A friend of mine, Rajan Rishyakaran, has written a good blog post critiquing the Malaysian university admissions process. While I don't know enough about local universities to comment on many things he raises, there are a couple of points which I think are worth emphasising: the difference between policy in theory and policy in reality, and the importance of decentralising some decisions.
There are many illustrations of the difference between something in theory and something in practice, but Rajan's example of coursework is as good as any. In principle, adding coursework to the evaluation process for university admissions would be a good thing.
After all, a major problem with our education system is that it focuses a lot on examinations which only assess students at one point in time, and often encourage rote memorisation instead of actual learning. If you fall sick during exam period, it can dramatically change your life's course, because you might not get into the university you otherwise could, or not pursue the degree you otherwise would attain. And because the format and style of exams is so predictable, all you need to do is practice with enough exam papers from previous years to be prepared -- you don't necessarily need to understand anything on the exam (I have found that understanding too much can actually be detrimental to your marks in some Malaysian exams).
If we emphasised coursework more, then one-off incidents which might negatively impact your exam performance would matter less: you have a substantial amount of time to do your coursework. Because the key element of your coursework is usually a report on something you have researched, you actually learn something useful: you learn how to write academically, and you learn some basic research or factfinding skills.
That's the theory; the practical reality is something else altogether. When I was in school, nobody took coursework seriously. Or rather, they took it the same way they took an exam: they figured out the best way to game the system, and they did it. Everyone would Google their topic, and instead of writing up a report about it, they would plagarise the most relevant websites. If they were too lazy to do this, they would plagiarise from one another very openly -- there was no stigma to copying or cheating off someone else's work.
It's not that they were lazy; it's that they knew this was the most efficient way to get things done. Teachers don't really care if the material is obviously plagiarised -- to them the coursework system is often a burdensome imposition on them because they have to read through dozens, if not hundreds of reports. Students know this, so they intentionally put a lot of work into making their reports more burdensome on teachers. One teacher's son told me that he intentionally put lots of irrelevant diagrams and photos in his coursework because this would discourage the teacher from looking too hard at his work -- she would see he had obviously worked hard on the report, and give him high marks.
The problem with coursework is that it is an arbitrary, artificial system of evaluation imposed by the central government with little thought as to what the schools and teachers can do, and little thought for what universities want to see. As Rajan notes, our university admissions process is extremely centralised -- everything is boiled down to a couple of numbers, which are then fed into the government's system. The government then tells you what university you will attend, and what degree you will pursue.
Likewise, with coursework, the government tells schools how to grade students' work, and it tells universities how these grades must translate into admissions decisions. There is no room for a teacher to assess students in his or her own way, to try something different. Neither is there room for a university to assess students in a different way, such as through tailored interviews or personal statements.
Obviously, there are pitfalls to granting educators more autonomy. But I don't think there is any question that at the moment we err far too heavily on the side of ridiculous centralisation. The government has attempted to standardise the education system to an extreme, and the result is something easily gamed by the pretence of ability, instead of actual demonstrable results. The government needs to grant universities more leeway in making their admissions decisions, and at the same time experiment with giving schools more freedom in coming up with alternative methods of assessment.
Showing posts with label SPM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPM. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Making an English SPM 'pass' compulsory
Much has been made of the fact the DPM and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin, did not know that it was not compulsory have a 'pass' in English at the SPM level. Later UMNO Youth came out to support making an English pass compulsory at the SPM level, subject to some caveats. I have some reservations about making a change to the current policy and here's why.
Firstly, this proposed policy change (making an English SPM pass compulsory) is premised on the false assumption that the standard of English will increase as a consequence of this policy change. Without any changes in the quality of teachers who teach English, especially those in the rural areas, or other resources aimed at improving the standard of English in our schools, all things being equal, this policy will only result in an increase of those who will fail their SPM because of failure to pass the English exam.
Secondly, this proposed policy change will increase the incentives to make the English exam even easier than it already is as well as to decrease the passing mark for the same exam. The bureaucrats at the MOE do not want to have political heat on their backs as a result of the protests of many parents whose children did not manage to pass their SPM English exam. The path of least resistance would be to either make the English SPM exam easier or to decrease the passing mark or to do both!
