Global Journal of Business and Social Science Review

Journal homepage: www.gatrenterprise.com/GATRJournals/index.html

Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review 7 (1) 91 – 97 (2019)

Sustaining the Implementation of Dual-Language Programmes (DLP)

in Malaysian Secondary Schools

Ashairi Suliman1*, Mohamed Yusoff Mohd Nor2, Melor Md Yunus3

Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Objective - The implementation of Dual-Language Programmes (DLP) in the teaching and learning of Science and
Mathematics is an initiative under the ‘Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the English Language’
(MBMMBI) policy. Though it has some similarities with the previous policy known as ‘English for the Teaching of
Science and Mathematics’ (PPSMI), its execution is idiosyncratic in its own way. Since its inception in 2016, the
programme has entered its third cycle involving students in primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. The curiosity to
scrutinise the programme implementation has led to this study. The study aims to investigate the execution of this
programme and to assess its sustainability.
Methodology/Technique – Gleaning through the students’ language capabilities, attitudes, teachers’ support and
acceptance of the programme, the study uses a questionnaire with open-ended questions and focus group discussions to
unravel the aforementioned issues. 1,530 students from secondary schools across Malaysia were selected as the
respondents of this study.
Findings - The results reveal findings that may represent a measure on the direction of this programme. Looking from
the student perspective, the challenges confronted in addition to those put forward may further serve as an indicator for
the sustainability of the program.
Novelty – This study infers how the programme can be further enhanced in terms of its implementation in its fourth
year since inception. The findings of this study may assist policy makers in shaping the direction of the programme.
Type of Paper: Empirical.

Keywords: Dual-Language Programme (DLP); Sustainability; Science and Mathematics; Students; Policy and
Programme Implementation.
JEL Classification: A20, A23 A29.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

Malaysia has taken a bold step in implementing the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics
using the English language. The use of English, which for many is a second language in Malaysia, is aimed at
addressing the deterioration of English proficiency (Azman, 2016) and maximising human potential in
moving towards the status of a developed nation, as envisaged by Malaysia’s Vision 2020 (Suliman, Nor &
Yunus, 2017).
_____________________________
*
Paper Info: Revised: December 11, 2018
Accepted: February 22, 2019
*
Corresponding author: Ashairi Bin Suliman
E-mail: ash860629@yahoo.com
Affiliation: Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia

ISSN 2180-0421, e-ISSN 2289-8506 © 2019 Global Academy of Training & Research (GATR) Enterprise. All rights reserved.
 Ashairi Bin Suliman

This policy was named ‘English for The Teaching of Mathematics and Science’, better known as PPSMI.
The policy only lasted for a decade after it was sensationalized for its implementation and effectiveness.
Hence, to compensate for the failure of PPSMI (Mohandhas, 2015) and to cater to the needs of several parties
demanding for the continuation of the PPSMI (Yunus & Sukri, 2017), a new programme has now been
introduced.
The Dual-Language Programme (DLP) has been implemented in the Malaysian education system since
2016 and involves primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. It is an initiative under the ‘Upholding the
Malay Language and Strengthening the English Language’ policy. The collaboration between language and
mathematics knowledge and scientific understanding may assist an individual to improve their
comprehension of the English language. As stated by Esquinca, Piedra and Herrera-Rocha (2018), dual-
language programmes create an environment in which learners can develop their knowledge of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics in two languages.
In short, few studies have been conducted examining the implementation of this programme on a small
scale. Yunus and Sukri (2017) investigate the views of pre-service teachers regarding the programme and
identify that more than 50% of the respondents opposed teaching in English. Suliman, Nor and Yunus (2017)
further found that DLP students were moderately confident and ready to learn using the English language. In
addition, language mastery was a major challenge in the learning process, similar to the findings disclosed by
Unting and Yamat (2017). Hence, this study aims to examine the sustainability of the programme from the
student perspective in terms of their readiness to learn in English, challenges faced and suggestions for
improvement.

