PPSMI policy. Besides that, the attitudes of teachersinvolved in the PPSMI needs the reengineering process in multiple aspects so to be more committed

and dedicated in achieving the PPSMI aim. The problem is that after one revolution (6 years) of its

implementation, the teachers competency is still unsatisfactory. Given a thought, it is not too extremeto suggest an existence of a development research and pedagogy training institute to help improve the

teachers competency in teaching and learning. Such an institute can help in finding the substantivesolution in managing the pedagogy dilemma within teachers. The rational of this idea is supported bythe results of study that shows that the PPSMI teachers have moderate competency (mean = 5.30) in

executing the teaching and learning process in English. Because of that, the teachers competency

needs to be further enriched and strengthened.The teachers efficiency in handling and using Computer Technology are at the moderate level

(mean score = 5.7). In other words, the teachers still insufficiently using the Computer Technology

materials or just using it minimally which is different from the results of Hamidah Ab. Rahman et al

(2005). The usage of computer technology in PPSMI is thought by the mathematics and scienceteachers as not giving much help to students in understanding the subject contents and their teaching-

learning process.

From the 12 subjects tested, it is found that the students in urban schools bettered theircounterparts in the rural schools in 10 subjects (exclusive of Physics 1 and Chemistry 1) with the

average marks difference between 3.30 and 19.73. Thus, it is important to ensure supply of good basic

facilities, quality teachers and also the execution of strategic and well-arranged programs and activitiesin all rural schools so that the repetitive improvement of achievements can happen in the future. This

results is very much similar to the previous studies such as Aziz et al (2006) and the study of the

program cost efficiency of RMT (UPM, 2007)

Based on the results and justification of the competency level of teachers and their impactstowards the preparation of the human capital especially the Malays, rural or urban, it clearly shows that

the PPSMI has FAILED in producing quality human capital within students as hoped in the early

phases of its implementation. The transparency, honesty, sincerity, integrity and accountability of all

parties, especially the Ministry of Education of Malaysia are hoped to revise the implementation of thepolicy for the well-being and the development of student human capital.


19/19


References[1] Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.[2] Burgoyne, J. (1989). Creating the managerial portfolio: Building on competency approaches to

management development. Management Education and Development, 4(3), 42-55.

[3] Charles, W. (1993). What it is meant by a competency?Journal of Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment, 14(1), 29 36.

[4] Fadlina Mohd Azzizuddin. (2008). The competency level of primary school teachers inteaching Science and Mathematics. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

[5] Gilbert,T.F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York:McGraw-Hill.

[6] Hamidah Ab Rahman, Aziz Nordin, Mukheta Isa, Fatimah Puteh, Faruk Muhammad,Norazman Abd Majid, Aminah Ahmad Khalid, Siti Fatimah Bahari, Hj Shufaat Tumin &Zurihanmi Zakariya (2005). Teachers competency in the teaching of Mathematics in English

in Malaysian secondary schools, Paper presented at International Seminar of Mathematic

Education, Johor Bahru, Johor.[7] Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining the sample size for research. Educational

and Psychological Measurement. 30 (2), 607 - 610.

[8] Kuebler, R.R. & Smith, H.J. (1976). Descriptive measures in probability distributions. StatisticsA Beginning. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York.

[9] Mazlan Lazim. (1994). The work competncy of the Constable Police officer from the generalduty branch Shah Alam, Selangor. Human Deveopment Science Master Paper, Universiti Putra

Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor.[10] Circular Letter Compendium No. 5/2005, 20th July 2005. Guide to implementing the

Friendship System and Guide to Using The Self Learning Package Material. Ministry of

Education, Malaysia.[11] Ministry of Education Circular Letter No. 3 year 2003. Education Subject Incentive Payment

(BISP) . Ministry of Education, Malaysia.

[12] Universiti Putra Malaysia. (2007). The Study of Cost Efficiency of The Additional FoodChannel Program (RMT/PSS) for Primary Schools. Study with the Schools Department,

Ministry of Education, Malaysia, Selangor.[13] Wan Esuriyanti. (2003). The Study of the implementation of teaching and learning of Science

and Mathematics in English. Education Scholar Project. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

jurnal mt 1

Documents