Thirdly, this proposed policy change presupposes that every SPM holder requires a passing level of English to get on with life. Sure, it would be difficult to read English textbooks and articles at the university / college level without a proficient understanding of English. But if the medium of instruction in our public universities continue to be in BM, then I see no reason why not having an English SPM pass should be the basis for denying a student entry into one of the public universities or a matriculation program. Furthermore, there are many career paths which are open to Malaysians which require only a minimal level of English proficiency. I don't see why Malaysians who choose to pursue these career paths should be denied an SPM certificate just because they fail to pass their English exam at the SPM level.
This is in no way an argument to diminish the importance of English. Most of the top jobs in the private sector require a high proficiency in English. Most of the top jobs in the civil service require at least a decent level of spoken English. But I think having this policy change distracts from the more important and pressing objective of improving the standard of English in Malaysia. Making an English pass compulsory at the SPM level is the easy part. Making substantive changes to the way English is taught in our schools in the much harder and more important challenge.
Firstly, this proposed policy change (making an English SPM pass compulsory) is premised on the false assumption that the standard of English will increase as a consequence of this policy change. Without any changes in the quality of teachers who teach English, especially those in the rural areas, or other resources aimed at improving the standard of English in our schools, all things being equal, this policy will only result in an increase of those who will fail their SPM because of failure to pass the English exam.
Secondly, this proposed policy change will increase the incentives to make the English exam even easier than it already is as well as to decrease the passing mark for the same exam. The bureaucrats at the MOE do not want to have political heat on their backs as a result of the protests of many parents whose children did not manage to pass their SPM English exam. The path of least resistance would be to either make the English SPM exam easier or to decrease the passing mark or to do both!
Thirdly, this proposed policy change presupposes that every SPM holder requires a passing level of English to get on with life. Sure, it would be difficult to read English textbooks and articles at the university / college level without a proficient understanding of English. But if the medium of instruction in our public universities continue to be in BM, then I see no reason why not having an English SPM pass should be the basis for denying a student entry into one of the public universities or a matriculation program. Furthermore, there are many career paths which are open to Malaysians which require only a minimal level of English proficiency. I don't see why Malaysians who choose to pursue these career paths should be denied an SPM certificate just because they fail to pass their English exam at the SPM level.
This is in no way an argument to diminish the importance of English. Most of the top jobs in the private sector require a high proficiency in English. Most of the top jobs in the civil service require at least a decent level of spoken English. But I think having this policy change distracts from the more important and pressing objective of improving the standard of English in Malaysia. Making an English pass compulsory at the SPM level is the easy part. Making substantive changes to the way English is taught in our schools in the much harder and more important challenge.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Compulsory Pass for English in SPM?
This is an open letter written by Mr Philip Yong on whether a pass in English language must be made compulsory at SPM level. I'm publishing it in full.
Open Letter to Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Y.A.B. TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MUHYIDDIN BIN MOHD. YASSIN
Dear Tan Sri,
I am writing this letter in regard to your question thrown to the public to discuss. The question on whether a pass in the English language should be made mandatory to pass the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).
Before I pursued my higher education at a private institution, for the whole of my schooling life I was enrolled in a local public school. Therefore with my eleven (11) years of experience in public institutions I think I am qualified to give my point of view of this what I would call as a highly significant issue.
Tan Sri,
Whenever I had an English language examination in school, I would score the subject with flying colours and I was indeed very proud of myself. But that was not until I pursued my higher education at a private institution. When I was told that I am required to take the subject in college, I was very reluctant to thinking that my proficiency of the language is above standard. I was furious but had to comply in the end. During my very first lesson, I finally understood why the institution insisted on us taking the subject. In simple words, the standard of English in public schools is definitely not on par with those in private institutions. Therefore, the first thing your Ministry should do is to review the standard of the language taught in public institutions.
In my opinion, I do not think that the English language is hard to master. If we go by the Malay proverb, ‘Melentur buluh biarlah dari rebungnya’ I believe it is achievable. In this state of reality, we should never teach our children to avoid the problem but should instead teach them tackle the problem. If their proficiency of the language is not up to par then their parents or even the government should do something to help improve it and not just lower the standard of language in the public institutions.
I would say that I am fortunate to be born into an English speaking family. If not I seriously think that my proficiency of the language would be much worse than how it is today. Although I agree that this is the role of the parents but the government is also accountable for this issue. Until this very moment, I do not agree that a pass in English should be made mandatory to pass SPM for a matter of fact that the level of English of many Malaysians are still not up to standard even for the very easy SPM. The government should first tackle the root of the problem which again is the proficiency of the English language of the citizens of Malaysia.