2. Literature Review

Dual-language education is a practice in which two languages (the mother tongue and the target language)
are used in the process of teaching and learning as the means of instruction. The US Department of Education
(2015) states that a dual-language programme is a bilingual education programme in which students are
taught literacy and academic content in English and a partner language. Concurrently, Cone (2014)
emphasizes that dual-language programme are those programmes that educate students to speak using
different languages in the same classroom. This means language serves as the platform for enhancing the
understanding of the subject. In DLP, lessons can be conducted interchangeably by using both languages
throughout.
The practice of dual-language programmes is also common in the USA (Steele et al., 2017; Tran et al.,
2015) as learning in dual languages assists with students’ language proficiency and competency. As
reinforced by Tran et al. (2015), dual-language programmes offer promising results in terms of improved
language proficiency, academic achievement in reading and Mathematics, and student attitude towards
education. Students are exposed to the target language which is not necessarily the language typically spoken
in their families or home life. This provides a platform for the students to engage with the language. As
mentioned by Lindholm-Leary and Howard (2008) and Lindholm-Leary (2012), most dual-language students
are proficient in two languages as compared to those in mainstream programmes.
English as a means of instruction in teaching and learning Science and Mathematics is inevitable in many
parts of the globe. Studies conducted in European countries (Kershaw, 2018; Mifsud & Farrugia; 2016) have
demonstrated the use of English in the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics. Issues such as
student performance, teacher competency and the practice of bilingual strategies are commonly discussed in
the aforementioned studies. This is also a prevalent topic in the African region (Mthiyane, 2016; Mokiwa &
Msila, 2013). Similarly, Asian countries such as the Philippines (Racca & Lasaten, 2016) and Hong Kong
(Hu & Gao, 2018) have also experienced different views on dual-language programmes. This implies that
English in the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics is a growing trend across the globe.

92
Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review7 (1) 91 – 97 (2019)
 Ashairi Bin Suliman

3. Underpinning Theory

This study is based on the Second Language Acquisition Theory developed by Krashen (1982) who
proposes that the second language acquisition theory forms part of theoretical linguistics; it can be studied
and developed without regard to practical application. Furthermore, language acquisition does not require
extensive use of conscious grammatical rules and tedious drills. Krashen also claims that acquisition occurs
whenever language skills are developed similar to how native speakers learn grammatical rules. If language
skills are developed via formal instruction, this is referred to as learning.
Additionally, Krashen believes that acquisition requires meaningful interaction with the target language.
This infers that speakers are concerned not with the form of utterances but with the understanding of the
messages conveyed. The question arises whether humans learn the target language formally or acquire the
language via meaningful conversation and by becoming immersed with speakers of the target language.
Krashen proposes 5 hypotheses pertaining to the second language acquisition theory; (i) the acquisition, (ii)
the monitor hypothesis, (iii) the natural order hypothesis, (iv) the input hypothesis, and (v) the affective filter
hypothesis.

4. Methodology

This study uses a survey research design to gather data for analysis. The survey questionnaire was chosen
as this is a large-scale study that aims to identify the current status of the dual-language programme in
Malaysia. In addition, to explore the challenges faced by the programme and make suggestions for
improvement, open-ended questions were applied in the surveys. To further consolidate the open-ended
responses, focus group discussions was also conducted with the respondents.
The respondents include DLP students from secondary schools all over Malaysia. Initially, the number of
respondents in each group should have been 764 based on the Krejcie and Morgan sample size table.
However, the researcher decided to decrease the standard error and increase the exactness of the data,
meaning the number of samples was doubled to 1,545. Of those, only 1,530 scripts were finalised as some
were either not returned or were incomplete. Meanwhile, the focus group discussions took place in three
schools.
The questionnaire was adapted from past studies related to the same issue. The questionnaire employed a
four-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) for all sections except for section B
which employed a five-point Likert scale (highly proficient, proficient, moderately proficient, less proficient,
low proficient). The researcher employed a four-point Likert scale to avoid neutrality as indicated by Wang
et al. (2008). Additionally, the focus group discussions related to the questionnaire and the open-ended
questions.
Reliability and validity tests were also conducted in this study. Prior to distribution, the questionnaire was
evaluated by experts and a pilot test was conducted. The Cronbach’s Alpha value recorded was 0.961. The
data collection took 4 months to completed and involved 70 schools. The data was analysed using statistical
software. Descriptive statistics were employed including mean and percentage. As for the open-ended
responses, a content analysis approach was used. Similarly, the responses from the focus group discussions
were analysed and themes were merged to suit the research questions. The results are described in the
following section.

