PMR Too Easy?

Thursday, October 13, 2005 http://educationinmalaysia.blogspot.com/2005/10/pmr-too-easy.html
PMR Too Easy?
The Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) examination has just been completed on Tuesday this week, and apparently, many are of the opinion that the examinations this year has been of a lower standard, particularly for Science and English Language papers. This is reported in the Star today.
A Mathematics and Science teacher from Seremban said her students were “disappointed” with the Science paper as the questions were “too easy.”
“One of my students commented that had he known the questions were to be that easy, he would not have studied so hard! They were disappointed that the paper was not a challenge”.
Apparently, even the average and weaker students found the paper easy and not challenging. One of the teachers interviewed was even harsher with her comments, claiming that “Science was easy and English was closer to the UPSR exam”.Is it just a one-off? Or is it representing another decline in standards in the Malaysian examinations? The immediate speculation that comes to mind is the fact that this was the first year whereby Mathematics and Science examinations are conducted in English (though not yet 100%, as Malay translations are still available) - is the lowering of standards meant to coincide with this so that students will fare "better"? This was similarly speculated by one of the teachers interviewed.
“I do not know if it has anything to do with the fact that this year’s candidates were the first to study Maths and Science in English. But the standard of most of the papers was much lower than Form Three level.
What lends credence to this speculation is the fact that just one month ago, the Ministry of Education released the results of the July trial PMR examinations conducted for Mathematics and Science in English which was apparently very poor. The New Straits Times reported on the 16th September that "Form Three teachers who have been teaching Science and Mathematics in English since January are a worried lot."
In a subsequent NST report, the Ministry of Education Director General, Datuk Ahamad Sipon said "the questions were designed to test students on their understanding of questions posed in English and Bahasa Malaysia, and Maths and Science terminology and their grasp of concepts, ideas and information presented in both languages."
Teachers were to have used the results of the "diagnostic assessment" test given to Form Three students in July to remedy weaknesses in the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English. He said the test was not meant to be a trial examination for the Penilaian Menengah Rendah and could not be used to assess students’ performance in the exam...
The Malaysian Examination Syndicate director Dr Salleh Hassan, who has been under a little bit of pressure in the recent PMR examinations due to issues blogged here and here, naturally "begged to differ". The best way for our civil servants to answer some of the tough questions posed, is by apparently "answering without answering".
He said the level of difficulty was about the same for every examination – including this year's – so the syndicate could chart and compare students’ performance over the years.
"Every examination has a combination of six levels of difficulty – understanding, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Some questions will be difficult and some questions will be easier, depending on the level of testing."
Errr... how does that convince the public that the PMR examination standards were not lower, I have absolutely no idea.

Review
Apparently when we look at the title of the article, the article is basically telling the readers about the PMR examination which was in year 2005 was way too easy for the students. Besides, that was the first year where Mathematics and Science subjects were taught in English. According to few of the students, they mentioned that the PMR exam was very easy that they feel that they do not have to study really hard if they knew that the paper was that easy. Even one of the teachers said that she feel that Science was easy and English was closer to UPSR exam. This really shows that how easy the PMR examination at that time. Other teacher also mentioned that because that was the first year Science and Math were thought in English so that is why the PMR standard at that time being lowered so that the students will fare better. Teachers are really concerned about this matter.
For me, I think that should not be a really serious problem to have a very easy PMR examination. I think that it should have been a relieved for some of the students but why students or even teachers should feel very worried about the PMR exam which is very easy. If it was me then, I think I will feel relieved to answer an easy questions rather than difficult questions. But here I want to emphasize on the teaching of science and mathematics in English. As that was the first year of having those subjects in English and based from the article, it mentioned that in the PMR trial examination, many students get poor results in the subjects. But in the PMR they can get better results. This is due to the questions of both subjects were written in English and Malay and most students answer it in Malay. Then, what’s the point of learning those subjects in English?
Lastly, I think that it is very good to learn both subjects in English because for sure it can somehow help them to improve their English. But it would be better if the implementation is working well by having teachers teach in English, not in Malay and during PMR examinations, questions for those subjects are fully written in English.

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATIC SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN ENGLISH

SCIENCE AND MATHEMATIC SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN ENGLISH

The general purpose of writing this composition is to inform the reader that science and mathematic should be taught in English. In addition this composition specifically tells the readers the history of the implementation of mathematics and science in English, what is it be implemented, the importance of mathematics and science in English and the relevance of the implementation to the education system in Malaysia.

As we all know, the learning and teaching science and mathematic in English has been implemented in our education system. In June 2002 a dramatic shift in the Malaysian education policies was announced. The minister of education informed the public that from January 2003 Science and Mathematic will be taught in English in standard one, form one, and lower six in all fully aided government school. The policy to change the medium of instruction in the teaching of mathematics and science from Bahasa Melayu to English is an important innovation affecting teachers of mathematics and science (MST) generally. It poses special challenges not only for teachers but also student who have been trained in the Malay medium but also for those trained in English, whose professional experience has largely involved the use of Bahasa Melayu as the medium of instruction. In the immediate context, to derive maximum benefit from this innovation the MST would need to develop (or in some cases, reactivate) their English language proficiency in order to access the wealth of information on the subject area currently available in English texts. Additionally, the MST would need to develop the practical competence to deliver their subject matter in the language.