My point of view may seem very common but I believe it is what many ordinary Malaysians share. Until today, many of the issues mentioned above have been raised but still no actions were taken. Even if there were actions taken, I do not think those actions were of much help. Let me raise a point that we are a developing country. If as a developing country, our citizen’s proficiency of the English language is not up to par with the developed countries then how will we actually be able to achieve Tun Dr Mahathir’s Vision 2020?
Tan Sri,
Last but not least, I sincerely hope that your ministry will look into these matters seriously. I thank you for your patience in reading this letter. My sincere apology if I had made any mistakes in my above writings. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Philip Yong Kee Chung
www.philipyong.net
Open Letter to Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Y.A.B. TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MUHYIDDIN BIN MOHD. YASSIN
Dear Tan Sri,
I am writing this letter in regard to your question thrown to the public to discuss. The question on whether a pass in the English language should be made mandatory to pass the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).
Before I pursued my higher education at a private institution, for the whole of my schooling life I was enrolled in a local public school. Therefore with my eleven (11) years of experience in public institutions I think I am qualified to give my point of view of this what I would call as a highly significant issue.
Tan Sri,
Whenever I had an English language examination in school, I would score the subject with flying colours and I was indeed very proud of myself. But that was not until I pursued my higher education at a private institution. When I was told that I am required to take the subject in college, I was very reluctant to thinking that my proficiency of the language is above standard. I was furious but had to comply in the end. During my very first lesson, I finally understood why the institution insisted on us taking the subject. In simple words, the standard of English in public schools is definitely not on par with those in private institutions. Therefore, the first thing your Ministry should do is to review the standard of the language taught in public institutions.
In my opinion, I do not think that the English language is hard to master. If we go by the Malay proverb, ‘Melentur buluh biarlah dari rebungnya’ I believe it is achievable. In this state of reality, we should never teach our children to avoid the problem but should instead teach them tackle the problem. If their proficiency of the language is not up to par then their parents or even the government should do something to help improve it and not just lower the standard of language in the public institutions.
I would say that I am fortunate to be born into an English speaking family. If not I seriously think that my proficiency of the language would be much worse than how it is today. Although I agree that this is the role of the parents but the government is also accountable for this issue. Until this very moment, I do not agree that a pass in English should be made mandatory to pass SPM for a matter of fact that the level of English of many Malaysians are still not up to standard even for the very easy SPM. The government should first tackle the root of the problem which again is the proficiency of the English language of the citizens of Malaysia.
My point of view may seem very common but I believe it is what many ordinary Malaysians share. Until today, many of the issues mentioned above have been raised but still no actions were taken. Even if there were actions taken, I do not think those actions were of much help. Let me raise a point that we are a developing country. If as a developing country, our citizen’s proficiency of the English language is not up to par with the developed countries then how will we actually be able to achieve Tun Dr Mahathir’s Vision 2020?
Tan Sri,
Last but not least, I sincerely hope that your ministry will look into these matters seriously. I thank you for your patience in reading this letter. My sincere apology if I had made any mistakes in my above writings. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Philip Yong Kee Chung
www.philipyong.net
Friday, September 19, 2008
SPM 2008 Revision Questions
Times Guides, the publishers of Times Higher Education magazines have published Times SPM 2008 Revision Questions. 15,000 copies of the book were distributed to schools in the Klang Valley and other city centers. In view of making this book available to all SPM students, Times Guides have produced an e-book version of the book for students to download for FREE. The e-book version has questions, answers and past year exam question analysis. This book is produced by a group of experienced teachers who are specialist in their subjects.
The e-book can be downloaded for free here.
The e-book can be downloaded for free here.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
SPM Chinese: An MOE Conspiracy
Thanks for the many comments and emails in regards to my previous post on SPM Chinese. I've certainly had my views on this issue changed and am now quite convinced that there is a conspiracy within the MOE to purposefully decrease the % of A's obtained by students taking SPM Chinese to deny some of these students from getting straight As (hence getting a JPA scholarship) as well as to decrease the incentive for students to take this subject at the SPM level.
I have to admit that my previous post was somewhat conditioned by my time in Singapore where all of my Chinese-ed friends told me that the Chinese standard in Singapore was much lower than that in Malaysia. This led me to believe that the Chinese exams in Malaysia was also much harder than those in Singapore which naturally, I thought, would lead to fewer A's being obtained in this subject.
