Policy : Primary ELT Program

 hii readers!!!

Welcome back again to my blog. In this chapter, I want to share and tell you about Policy: Primary ELT Program.

The English language environment in the three primary schools studied apparently was lacking. The pupils were not being exposed to a conducive English language environment where they were given ample opportunities to use the language in and out of the classroom, and in and out of the school. 

• Classroom language opportunity: On the whole, the pupils' only opportunity to use English was limited to the classroom; i.e., during the English language lessons. That would mean a maximum of an hour (for a double period) or a single period of half an hour, six periods a week if the instruction was totally done in the language. 

• English outside the classroom: Outside the classroom, English language, as a means of interaction amongst the pupils, was practically non-existent. English language panels and society, which had been entrusted to plan and implement English language programs for the pupils, seemed to have failed to carry out the task. Besides the English language Day, an English language activity initiated at the district level, other language activities were not implemented. 

• English at home: English was not widely used at home, or outside the school compound. One, as the teachers claimed, the parents could not understand the language; therefore they could not use it with the children; neither could they teach them at home. Second, the local culture, as the parents and teachers claimed, was antagonistic to the development of the English language among the pupils. Local dialect was a preferred means of communication. 

• Teacher’s modeling effects: I observed that ESL teachers do not serve as effective language role models to their pupils. The teacher’s language modeling effect; i.e., the pupils emulating the language of the teachers, was remarkably lacking in the primary school context. This was particularly so because the ESL teachers themselves seldom used the language in the classroom or outside the classroom either for instructional or communication purposes. Pupil-teacher interaction and communication were primarily effected through the local dialect than the English language. Furthermore, it was also observed that only a handful of ESL teachers interacted and communicated with each other in English. This was partly due to the language proficiency of the ESL teachers themselves; the other being the tradition and workplace culture of the primary schools.

The Aims of English Language Teaching in Primary Schools 

ELT in primary education, therefore, aims at equipping pupils with the basic English language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and knowledge of grammar to enable them to communicate (orally and in writing) in and out of school for different purposes, and different situations. “English language … is being taught at all levels of primary school to equip the pupils with the fundamental (basic) language skills. (This is) to enable them to use the language to communicate in certain situations. Hence, the English language program focuses on the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.” (KPM, 1995, p.iii; translation). It is an integral part of the whole National Education System, which is based on the National Education Philosophy. It acknowledges that knowledge is the key determinant of the destiny and survival of the nation.

The English language syllabus for the primary schools specifies the aims: 

“To equip pupils with the basic skills and knowledge of the English language so as to enable them to communicate, both orally and in writing, in and out of the school.” (KPM, 1995, p.1) 

The English language syllabus at the primary school level, therefore, comprises the teaching of both the aural-aural skills (listening and speaking) and the literacy skills (reading and writing skills). A close lateral link is maintained for the four language skills. (KPM, 1995). “Proficiency in the four (language) skills, namely listening, speaking, reading and writing is made possible through the acquisition of specific skills delineated in each skill component. These skills are to be taught in context through selected topics together with the sound, grammar and vocabulary which form the language content. The scope for the selection of topics is specified ranging from what is immediate and familiar to the pupils’ knowledge and experience to what is remote and unfamiliar. This is designed to foster pupils’ interest in the English language as well as to develop a positive attitude towards it …It is emphasised that the skills, sound system, grammar and vocabulary stipulated should be taught taking into account pupil ability and rate of progress. Teachers may go beyond the stipulated requirements if their pupils are capable of handling them.” (KPM, 1995, p.3) 

Policy And Practice of ELT in Primary Schools 

Language performance among the pupils in the primary schools has not improved tremendously, even after the English language panels have been in the primary schools for almost 18 years.  English language has always been a subject of debate (and of interest, too) in the education circle, seminars and workshops, but pupils’ performance has not improved dramatically in one way or another. Literacy skills (reading and writing), as the teachers claimed, seemed to improve (as indicated by UPSR results). Pupils could read and comprehend passages; they could write simple isolated sentences based on the examination format,  at least for examination purposes, but they are not able to speak. Oracy skills (listening and speaking) have always been a major problem among pupils in the primary schools. The listening and speaking skills have not been given the emphasis that the curriculum places on them.

Why was there a neglect of oracy skills in the primary schools? It is clear that policy document emphasises the four language skills in primary education. Is the over-riding concern for examination results, and its related variable – teaching to the test phenomenon - the cause for this neglect of oracy and the dominance of reading and writing? It is a straight forward argument, but it is plausible. The relationship could be a causal one, but there must be more to it.  What constitutes pupils’ performance in learning English? Thomas (1987) claims that the ultimate goal of teaching a language is to develop the learner’s mastery of the language in question. Language mastery on the other hand involves the development of his language competence (Chomsky, 1965) and communicative competence (Hymes, 1972).

Could the government aspirations have not fully reached the ground level, the primary schools? If not, what are the probable causes? What could have gone wrong? English language teaching is everybody’s concern; the policy is right; the status it enjoys is strong; yet English language teaching and learning has always remained ‘marginalized’. This is especially so in rural areas. 

while the policy stressed the learning of language skills, classroom practice focused on the attainment of excellence in the examination. While on the one hand, the policy emphasised learning and mastering the language skills, on the other there is a practical emphasis on the attainment of examination results in UPSR. There appears to be a mismatch between the stated curriculum, implementation and evaluation of ELT curriculum in the primary schools. What is practised in primary schools in reality is a `testdriven; curriculum, a curriculum emerging from `test-based accountability as a policy’; i.e., holding schools and teachers accountable through public examinations (Lim, 1997). Lim wrote: “ The policy … arises from the centrality given to the performance indicators to measure the `quality’ of education as outlined in the Education Vision reforms … To be sure, given the policy makers’ emphasis on public examinations as suggested by the concerns they have expressed in the printed media and official reports as well as by the teachers have said, such a policy seems to be in existence even before the reform was announced…With the reform, the policy, now couched in corporate management concepts such as `Zero-defect’ appeared to be given more urgency … the policy is underpinned by the notion of `zero failure’ where no failure in examinations is perceived as an indicator of quality education.” (Lim, 1997, p.180).

“Children are viewed less frequently as children then as a future cog within a post-industrial machine: little pint-sized deficits or assets, some of whom may be of no real worth to our society. Others of whom may have marginal utility… Childhood is something more than preparation for later stage in life that my children in my inner cities will not even reach because so many lost within the toxic miseries and illness that plagued our cities now, will never live to become adults. Childhood has, or need to have a precious value in itself, for what it is, and not for what it is supposed to lead to.” (Kozol, 1996, p. x) A balance has to be struck between the interest of the individuals and the interest of the state if English language teaching is likely to be effective. In fact in language teaching, the individual needs should pre-empt the state needs. When the pupils are motivated, when they find learning English interesting and meaningful, then the state agenda can come in. Practically it means going back to the basics of learning the language skills. “Sprinkling information over students’ heads and then testing them to see what they caught has little to do with real learning or with teaching at its best. Teaching at its best requires knowledge of students, knowledge of hopes, dreams, aspirations, skills, challenges, interests, preferences, intelligence, and values they bring with them to the classroom. Teaching at its best is first an act of inquiry, investigation and research in the lives of the children.” (Ayers, 1995, p. 6) .

REFERENCE

ENGLISH_LANGUAGE_TEACHING_IN_PRIMARY_SCH.pdf