I am currently 17 year-old and live in Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur.

I’m a secondary student

in Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Miharja. I will be sitting for SPM this year. Therefore, this
submission is for those who have difficulty in scoring Mathematics especially Paper 2. I always
hope to have my own domain and host for blogging. I would give a big thanks to Malaysia
Students if my submission is chosen as one of the winner. This submission is also credited to my
former teacher Pn. Noraslinda for giving speech on Mathematics in my school this year.

SPM Mathematics Tips

by Bobby Ng for Writing Contest 2008

Brief Introduction
Mathematics (is also known as Modern Maths) and Additional Mathematics are categorized as
thinking subjects which you take your time thinking rather than memorizing facts. The formula will
be given at the front page of the examination paper. Additional Maths is notably 4 times harder
than Modern Maths. It’s like if students think Maths is shit, then take Add Maths. If you get 90%
marks in Maths, you may have potential to get 40% marks in Add Maths. It’s near to impossible
for someone who get A1 in Add Maths fail in Math. Well it’s not important. What I’m going to
discuss at here is Mathematics.

SPM Mathematics
In SPM, mathematics is considered as compulsory subject. You must pass this subject in order to
get the certificates along with Malay language. Malay language test takes a lot of time and your
hand hurts like hell after writing so many words. It’s not simple either. However, the percentage of
students fail in Mathematics is higher than Malay Language in real SPM, which is ridiculous. It is
told that Mathematics is quite ‘difficult’ among Art students in seminar SPM, which I can't believe
my eyes either.

In my opinion, Mathematics is the easiest subject in SPM for Science students. I believe PMR
students can even do with their PMR standard knowledge because some questions like volume of
solid and area and perimeter of a circle being test in SPM. It’s not being taught in SPM therefore
you can only depend on your past knowledge in Form 2. Although the questions are a lot easier
than Add Maths, There are still some pupils having difficulties in Maths.

I see some students leave the 'haven't done' answers after they get the formulae to be applied in
the questions, which they didn’t really answer the questions. Some of them don’t understand the
questions’ needs. Therefore, exercises and guidance from teachers are essential for improvement.

The questions are so direct and mostly the answers will less likely
to appear in decimal. You need a little bit of logic compare to Add maths. Besides that, even if you
do well in monthly test, you might end up tilting head during SPM examination hall. It’s because
monthly tests don’t follow the real format of SPM. Like Intervention 1 for KL state this year, there's
no chance in hell this question is coming out in real SPM.

Based on SPM Maths, it consists of 2 papers

Paper 1
- 1 ¼ hors
- 40 questions
- 40 marks

Paper 2
- 2 ½ hours
- working steps must be done
- Section A
= 52 marks
= 11 questions
- Section B
= 48 marks
= 5 questions (answer 4 of out 5)

Every chapter will be tested in Paper 1. The questions will be tested from Form 1 until Form 5.
Since you have already mastered the some basics in PMR, these shouldn’t be a problem. Do past
year objective questions will strengthen your basic.

In paper 2, there are only certain chapters that will be tested in SPM maths. That’s why I will
concentrate more on paper 2. The whole paper 2 format based on past year questions in random
order with brief tips below

Confirmed to be tested every year

Paper 2 (Section A)
1) Volume of solids (which was taught in form 2)
- most of the formulae given are for this question
- make sure the formulae are used correctly
- combined solid is sum of volume of the solids
- remaining solid is the subtraction of bigger solid and smaller solid

2) Angles of elevation and depression

-using trigonometry rule

3) Mathematical reasoning
- statement ‘and’ and ‘or’
- If p, then q. If q, then p.

4) Simultaneous linear equation

- equalize the same unknown and take out
Example : 4p - 2q = 15
(2p + 4q = 19) x2 (times 2 to make unknown 4p same)
- don’t use Add Math method, answers will be different.

5) The straight line

- y = mx + c
- gradient, gradient….
- What is c? c (y-intercept) is the point where the line touches the y-axis.

6) Quadratic expressions and equations

- ‘solve the equation’ is to find the unknown
- change the equation of the question into this form
- factorise by your own or using calculator
- must state x = ?, x = ?, there will be 2 answers

7) Matrices
- will mostly ask inverse matrix
- if you’re not sure about the answer, check if the whole outcome is identical to the inverse matrix
in the question.
- the answer in a) is related to b)

8) Area and perimeter of circles (same as number 1)

- 2πr (perimeter or circumference) and πr2 (area)
- (angle/360 degree) x the formulae above for the area or perimeter of certain part

9) Probability
- is more of (number / total number).
- the formulae given are plain useless
- final answer is never less than 0 or more than 1, 1 > answer > 0

10) Gradient and area under a graph

- based on speed/ time graph
= distance is area of the graph
= rate of change of velocity is gradient of the graph
= speed is based on the graph (seldom being asked)
- beware of total distance and total speed

Can be varied each year

1) Sets (2004 and 2006)
- shading based on the questions (intersection or union)
- beware of the complement such as A’

2) Graph of functions (2005 and 2007)

- the inequalities (upper line is >, lower line is <)
- if slanted line, you can imagine it into horizontal straight line. Same concept as above.

