Article

Policy Futures in Education

Reforms in the policy of English 2017, Vol. 15(1) 100–112
! Author(s) 2016

language teaching in Malaysia Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1478210316679069
journals.sagepub.com/home/pfe
Radzuwan AB Rashid
Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), Malaysia

Shireena Basree Abdul Rahman

Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Kamariah Yunus
Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), Malaysia

Abstract
This paper reviews reforms related to English language teaching in the Malaysian education
system. It begins by tracing the history of Malaysia as a former British colony which has had
significant influences on the status of English in the country. Then, it reviews the key educational
reforms which have mainly centred on language policy, thus putting pressure on teachers who are
at the front-line for the implementation of the new reforms. This is followed by the discussion on
the changing approaches in the curriculum and methodology of English language teaching. This
paper also reviews the formal professional development programmes which reveal that Malaysian
teachers are not always given adequate and continuous support to cope with the ongoing
reforms. The paper concludes that even though the changes in policies aimed to improve the
quality of education, implementation was often made in haste, causing a loud public outcry from
teachers.

Keywords
Educational reforms, Malaysia, English language teaching, social support, teacher professional
development, educational policy

Introduction
In preparing students for the future, there have been various educational reforms in many
parts of the world including the Asia-Pacific Region. Some of these reforms are documented
by Albury and Aye (2016), Lund (2014), O’Neill (2015) and Pherali and Garratt (2014).
Pherali and Garratt for instance, put forth how the education system in Nepal went through

Corresponding author:
Radzuwan AB Rashid, Room 17, Block Ali, School of Languages and Communication, Faculty of Languages and
Communication, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), 21300 Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Email: radzuwanrashid@unisza.edu.my
Rashid et al. 101

reforms to focus on the construction of national identity whilst Lund highlights the changes in
the policy related to the role of sports in New Zealand secondary education. In relation to
English language teaching, major reforms have been observed in the non-English-speaking
regions where the language is gaining its prominence such as Africa (see Coyne, 2015), Korea
(see Moodie and Nam, 2016), Japan (see Butler, 2015) and Malaysia (see Selvaraj, 2010).
As pointed out by Spolsky and Moon (2014: 345), ‘the recent accelerated spread of English
language education in Asian regions has been phenomenal’ and Asian English users represent
the highest number of English users in the world. Even though the reforms of English language
teaching (ELT) in Malaysia have been documented by Selvaraj (2010), his review does not
cover the most recent developments and ignores the teacher professional development
programmes which are closely related to the ELT reforms. This paper attempts to fill in
this gap by providing a more comprehensive and recent review of ELT reforms in the country.

Malaysia as a former British colony

In order to provide a context for this paper, this section briefly recounts the history of
Malaysia, its geography, demography and the languages used in the country. As a former
British colony with close diplomatic relations with the UK, Malaysia has a high regard for
the English language. Keeping up the standard of the language has been one of the
government’s main concerns.
Malaysia has a long and complicated history. The Portuguese were the first European
colonial powers to establish themselves in Malaysia, capturing Malacca in 1511, followed
by the Dutch. However, it was the British who ultimately secured their hegemony. The
Federation of Malaya gained its independence in 1957 after being a British colony for
about two centuries. Eight years later, in 1963, Malaysia was formed from the Federation
of Malaya (now known as the Malay Peninsula) and two British protectorate states in
Borneo, Sabah and Sarawak (now known as East Malaysia).
During the British colonization, infrastructure development mostly focused on the central
and southern regions. These two regions continue to be the most developed regions in the
country where students have better exposure to English compared to those in the less
developed east coast and northern regions. As pointed out by Rashid, Vethamani, and
Rahman (2010) the teaching of English in these less developed regions can be very
challenging due to students’ poor proficiency and the lack of facilities in schools. In these
areas, it is likely that the teachers may be in need of support given the likely difficulties in
their teaching situation.
As of December 2014, the total population was 30,374,472. The Malays and other
indigenous peoples who make up 67.4 per cent of the population play a dominant role
politically and form part of a grouping known as bumiputera (the son of the soil); Chinese
form 24.6 per cent; and Indians form 7.3 per cent of the population in the country
(Department of Statistics, 2014). The existence of multi-ethnic groups in the country
nowadays has its roots in the large scale immigration practised by the British during the
colonial era when labourers from China were brought in to work in the tin industry whilst
labourers from India were imported to work on rubber plantations. The multi-ethnic society
in the country is another factor which makes the effort to maintain English language
standards challenging. Contemporary newspaper articles raise the concerns of each ethnic
group, especially the Chinese Malaysians, who fear their mother tongue will suffer because
of the special emphasis placed on English in the education system (e.g. Jessy, 2014;
102 Policy Futures in Education 15(1)

