Pengehaan Subjek SPM - Satu Pandangan

Muktamad sudah! Menteri Pelajaran mengumumkan bahawa mulai tahun 2010 hanya 10 subjek sahaja dibenarkan diambil oleh setiap pelajar SPM dalam satu-satu peperiksaan. Walau bagaimanapun, sedikit pengecualian diberikan kepada pelajar aliran sains tulen agama : mereka dibenarkan mengambil 11 subjek pada tahun 2010, tetapi selepas itu, 2011 dan seterusnya - hanya 10 subjek dibenarkan.

Pandangan saya:

Saya menyokong pengehadan subjek dalam SPM dengan mengambil kira "kegilaan" masyarakat (ibu bapa dan pelajar) mengambil subjek berlebihan sehingga mewujudkan gambaran tidak sihat terhadap sistem pendidikan negara.

Pengehadan walau bagaimanapun perlulah mengambil kira semangat pendemokrasian pendidikan yang diuar-uarkan oleh mantan Menteri Pendidikan, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak ketika membentangkan usul Akta pendidikan 1996 di Dewan Rakyat.

Pelajar sains tulen agama perlu dibenarkan mengambil maksimum 12 mata pelajaran dalam peperiksaan SPM. Hal ini demikian kerana pengambilan 11 atau 12 mata pelajaran oleh mereka adalah jumlah minimum yang membolehkan mereka benar-benar menjadi pelajar aliran Sains Tulen Agama.

Cadangan saya:-

Fenomena mengambil mata pelajaran lebih daripada yang sepatutnya wajar dikekang dengan cara memperkenalkan semula pakej mata pelajaran mengikut aliran seperti yang diamalkan sebelum tahun 1999 apabila persijilan terbuka diperkenalkan. KPM wajar memperkenalkan aliran pengajian di tingkatan 4 dengan setiap aliran dibekalkan dengan pakej mata pelajaran yang boleh diambil. KPM juga boleh mengehadkan setiap pelajar hanya boleh mengambil maksimum dua (2) pakej aliran sahaja - misal : Sastera Tulen + Agama; Sastera Tulen + Sastera Ikhtisas; atau Sains Tulen + Agama.

Contoh aliran sastera tulen + agama :

Subjek bagi sastera Tulen :-
1. Subjek Teras (6)
2. Kesusasteraan Melayu
3. Kesusasteraan Inggeris
4. Kesusasteraan Tamil

Subjek Aliran Agama :-
1. Subjek Teras (5)
2. Pendidikan al-Quran dan Al-Sunnah
3. Pendidikan Syariah Islamiah
4. Tasawwur Islam
5. Bahasa Arab

Maka bagi aliran sastera + agama, mata pelajaran yang wajar diambil ialah:-
1. Bahasa Melayu
2. Bahasa Inggeris
3. Matematik
4. Sejarah
5. Sains
6. Kesusasteraan Melayu
7. Bahasa Arab
8. Pendidikan al-Quran dan al-Sunnah
9. Pendidikan Syariah Islamiah
10. Tasawwur Islam (pilihan)

Bagi aliran sains tulen + agama pula:
1. Bahasa Melayu
2. Bahasa Inggeris
3. Matematik
4. Sejarah
5. Biologi
6. Kimia
7. Fizik
8. Matematik Tambahan
9. Pendidikan al-Quran dan al-Sunnah
10. Pendidikan Syariah Islamiah
11. Bahasa Arab
12. EST (pilihan)
13. Tasawur Islam (pilihan)

Memanglah ada bantahan kerana seolah-olah telah meminggirkan aspek potensi dan meneroka pelbagai ilmu, tetapi dikira ia lebih baik daripada menghukum semua pelajar dengan mengharamkan mereka mengambil lebih daripada 10 subjek, padahal pada keadaan tertentu ia perlu kerana keperluan aliran yang diambil oleh mereka.

Saya risau keputusan mengehadkan kepada 10 subjek sahaja bagi calon SPM 2010 akan menjadi polemik tidak bermanfaat sekiranya diteruskan. Oleh hal yang demikian, daripada membazirkan masa dengan pelbagai masalah pada kemudian hari, lebih baiklah pihak Kementerian Pelajaran mengambil kira pelbagai faktor sebelum meneruskan keputusan yang diumumkan oleh Menteri pelajaran. Saya yakin banyak sumber kepakaran yang ada di KPM untuk dirujuk oleh Menteri Pelajaran!

Jangan sudah terhantuk baru tengahadah atau apabila nasi sudah menjadi bubur baharulah menagis dengan air mata darah!

PPSMI - Hapuskan sahaja!