What’s the conclusion? 2008 will be ‘Sets’! Wow, I can predict what will come out in this year’s
SPM. :D

Paper 2 (Section B) Answer 4 questions

1) Graph of functions
- Linear functions (less likely to come out as it’s a straight line after plotted)
- Quadratic functions (2004 and 2005)
- Cubic functions (2007)
- Reciprocal functions (2006)
= this question is easy because you can detect the type of graph after you plot it.
= elastic ruler is recommended
= x-axis and y-axis should be stated in the graph

2) Transformation
- Translation
- Reflection
- Rotation
- Enlargement ( careful with the word ‘to’ and ‘from’ because it determines the image would be
smaller or bigger)
= combination of transformation like VT
-do T before V. It's some kind of law.

3) Statistic
- Histogram ( 2004 and 2005)
= x-axis the upper boundary with an additional lower boundary at the front of the graph
= y-axis is frequency
- Frequency Polygon (2006)
= x-axis is midpoint
= y-axis is frequency
- Ogive (2007)
= x-axis is upper boundary
= y-axis is cumulative frequency
= additional upper boundary should be added to the table
= x-axis and y-axis should be stated in the graph

My school hasn’t come to these chapters below, but I will try my best to explain it.
4) Plans and elevations
-well I’m not sure but what I can see is you must be able to imagine the solid from every side
-plan is looked from above
-elevation is looked from the side of the solid
-the length and the edge (ABCD) should be stated correctly
-similar to a chapter of the living skills in PMR

5) Earth as a sphere
-no comment because I’m not going to explain something that I’m not sure
-latitude is vertical and longitude is horizontal of the sphere
-nautical mile

If you concentrate on these chapters and do a lot of past year questions, I’m sure getting A1 in
Maths is not a matter for you. Choose the 4 questions that you’re confident in section B paper 2.
Do all questions if you think you have much time to spend for taking a nap. Why study more if you
know what kind of questions will come out?

Additional Tips
1) You know doesn’t mean you can get correct, try to make less careless mistakes in each paper.
2) See through the questions word by word as there will be some tricky part in the questions,
especially ‘to’ and ‘from’ in enlargement.
3) Don’t be sad if you do badly in trial SPM because the odd might come to you in SPM.
4) Be sure to study smart, not study hard. Hope this helps.

At the end of Form Three, which is the third year, students are evaluated in the Lower
Secondary Assessment (Penilaian Menengah Rendah, PMR). However, PMR is to be abolished by
2016. At the end of Form 5, students are required to take the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) or
Malaysian Certificate of Education examination, before graduating from secondary school.
The SPM was based on the old British ‘School Certificate’ examination before it became
General Certificate of Education 'O' Levels examination, which became the GCSE (General

Certificate of Secondary Education). As of 2006, students are given a GCE 'O' Level grade
for their English paper in addition to the normal English SPM paper. (Previously, this was
reported on result slips as a separate result labelled 1119, which meant students received two
grades for their English papers.) This separate grade is given based on the marks of the essay-
writing component of the English paper. The essay section of the English paper is remarked
under the supervision of officials from British 'O' Levels examination . Although not part of
their final certificates, the 'O' Level grade is included on their results slip.

National secondary schools use Malay as the main language of instruction. The only
exceptions are Mathematics and Science and languages other than Malay, however this was
only implemented in 2003, prior to which all non-language subjects were taught in Malay.
The government has decided to abandon the use of English in teaching maths and science and
revert to Bahasa Malaysia, starting in 2012.[10]

they will still have to grade that homework when you turn it in, whether it was turned in before or after
the break. They will have that much more to grade in a short period of time, so in effect, they don't get
a break either. Usually if they are nice, teachers won't give a lot of extra homework over spring break,
but they don't want you to totally forget everything you have learned or get out of the habit of doing
schoolwork, so they give you a little something to do. Usually this homework is done late Sunday night,
before it is due on Monday!

My son had some homework, it was write about what you do over spring break. It was clear, have an
intro, body, then conclusion, simple stuff, but I like that she did that for my son. He struggles in writing,
reading.

I would say that if your teacher didn't care about your grade, then go party in Cabo, who cares......your
parents obviously don't......but my son is in fourth grade and she cares how her students perform, so
she assigns temporary assignments to help students improve what they are lacking.

If you are past high school, you should be able to take care of your assignment without whining to
mommy, I thought I heard it all from my fourth grader.......:-(

Poor rich guy?