Utusan, 2013). For instance, the Chinese vernacular schools refuse to accept the extension of
contact hours for English language learning proposed by the Ministry of Education (MoE)
as they feel that this damages Mandarin as a subject (Tahir, 2013). Consequently, English
language teachers posted to these schools face time constraints in the sense that they have to
continue teaching the language with shorter contact hours compared to the hours in national
and Tamil vernacular schools.
The majority of the population speak Malay, which is an Austronesian language spoken
by Malay people living in the Malay Peninsula, the Philippines, southern Thailand, Sumatra,
Riau and parts of Borneo. Bahasa Malaysia, which is a standardized form of the Malay
language, is the official language of the country whilst English is the official second language.
Chinese Malaysians mainly speak a dialect of Chinese from the southern provinces of China.
Other common dialects in the country are Cantonese, Mandarin and Hokkien. On the other
hand, Indian Malaysians mainly speak Tamil. Nonetheless, middle and upper-middle class
Malaysians usually speak English as their first language as pointed out by Basree (2007).
Since only those from middle and upper-middle class families speak English as their first
language, the majority of students are not proficient in English, which has made the teaching
of the language taxing (Rashid, 2016).

Reform of Malaysian education system

Since Malaysian independence, English language teachers have conducted their classes
against a backdrop of continual education reforms. The most significant of these reforms
was the change of the medium of instruction from English to Bahasa Malaysia in 1961,
which has affected the standard of English in the country. The change of the medium of
instruction produces an education system which is more ‘nationalistic in nature’ (Pandian,
2002: 36); however, Mohamed et al. (2008) point out that pupils’ proficiency has decreased
following the change of medium of instruction. Ironically, the media blame English language
teachers for the decreasing standards rather than the system itself (e.g. Aruna, 2014; Jalleh,
2013). A similar phenomenon happens in Thailand where English language teachers are
blamed for the poor standard of English in the country (see Baker, 2008).
Recent reforms in the Malaysian education system have mainly centred on language
policy, which has put more pressure on English language teachers as they are at the front-
line for the implementation of the new reforms. The most controversial reform is the policy
that changed the medium of instruction for teaching Mathematics and Science from Bahasa
Malaysia to English. This policy, referred to as ETeMS (acronym for English for Teaching
Mathematics and Science) was first implemented in 2003. The main aim was not to improve
the mastery of the English language but to enable the students to learn Mathematics and
Science in its most significant lingua franca to prepare them to compete in the era of
globalization and hence improve the standard of human capital in the country. Even
though the focus of the policy was not on English as a subject, it added to the pressure
put on English language teachers as they had to ensure that the students reached a particular
level of proficiency for them to be able to use the language in Mathematics and Science
classes. As pointed out by Norfaizah and Marzilah (2010), those who disagreed with
the policy were mainly worried that the less proficient students would perform badly
in Mathematics and Science due to their difficulties in understanding the medium
of instruction. Furthermore, teachers who were not proficient and were not trained to
teach Mathematics and Science through English found it difficult to deliver the contents
Rashid et al. 103

(Selvaraj, 2010). However, these teachers appreciate the support given to them by English
language teachers in the school (Tan, 2011). Some schools have introduced the buddy system
to ensure the success of ETeMS where language teachers serve as language resource persons
to the Mathematics and Science teachers (Tan, 2011). In the attempt to cope with the
challenges of this new policy, teachers engage in collaborative works which are useful for
their professional development.
The ETeMS policy was implemented in stages starting with the beginning of the 2003
school session at both the primary and secondary level. Those who were in Standard One
and Form 1 in that year became the first cohorts under this new system. It was then fully
implemented for all secondary students in 2007 and for all primary students in 2008. In 2012,
four years after ETeMS had been fully implemented at all levels of education, Tan Sri
Muhyiddin, who was the new Minister of Education under a new Prime Minister,
abolished the policy hence reversing the medium of instruction back to Bahasa Malaysia.
The MoE argued that this reversal was needed as ETeMS had resulted in lack of mastery of
Mathematics and Science as reflected in the results of the national exams where the number
of students who scored good grades for the two subjects had decreased significantly. Among
other reasons for the abolition of ETeMS policy, as stated in the MoE’s official website, are:

Studies conducted by various parties found that the implementation of ETeMS was not carried
out as desired. Studies also disclosed that pupils found it difficult to learn Mathematics and
Science in English as they were not proficient in the English Language. This has forced teachers
to teach both the subjects in the Malay Language as this helped pupils understand the subject
matter better. This problem was prevalent in the rural as well as urban areas. If the ETeMS
policy is continued, a larger number of our pupils will fail to master Mathematics and Science
and will eventually be left behind. Our studies have shown that most schools have carried out the
teaching and learning of Mathematics and Science in the Malay Language.
(Ministry of Education, 2015: para 4)