5. Results

5.1 Student Levels of Readiness

The first sub-construct is language capabilities which consists of eleven items and revolves mainly on the
respondents’ language skills and their capabilities. The study concluded that the respondents were most
93
Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review7 (1) 91 – 97 (2019)
 Ashairi Bin Suliman

confident with their reading skill, as opposed to their speaking skill. The lowest scoring item related to giving
opinions in Science class using English, with approximately 18% of respondents claiming to be less
proficient in doing so. To note, the respondents’ readiness in language capabilities was at the proficient level,
with a mean score of 3.73.
With respect to the respondents’ readiness in terms of their attitudes, the results reveal that they
displayed high positive attitudes in the programme. Twelve items in this construct recorded mean scores
ranging between 2.95 to 3.49, with an average mean score of 3.21. Interestingly, the highest scoring item
related to the students’ hopes for Science and Mathematics teachers to teach bilingually in class. Moreover,
more than 89% of the respondents agreed with these items. This reflects the need to verify certain aspects of
the implementation of the programme.
The next sub-construct concerns teachers’ support in the teaching and learning process. Of the ten
items, it was found that the respondents believed that their teachers were helpful when they experienced
difficult in learning through the English language. However, around 17% of the respondents revealed that the
English competency of their Science teachers was insufficient. In brief, teachers’ support along with the
implementation of this programme as evaluated by the respondents was recorded at a high level.
The final construct concerns the acceptance of the programme, involving twelve items in total. The item
“DLP is a good programme to solidify English mastery” was well-accepted by the respondents with 96%
agreement. The total mean score for this construct yielded a high value (3.20). Approximately 29% to 36% of
the respondents disagreed that their learning performance had increased since joining the dual-language
programme. Concurrent to this, although 88% claimed that the DLP should be continued, around 93%
believe that the programme needs to be improved.

5.2 Student Challenges in the Dual-Language Programme

Two main challenges were identified from the responses obtained. They relate to the ineptitude in
understanding and language mastery. The most challenging part of the programme concerns the ineptitude in
understanding; 50% of the respondents raised this issue as a challenge requiring redress. The understanding
here involves two factors: content of the lessons and language used in the lesson. The respondents state that
“I do not quite understand Mathematics terms in English and [it is] difficult for me to score an A”, and “I
struggle with the textbooks because there are many words [that are] hard to understand and I don’t
understand what my teachers taught though they have explained the same thing”. As Science and
Mathematics are vastly different from English, the students seem to juggle between the content and language
in the learning process. Hence, this challenge is necessarily linked to the second challenge.
The second challenge concerns language mastery, which was reported as an issue by 23% of the
respondents. Language mastery relates to limited vocabulary, incompetency in expressing opinions and
answering using suitable words. The respondents faced difficulties in English though they felt confident with
their language capabilities. Some of the responses illustrating this challenge include “I face challenges in
answering the questions in English”, “I need to memorize a lot of words and know the definition in learning
Science and Mathematics”, “I am not proficient in English” and “I have problems in speaking and recalling
words in English”. Other challenges include difficulty in obtaining references, a decrease in learning
performance and deficiency in the teacher’s ability to teach language mastery.