In most cases it is fair. Imagine how the teacher would feel if you joked off the entire vacation, forgot
everything you learned the week before, and when you get back to school, she has to teach it all over
again. This will set her schedule back all because you did not want to do homework. In high school
homework in not the difficult. Wait until you get to college and the homework assignment no longer
consist of answering 10 questions at the end of each chapter.

It's fair!

it actually is because:
1) it prevents you from forgetting what you have learnt (teacher's hard work isnt wasted)
2) come exam time there might be some questions which were there in your assignment.

Not really.Vacations are for teachers and students to relax.My daughter who is in year 7 brought home
her reading assignment home by choice because she wants to finish it as they have only 1 week left of
this term after the Easter break.

Candidates are graded based on his/her performance relative to the cohort. A grade in one GCE
exam subject is a number with an accompanying letter. In descending order, the grades are: A1, A2,
B3, B4, C5, C6, D7, E8, and F9. A grade of C6 or better is considered a pass. Those who obtain a pass
in one or more subjects are awarded a Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education
(Ordinary Level). Candidates whose subject(s) are denoted as 'Absent' - should they be absent from
any component(s) for the subject - will not have the subject listed on the certificate; this is likewise
for those who obtain a Grade 9, though it will appear on the result slip.

Objective:

SASMO is devoted and dedicated to bringing a love for Mathematics to students.  Unlike most Maths Olympiad
Competitions, SASMO caters not only to students in the top 5% but to the top 40% instead. It aims to arouse students’
interest and enthusiasm for mathematical problem solving, develop mathematical intuition, reasoning and logical thinking,
as well as creative and critical thinking. In addition, this can help improve the students’ maths grades because they can
apply problem-solving strategies learnt during the training to their daily school mathematics. 

Contests and Workshop:

 Contest papers will be sent to your school 3 days before the contest date.  After the contest, we will collect the
papers from your school.
  This contest promotes mathematical reasoning, logical thinking, critical and creative thinking, and the love for
mathematics. 
 No traveling is required for the students. The workshops are optional.  Our SASMO coaches will prepare your
students to solve interesting problems individually and within their groups. The problem set includes challenging
 but not too difficult problems so as not to discourage novice problem solvers (see attached examples). Students
will be introduced to higher-order thinking strategies and more advanced mathematical ideas to help them solve
problems. They will experience the satisfaction, fun and thrill of discovery associated with creative problem
solving.
 Students can purchase past years contest papers from www.noble-education.com or www.excelleague.com

FORMAT
Contests are taken in the participating school or at our SASMO Maths Olympiad Centres.

 The contest consists of 25 non-routine problems.

 Each student, working alone, scores 1 point for each correct answer. Thus, a student can score up to 25 points.
 Calculators are not permitted.
 When a problem introduces a more advanced concept, all necessary definitions are included.
 The detailed solution for each problem usually names the strategy required.
 Many solutions include follow-up problems and activities.
 After the contest, we will collect the score sheets for marking.

TEAMS

 Each team is made up of up to 20 students. Schools can have more than one team.
 Only teams from schools qualify for the team awards. The team score is the sum of the ten highest individual
scores.

AWARDS :
i)   INDIVIDUAL

 Each participant receives a Certificate of Participation.

 The high scorer of each team receives a Top Scorer certificate.
 Each of the top 10% of all participants receives a bronze, silver or gold collar pin.
 Each student who achieves a perfect score of 25 points receives a Perfect Score Collar Pin.

ii)   TEAM :

 Each team in the top 10% of all teams receives a trophy.

 The grade level of a team is the highest grade level of any of its members

The test questions are created by the examiners at the University of Cambridge Local Examinations
Syndicate, with the exception of the "Mother Tongue" and Social Studies subject. After the
examination, completed papers are sent to Cambridge for marking by British teachers and
subsequently sent back to Singapore. The exceptions are papers set in Singapore as mentioned
above, which would be marked by local teachers. In this case, the personal details of the student are
omitted with the use of the Integrated Examination System where barcode labels are used. In this
way, the local teachers would not be able to recognise scripts from students of his or her own school
as the candidates' names are neither written on the papers nor printed on the labels, preventing the
integrity of the examination from being violated

Continue Teaching Science and

Mathematics in English

by M. Bakri Musa

In May 2003, five months after the government started the teaching of science
and mathematics in English in our schools, the Ministry of Education produced a
“study” with the incredulous findings of significant improvement in our
students’ achievements! All in five months!
Now five years later, research from the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
showed the very opposite results. What gives?

Both studies were prominently and uncritically reported in our mainstream

media. That first study was presumably swallowed whole by our policymakers to
justify continuing their policy. Rest assured that this second one too would be
used for a similar purpose, as an excuse to jettison that same policy.

Despite many attempts I was unable to get a copy of that first study. Nor have I
seen it published in any journal, or find any paper credited to its author, raising
questions on the credibility of the “study” and competence of its “researcher.”