A number of comments and emails have made me change my mind. Firstly, I've been told that the % of students obtaining As in Chinese is very very low, in a single digits compared to the 20% or so among the same candidates who obtain As in BM. If non-Malays, for whom BM is not their native tongue, can work hard enough to obtain an A in BM, then it seems strange that such a small percentage of Chinese can obtain A's in their mother tongue, especially in the context of SMJKs and Chinese Independent schools (for those where students take SPM Chinese). Furthermore, it has also been indicated that the standard of the Chinese SPM paper, while challenging, is actually not that difficult (although probably more difficult than O level Chinese). Certainly not to the extent that only a few % of students can obtain an A, if they were curved in the same way as other subjects such as BM or English.
Secondly, a friend of mine told me that the % of students getting As for Chinese SPM fell DRASTICALLY since 2001, which coincidentally, was the year when JPA 'liberalized' and awarded scholarships to non-Malays, including giving guaranteed scholarships for all students scoring straight A1s. In this school that my friend is familiar with, the number of A1s in Chinese fell from double digits to ZERO after 2001. While this is only anecdotal evidence but from Ian's letter and the other comments, I think this particular conspiracy theory does hold water. Lots of it.
After getting these emails and comments, I'm really pissed off, not at the commentators (which I have to thank for enlightening me), but at the MOE for this HEINOUS action. I am convinced that the decision to grade the curve in SPM Chinese such that only a small number of students score A1s is directed at decreasing the number of Chinese students who obtained straight A1s and hence their ability to obtain a guaranteed JPA scholarship. (I'll be interested to know if Indian students taking SPM Tamil faced the same problem) There's no other way to explain this.
I don't know how many students were affected but I'm guessing that they would number into the hundreds, if not thousands. These are students who would have gotten straight A1s if not for the fact that the Chinese SPM curve was manipulated to their detriment.
I'd be interested to find out the number and % of A1s and A2s awarded in Chinese SPM from when they started calculating this figure and to see how much it dropped after 2001. I'm very sure that the % would have dropped significantly after 2001. Does anyone know if Dong Jiao Zong keeps track of this statistic and if they publish this information anywhere?
I'm surprised that no opposition MP, to my knowledge, has brought this issue up in a public forum because this revelation really makes my blood boil. It's an underhanded attempt by the Ministry to shift the goal posts once the game has started and the rules have been agreed on. In my opinion, this is worse that creating a matriculation stream that it largely not open to non-Bumiputras to manipulate the public university entrance standards. Perhaps, people are already too jaded and accept this as part of the 'system' which treats certain groups unfairly? Or perhaps, many of the opposition MPs i.e. DAP MPs simply don't know about this?
I'm especially disgusted at MCA since the portfolio of the Deputy Education and Deputy Higher Education Ministers are held by MPs from this party. This was happening right under their noses and they did nothing to stop it or to highlight it! Perhaps, it was part of a secret bargain whereby the JPA would allow non-Malays to obtain JPA scholarships but be allowed to 'rig' the results of the Chinese SPM exam as a way to reduce the number of non-Malays who would be eligible for a guaranteed JPA scholarship.
I hope that one of the first things which Tony does when parliament reconvenes is to ask the Deputy Minister of Education, Dr. Wee Ka Siong, who was at outspoken backbencher and MCA spokesperson on education matters, for the history of those scoring A1s in Chinese SPM and then ask him to account for why the figures dropped after 2001.
To those who will undoubtedly accuse me of viewing this through a 'racial lens', I ask you to consider this from a matter for fairness. How would you feel if your favorite football team found that their goalposts had been widened by a few feet and their opponent's shortened by a few feet after the game had started? I would be pissed off too. And with good reason.
I have to admit that my previous post was somewhat conditioned by my time in Singapore where all of my Chinese-ed friends told me that the Chinese standard in Singapore was much lower than that in Malaysia. This led me to believe that the Chinese exams in Malaysia was also much harder than those in Singapore which naturally, I thought, would lead to fewer A's being obtained in this subject.
A number of comments and emails have made me change my mind. Firstly, I've been told that the % of students obtaining As in Chinese is very very low, in a single digits compared to the 20% or so among the same candidates who obtain As in BM. If non-Malays, for whom BM is not their native tongue, can work hard enough to obtain an A in BM, then it seems strange that such a small percentage of Chinese can obtain A's in their mother tongue, especially in the context of SMJKs and Chinese Independent schools (for those where students take SPM Chinese). Furthermore, it has also been indicated that the standard of the Chinese SPM paper, while challenging, is actually not that difficult (although probably more difficult than O level Chinese). Certainly not to the extent that only a few % of students can obtain an A, if they were curved in the same way as other subjects such as BM or English.
