Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication
Vol. 24:1 (2014) ► pp.41–59

A post-mortem on the Malaysian content-based instruction initiative

| Universiti Utara Malaysia

This is a post-mortem on Malaysian TeSME (Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English) program based on its comparison with Canadian immersion programs. Malaysia and Canada have some common sociological aspects such as the size of population, the ratio of indigenous people and immigrants, and multilingual contexts. It also has in common various core elements in the set of criteria proposed by Swain and Johnson (1997) to define a prototypical immersion program. Thus, the lessons Canadians have learned from immersion may be seen as significant guiding light for TeSME and other attempts of content-based instruction programs. Canadian immersion has been different from TeSME at least in terms of three core features: overt support exists for the L1; the teachers are bilingual; and the classroom culture is that of the local L1 community. These differences made four issues more prominent: Learning outcome of TeSME; mainstay of TeSME; judicious use of L1; and function of TeSME. Finally some suggestions are proposed: give higher priority to promoting concept development across languages for now; make English classes more effective; promote bilingualism in TeSME; and extend TeSME’s function to understanding and integrating other cultures and languages.

Keywords: content-based instruction, immersion, TeSME, Malaysia, language policy, Canada
Published online: 18 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.24.1.03lee
References
Auerbach, E
(1993) Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27(1), 9–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bae, J
(2007) Development of English skills need not suffer as a result of immersion: Grades 1 and 2 writing assessment in a Korean/English two-way immersion program. Language Learning , 57(2), 299–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonabente, C.L
(2007) Teachers’ English proficiency poor. Inquirer . Retrived March 8 2009, from [URL]
Chan, S.H., & Tan, H
(2006) English for mathematics and science: Current Malaysian language-in-education policies and practices. Language and Education , 20(4), 306–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chow, P., & Cummins, J
(2003) Valuing multilingual and multicultural approaches to learning. In S.R. Schecter & J. Cummins (Eds.), Multilingual education in practice (pp. 32–61). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Council for Cultural Co-operation, Education Committee, Modern Languages Division, Strasbourg
(2001)  Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J
(1998) Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion? In M.R. Childs & R.M. Bostwick (Eds.), Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education (pp. 34–47). Katoh Gakuen, Japan.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C
(2007) Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Davison, C., & Williams, A
(2001) Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 51–70). Harlow, Essex: Longman & Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Dupuy, B.C
(2000) Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language Annals , 33(2), 205–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Idris, N., Cheong, L.S., Mohd. Nor, N., Abdul Razak, A.Z., & Md. Saad, R
(2007) The professional preparation of Malaysian teachers in the implementation of teaching and learning of mathematics and science in English. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education , 3(2), 101–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J
(2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKay, S.L
(1998) Teaching English in multilingual settings. Retrieved March 8 2009, from [URL]
Mohamad Nor, F., Abd Aziz, M., & Jusof, K
(2011) Should English for teaching mathematics and science (ETeMS) in Malaysia be abolished? World Applied Sciences Journal , 121(Special Issue on Creating a Knowledge Based Society), 36–40.Google Scholar
Nikula, T
(2007) Speaking English in Finnish content-based classrooms. World Englishes , 26(2), 206–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osman, K., Halim, L., & Mohd Meerah, S
(2006) What Malaysian science teachers need to improve their science instruction: A comparison across gender, school location and area of specialization. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 2(2), 58–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pandian, A., & Ramiah, R
(2003) Mathematics and Science in English – Teacher Voices. Proceedings of the ELTC ETeMS Conference 2003: Managing Curricular Change .
Pica, T
(2002) The subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic ne Eds of classroom language learners. The Modern Language Journal , 86(1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, D.M
(2006) Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from Italian content-based instruction. The Modern Language Journal , 90(3), 373–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoller, F.L
(2004) Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 241, 261–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158. DOI logo
Swain, M
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1986) Two ingredients to the successful use of a second language as a medium of instruction in Hong Kong. Educational Research Journal , 11, 1–6.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Johnson, R.K
(1997) Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. In R.K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 1–6). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S
(2005) The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 15(2), 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Upton, T.A., & Lee-Thompson, L
(2001) The role of the first language in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 231, 469–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L
(1986)  Thought and language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Walker, C.L., & Tedick, D.J
(2000) The complexity of immersion education: Teachers address the issues. The Modern Language Journal , 84(1), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Ruiz-Cecilia, Raúl, Leopoldo Medina-Sánchez & Antonio-Manuel Rodríguez-García
2023. Teaching and Learning of Mathematics through CLIL, CBI, or EMI—A Systematic Literature Review. Mathematics 11:6 ► pp. 1347 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.