To the credit of its authors, this later paper is freely available on the Internet, all
153 pages of it. Its lead author is an emeritus professor, a title reserved for
retired accomplished scholars, with a dean and deputy dean as his coauthors.
Despite its impressive authorship, this study is deeply flawed in its design and
conclusions. It does however, expose many weaknesses in the implementation
of the policy, in particular the lack of teachers fluent in English.

Embarrassingly Flawed Study

The most glaring deficiency of this second study is its lack of any control group.
This is basic in any research design. As the English language policy applies to all
schools, you obviously cannot find a control group among current students. You
can however find historical control groups by using the test scores of earlier
comparable pupils who had been taught and tested in Malay.

With some ingenuity we could still have concurrent control groups, for example,
Malaysian pupils attending English schools like Alice School and International
School. Another would be adults fluent in English, or even the teachers. If those
adults and students in English schools did equally poorly, then clearly the test is
not reliable.

When I look at the test questions, it is not only the teachers who are deficient in
English, so too are the test makers! Some of the questions are convoluted and
would challenge even those fluent in English.

The second flaw is that there is minimal statistical analysis of the data. The
pupils were tested and the results simply collated in pages and pages of raw
data presented in dull, repetitive and uninformative tables. The authors must be
graphically-challenged; they seem to have not heard of pie charts or bar
diagrams.

There is also no attempt in delineating the roles of the many variables the
researchers have included, like teachers’ English fluency, parents’ educational
levels, and pupils’ geographic background (urban versus rural). To do that the
data would have to be subjected to more sophisticated statistical analyses,
beyond the simple analysis of variance used by the authors. Thus we do not
know whether those students’ test scores could be correlated with their parents’
educational levels (a well-acknowledged factor) or teachers’ fluency in English.

There are numerous conclusions based on just simplistic summations of the

data, with such statements as X percent of Malay students finding the study of
science “easy” compared to Y percent of Chinese or Indians feeling likewise, or R
percent of Malay students scoring high versus S percent of their Chinese
counterparts. It seems that Malaysian academics, like their politicians, cannot
escape the race trap.

These studies were conducted in January, February and July. Even the dumbest
students knew that those were not the examination months. They knew those
tests “don’t count;” thus skewing the results. The only way to make them take
the test seriously would be to incorporate it into their regular examinations.

Besides, in January and February those students had just returned from their
long end-of-year holidays during which considerable attrition of knowledge
occurred. The difference between the racial groups may have nothing to do with
academics but on such extraneous matters as how fast they settle down to their
studies.

Of the 27 references cited, there is surprisingly no article from refereed

journals. Most (14) are government-sponsored surveys, press releases, and
newspaper articles, unusual for a scholarly paper. There are a few books cited,
with the most recent published in 2002. There is considerable lag time between
what is written in books versus the current state of knowledge. For that you
would need journals and attend symposia.

Consequently the researchers’ review on bilingual education is dated. Contrary

to their conclusion, it is now accepted that exposing children at a young age to
bilingual education confers significant linguistic, cognitive and other
advantages. The authors’ recommendation that pupils be taught only in their
mother tongue and learn a second language later at a much older age is not
supported by modern research.

Studies using functional MRIs (imaging studies) of the brain show that children
who are bilingual at an earlier age use their brain more efficiently as compared
to those who acquire those skills as adults. For example, when asked to
translate between the two languages, “native” bilingual speakers use only one
part of their brain while those who are bilingual as an adult use two.
Other cognitive advantages to “native” bilingual speakers include the ability to
grasp abstract concepts faster, precisely the intellectual skill helpful in learning
mathematics and higher-level science. The higher scores for non-Malays may
well be the consequence of their earlier and more extensive exposure to
bilingualism than Malays.

Revealing Findings

The study nonetheless reveals many useful findings. I fear however, that these
nuggets of information would be lost by those who care only for the study’s
unjustified conclusion to discontinue the present policy and revert to teaching
science and mathematics in Malay. That would be a retrogressive step.

This study is only a snapshot; it does not enlighten us as to trend. It could be

that the results would continue to improve. It is thus presumptuous for the
authors to make a sweeping policy recommendation based only a limited
snapshot study, and a poorly-designed one at that.

UPSI in its previous incarnation as Sultan Idris Teachers’ College was a hotbed of
Malay nationalism. This study is less an academic research and more political
polemic camouflaged as a pseudo-scientific study to justify its authors’
nationalist bias. Their data and methodology just do not support their
conclusion.

The study found that fewer than 15 percent of the teachers were fluent in
English, and that most teach using a combination of both languages. That is
putting it politely. In reality they use bastardized or “pidgin” English. If those
teachers lack English language skills, how could they teach any subject in that
language? The fault here is not with the policy, rather its implementation. We
should first train the teachers.
In its naivety the government spent over RM3 billion to equip these teachers
with computers, LCDs and “teaching modules” to help them in the classroom.
Many of those computers are now conveniently “stolen,” plugged with viruses,
or simply left to gather dust as those teachers lack the skills to use them
effectively.