Secondly, a friend of mine told me that the % of students getting As for Chinese SPM fell DRASTICALLY since 2001, which coincidentally, was the year when JPA 'liberalized' and awarded scholarships to non-Malays, including giving guaranteed scholarships for all students scoring straight A1s. In this school that my friend is familiar with, the number of A1s in Chinese fell from double digits to ZERO after 2001. While this is only anecdotal evidence but from Ian's letter and the other comments, I think this particular conspiracy theory does hold water. Lots of it.
After getting these emails and comments, I'm really pissed off, not at the commentators (which I have to thank for enlightening me), but at the MOE for this HEINOUS action. I am convinced that the decision to grade the curve in SPM Chinese such that only a small number of students score A1s is directed at decreasing the number of Chinese students who obtained straight A1s and hence their ability to obtain a guaranteed JPA scholarship. (I'll be interested to know if Indian students taking SPM Tamil faced the same problem) There's no other way to explain this.
I don't know how many students were affected but I'm guessing that they would number into the hundreds, if not thousands. These are students who would have gotten straight A1s if not for the fact that the Chinese SPM curve was manipulated to their detriment.
I'd be interested to find out the number and % of A1s and A2s awarded in Chinese SPM from when they started calculating this figure and to see how much it dropped after 2001. I'm very sure that the % would have dropped significantly after 2001. Does anyone know if Dong Jiao Zong keeps track of this statistic and if they publish this information anywhere?
I'm surprised that no opposition MP, to my knowledge, has brought this issue up in a public forum because this revelation really makes my blood boil. It's an underhanded attempt by the Ministry to shift the goal posts once the game has started and the rules have been agreed on. In my opinion, this is worse that creating a matriculation stream that it largely not open to non-Bumiputras to manipulate the public university entrance standards. Perhaps, people are already too jaded and accept this as part of the 'system' which treats certain groups unfairly? Or perhaps, many of the opposition MPs i.e. DAP MPs simply don't know about this?
I'm especially disgusted at MCA since the portfolio of the Deputy Education and Deputy Higher Education Ministers are held by MPs from this party. This was happening right under their noses and they did nothing to stop it or to highlight it! Perhaps, it was part of a secret bargain whereby the JPA would allow non-Malays to obtain JPA scholarships but be allowed to 'rig' the results of the Chinese SPM exam as a way to reduce the number of non-Malays who would be eligible for a guaranteed JPA scholarship.
I hope that one of the first things which Tony does when parliament reconvenes is to ask the Deputy Minister of Education, Dr. Wee Ka Siong, who was at outspoken backbencher and MCA spokesperson on education matters, for the history of those scoring A1s in Chinese SPM and then ask him to account for why the figures dropped after 2001.
To those who will undoubtedly accuse me of viewing this through a 'racial lens', I ask you to consider this from a matter for fairness. How would you feel if your favorite football team found that their goalposts had been widened by a few feet and their opponent's shortened by a few feet after the game had started? I would be pissed off too. And with good reason.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Reply to Ian Beh
Ian Beh, a form 5 student from a school in PJ, recently wrote this provocative and insightful open letter to myself and Tony in regards to the issue of SPM Chinese. It's an issue which I've given some thought to on and off in the past and I'll take this opportunity to respond to Ian's letter in detail.
Ian's main concern with Chinese at the SPM level is that it has become so hard that (i) nobody would take it if they were not forced to (ii) that it is so difficult to score an A in the subject that it affects the ability of some students to obtain a JPA scholarship.
Ian is not the first person who has told me that they have no interest in taking Chinese after primary school, much less for PMR and SPM. I have my own take to explain this which many of our readers might not agree with.
Basically, any subject that is taught at a higher and higher level will have fewer and fewer students who are interested or even capable of taking this subject. For example, most people can indulge in a little bit of algebra, do a little bit of differentiation and integration, but once we get more a sophisticated level of Math, it becomes accessible to far fewer people. Not everyone is expected to take Additional Math at the SPM level and they shouldn't be expected to take Math at that level if they don't have an aptitude for it.