The abolition of ETeMS received objections from middle and upper-middle class parents
who favoured the policy and proposed that students should be given options whether to
learn Mathematics and Science in English or Bahasa Malaysia. The parents believe that
ETeMS has an important role to play in further developing proficient students so that they
can keep pace with the fast developments in science and technology (Nor et al., 2011). The
proficient students themselves reported that they have a better understanding of scientific
concepts when taught in English (Ihsan, 2012). Nevertheless, the proposal to give options to
students was not taken up, reflecting the ‘top-down’ approach to reforms in the Malaysian
education system, where every decision is solely made by policy-makers. The government’s
constant ‘tinkering’ with the education system is confounding to many stakeholders,
including teachers, as the changes are implemented without input from relevant parties.
English for Teaching Mathematics and Science was replaced in 2012 with a new policy
known as MBMMBI, the acronym for Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia Mengukuhkan
Bahasa Inggeris (Malay for Upholding the Malay language and strengthening the English
language). Under the MBMMBI policy, which aims to ‘ensure the usage of Malay language
as a medium of communication in all schools, and to ensure that each child can master both
Malay and English languages well and fluently’ (Ministry of Education, 2015: para 1) the
medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science has been reverted to the Malay
language. The introduction of MBMMBI is useful for the majority of students in the
country who are struggling to master Mathematics and Science subjects due to the limited
104 Policy Futures in Education 15(1)

English proficiency. It is believed to narrow the gap in the achievement of Science and
Mathematics subjects between rural and urban schools caused by the implementation of
EteMS (Ahmad et al., 2012). Ahmad et al. (2012) who surveyed the opinions of 441 students
reveal that the students are taking a positive standpoint in upholding the Malay language
and at the same time strengthening their command of the English language. However, this
new policy returned the education system to its post-1961 landscape, where the Malay
language is used as the medium of instruction for all subjects and English is given special
emphasis. This leaves the Philippines and Brunei to be the only two countries in Southeast
Asia with bilingual policy at school level (see Vu, 2012) whilst Singapore remains the only
country in the region which uses English as the sole medium of instructions (Chew, 2005).
With the implementation of MBMMBI, extra contact hours have been allocated for
Malay and English, and from 2016, English will be a must-pass subject for the award of
the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) (Malay for Malaysian Certificate of Education). Even
though making English as a must-pass subject gives additional pressure to the teachers, it is a
positive effort taken by the MoE to ensure that students work hard to master the language.
Whilst the termination of ETeMS received objections from middle and upper-middle class
parents of all races, they did not object to the introduction of MBMMBI except for a
minority of Chinese activists who viewed the extension of contact hours for English and
Malay as not doing justice to Mandarin. Consequently, the additional contact hours are only
to be implemented in national schools and Tamil vernacular schools.
Another recent reform that has had implications for English language teaching is the
introduction of School Based Assessment (SBA) in primary and secondary education from
2011. This new policy has brought a significant change to the existing assessment system,
which had received frequent criticism, mainly from academics and politicians, as having been
too exam-oriented. After more than 50 years of having public examinations administered at
the end of Standard Six (12-year-old students), Form Three (15-year-old students) and Form
Five (17-year-old students), these examinations are set to be gradually abolished with the
implementation of SBA.
Similar to the implementation of ETeMS, SBA was introduced in stages, beginning with
primary Standard One (seven-year old students) in 2011 and secondary Form One (13-year-
old students) in 2012. These students will no longer be sitting for the summative
examinations, which have been replaced by continuous assessment carried out during the
teaching and learning process using materials and instruments designed by students’ own
teachers, who will also grade the assessment. Learner achievements are measured by the
teachers against a Performance Standard set by the MoE which determines what learners
are expected to achieve. This marking system can be taxing for English language teachers
in secondary schools as Rashid (2011) points out, many students still have limited vocabulary
despite spending six years learning English in primary education. In contrast, the secondary
school students are ‘expected to understand the grammar of the English language and be able
to use it accurately [and] they are required to speak internationally intelligible English with
correct pronunciation and intonation’ (Ministry of Education, 2002: 5).
School Based Assessment is an interesting policy as it gives ‘autonomy and due recognition
for teachers to carry out formative and summative school-based assessment at their discretion’
(Ministry of Education, 2015: para 6) and it has been practised successfully in other countries,
such as Finland and Canada. As highlighted by Mansor et al. (2013), SBA encourages teachers’
and learners’ personal progress, and develops positive attitudes towards teaching and learning
and enhances leaners’ collaborative skills through the various forms of continuous assessments
Rashid et al. 105

in the classroom. However, its sudden implementation in Malaysia caused uproar. Neither
teachers nor parents were given enough information about how it would work in practice. For
example, Raman and Yamat, who conducted semi-structured interviews involving 17 English
language teachers in three urban secondary schools, revealed that teachers viewed the motives
of SBA positively but were ‘unhappy’ with its implementation which put them under ‘too much
pressure’ (Raman and Yamat, 2014: 69). The majority of the teachers in the country felt
overburdened since they had to prepare extra materials and documents. As required by the
MoE, teachers have to prepare ‘a life-time database and store all information pertaining to
pupils’ progress, from Standard One to Form Five’ (Ministry of Education, 2015: para 8).
Initially, the database needed to be prepared manually using a paper and file format, which
meant that teachers had to spend most of their spare time in school arranging and sorting the
documents. Only after many complaints from teachers was an online recording and storing
system introduced. Nevertheless, as pointed out by Raman and Yamat (2014), teachers still
found it hard to cope with this new online system due to internet access problems, especially for
those teaching in rural areas.