The only beneficiaries of that program were UMNO operatives who secured
those lucrative contracts. Had the government spent those precious funds to
hire new teachers fluent in English, our students would have been better served,
and the policy more effectively implemented.

This study missed a splendid opportunity to find out what those students,
parents and teachers felt about the policy. It was as if those researchers and
their field workers (undergraduates in education and thus our future teachers)
were interested only in administering those tests, collecting their data, and then
getting back to campus.

Surely those parents and teachers had something to say on the policy. What do
the teachers feel about the billions spent on computers? Are they eager to learn
and teach in English or do they harbor nationalist sentiments and resent the
policy? Those surveys would have helped considerably towards implementing
the policy better.

A Better Way

I support the teaching of science and mathematics in English. I go further and

would have half the subjects in our national schools be taught in English,
including Islamic Studies. The objective should be to produce thoroughly or
“native” bilingual graduates, able to read, write and even dream in Malay and
English. That is the only way to make our graduates competitive.

I put forth my ideas on achieving this in my earlier (2003) book, An Education

System Worthy of Malaysia. I would start small, restricting the program to our
residential schools where the students are smarter, teachers better, and
facilities superior. Work out the kinks there first, only then expand the program.

I would also convert some teachers’ colleges into exclusively English-medium

institutions to train future teachers of English, science, and mathematics.

In rural areas where the level of English in the schools and community is low, I
would bring back the old English-medium schools, but modifying it significantly
with pupils taught exclusively in English for the first four years (“total
immersion”). Malay would be introduced only in Year V, and only as one subject.

Since Malay would not be taught in the first few years and only a limited subject
later on, admission to such schools would be restricted only to those with
already near-native fluency in Malay or whose habitual language is Malay.
Further, such schools would be set up only where the background level of Malay
in the community is high, essentially only in the kampongs.

If we were to do otherwise, as having such schools in the cities where the level
of English in the community is high and Malay low, those graduates would not
be fluent in our national language, as during colonial days. It would not be in
the national interest to repeat that mistake. Besides, the problem of our
students’ deficiency in English is most acute in rural areas. Thus it makes sense
to establish English-medium schools there.

There are many challenges to the policy of teaching science and mathematics in
English. One thing is certain. We will never resolve them if we listen to ambitious
politicians playing to the gallery or rely on less-than-rigorous “researches.”

Since 1992, the difference in mathematics achievement among the different ethnic schools
has caused concern to various parties, including the Ministry of Education. Some common
themes that appeared in the local news media reflect this concern. For example, "Maths help
from Chinese schools" (The Star, 21 January, 1992); "Ministry studying Chinese approach to
mathematics" (New Strait Times, 21 January 1992); "Teaching maths the Chinese way" (The
Star, 3 September, 1992) and lately "Success of Chinese students in science, maths to be
studied" (Business Times, 2 September 1999). Indirectly, these titles reflect the eagerness of
the Ministry of Education to upgrade the mathematics achievement of the Malay medium
schools. There is also an assumption that Chinese medium school pupils perform better in
mathematics because the Chinese medium schools have something "special" in teaching
mathematics. But, is this a fact or an illusion?

Even the Prime Minister himself has advocated the need for government school authorities to
emulate the commitment of the Chinese schools in education. The Malay medium schools are
asked to adopt the teaching approach of the Chinese medium school. Some ministers even
suggest the possibility of 'importing' mathematics teachers from Chinese schools to the Malay
schools (The Star, 21 January, 1992). However, this proposal is yet to be tried out. Of course,
this issue is not that simple. As has been stressed by Stigler & Barnes (1988) and Bishop
(1988), mathematics is a form of culturally transmitted knowledge. So, the success in
mathematics learning among these schools may have been related to the school culture and its
related community culture. Thus, can culture be "imported" from one school to another, by
just exchanging the mathematics teachers?

In response to the above concern, there are still not many studies carried out to investigate the
possible factors of the differences in mathematics achievement. Perhaps as recognised by
Yong and colleauges (1997) that " this is due in part to the reason that cultural influences are
difficult to study as much of it appear tacit, implicit and hidden from awareness" (p. 6).
However, there are a limited number of exploratory studies that aimed to fill this gap.

Below are three studies (Lim & Chan, 1993; Munirah & Lim, 1996; Yong et al., 1997) that
have been carried out in Malaysia with regard to cross-cultural comparisons on mathematics
learning. I shall briefly describe each study before I make a critical discussion of all of them.