The English Language Teaching Centre, Malaysia (ELTC) proposes an English language enhancement programmer known as English for The Teaching of Mathematics and Science (ETeMS). The overall aim of ETeMS is as follows to enhance the English language skills of Mathematics and Science teachers to enable them to teach effectively using English as the medium of instruction. In developing the ETeMS programe the following assumptions are made. The MST undergoing the ETeMS already possesses the content area knowledge and the pedagogical skills relevant to their subject. The MST have, at the very least, a basic level of English language proficiency acquired through instruction received in their primary and secondary schooling ETeMS draws on these existing competencies to encourage the language development of MST in 3 broad areas.
The first areas talks about language for accessing information. This component aims to enhance the information getting skills, especially through reading. Teachers will develop these skills by engaging in a variety of mathematics and science texts. These texts used will include content area topics, curricular materials such as syllabuses, handbooks etc. and texts dealing with methodological issues. It must be emphasized that the focus of instruction is to develop the language skills needed for accessing information in texts, and not to provide instruction in the content or methodology of the subject. It is hoped that as they develop these skills the teachers will be motivated to access on-line and print material to extend their knowledge of current content and pedagogy, and thereby positively impact the delivery of their subjects in the classroom. The second area is about language for teaching mathematic and sciences. In this component the teacher will develop language for use while teaching in the classroom as well as the language needed for out of class activities related to the subject. The focus of instruction here would primarily involve speaking and writing skills, and will be supported with adequate grammar input and practice. This is the major component of the ETeMS programme. Last but not least, the third areas define the language for professional exchange. As professionals the MST would conceivably wish to communicate with peers in the wider discourse community through English. A small component of the ETeMS programme will take into consideration this need of the teachers.
The rational of changing the medium of instruction of earning and teaching mathematic and science from Bahasa Melayu to English is one of the steps taken by the government towards the human resources development to become the first world country and also as the early preparation from the beginning year of school to compete in this globalization. As far as we concern, science and mathematic now is the medium of development of ones country. There are so many innovations and new outcome occurred subconsciously and all of these are in English. Besides, English is the international medium of communication and the high proficiency in English will make the process of acquiring knowledge become easier for the students if they have the basic in schools. Furthermore, when the students further their study in tertiary, most of their references are in English and they will have problems if they don’t have the basic knowledge. It will cause them a tough situation if they want to start to learn all the terms while they are in the tertiary stage.
Although the implementation of mathematic and science in English has a lot of advantages, but it still has some problem. The excuse that some students in the rural areas still cannot cope with taking these two subjects in English is plainly laughable in that these are the same students who have been taught these two subjects in English for 6 years! The same excuse, hence, is also not valid among those in Chinese primary schools! The decision not to have an 'English only' UPSR exam for these two subjects sends a signal to teachers in rural areas as well as those in Chinese schools that they can 'revert' to teaching these two subjects in BM and Chinese (and for those in Tamil schools to teach in Tamil). As far as I know, there's no 'monitoring' or 'policing' mechanisms in schools to ensure that teachers actually teacher these two subjects in English. Furthermore, while implementing the 'English only' policy would have some short term consequences in that the scores in some of these 'vulnerable' areas might be affected, I fear that the medium to long term consequences would be greater. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2 to 3 years time, an announcement is made that the policy to teach Science and Math in English would be stopped because it was found that it had not achieved its objective of improving the standard of English.
As a conclusion, we totally agree that science and mathematic should be taught in English because the new era of science and technology nowadays are in English. As for the preparation government has sent 93 students from international center, Institut Kajian Liberal Uniten, Kolej Matrikulasi Yayasan United Engineers Malaysia, and Kolej Mara Banting to further their study at the most top University in the world so that after their graduate they will work with the government as the expertise teacher in teaching mathematic and science.

Scolarship Vs Grade

The instructor has the following grading scale:
weekly exams = 65% of total grade
opinion papers = 20% of total grade
final exam - 15% of total grade
Students are allowed to miss three class periods without penalty. There are no excused absences after the three have been utilized, and one-half point from the 100 total points for the class is subtracted for each additional absence.
A student with a baseball scholarship received the following grade in your class:
weekly exams = 45% of possible 65%
opinion papers = 18% of possible 20%
final exam = 7% of possible 15%
unexcused absences = 2, equaling a minus of 1 full point from total grade.
weekly exams = 45
opin. papers = 18
final exam = 7
total = 70 = C-
-1 (two absences at one-half point each)
69% = D+
Variables:
1. Student will lose scholarship, if a grade below a C- is received.
2. The administration is very concerned about grade inflation. You know that your college has the highest grade inflation of any of the institutions in the state as compared to a major university in the area.
3. The father of the student calls you twice to convince you that his child should be given the C- to save the scholarship, the self-esteem and future baseball career of your student.
and the answer is???.......................