Changing approaches to English language teaching (ELT) in Malaysia

The previous section looked at key educational reforms in general. This section looks at the
associated reforms in the curriculum and methodology within the sphere of ELT in
Malaysia. Selvaraj (2010) identified three phases of ELT curriculum reform based on
instructional methods and approaches emphasized in ELT policies. However, we have
found that the specific time frame within which policies emphasizing each method were
introduced and ended is difficult to trace due to lack of information transparency.
English language teaching policies in Phase One (1957–1970) emphasized the use of
different instructional methods: the Grammar Translation Method; Direct Method; and
Situational Language Teaching (SLT) approaches. Memorizing grammar rules was the
main technique employed in the classroom during the use of the Grammar Translation
Method and little attention was given to speaking and listening (Selvaraj, 2010). Similarly,
rote-memorization and the Grammar Translation Method were widely applied in the
English language classroom in Thailand (Methitham, 2014) and Singapore (Chew, 2005)
till the 1960s. As pointed out by Chew, ‘elsewhere in the English teaching world, the early
sixties were the heyday of structural linguistics’ (Chew, 2005: 5).
Hussein highlights that the Grammar Translation Method was criticized as being ‘too
methodical and arithmetical’ (Hussein, 2004: 1). Realizing that this method was ineffective in
producing a workforce with effective communication skills, the government later switched to
the Direct Method which, according to Stern (1983), emphasizes the use of the target
language as a means of instruction and communication in the classroom by avoiding the
use of translation. Thailand which was under the influence of United States of America
shifted from the Grammar Translation Method to an army-based teaching approach, known
as the Audio-Lingual Method (Methitham, 2014). Both the Direct Method and Audio-
Lingual Method emphasize learners’ oral ability. Similarly, Singapore changed its earlier
emphasis on ‘high literary text to one which emphasized the oral text’ (Chew, 2005: 4). ELT
developments in other Southeast Asian countries, such as Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and
East Timor are ‘less well-documented’ (Vu, 2012: 59).
The Direct Method employed in Malaysia was found to be counterproductive as it led to
many wasted hours of teachers trying to explain a single new word in English as use of the
106 Policy Futures in Education 15(1)

students’ mother tongue was prohibited (Richards and Rodgers, 1986). Towards the end of
Phase One, the Direct Method was replaced with the SLT approach which, according to
Richards and Rodgers (1986), emphasizes the mastery of high frequency vocabulary. The
change to SLT brought back the drilling technique employed during the Grammar
Translation Method with typical lessons under the SLT approach involving repeating
structural patterns through oral practice (Brown, 2000).
The ELT in Phase Two (1971–1990) emphasized the communicative approach and this is
similar to the ELT development in Thailand (see Segovia and Hardison, 2009) and
Singapore (see Vu, 2012). The main focus of this approach was on communicative
competence, instead of linguistic competence where learners need to know underlying
grammatical principles, how to use the language in a social context and how to combine
utterances and communicative functions (Canale and Swain, 1980). This led to the use of ‘a
functional syllabus’ organized according to the ‘functions the learner should be able to carry
out in English, such as expressing likes and dislikes and offering and accepting apologies’
(Richards, 2006: 11). Typical activities in ELT classrooms in this phase were pair work,
group work and oral exercises, whilst grammar rules were to be acquired indirectly during
the communicative process (Richards, 2006: 11). In line with this approach, the examination
format for English at SPM level was revised to include reading, writing and speaking (oral)
components whilst listening skills remained untested.
Selvaraj (2010) points out that ELT policies in Phase Three (1991–present) emphasize the
use of two different instructional approaches: Content-Based Instruction (CBI) in order to
prepare students to cope with advancements in the field of science and technology; and the
Aesthetic approach in order to inculcate reading habits and creative and critical thinking
skills in students. This is in contrast to the recent ELT policy in Thailand which emphasizes
the use of English for international communication in order to support the tourism industry
in the country (Methitham, 2014). CBI is an approach where language is used as a means of
teaching content (Brinton et al., 1989) and in line with this approach, teachers were required
to integrate content related to science and technology in their lessons. It was at some point in
this phase that English was used as the medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science,
as discussed in the previous section.
The emphasis on the Aesthetic approach, which aimed at promoting language
appreciation in students, was reflected in the introduction of the English Language
Reader Programme, incorporated into the ELT curriculum in 1990. Ten years later, in
2000, the MoE incorporated a literature component into the English language syllabus,
which remains in place until now, despite its failure to achieve the intended outcomes (see
Hwang and Embi, 2007; Rashid, Vethamani, & Rahman, 2010). The incorporation of the
literature component added to the challenges faced by teachers and students. As argued by
Rashid, Vethamani, and Rahman (2010) even without the incorporation of the literature
component into the syllabus, ‘the students were already struggling learning the language and
the incorporation of the literature component is adding another burden’ (Rashid,
Vethamani, & Rahman, 2010: 87). In a similar vein, teachers face stressful experiences
trying to teach literature, especially to less proficient students without the complex skills
needed to read literary texts. However, the positive side of the integration of literature
component in the ELT curriculum is that it provides a more interesting and challenging
experience to proficient ESL learners (Rashid, Vethamani, & Rahman, 2010: 87).
The recently implemented MBMMBI policy, as discussed in the earlier section, makes
ELT a more challenging profession than ever. Besides the extension of contact hours for
Rashid et al. 107