Study 1: A case study comparing the learning of mathematics among Malay

pupils in Primary National schools [SK] and Primary National Type schools
(Chinese) [SRJKC]

Study 1 was carried out by Lim Soo Kheng and Chan Toe Boi of the Specialist Teachers’
Training College of Malaysia in 1993. Their study aimed to compare the teaching strategies,
learning facilities, amount of exercises given, and mathematics achievement of Malay pupils
between two types of primary schools, the Primary National schools [SK] and Primary
National Type schools (Chinese) [SRJKC]. Their study is interesting because unlike other
cross-cultural studies, they were only interested in observing pupils from one ethnic group,
the Malay pupils who were studying mathematics in the different ethnic schools.

Their sample consisted of 41 Year Six Malay pupils from eight SRJKC schools and another
41 Year Six Malay pupils from one SK school. As noted in the background section of this
paper, for the whole country, there are only about 10% of the Malay pupils studying in the
SRJKC schools. Perhaps this might be the reason that the sample of this study has to be
collected from 8 SRJKC schools. However, it was not known why the other sample was not
collected from an equal number of SK schools, instead of just one SK school. The question
is, "can we assume that this one SK school is representative of all other SK schools?"
Similarly in the discussion of results, it was not reported clearly that the observation of
mathematics lesson was made in only one SRJKC school or all the eight schools. These are
some weak or doubtful points of Study 1.

The study used an obervation checklist, a facilities checklist, a survey form and three
mathematics achievement tests to collect data. Some observed differences between the two
types of schools are highlighted below:

Explanation of concepts/skills

In the SRJKC school, 64% of the 30 minute mathematics lesson was spent on explaining
concepts or skills. But in the SK school, only 43% of the time was used for the same reason.

Reinforcement activities

Two types of reinforcement activities were carried out in the SRJKC schools: group
competition and solving problems on the chalkboard. The learning atmosphere was found to
be more lively as nearly half of the pupils in class took part in these activities while the other
half observed or checked the answers. Pupils from the SK school were given exercises to do
individually in class while the teacher walked around to help those who needed help.

Besides these differences, Lim and Chan also observed some similar activities that have been
carried out by both types of schools.
Teaching aids

The use of teaching aids to explain mathematical concepts was not frequently used by both
types of schools.

School facilities

In terms of school facilities, both types of schools were found to have set up "the
mathematics corner" and the "the mathematics teacher committee". The mathematics corner
was a small space on the notice board at the back of the classroom. In most cases, they found
that only some charts were displayed on it. Meanwhile, the mathematics teacher committee
was set up among the mathematics teachers to plan and discuss annual activities and teaching
problems. Their planned activities include tuition classes and mathematics quizzes and
competitions.

Mathematics achievement

Lim and Chan used three tests to determine the mathematics achievement of the Malay
pupils. Test 1 aims to test the understanding of basic concepts, Test 2 the computational skills
and Test 3 the ability to solve word problems. Their results show that the Malay pupils of the
SK school performed better in Test 1 and Test 3, whereas the Malay pupils of the SRJKC
school did better in Test 2. Perhaps this is not a surprise because to understand the
mathematical concepts (Test 1) or to solve word problems (Test 3), one needs a mastery of
language used. As most Malay pupils from the Chinese medium school (55%) failed their
Chinese language in mid-year examination, this shows that they are weak in the language
used as the medium of instruction. Thus this may explain their low performance in the two
tests too.

Nevertheless, this is a very interesting finding because it highlights the important role of
language factor in mathematics learning. Although the Chinese medium schools appear to
have better teaching strategies and better learning environments, this is still not enough to
help their Malay pupils who are weak in their non-mother-tongue language, the Chinese
language.

However, it was observed that the Malay pupils from the Chinese medium school performed
much better in Test 2 (testing computational skills). Acccording to the researchers, the better
performance in Test 2 may have been attributed by the strong emphasis of drill and practices
given by the SRJKC school. Is this the possible reason?

Study 2: Primary mathematics learning and teaching in Chinese and Malay

schools

Munirah & Lim (1996) compared mathematics teaching in two different ethnic schools – one
Chinese primary (SRJKC) and one Malay primary school (SK). Both schools are located at
the same region, just opposite each other. The methods used include observation of
mathematics classes (one from each standard) and interviews with the headmaster,
mathematics teachers and some pupils of the respective schools.

They observed differences in both headmasters’ and teachers’ approach to teaching and
learning mathematics, particularly in the aspects of homework, learning of multiplication
tables and tuition classes. Teachers from the Chinese primary school gave comparatively
more mathematics exercises (a difference of 10-40 more questions in one thirty minute
lesson) than the Malay primary school. Learning and memorisation of multiplication tables
started much earlier in the Chinese primary school (from Standard Two) as compared to the
Malay primary school (from Standard Five). Although headmasters of both schools used
tuition classes as a means to improve their students’ mathematics achievement, the Chinese
primary school headmaster regarded tuition classes as remedial classes for students who have
difficulty in mathematics. Thus, tuition classes in Chinese primary school might start as early
as Standard Four. Meanwhile, the headmaster of the Malay primary school seemed to hold a
different aim for having tuition classes. As it was aimed to increase the number of students
who would achieve higher grades in examinations, the tuition classes were given to pupils of
Standard Six and of high ability groups only. These results suggest that there are cultural
differences in both the headmaster and teachers’ preferences and choices for teaching
mathematics between the different ethnic schools.