5.3 Student Recommendations for the Improvement of the Programme

The main recommendations stemming from the results of this research relate to references and materials
and the implementation of a bilingual strategy. The existing references and materials available are not
sufficient to support the learning process. The respondents claim that the references are not widely available,
the contents of the textbooks are insufficient and there are limited glossaries for use in their research. Some
of the responses include that “textbooks [are needed] that have Malay translation”, “[we need] bilingual
94
Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review7 (1) 91 – 97 (2019)
 Ashairi Bin Suliman

textbooks to ease students’ understanding”, “[a request to] put language corner in the textbook to compare
the English and Malay phrases and the meanings” and “[a request to] put a glossary at the back of the book.”
As this is a dual-language programme, the respondents favoured the use of both languages, as seen
through the responses such as “teachers should teach bilingually”, “when describing or explaining about a
topic, they should use both languages” and “exam questions should be in both languages, so it is in line to the
term dual language.” This may further enhance the students’ understanding of the lesson. Further to this, the
respondents hope that the exam questions could be set bilingually, and students should be allowed to write
bilingual responses.
Some other suggestions include improving the quality of teachers, using technology in the learning
process, providing early exposure to students, adding another language in the teaching and learning process
and encouraging further use of the English language throughout the lesson. Indubitably, a small number of
respondents (1.6%) suggested that the programme be cancelled.

6. Discussion

The results show that the students involved in the DLP displayed positivity in terms of their language
capabilities, attitudes, supports from teachers and acceptance of the programme. As stated by Sulaiman and
Konting (2014), students’ readiness in the learning process will be influenced by the language used in the
teaching process. Most students were found to be proficient in the target language, which indirectly affects
their attitudes and acceptance of the programme. In addition, support from teachers further assists their
comprehension and increases their positivity toward the programme. The findings of this study somehow
refute the findings of past studies including Teo and Rosli (2017) and Suliman, Nor and Yunus (2017).
With respect to the challenges confronted by the respondents, understanding content and language poses a
major hurdle to the success of this programme. As claimed by Racca and Lasaten (2016), students who are
proficient in the English language will be more likely to perform better in the academic subjects. If students
are unable to comprehend what they learn, this will defeat the purpose of the teaching process. According to
Domingo (2016), mastery of English precedes an understanding of the subject in the case of integrating
content and language learning. Hence, understanding the content and language mastery are a priority for this
programme.
As this is a dual-language programme, the respondents were hoping that the subjects would be taught
bilingually. Therefore, it is suggested that the instructions are provided to students in two languages (English
and the national language) for a better understanding. In addition, the Ministry may also consider other
suggestions for improvement put forward by the respondents, to further ensure the sustainability of the
programme.

7. Conclusion

This study examines the current state of the Dual-Language Programme (DLP) in Malaysia. The results
show that the Dual-Language Programme is sustainable however it requires suitable improvements based on
student feedback. The programme may be profitable longer-term, however certain aspects of its
implementation require further attention.
It is suggested that the programme impose further restrictions on the selection of students and teachers
into the programme. Qualified and competent teachers are required, in addition to proficient and suitable
students. The presence of qualified teachers and students in the programme may enhance the teaching and
learning processes and result in better quality education. To note, quality education is considered as an
important element of sustainable development (Li, Yamaguchi & Takada, 2018).
In short, future research may examine other aspects of the programme such as the influence of locality,
gender, parental’ socio-economic status and types of school systems. It is with an ardent hope that this
programme maintains its sustainability as it is crucial in providing students with the opportunity to develop
95
Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review7 (1) 91 – 97 (2019)
 Ashairi Bin Suliman

their interest in the content subjects in addition to enhancing their linguistic repertoire. To conclude, although
some might think of students as the potential beneficiaries of change, students are rarely thought as
participants in the process of change (Fullan, 2001). Therefore, it is imperative and indispensable to value the
perspective of students, in relation to the dual-language programme in particular.