English from 240 minutes to 270 minutes a week and making English a must-pass subject in
SPM, consequently increasing teachers’ workloads and pressure, teachers also face demands
to improve the standards of their own English skills. This is because the MoE believes that
teachers’ lack of proficiency is the main cause of students’ poor command of the language
(Talib, 2013). In 2012, all 61,000 English language teachers in the country were asked to
undergo the Cambridge Placement Test, which was administered online, to gauge their
knowledge about the language. It was reported that 40,666 teachers (about two-thirds)
failed this test and the government used the results of the test to identify less proficient
teachers to be retrained by the British Council (Jalleh, 2013). Despite feedback from teachers
that the results did not reflect their true competency and proficiency as the problematic
online server in the school had prevented them from answering and completing the
questions in time (The Star, 2014) the MoE still sent the teachers for retraining without
negotiating or considering their willingness. Given these demanding situations, it is
reasonable to suggest that teachers might seek social support in their attempts to survive
in their profession.
The next section will appraise the formal professional development programmes in
Malaysia which are supposed to provide adequate and continuous support for the
teachers as they grapple with ‘immense emotional, intellectual and social demands’ to
cope with the ongoing government reforms (Day et al., 2006: 614).

Formal professional development programmes for Malaysian teachers

Teacher professional development (TPD) is broadly defined by Davidson as ‘activities that
develop an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and other characteristics as a teacher’
(Davidson, 2009: 49). Teacher education and teacher training in Malaysia are managed by
three main divisions of the government, which work collaboratively to improve teacher
quality. The divisions are:

(1) Teacher Education Division (TED), which is responsible for deciding policies related to
the quality and professional development of pre-service and in-service teachers;
(2) Institute of Teacher Education (ITE), which is responsible for providing training for
prospective primary teachers;
(3) Institute Aminuddin Baki (IAB), which is responsible for training related to school
leadership.

Currently, there are 27 ITE campuses located across the country providing training for
prospective primary school teachers. Secondary school teachers are not trained by ITE as
they are under the jurisdiction of the higher education sector of the MoE and therefore
trained by universities. The minimum requirement to enroll in degree programmes in ITE is
at least a distinction in any five subjects, a pass in English and at least a credit in Bahasa
Malaysia and History in SPM. However, if the candidates apply to B.Ed. TESL
programmes, they must get at least grade B in English. Shortlisted candidates will also
undergo a Teacher Eligibility Test which consists of three components: Teaching
Personality Inventory; Self-Validation Index; and Physical Fitness Test. The Teacher
Eligibility Test is important in the recruitment process as it helps to ensure that only
candidates with the appropriate personality are recruited regardless of their academic
excellence.
108 Policy Futures in Education 15(1)

As for in-service teachers, their professional development programmes are designed by

TED based on the Continuous Professional Development Master Plan (CPDMP). Osman
and Kassim point out that the typical training mode under CPDMP is sending teachers to
attend courses where they are presented with ‘prescriptive modules that give precise
instruction to teachers on the ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘how’’ to teach specific subjects and content’
(Osman and Kassim, 2013: 17). Ironically, Osman and Kassim who are also officers in TED
and IAB are critical of the current practice of TPD programmes. They highlight how:

[The] practice restricts creativity and autonomous learning among participants. The unintended
consequence is a higher risk of developing a cohort of teachers with a dependent mind-set, who
lack creativity, and have less inclination to take risks in changing their teaching practices. [. . .].
The challenge in moving forward is to ensure teachers’ creativity is enhanced and critical
thinking strengthened by doing away with prescriptive modules that are commonly practiced
in the current CPD activities (Osman and Kassim, 2013: 17).