Study 3: Basic number concepts acquisition in mathematics learning: An

exploratory cross-cultural study

Unlike the above two studies, which relate mathematics achievement to mathematics learning
in general, Study 3 focused only on the acquisition of basic number concepts. It was a group
project headed by Dr Yoong Suan and his colleagues in 1996-97. The main aim of the study
was to investigate the acquisition of basic number concepts among the Malaysian Primary
One students of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The sample included 152 Primary
One students, distributed as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of sample by school type and ethnicity

Ethnic   School stream (medium) Row

group total
SK (Malay) SJK SJK
(Chinese) (Tamil)
(3 schools)
(3 schools) (2 schools)
Malay Count 30 14 - 44

Row % 55.6 22.2 - 28.9

Col % 68.2 31.8 -

Chinese Count 9 32 - 41

Row % 16.7 50.8 - 27.0

Col % 22.0 78.0 -

Indian Count 15 17 35 67

Row % 27.8 27.0 100.0 44.1

 Col % 22.4 25.4 52.2
  Col total 54 63 35 152

Col % 35.5 41.4 23.0 100.0

Source: Yong et al, 1997, p.12

The main instrument used in this study was the Basic Number Concepts Test (BNC),
developed by the research team in collaboration with three experienced primary school
mathematics teachers. These three teachers, one each from each type of school, conducted the
clinical testing to their pupils in the respective language media.

The BNC test consisted of 8 dimensions:

1. General counting
2. Skip counting
3. Concrete counting
4. Comparing quantities
5. Word-symbol representation
6. Place value concept
7. Basic number concepts achievement
8. Counting time up to 50

Highlights of main findings

1. By means of school mathematics test scores, the results show that there were more high
mathematics ability students among the Malay sample than among the Chinese and Indian
sample. It follows that there were more high mathematics ability students among the SK
school than the other two types of schools.

2. The results of the overall BNC test show that students in the Chinese medium schools
(SRJKC) performed significantly better than students in the Malay medium schools (SK),
even though the Malay and Indian students scored significantly better than the Chinese
students. This is interesting because it shows that school stream by medium of instruction
may be a more important factor for mathematics achievement than ethnicity.

3. Comparing the different sub-dimensions of the BNC Test, the results suggest that students
in the Chinese medium schools (SRJKC) performed significantly better than students in the
Malay medium school in Counting Time to 50, Skip counting, word symbol representation
and the acquisition of place value concepts.

4. The Malay students in the Chinese medium school performed significantly better than their
counterparts in the Malay medium schools on the overall BNC Test, Counting time to 50,
General Counting and word-symbol representation. The trends were similar for both high and
low mathematics ability students of the Malay medium schools.

5. The Indian students in the Tamil medium schools (SRJKT) performed consistently better
than their counterparts in either the Chinese medium or the Malay medium schools in terms
of Skip counting, Concrete counting and Compare quantity. However, it was noted that the
sample of Indian students in this study was over-represented by the high mathematics ability
students and the Tamil medium schools were also mono-ethnic. Therefore caution is needed
in comparing the results with other medium schools.

In general, the findings of this study suggest that there may be a strong Chinese cultural
advantage in counting skills and basic number concepts acquisition. Yong et al (1997)
propose that this advantage may have been related to the simpler and consistent number
system of the Chinese language, as compared with that in the Malay or Tamil language.
However, this claim is yet to be confirmed by further research. Although there is some
evidence to show that some Malay students from the Chinese medium schools tended to use
the Chinese number-naming system in their mental or oral computation even at higher grades.

Another interesting aspect of the finding is the importance of language in counting and basic
concepts acquisition. The results of this study show that the low mathematics ability students
who entered a school stream whose instructional medium was other than their mother tongue
performed badly. This may be partly due to their poor mastery of the language. This problem
was found to be universal for all the ethnic groups.

What can we learn from these studies?

Although all the above three studies are still exploratory in nature and their findings are far
from conclusive, there are at least two significant issues that can be drawn out. Firstly,
language seems to play a significant role in mathematics learning. As pointed out by Yong et
al (1997), the Chinese language seems to have a cultural advantage over the other two
languages, Malay and Tamil, particularly in terms of its simpler and consistent number-
naming system. It follows that any student--Chinese, Malay or Indian--who is trained to use
this numbering system may be able to count faster and memorise the number system faster
than his counterparts who use other languages.