SCIENCE AND MATHS: Decide only after a proper study - Oleh Dr. Farida Shah
Keratan Akhbar Terpilih


I WRITE this letter in the hope of shedding more light on issues regarding the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics, the role of English as a second language and the use of English in teaching Science and Mathematics. This issue is not about politics, patriotism or the fear of losing our mother tongue, but one which is of importance to our children. It addresses two entirely different issues: the urban-rural science divide and the urban-rural English language divide.

As a bilingual professor of molecular biology, I was teaching at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (medium of instruction Malay) along with my colleagues who were and still are teaching in areas of physics, math, astrophysics, nanotechnology, etc.


Some of us (consisting of Malays, Chinese and Indians) were products of school systems where English was the medium of instruction; some went through the learning of Science at various levels with Malay as the medium of instruction.

Both groups are equally competent lecturers and able to communicate and impart knowledge to students effectively in Malay. From my observation, Science graduates from UKM were never at a disadvantage, as the good ones (with good grades) went on to do their postgraduate studies in Britain, Australia, etc. At no time did we feel that our students' capabilities and scientific knowledge (content) were compromised because of the medium of instruction.

This trend has been observed elsewhere in the world for decades. Students from China, Taiwan and Germany, who studied in their mother tongue with English as the second language, went on to do their postgraduate and post-doctoral degrees in English-speaking countries and even secured jobs.

So, let me put the questions to parents (mostly in urban areas) and the relevant authorities: why this obsession with teaching 6- or 7-year-olds and older children Science and Maths in English when the medium of instruction of education is Malay or (in vernacular schools) Chinese and Tamil? If Chinese schools have decided to maintain the teaching of Science and Maths in Chinese, why can't the national schools teach in Bahasa Malaysia?

Why teach Maths and Science in English? What do we expect these students to achieve? Do we want to teach Science and Maths so that students competence in English will improve as an additional important language? Or do we think that by using English, the students' command of Science and Maths will improve?

There must be a clear focus on English language goals as well as goals within the command of Maths and Science curriculum. If it is the former, then teaching Science and Maths is not the solution. If it is the latter, then it is again not true. If it is the former that we are worried about, surely the answer would be to teach and learn English as a second language. We can increase the teaching hours for English from seven to 15 hours per week, change the method of pedagogy, teach more grammar and communication skills, etc.

On the other hand, those who think that Science and Maths are better taught and learnt in English are not aware that Science and Maths are not learned by memorising facts.

Some people think of Science and Maths as subjects in which learners are required to memorise terms, apply various formulae and weigh out chemicals. However, science education now emphasises the teaching of the conceptual nature of science, and the high-level cognitive processes required to understand and communicate these concepts.

The United States National Science Education Standards defines "scientific literacy" in a manner that reveals its conceptual and communicative dimensions.

Scientific literacy and curiosity means that a student can find or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. They should be able to understand underlying concepts and describe, explain and predict natural phenomena. Can we expect 7-year-olds to do this? Do they switch to thinking in their native language after the brief classroom period where they are taught in a second language for the rest of the day?

Another dimension is the competence of the teachers. How can teachers impart content knowledge in a second language if they themselves are not competent in that language?

Successful achievement in Maths and Science is difficult enough for students. It becomes more difficult when the subjects are taught in a second language. It has been shown that learners have the best chance of succeeding in Maths and Science if they study them in their own language. Studies have shown that when their language skills are not developed, their ability to think mathematically and scientifically is affected.

To address the science divide, students are at a disadvantage trying to understand instructions and express them in a foreign language, especially when they must compete with other urban students. To add to this disadvantage, some rural schools are ill-equipped with the labs and resources for teaching Science.

It is my personal opinion as a scientist involved in engaging the young in Science and Maths that if we continue with the present system, not only will we not achieve our goal of improving the use of English but it will also lead to deterioration in the teaching and learning of Science.

Throughout the world, there is an emphasis on science education for developing countries and a call to make "teaching and learning science fun". Teaching in a second language is a sure way to get students out of Science and Maths. Yet, one of the goals of our nation is to increase participation in science and to increase the number of researchers/scientists per 10,000 population.

Some say we should wait for the Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah results to see the outcome. But we all know that UPSR is not an indicator of language proficiency or content knowledge because exams, which are set to encourage rote learning and memory work, do not evaluate communication and/or thinking skills.

Another question: Was there a proper scientific research methodology set up to study the impact of the use-English exercise for more than six years of school life, with proper scientific controls, with measurable outcomes using qualitative and quantitative techniques, to ensure that a policy statement can be derived at the end of Year 6?