This suggests serious shortcomings in the current TPD programmes for in-service teachers. It
appears that teachers are being spoon-fed and instructed in what they should do in the
classroom, which gives them little opportunity to tailor the instructional approach to meet
the needs of their students. It seems that TED uses a ‘one size fits all’ approach in designing
the TPD programmes teachers are sent on to learn ‘the right way’ to teach regardless of
different school backgrounds. It is not surprising that TED still uses this ineffective approach
in (dis)empowering teachers as ‘the programmes and modules do not adhere to any specific
quality process and are not managed in a systematic way’ (Osman and Kassim, 2013: 17).
Jamil (2014) who conducted a nation-wide teacher survey involving 467 Malaysian primary
and secondary schools teachers reveals several obstacles for professional development as
perceived by the teachers. Whilst ‘too much working load’ and ‘too populous classes’ were
reported to be the main two obstacles, the teachers also highlighted ‘obstructive attitude of
federal or state education authorities’, ‘poor quality of training activities’ and ‘great disparities
between my practical problems and the issues addressed at training activities’ as the other
main obstacles for their professional development.
Osman and Kassim (2013) point out that the implementation of the training has produced
many complaints from teachers, mainly because the face-to-face training requires teachers to
leave their classrooms to attend the courses, an added burden to other teachers who need to
spend more time as relief teachers, taking over the classes of those on training courses.
Furthermore, the same teachers are often called to attend training courses more than once
due to the absence of facilities to track the movement of teachers attending courses.
Another weakness in the current TPD programmes is pointed out by Lim et al. (2010: 6),
that they are ‘one-shot, superficial, fragmented, quick fix, disconnected and episodic in
nature’. This weakness resonates with the ‘deficient planning’ identified by Osman and
Kassim whereby the training programmes ‘lack the development and growth approach
that allows participants to track progress, continuity, and articulation for further
advancement that contributes to career growth and talent management’ (Osman and
Kassim, 2013: 17). To date, the only TPD programme that seems to provide adequate
time and follow-up support is the year-long Professional Up-skilling of English Language
Teachers organized by the MoE in collaboration with the British Council. Due to many
weaknesses in the design and implementation of TPD, as reviewed above, it is therefore not
surprising that there are still ongoing debates about the efficiency of TPD in Malaysia
(Khalid et al., 2013; Rashid, Rahman, & Rahman, 2016).
Rashid et al. 109

Conclusion
This paper has concerned itself with an examination of the implementation of ELT policy
in Malaysia. While the reforms are discussed periodically in this review, there is often a
merging of the old and new approaches before the latter gains ascendancy. Overall, the
Malaysian education system has gone through constant reforms where new policies have
been introduced since independence from Britain (1957). Unfortunately, the strong need
for social support and guidance in order for teachers to cope with the reforms is not always
adequately met by existing sources of support. Perhaps, the MoE, together with the State
Education Authority, can come up with a formal support system at the school level, made
up of education officers/teachers who are highly trained in the new initiatives. These
officers can act as a ‘‘one-stop centre’’ to provide support for teachers if they have
inquiries or questions.
At the same time, the teachers suffer from the heavy workload and the lack of opportunity
to professionally develop themselves due to the inefficient formal TPD programmes. Even
though the changes in policies are aimed at improving the quality of education in the
country, implementation was often made in haste without considering the voices and
opinions of the wider society, causing a loud public outcry and strongly challenging
teachers at the front-line of the new policies.
There are some implications drawn from this review which are pertinent to the effective
ELT policy implementation in Malaysia and other similar contexts where English is taught
as a second/foreign language. Firstly, the transmission of generalized ideas and
approaches that originated outside the respective school setting should not be the main
focus of TPD programmes. Different teachers have different challenges at school
depending on the characteristics of their students. For example, teachers from urban
areas often do not share similar problems with teachers from rural areas and this
means that the generalized ideas and approaches transmitted during the TPD
programmes are less meaningful to them. As suggested by Jamil (2014), a new concept
of workplace learning should be built, based on the current problems and needs of
practising educators so that the teachers can engage in meaningful learning which is
useful for their professional development. In other words, there is a need to review the
TPD programmes in Malaysia and revise priority areas and focus on the most relevant
issues to address the need. Secondly, there is a need for teachers to be involved in the
planning of new policies. This review has shown that the top-down approach that is
currently being employed in the country is problematic. For instance, even though
policy-makers and teachers have positive attitudes towards the newly introduced SBA,
its implementation is reported to be very burdensome for teachers. If teachers were
involved in the planning of this policy, they could provide insights into the
implementation process based on their professional experiences at school so that this
policy can be implemented more successfully. This can be done through structured
focus group interviews or online surveys, preferably at the planning stage, prior to the
implementation of any new initiatives, so as to obtain feedback and opinions of teachers
who are in the system and who will be responsible in making it happen. Lastly, reforms
should not be too swift or too short-lived as the real change may be hindered. The ETeMS
policy, for instance, was replaced with a new policy too soon that one has yet to see the
effectiveness of the policy. It is wise for the government to improve the implementation of
ETeMS and let it reach its ‘maturity’ level so that its long term effects can be examined
rather than replacing it with a totally new policy.
110 Policy Futures in Education 15(1)

Acknowledgements
The first author thanks his PhD supervisors Mary Bailey and Jane Evison from the University of
Nottingham, UK for their valuable comments and feedback on this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work was supported by the Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education
under the SLAB/SLAI funding.