We can apply a similar logic to the study of languages. I'm studying Chinese right now, to improve my reading and writing, and I'll be very happy once I can get to the level where I can easily read Chinese newspapers and websites and listen to Chinese news on the TV and the internet (I'm getting there). I have less desire to obtain a standard where I can enjoy Chinese classical literature or poetry (I'm not sure that I can reach that level). Similarly, there are many students in Malaysia which might do well just to reach a level of English proficiency where they can write using proper grammar and sentence structures but not necessarily be able to write a literary criticism of Toni Morrison or Michael Ondaatje.
Language is of course a little different from Physics or Math or History. Most teachers or educational planners want students to be continually exposed to language lessons because it needs to be kept fresh in one's mind and incremental improvements can be made in regards to a student's command of a language. In addition, there might be symbolic or socio-political reasons why a language should or must be taught and learned throughout one's pre-tertiary school life.
But there is also another important distinction between the teaching of languages and of other more 'objective' subjects like Math and Physics which is that the level of a language that is taught is very much contextual. One might find that teaching Shakespeare to a 13 year old in England is very much the norm but would find that to be a stretch even to 17 year olds in Malaysia. Most English schoolchildren would have been exposed to some Shakespeare either on TV or in school by the time that they reach secondary school. But that's not the case in Malaysia. Hence, SPM English is very different from let's say O level English in the UK. The latter is much more difficult. This is one of the main reasons why English is so much easier than BM at the same grade. Peribahasa is much more familiar to most Malaysian students compared to English proverbs. More Malaysians will understand 'katak di bawah tempurung' compared to 'a friend in need is a friend indeed'.
There is a second factor (in addition to context) which explains the different levels of English, BM and Chinese exams in Malaysia. This factor is the number and category of students who are taking these exams. The more students taking a particular subject, the easier the exams for these subjects. If English was not compulsory, I think that you'd find that the standard of the English exams at the SPM level would quickly increase. BM exams, another compulsory subject at the SPM level, are harder than English because of the first factor (context) but it is easier than Chinese because of the 2nd factor, the number of people taking this exam. If the BM exams was set too hard, then the Ministry would find that a lot more people would fail the BM exam and fewer people would be scoring A's in BM.
Because Chinese at the SPM level is taken by relatively fewer students (a few select national schools and the Chinese independent schools) and presumably, Chinese is the native tongue of most of the students taking Chinese, those who set the Chinese papers can afford to make it tougher (context and numbers) which explains why Chinese is harder than BM. It also explains why more Chinese student's in Ian's school (which I presume is Catholic High in PJ) score A's in BM compared to Chinese.
One also has to remember that those setting the Chinese exams do so with the Chinese independent school students in mind, which, to my knowledge, form the majority of students taking the Chinese exam at the SPM level. There is undoubtedly pressure on those setting the Chinese exam to ensure that it fulfills the high standards of Chinese proficiency set in the Chinese independent schools.
It would be interesting to compare the Chinese SPM exam with that of the Tamil SPM exam. My sense is that the Tamil SPM exam should be much easier that the Chinese SPM exam (at least measured in the % obtaining As). The reason is that there are no independent Tamil secondary schools which means there is less of a context factor operating at the secondary school level for those taking Tamil. Following this, there will be less pressure for those setting the Tamil SPM exam to make it hard, even though almost all the students who are taking this will be Indian students from Tamil speaking households. But it should be harder than the English SPM exam.
Lastly, I need to include the factor of political pressure. No doubt, there is political pressure in the Ministry of Education to ensure that the BM exam is harder than the English exam (or to make the English exam relatively easy). At the same time, there is probably less pressure on the part of the Ministry to make the Chinese SPM exam so hard. I suspect that the MOE leaves this issue solely in the hands of the Chinese bureaucrats within the MOE who are in charge of setting these exams. If these bureaucrats are making the Chinese SPM exam harder, it does not hurt the majority in Malaysia so there is little pressure on the part of the MOE to intervene. Furthermore, the MOE would not want to be seen as 'interfering' in the 'sensitive' issue of deciding the standard of Chinese exams at the SPM level.
So how should we respond to the current situation in Malaysia?
In an ideal world, I'd get rid of compulsory language exams after Form 3. One should have obtained a sufficient degree of literacy in BM, English and Chinese or Tamil by that time. If one is interested to pursue these languages further, they should be given the option to take subjects like Malay or English or Chinese literature.