If it was done, we would all like to see it so we can put an end to the debates. If it was not done, it is not too late for the authorities to conduct proper research and identify what the people (parents) want.

I was surprised by the advice that we should not politicise this issue and let the cabinet decide. But surely, the cabinet must hear the voices of parents and this should be done in a scientific manner, meaning all policies must be formulated with proper scientific research. The evidence derived from such an exercise would allow people to think rationally and accept the decision, rather than one based on the whims of the minister or the cabinet.

So, if the authorities and everyone else is sincere in trying to improve the command of English as a second language, let's go back to the basics and look at the curriculum. Schools, ministries and universities should rethink the teaching of English in their curriculum.

If there are insufficient teachers for English, we should perhaps look at getting the American Field Services (AFS) teachers who used to teach English in rural schools many years ago. Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) and other media can play a role and have more programmes for children in English, particularly science programmes in English with subtitles in the three languages.

In these two issues -- where the future of our children is at stake -- involving English language competency and the participation and engagement of students in Science and Maths for the development of the nation, we cannot let politics rule; a policy should be formulated on the basis of scientific research. All relevant and related ministries and agencies should have dialogues to ensure a more effective and efficient way of teaching and learning English as a second language, as well as improving the teaching and learning of Science and Maths. Again, I emphasise these are two separate issues.

I commend the government in its effort to re-look these two issues. There is nothing wrong in stopping Maths and Science from being taught in English if it has been shown (on the basis of research) to be ineffective.

Most importantly, any decision we take must help bridge the existing urban-rural divide in the effective learning and command of Science and Maths, and in English language competency.

By DR FARIDA SHAH, Prof of Molecular Biology (Adjunct) UTAR, Kuala Lumpur (2009/03/31)

© Copyright 2009 The New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad. All rights reserved.
Posted by Terrabaca MANAGEMENT at 9:50 AM

Sumber: http://www.prihatin.net

Wajib Lulus Bahasa Inggeris SPM

Belumpun isu mengehadkan bilangan mata pelajaran kepada calon SPM dimulakan penyelesaiannya, Menteri Pelajaran telah menyelak semula satu lagi lembar lama dalam isu pendidikan negara. Beliau menyarakan agar Bahasa Inggeris dijadikan mata pelajaran wajib lulus dalam peperiksaan SPM. Jika tidak, pelajar tidak akan menerima sijil penuh dalam peperiksaan tersebut. Langkah tersebut, katanya adalah untuk meningkatkan kesedaran para pelajar untuk bersungguh-sungguh mencapai lulus dalam subjek itu dalam peperiksaan. Dalam pada itu juga beliau menyarankan pendidikan bahaa Inggeris dititikberatkan kepada pengajaran tatabahasa berbanding dengan kaedah komunikatif yang sedia ada.

Sekali lagi, tanpa prasangka tujuan pengumuman ini adalah untuk menutup isu PPSMI yang belum ketahuan ke mana arahnya (terakhir ulama Malaysia menerusi SHURA turut menghantar memorandum kepada Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agong memohon perkenan agar PPSMI dimansuhkan), saya kira niatnya baik. Memang sejak awal pengenalan PPSMI lagi cedekiawan dan bahasawan telah menekankan peri pentingnya Bahasa Inggeris diperkasakan melalui kaedah P&P Bahasa Inggeris, bukan melalui P&P Sains dan Matematik (serta semua subjek yang bernaung di bawahnya). Maka jika Menteri Pelajaran ingin menjadikan Bahasa Inggeris lebih diminati dan ditekuni oleh para pelajar, P&P Bahasa Inggerislah jawapannya.

Niat yang baik, jika tidak dilaksanakan dengan jalan dan kaedah yang betul sesungguhnya akan mengundang padah. Dengan mewajibkan semua pelajar lulus dalam BI dalam SPM secara teorinya mungkin benar, tetapi secara praktisnya sekali lagi ia mengundang keluh – kesah masyarakat yang tidak terdedah dengan baik dengan persekitaran Bahasa Inggeris. Bayangkan jika mengajar BI pun dalam Bahasa Melayu, bagaimana hendak membudayakan bahasa Inggeris dan memastikan pelajar lulus? Soal pokok di sini bukanlah kewajipan lulus, tetapi sebanyak manakah kerajaan telah berusaha memastikan kecukupan guru bahasa Inggeris yang sebenarnya (maksud : yang opsyen Bahasa Inggeris) mengajar bahasa itu di kawasan pedalaman. Di kawasan bandar tidak dinafikan kecukupan mungkin berlaku, tetapi di Felda dan sekolah luar bandar, guru bahasa Melayu pun mengajar bahasa Inggeris. Bukan sahaja di sekolah rendah, bahkan menjankit sehingga ke sekolah menengah. Tak percaya? Minta Menteri Pelajaran turun sendiri ke SMK Lokmanul Hakim, Felda Lok Heng, Kota Tinggi. Rujuk opsyen guru Bahasa Inggeris mereka!