References
Albury NJ and Aye KK (2016) Malaysia’s national language policy in international theoretical
context. Journal of Nusantara Studies 1(1): 71–84.
Ahmad R, Majid N, Mamat NJZ, et al. (2012) Transformation of language in teaching and learning
policy. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 59(1): 685–691.
Aruna P (2014) No emphasis and poor teachers the causes, say employers. The Star, 11 December
2014. Available at: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/12/11/Fresh-graduates-
struggling-No-emphasis-and-poor-teachers-the-causes-say-employers/ (accessed 1 January 2015).
Baker W (2008) A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: The role of cultural awareness. Regional
Language Centre Journal 39(1): 131–146.
Basree S (2007) The implementation of the contemporary children’s literature program in Malaysian
secondary schools. PhD Thesis, University of Reading, UK.
Brinton D, Snow M and Wesche M (1989) Content-Based Second Language Instruction. Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Brown HD (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York, NY: Longman.
Butler YG (2015) English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current
research (2004–2014). Language Teaching 48(3): 303–342.
Canale M and Swain M (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1–47.
Chew PG (2005) Change and continuity: English language teaching in Singapore. The Asian EFL
Journal 7(1): 4–24.
Coyne G (2015) Language education policies and inequality in Africa: Cross-national empirical
evidence. Comparative Education Review 59(4): 619–637.
Davidson M (2009) The professional development of teachers. In: Davidson M and Jensen B (eds) Creating
Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results From TALIS. Paris, France: OECD,
pp.47–63.
Day C, Kington A, Stobart G., et al. (2006) The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable
and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal 32(4): 601–616.
Department of Statistics (2014) Statistical releases social and demography. Available at: www.
statistics.gov.my (accessed 2 January 2015).
Hussein H (2004) Using simple poems to teach grammar. The Internet TESL Journal 10(5). Available
at: http://iteslj.org/Hussein-Poems.html (Accessed 12 December 2013).
Hwang D and Embi MA (2007) Approaches employed by secondary school teachers to teaching the
literature. Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan 3(4): 1–23.
Rashid et al. 111

Ihsan I (2012) Implications of the PPSMI policy for the performance of Malaysian secondary schools in
mathematics and science subjects. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick UK.
Jalleh J (2013) Majority of teachers not proficient in English. The Star, 2 June 2013. Available at:
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2012/09/26/Majority-of-teachers-not-proficient-in-
English/ (accessed 1 January 2015).
Jamil H (2014) Policy and practice of teacher professional development in Malaysia: The ongoing
effort of enhancing teacher quality. Available at: http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/wp-content/
uploads/2014/10/170th-seminar-handout.pdf (accessed 18 June 2016).
Jessy R (2014) A Malay dilemma: Just who is threatening whom? Malaysia Today, 3 December 2014.
Available at: http://www.malaysia-today.net/a-malay-dilemma-just-who-is-threatening-whom/
(accessed 3 January 2015).
Khalid F, Joyes G, Ellison L, et al. (2013) Teachers’ involvement in communities of practice: An
implication with regard to the current approach of teachers’ professional development in
Malaysia. Asian Social Science 9(16): 102–111.
Lim T, Abas ZW and Mansor N (2010) Online in-service teacher professional development in
Malaysia: A new possibility? In: Abas Z, Jung I and Luca J (eds) Proceedings of Global Learn
2010. pp.4025–4034. Available at: http://www.editlib.org/p/34494/ (accessed 3 February 2013).
Lund S (2014) Regulation and deregulation in education policy: new reforms and school sports in
Swedish upper secondary education. Sport, Education and Society 19(3): 241–257.
Mansor AN, Leng OH, Rasul MS, et al. (2013) The benefits of school-based assessment. Asian Social
Science 9(8): 101–106.
Methitham P (2014) Survey the landscape of ELT in Thailand: Offering new possibility for change. In:
WEI international academic conference proceedings, Budapest, Hungary, pp.26–34. Available at:
http://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Phongsakorn-Methitham-Full-
Paper.pdf (accessed 4 April 2016).
Ministry of Education (2002) Curriculum Specification for Secondary Schools. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Curriculum Development Division.
Ministry of Education (2015) SBA concept. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.my/en/soalan-lazim-
view?id=147&keyword=& (accessed 10 January 2015).
Mohamed AR, Tumin M and Omar H (2008) Success structure for accelerated acquisition of English
by young ESL learners. Educational Research and Review 3(4): 169–181.
Moodie I and Nam H (2016) English language teaching research in South Korea: A review of recent
studies (2009–2014). Language Teaching 49(1): 63–98.
Nor FM, Aziz MA and Jusoff K (2011) Should English for teaching Mathematics and Science
(ETeMS) in Malaysia be abolished?. World Applied Sciences Journal 12(Special Issue on Creating
a Knowledge Based society): 36–40.
Norfaizah M and Marzilah A (2010) ETeMS: The implications on learners. Research in English
Language Teaching 1(4): 1–9.
O’Neill A (2015) The New Zealand experiment: assessment-driven curriculum – managing standards,
competition and performance to strengthen governmentality. Journal of Education Policy 30(6): 831–854.
Osman AM and Kassim AR (2013) Transforming the Teaching Profession in Malaysia. Genting
Highlands, Malaysia: Institute Aminudin Baki.
Pandian A (2002) English language teaching in Malaysia today. Asia Pacific Journal of Education
22(2): 35–52.
Pherali T and Garratt D (2014) Post-conflict identity crisis in Nepal: Implications for educational
reforms. International Journal of Educational Development 34: 42–50.
Rashid RA, Vethamani ME and Rahman SBA (2010) Approaches employed by teachers in teaching
literature to less proficient students in form 1 and form 2. English Language Teaching 3(4): 8–99.
Rashid RA (2011) Vocabulary learning among less proficient young adults using children’s stories.
Mextesol Journal 35(1): 15–28.
112 Policy Futures in Education 15(1)