The Teacher And The Student

Sally Thomas, the teacher of this combination 5th- and 6th-grade class of 31 students, is a highly dedicated professional, respected by students, parents, and administrators for her teaching and for her leadership at local and state levels in whole language practices and alternative assessment strategies. Through interviews and through observations with Sally Thomas, I learned that she has a social constructivist educational philosophy, a holistic approach to curriculum development, and a nurturing interpersonal style. The students used the following phrases to describe their teacher: supportive, caring, understanding, accessible, sharing mutual trust and respect, listening to and respecting diverse opinions, explaining things, not telling all the answers, fun, humorous, enthusiastic, sharing interests, holding high expectations, and giving specific feedback.
Sally often articulated to the students her reasons for offering particular activities, topics, or learning processes. For example, when preparing for a cooperative learning jigsaw activity in which students were responsible for "becoming experts" on certain social studies readings in order to teach their peers, she mentioned that researchers have found that more learning takes place when we know we will be responsible for teaching the material to others. After the jigsaw, students examined their learning experience in that light. Sally asked students to critique the value of what they were learning, using questions like the following: "Is this a valuable topic to understand? Why or why not?"; "Have you ever needed to know how to do this in the "real world?"; "How might this skill be useful to you in the future?"; and "Why might the writers of this curriculum believe that this should be included? Do you agree or disagree with their decision?" The focus was on valuing learning, rather than on extrinsic rewards, and as such, fit Marshall's (1990) description of a learning-oriented classroom. As one student described his views on how his school culture was different, Instead of not wanting to read, they'll read. Instead of not wanting
to write, they'll write. They want to write. One of the things I love
in school is that we're trying to learn - not just get the right answer.
That's really good. You want to get the right answer, but you still
learn. You do better because learning is more important than
getting the right answer.
This classroom was a caring community of learners in which the contribution of ideas from every member was encouraged and responded to. Risk taking was explicitly encouraged by Sally as an important part of learning. She and the students participated together as learners and as teachers. Through seeking and responding to the ideas and feelings of each member of the classroom culture, Sally was able to convey to her students a sense that their ideas and their own construction of meaning were important, valuable, and worthy of being taken seriously. Students and teacher figured things out together in ways described by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) as connected knowing. Sally shared the "ownership of knowing" (Oldfather, 1992).
The students' desks were arranged in groups of four or five. The room was filled with samples of creative work: illustrated poems, stories written on the computer and placed in handmade illustrated books, art projects, and works in progress, which included projects in clay, papiermâché, and other graphic arts. The classroom contained hundreds of books, many related to the thematic unit being studied. The curriculum was developed thematically, incorporating students' interests and suggestions. Topics were based on large concepts, and often included large issues that related to current events (e.g., a censorship debate) or environmental concerns. Students read selfselected books and books from the core curriculum. They kept dialogue journals and reading logs. Writing was the favorite school activity of most students in the class. The schoolwide practice was to give no grades; report cards were in narrative form. Students' dominant experience in this classroom was of interest in and engagement with learning.

Classroom Motivation

Children locked into classroom discussion are no different than adults locked into boring, irrelevant meetings. If you do not understand how something relates to your goals, you will not care about that thing. If an adult cannot see the relevance of the material covered in a meeting, and has no desire to score political points, he will tune out or drop out. If a child does not understand how knowing the elements of the periodic table will help to address the concerns of his life, and he is not particularly interested in pleasing the teacher, he will do the same.
Because we do not want our children to be motivated solely by a desire to please the teacher, what we need to address is how to make the content of the curriculum fit into the concerns of the child. Sometimes, this is easy. The child who wants to design a roof for the family doghouse will gladly sit through a lesson on the Pythagorean theorem if he understands that the lesson will teach him how to calculate the dimensions of the roof he needs. If a piece of content addresses a particular concern of a student, or even a general area of interest, that student will not tune it out.
Most children, as they work through their years of school do, in fact, find areas of study they genuinely enjoy. But these areas are different for different people. The general problem of matching individual interests to fixed curricula is one that is impossible to solve. People obviously have different backgrounds, beliefs, and goals. What is relevant for one will not be relevant to another. Of course, we can force something to be relevant to students--we can put it on the test. But this only makes it have the appearance of significance, it does not make it interesting.
Some children decide not to play the game this system offers. Instead, they continue to search for ways in which what is taught makes sense in their day-to-day lives, becoming frustrated as they realize that much of what is covered is irrelevant to them. If children are unwilling to believe that their own questions do not matter, then they can easily conclude that it is the material covered in class that does not matter.
What is left, then, if the content has no intrinsic value to a student? Any teacher knows the answer to this question. Tests. Grades. When students don't care about what they are learning, tests and grades force them to learn what they don't care about knowing. Of course, students can win this game in the long run by instantly forgetting the material they crammed into their heads the night before the test. Unfortunately, this happens nearly every time. What is the point of a system that teaches students to temporarily memorize facts? The only facts that stay are the ones we were forced to memorize again and again, and those we were not forced to memorize at all but that we learned because we truly needed to know them, because we were motivated to know them. Motivation can be induced artificially, but its effects then are temporary. There is no substitute for the real thing.