However, one needs to master a language well enough to understand the mathematical
concepts and skills, to understand and solve mathematical problems that are posed in words.
Thus, we observed that the Malay pupils who learn mathematics in a language which is not
their mother tongue such as Chinese, may face difficulty in understanding the problem and
thus do not do well in mathematics tests that involved word problems. Similarly, Chinese
pupils from the Malay medium schools were not found to perform better than the Malay
students of the same schools. Instead the Malay pupils from the Malay medium schools were
found to perform significantly better than their Chinese counterparts in the acquisition of
Basic Number concepts. Does this suggest that it is better to teach or learn mathematics in the
pupil’s mother tongue language?

Secondly, findings from the above three studies strongly suggest that there are differences in
teaching approaches that were adopted by the different medium schools. Chinese medium
schools seem to favour more "lively learning atmosphere in class"; "plenty of drills and
practices"; "more homework", "more tuition" as well as "more competition and quizzes".
Consequently, pupils of the Chinese medium schools tend to perform better in computational
skills and counting of number, as well as memorisation of multiplication tables. Even the
Malay pupils from the Chinese medium schools were found to perform better than their
counterparts in other medium schools with regard to computational skills.
Indirectly, all these findings seem to point to the direction that ethnicity may not be an
important factor that determines a student’s achievement in mathematics. Language and
teaching approaches that are adopted by a school may be more important than ethnicity.
Implicitly, this means it is not that Chinese students are better than Malay students in
mathematics, but it is the language and the mathematics learning culture that matter most.

In fact, it is the whole culture that supports successful mathematics learning. We know that
culture can be a dubious term that encompasses many things from ideology to technology
(White, 1959). In general, the word ‘culture’ can be taken as "a system of shared knowledge
and belief that shapes human perceptions and generates social behaviours…"(Bennet, 1990,
p.47). In other words, one shares similar models of perceiving, believing, doing, evaluating
and interpreting within the same cultural group. Thus, culture is learned and not inherited
(Hofstede, 1997). Thus, we see that it is not the issue that one culture or ethnic group might
be fundamentally better at mathematics teaching, learning and achievement than another, but
the different cultural practices, beliefs and values that might have helped to improve
mathematics learning.

Suggestions for further study

However, there are much more to be explored and researched further if we are to look into
the impact of culture on mathematics learning. One derives one’s culture from one’s social
environment. Consequently, understanding our own and other cultures may help us "to clarify
why we behave in certain ways, how we perceive reality, what we believe to be true, what we
build and create, what we accept as good and desirable, and so on." (Bennet, 1990, p.47)

Therefore, to look into the impact of culture on mathematics learning, I suggest that further
studies need to look at the following aspects:

1. As suggested by Bishop (1988), there are 6 activities that have been found to be
universal in every culture. These are counting, measuring, playing, locating, designing
and explaining. Therefore further research may study the other 5 activities, to see
whether there are cultural differences even within Malaysian culture.
2. According to Hofstede (1997), values are the deepest manifestation of culture. Values
are broad tendencies about how one ought to behave or prefer certain states of affairs
over others. Thus, we need to study the different social and cultural values that have
been manifested in the process of the teaching and learning of mathematics. These
values include:
(i) values that are manifested in goals and objectives of mathematics
curriculum/education; (ii) values that are inherent in mathematics as a subject or
discipline of study;
(iii) values that underpin a mathematics teacher’s decision making and philosophy of
teaching, such as preferences or criteria for making decisions during mathematics
teaching (iv) values that influence teachers’ and students’ behaviours and attitudes
towards mathematics, such as attributes or qualities of a successful mathematics
learner;
(v) values that are hidden behind unwritten rules or curricula (decided implicitly by
all members of the school and its social community).
3. All of these studies have sampled primary school pupils. Further studies therefore
need to look into whether cultural differences that are rooted in primary school may
be brought up to secondary and higher learning, too.
In fact, this list is by no mean exhausive.

Conclusion

Although there are not yet enough studies to make a substantial claim, a review of these
studies suggest that it is not ethnicity that determines better performance in mathematics
learning. Indeed, ethnic differences may bring about cultural differences in terms of
language, practices, ritual, attitudes, values and beliefs. Perhaps these are the factors that give
rise to different ways of teaching and learning approaches towards mathematics, and
consequently might have resulted in differences in mathematics achievement.

It is true that all these constructs are so subtle and tacit that most of the time it is difficult for
us to distinguish them. This may be one of the reasons that there are so few studies trying to
untangle this mess. However, if we can show that ethnicity is not the causal factor, then we
can argue that mathematics ability is neither inborn nor inherited. This also implies that we
can improve mathematics achievement by ‘adopting’ some cultural beliefs, values, attitudinal
changes of other cultural groups, even to the extent of ‘modifying’ disadvantages in language
factor by adopting some new sign and symbols in language. This is not impossible if we
strive hard enough. Of course, it is not easy to ‘change’ one’s culture or to ‘adopt’ others’
cultures. After all, culture can be learned and it is not inherited (Hofstede, 1997).