Rashid RA (2016) Topic continuation strategies employed by teachers in managing supportive

conversations on Facebook Timeline. Discourse Studies 18(2): 188–203.
Rashid RA, Rahman MFA and Rahman SBA (2016) Teachers’ engagement in social support process
on a networking site. Journal of Nusantara Studies 1(1): 34–45.
Raman K and Yamat H (2014) English teachers’ voices on the challenges of the School-Based
Assessment. Frontiers of Language and Teaching 5(1): 66–74.
Richards K (2006) Language and Professional Identity: Aspects of Collaborative Interaction.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards JC and Rodgers TS (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A Description and
Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Segovia LP and Hardison DM (2009) Implementing education reform: EFL teachers’ perspective.
English Language Teaching Journal 63(2): 154–162.
Selvaraj B (2010) English language teaching (ELT) curriculum reforms in Malaysia. Voice of Academia
5(1): 51–60.
Spolsky B and Moon Y (2014) Primary school English-language education in Asia: From policy to
practice. English Language Teaching 68(3): 345–348.
Stern H (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching: Historical and Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on Applied Linguistic Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tahir A (2013) Unhappy with blueprint? Study abroad. FreeMalaysiaToday,10 September 2013.
Available at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/09/10/study-abroad-if-
youre-unhappy-with-blueprint/ (accessed 11 January 2015).
Talib H (2013) English proficiency: Teachers must admit weaknesses and improve. NewStraitsTimes, 20
September 2013. Available at: http://www2.nst.com.my/7-day-news/wednesday/english-proficiency-
teachers-must-admit-weaknesses-and-improve-1.359590 (accessed 11 January 2015).
Tan M (2011) Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of
language in content learning. Language Teaching Research 15(3): 325–342.
The Star (2014) Upset over English test. The Star, 9 March 2014. Available at: http://www.thestar.
com.my/news/education/2014/03/09/upset-over-english-test/ (Accessed 7 February 2015).
Utusan (2013) Bahasa Melayu perlu diperkasakan (Malay language should be strengthened). Utusan,
28 November 2013. Available at: http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/Dalam_Negeri/20131128/dn_
03/Bahasa-Melayu-perlu-diperkasakan (Accessed 3 February 2015).
Vu PT (2012) English in Southeast Asian countries. Available at: http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-
00931949 (Accessed 18 June 2016).

Radzuwan Ab Rashid is a lecturer at the School of English Language Studies in the Faculty
of Languages and Communication, UniSZA. He obtained his PhD from the University of
Nottingham, UK and the PhD research focused on teachers’ co-construction of social
support on a social networking site. His research interests include teacher education and
professional development, technology enhanced learning, and contemporary discourse.

Shireena Basree Abdul Rahman is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Education, UiTM
Puncak Alam. She obtained her PhD from the University of Reading, UK. Her areas of
expertise are Teaching English as a Second Language, Literature Teaching and Learning,
Literacy and Elementary Education.

Kamariah Yunus is currently the Deputy Dean of Research and Innovation at the Faculty of
Languages and Communication, UniSZA. She obtained her PhD from the University of
Malaya, Malaysia. Her research interests include Teaching English as a Second Language
and applied linguistics.