But this is not an ideal world and I can see the need to force students to continue to learn English up to the SPM level (at least) given that English proficiency among our students is still very poor. I can also see the need to force students to continue to learn BM given that the command of the national language among non-Malay students is also quite poor. This leaves us with Chinese at the SPM level. I don't think this should be made compulsory in national schools such as Catholic High since these schools, in theory at least, don't need to have a 'Chinese' identity and most of the subjects at the SPM level are taught in BM. (In reality, I'm well aware that most students in schools like these are Chinese and speak Mandarin or Chinese dialects inside and outside of school). This would immediately solve one of Ian's dilemmas which is how taking Chinese would impact his ability to score all A's and get a JPA scholarship. (which probably affect only a small % of students)
I'm in more of a quandary in regards to whether Chinese should be compulsory in Chinese independent secondary schools. On the one hand, one can argue that taking Chinese is central to the character and identity of these schools much like how BM is compulsory in national schools. On the other, one can also argue that since most subjects are already taught in Chinese in these schools, there is less of a worry of these schools losing their 'Chinese' identity or character.
One possible way out is for those setting the Chinese SPM exam to grade on a curve such that more people will get A's. This reduces the disincentive for many students who might want to take this course but are afraid that it will affect their overall grades. And at the same time, the examiners don't need to 'dumb down' the standard of the Chinese SPM exam.
I'll leave the questions of revamping the syllabus for Chinese at the secondary school level or changing the teaching methods aside since I don't know enough about it to give an informed opinion.
For now, there is no easy solution or quick fix apart from making Chinese non-compulsory in national schools. In regards to the growing importance of Chinese as a language, I would say this - it is possible to maintain a high level of interest and activity in the Chinese language without resorting to forcing Chinese students to take it at the SPM level. I think that the cultural and business spheres are much more important and influential in trying to achieve this aim.
Ian's main concern with Chinese at the SPM level is that it has become so hard that (i) nobody would take it if they were not forced to (ii) that it is so difficult to score an A in the subject that it affects the ability of some students to obtain a JPA scholarship.
Ian is not the first person who has told me that they have no interest in taking Chinese after primary school, much less for PMR and SPM. I have my own take to explain this which many of our readers might not agree with.
Basically, any subject that is taught at a higher and higher level will have fewer and fewer students who are interested or even capable of taking this subject. For example, most people can indulge in a little bit of algebra, do a little bit of differentiation and integration, but once we get more a sophisticated level of Math, it becomes accessible to far fewer people. Not everyone is expected to take Additional Math at the SPM level and they shouldn't be expected to take Math at that level if they don't have an aptitude for it.
We can apply a similar logic to the study of languages. I'm studying Chinese right now, to improve my reading and writing, and I'll be very happy once I can get to the level where I can easily read Chinese newspapers and websites and listen to Chinese news on the TV and the internet (I'm getting there). I have less desire to obtain a standard where I can enjoy Chinese classical literature or poetry (I'm not sure that I can reach that level). Similarly, there are many students in Malaysia which might do well just to reach a level of English proficiency where they can write using proper grammar and sentence structures but not necessarily be able to write a literary criticism of Toni Morrison or Michael Ondaatje.
Language is of course a little different from Physics or Math or History. Most teachers or educational planners want students to be continually exposed to language lessons because it needs to be kept fresh in one's mind and incremental improvements can be made in regards to a student's command of a language. In addition, there might be symbolic or socio-political reasons why a language should or must be taught and learned throughout one's pre-tertiary school life.
But there is also another important distinction between the teaching of languages and of other more 'objective' subjects like Math and Physics which is that the level of a language that is taught is very much contextual. One might find that teaching Shakespeare to a 13 year old in England is very much the norm but would find that to be a stretch even to 17 year olds in Malaysia. Most English schoolchildren would have been exposed to some Shakespeare either on TV or in school by the time that they reach secondary school. But that's not the case in Malaysia. Hence, SPM English is very different from let's say O level English in the UK. The latter is much more difficult. This is one of the main reasons why English is so much easier than BM at the same grade. Peribahasa is much more familiar to most Malaysian students compared to English proverbs. More Malaysians will understand 'katak di bawah tempurung' compared to 'a friend in need is a friend indeed'.