Sekali lagi saya berpendapat bahawa pendidikan bukanmedan meraih populariti politik murahan. Pendidikan ialah masa depan negara, masa depan bangsa, masa depan rakyat! Maka sebarang perubahan mestilah dibincangkan dengan teliti oleh golongan yang berautoriti, bukannya diumumkan selepas bangun tidur! Keputusan pula tidak boleh diambil dalam maa seminggu dua, tetapi mestilah melihat banyak faktor, termasuklah persediaan pelajar, keupayaan tenaga pengajar, kecukupan prasana, dan pelbagai faktor lagi. Pendidikan untuk semua, bukan hanya untuk segelintir golongan yang sudah sedia terdedah dan cukup alat dan piawai. Jika demikian, mana murninya matlamat “pendemokrasian pendidikan” yang pernah dilaungkan oleh mantan Menteri Pendidikan (kini PM) ketika memperkenalkan Akta Pendidikan 1996?

“Fikir-fikirlah kerana fikir itu pelita bagi hati”.

Hadkan Subjek?

Sejak pengumuman pelajar-pelajar SPM mulai tahun 2010 tidak lagi dibenarkan mengambil mata pelajaran lebih daripada 10, pelbagai reaksi telah ditunjukkan oleh masyarakat : Setuju dan tidak bersetuju. Semuanya menimbulkan pro dan kontranya. Namun secara umum dua persatuan berkait dengan pendidikan iaitu KPPK dan MPPIBGN menyetujuinya.

Tanpa prasangka bahawa pengumuman ini yang dibuat secara tergesa-gesa - sama seperti pengumuman PPSMI pada 2002 - bertujuan melenyapkan isu PPSMI, saya berpendapat bahawa pengehadan jumlah subjek amat wajar. Namun dengan mengehadkan hanya kepada 10 subjek saya kira agak pelik. Bahkan timbul pula berita daripada KPPM, Dato' Alimuddin Mohd Dom bahawa mata pelajaran teras yang sekarang berjumlah 6 akan dikurangkan kepada 3 atau 4 sahaja. Nampaknya sistem pendidikan sekali lagi mengalami suasana kelam kabut.

Isu yang paling mendapat perhatian ialah soal pelajar aliran sains agama. Umumnya mereka mengambil minimum 12 mata pelajaran iaitu 5 subjek teras (mata pelajaran Pendidikan Islam tidak diwajibkan kepada mereka), 3 subjek agama, dan 4 subjek sains. Jika dikurangkan kepada 10, maka hilamnglah keupayaan mereka untuk mendapatkan pendidikan sains agama seperti yang banyak diambil oleh para pelajar sekarang. Adakah KPM ingin menjalankan satu lagi dasar pemisahan sains dan agama, seperti pemisahan sains dan sastera seperti yang telah dilakukan kini, sehingga subjek kesusasteraan Melayu seperti hidup segan mati tak mahu?

Kedua ialah isu pengurangan mata pelajaran teras. Saya agak terkejut kerana KPPM mengumumkan bahawa mereka berkemungkinan akan mengurangkan mata pelajaran teras. Kini 6 mata pelajara teras di sekolah, iaitu Bahasa Melayu, Bahasa Inggeris, Sains, Matematik, Pendidikan Islam / Moral (bagi yang bukan beragama Islam), dan Sejarah. Bagi pelajar aliran sains, subjek Sains dikecualikan, begitu juga bagi pelajar agama, subjek Pendidikan Islam dikecualikan. Namun sekiranya subjek teras ini dikurangkan, fikirkanlah mata pelajaran apa yang akan digugurkan? Pendidikan Islam atau Sejarah? Mungkinkah Bahasa Melayu? Dalam keghairahan memberikan rasional supaya pelajar tidak menumpukan kepada akademik semata-mata, namun dengan pengguguran dua atau tiga subjek teras ini, mampukah pelajar Malaysia memahami sejarah pembentukan bangsa dan negara serta memahami dan menghayati jati diri bangsa Malaysia? Moga-moga TPM @ Menteri Pelajaran bertindak selepas berfikir, bukan befikir selepas bertindak.

Jadi, ayuh warga pendidikan, suarakan pandangan dalam tempoh dua minggu ini jika tidak mahu pendidikan sekali lagi menjadi seperti bubur chacha! Jangan biarkan sejarah PPSMI kembali berulang.