DAP prepared to give Musa and Abdul Rafie educational studies world-wide showing that using a second language as a medium of instruction from too early stages can impede development of thinking skills resulting in low achievements in mathematics, science and languages


Speech (2)
- launching of the DAP “Restore Chinese education freehold status” movement held at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, KL
by Lim Kit Siang

(Kuala Lumpur, Saturday): One Barisan Nasional leader after another, from the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to the Education Minister, Datuk Musa Mohamad and even civil servants like the Education Director-General, Datuk Abdul Rafie Mamat have been claiming that the use of English to teach mathematics and science in national, Chinese and Tamil primary schools should be treated as a purely educational issue and should not be politicized. 

This issue has both a political and an educational dimension, as if it is purely an educational issue, the UMNO Supreme Council would have no business to decide even before the Cabinet on May 10 on the use of English to teach mathematics and science in schools. 

Unfortunately, there is not a single Barisan Nasional Minister or Education Ministry official who is prepared to discuss the proposal educationally and professionally and make out a sound educational case to prove that it is a good idea, resulting in  better student attainments  in mathematics, science and English rather than the opposite. 

I have always maintained that unless the government, and in particular the Education Ministry, can convince Malaysians about the educational soundness of the proposal, there is no need as yet to address the political dimension of the proposal. 

As of now,  neither the government nor the Education Ministry can even cross the educational hurdle to prove  that the use of English to teach mathematics and science in primary schools from Standard One is educationally sound – which makes it unnecessary to enter into the “political” implications of the proposal. 

Yesterday, I emailed Abdul Rafie, who headed the Committee which made recommendations to implement the use of English to teach mathematics and science in schools for a meeting to solely discuss the educational aspects of the proposed switch of medium of instruction, whether the government can guarantee that such a move would raise the academic attainments  of students in national, Chinese and Tamil primary schools in mathematics, science and English and whether there are any supporting  educational studies.

DAP is prepared to give to Musa and Abdul Rafie educational studies world-wide showing that using a second language as a medium of instruction from too early stages can impede the  development of thinking skills  of students resulting in low achievements in mathematics, science and languages. 

Studies by internationally-acknowledged educationists and researchers of bilingual education, like J. Cummins, M. Swain, M. Saville-Troike and   K. Anstrom show that a unitary cognitive academic proficiency (i.e. “thinking skills”) underlies all language performance, and may be expressed through either the first language (L1) or the second language (L2).  The “thinking skills” are developed primarily through the L1 in the early years, and may then be transferred to and expressed in an L2 later on.  If a learner’s L1 remains underdeveloped, then so does that learner’s “thinking skills”.  Thus, when that learner attempts to acquire an L2 and pursue studies through  the medium of an L2, that learner will bring  lower “thinking skills” to the task and be disadvantaged. 

These studies show that if a learner uses and develops his or her L1 for several years, and then moves into an L2 educational system at a later stage, that learner will invariably perform better than a learner who entered the L2 education system from the very beginning. 

In one “classic study” on immigrant Finnish children in Sweden,  the prevailing belief that the younger the children were when they begin school in their new language, the better they would do in terms of second language acquisition and overall academic achievement was proved wrong. The study found that the children who adapted and performed the best were those who began education through their L2 between the ages of 10-12 years. 

Another study compared the performance of two groups of Mexican children in the 6th grade in US schools on English language reading comprehension tests.  The one group had received two years of Spanish language education in Mexico followed by four years of English language education in the USA. The other group had received no Spanish language education in Mexico, and six yeasrs of English language education in the USA.  Contrary to popular expectations, the children with two years of L1 education outperformed the others in English, even though they had received fewer years of English language education. 

After reviewing similar research, Cummins and Swain (1986) reach the conclusion that an initial period of L1 education is imperative to achieve a higher level of mental maturity, which can then be transferred into L2 education. 

DAP can extend to Musa and Abdul Rafie these educational and professional studies worldwide showing that it is vitally important that learners fully develop their L1, because in so doing, they also develop their “thinking skills” and their academic intelligence. 

There are also studies to show that learners in L2 education lag behind their peers in areas such as mathematics and science, which may be because their L2 skills are insufficiently developed to be able to think mathematically and scientifically in their second language – and that learners have their best chance of success in mathematics and science if they study it through their L1s.  Successful achievement in mathematics and science is difficult enough for students learning through their L1, and it is significantly more difficult for L2 learners because of the specialized type of language that mathematics and science need, even from a very early stage. 

Have Musa and Abdul Rafie studies and surveys whether by international or local educationists to counter these professional studies and views? 

There is the great risk that in using English to teach mathematics and science in national, Chinese and primary schools from Std. One, student attainments in these subjects might fall instead of being raised. 

This is the conundrum being faced by South Africa,  where the majority of the students are taught mathematics and science in English instead of through their mother or home language. 

In  the Third International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS) in 1995 and the TIMMS 1999,  involving 41 and 38 countries respectively, South Africa came out last for mathematics and science in both – and the use of  a second language, English, as a medium of instruction from too early stages have been strongly argued as a main factor, as it impeded the  development of thinking skills  of students resulting in low achievements in mathematics and  science. 

Shouldn’t Malaysian educationists, the Cabinet and the public be giving these international educational studies,  surveys and examples   serious consideration before precipitately switching the medium of instruction for mathematics and science in primary schools from Std. One?

(10/8/2002)


*Lim Kit Siang - DAP National Chairman