There is a second factor (in addition to context) which explains the different levels of English, BM and Chinese exams in Malaysia. This factor is the number and category of students who are taking these exams. The more students taking a particular subject, the easier the exams for these subjects. If English was not compulsory, I think that you'd find that the standard of the English exams at the SPM level would quickly increase. BM exams, another compulsory subject at the SPM level, are harder than English because of the first factor (context) but it is easier than Chinese because of the 2nd factor, the number of people taking this exam. If the BM exams was set too hard, then the Ministry would find that a lot more people would fail the BM exam and fewer people would be scoring A's in BM.
Because Chinese at the SPM level is taken by relatively fewer students (a few select national schools and the Chinese independent schools) and presumably, Chinese is the native tongue of most of the students taking Chinese, those who set the Chinese papers can afford to make it tougher (context and numbers) which explains why Chinese is harder than BM. It also explains why more Chinese student's in Ian's school (which I presume is Catholic High in PJ) score A's in BM compared to Chinese.
One also has to remember that those setting the Chinese exams do so with the Chinese independent school students in mind, which, to my knowledge, form the majority of students taking the Chinese exam at the SPM level. There is undoubtedly pressure on those setting the Chinese exam to ensure that it fulfills the high standards of Chinese proficiency set in the Chinese independent schools.
It would be interesting to compare the Chinese SPM exam with that of the Tamil SPM exam. My sense is that the Tamil SPM exam should be much easier that the Chinese SPM exam (at least measured in the % obtaining As). The reason is that there are no independent Tamil secondary schools which means there is less of a context factor operating at the secondary school level for those taking Tamil. Following this, there will be less pressure for those setting the Tamil SPM exam to make it hard, even though almost all the students who are taking this will be Indian students from Tamil speaking households. But it should be harder than the English SPM exam.
Lastly, I need to include the factor of political pressure. No doubt, there is political pressure in the Ministry of Education to ensure that the BM exam is harder than the English exam (or to make the English exam relatively easy). At the same time, there is probably less pressure on the part of the Ministry to make the Chinese SPM exam so hard. I suspect that the MOE leaves this issue solely in the hands of the Chinese bureaucrats within the MOE who are in charge of setting these exams. If these bureaucrats are making the Chinese SPM exam harder, it does not hurt the majority in Malaysia so there is little pressure on the part of the MOE to intervene. Furthermore, the MOE would not want to be seen as 'interfering' in the 'sensitive' issue of deciding the standard of Chinese exams at the SPM level.
So how should we respond to the current situation in Malaysia?
In an ideal world, I'd get rid of compulsory language exams after Form 3. One should have obtained a sufficient degree of literacy in BM, English and Chinese or Tamil by that time. If one is interested to pursue these languages further, they should be given the option to take subjects like Malay or English or Chinese literature.
But this is not an ideal world and I can see the need to force students to continue to learn English up to the SPM level (at least) given that English proficiency among our students is still very poor. I can also see the need to force students to continue to learn BM given that the command of the national language among non-Malay students is also quite poor. This leaves us with Chinese at the SPM level. I don't think this should be made compulsory in national schools such as Catholic High since these schools, in theory at least, don't need to have a 'Chinese' identity and most of the subjects at the SPM level are taught in BM. (In reality, I'm well aware that most students in schools like these are Chinese and speak Mandarin or Chinese dialects inside and outside of school). This would immediately solve one of Ian's dilemmas which is how taking Chinese would impact his ability to score all A's and get a JPA scholarship. (which probably affect only a small % of students)
I'm in more of a quandary in regards to whether Chinese should be compulsory in Chinese independent secondary schools. On the one hand, one can argue that taking Chinese is central to the character and identity of these schools much like how BM is compulsory in national schools. On the other, one can also argue that since most subjects are already taught in Chinese in these schools, there is less of a worry of these schools losing their 'Chinese' identity or character.
One possible way out is for those setting the Chinese SPM exam to grade on a curve such that more people will get A's. This reduces the disincentive for many students who might want to take this course but are afraid that it will affect their overall grades. And at the same time, the examiners don't need to 'dumb down' the standard of the Chinese SPM exam.
I'll leave the questions of revamping the syllabus for Chinese at the secondary school level or changing the teaching methods aside since I don't know enough about it to give an informed opinion.
For now, there is no easy solution or quick fix apart from making Chinese non-compulsory in national schools. In regards to the growing importance of Chinese as a language, I would say this - it is possible to maintain a high level of interest and activity in the Chinese language without resorting to forcing Chinese students to take it at the SPM level. I think that the cultural and business spheres are much more important and influential in trying to achieve this aim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)