References

Azman, H. (2016). Implementation and Challenges of English Language Education Reform in Malaysian Primary
Schools. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(3), pp. 65 – 78.
Cone, H. D. (2014). Development and Support of Dual Language Policies. Electronic Theses and Dissertation, p. 1172.
Domingo, D. R. (2016). Content Area Effectiveness: English Vs Filipino Medium of Instruction. PEOPLE:
International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), pp. 1514–1529.
Esquinca, A., Piedra, M. T. D. L. and Hererra-Rocha, L. (2018). Hegemonic Language Practices in Engineering Design
and Dual Language Education. Association of American Mexican Educators Journal, 12(2), pp. 44 – 68.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative Methods in Social Science. London: Continuum Books.
Hu, J. and Gao, X. A. (2018). Linguistics Demands in English-language Science Textbooks in Hong Kong. The Asian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), pp. 170 – 180.
Kershaw, A. M. (2018). Classroom Practices that Promote or Hinder Proficiency in Academic English Vocabulary.
(Master’s Thesis, Dalarna University).
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Li, S., Yamaguchi, S. and Takada, J. (2018). The Influence of Interactive Learning Materials on Self-Regulated
Learning and Learning Satisfaction of Primary School Teachers in Mongolia. Sustainability, 10, p. 1093.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2012). Success and Challenges in Dual Language Education. Theory into Practice, 51(4), pp. 256-
262.
Lindholm-Leary, K. and Howard, E. (2008). Language and Academic Achievement in Two-way-immersion Programs.
In T. Fortune and D. Tedick (Eds.). Path-ways to Bilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education.
England: Multilingual Matters.
Mifsud, J. and Farrugia, J. (2016). Language Choice for Science Education: Policy and Practice. The Curriculum
Journal, 28(1), pp. 83–104.
Mohandhas, P. (2015). A Policy Analysis of the Delivery of Primary and Secondary Schools Mathematics and Science
in English. Education Research and Perspectives, 42, pp. 246 – 285.
Mokiwa, H. O. and Msila, V. (2013). Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Physical Science in the Medium of English:
International Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), pp. 55–62.
Mthiyane, N. (2016). Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs and Experiences Surrounding the Use of Language in Science
Classrooms: A South African Case Study. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 25(2), pp. 111-129.
Racca, R. M. A. B. and Lasaten, R. C. S. (2016). English Language Proficiency and Academic Performance of
Philippine Science High School Students. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 2 (2), 44–49.
Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S. and Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of Dual-
Language Immersion Programs on Student Achievement: Evidence from Lottery Data. American Educational Research
Journal, 54(1), pp. 282-306.
Sulaiman, T. and Konting, M. M. (2014). The Readiness of Primary One Students in Learning Science Using English.
Educational Leadership Journal, 1(1), 1 - 6.
Suliman, A., Nor, M. Y. M. and Yunus, M. M. (2017). Dual Language Programme in Malaysian Secondary Schools:
Glancing Through the Students’ Readiness and Unravelling the Unheard Voices. GEMA Online Journal of Language
Studies, 17 (4), 128 – 145.
Teo, W. L. and Rosli, R. (2017). Rural School Students’ Perceptions about Learning Mathematics in English. Research
Journal of Applied Sciences. 12(2), 148 – 156.
Tran, N. A., Behseta, S., Ellis, M., Martinez-Cruz, A. and Contreras, J. (2015). The Effects of Spanish English Dual
Language Immersion on Student Achievement in Science and Mathematics. E-Journal of Education Policy. 2015
Special Issue.
Unting, J. G. and Yamat, H. (2017). Dual Language Programme (DLP): Teachers’ Voice. In ISERD 73rd International
Conference Proceeding, pp. 20-24.
96
Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review7 (1) 91 – 97 (2019)
 Ashairi Bin Suliman

US Department of Education. (2015). Dual Language Education Programme: Current State Policies and Practices.
Washington DC: American Institutes for Research.
Wang, R., Hempton, B., Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2008). Cultural differences: Why do Asians avoid extreme
responses. Survey Practice, 1(3), 1-7.
Yunus, M. M., & Sukri, S. I. A. (2017). The Use of English in Teaching Mathematics and Science: The PPSMI Policy
vis-à-vis the DLP. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1), 133-142.

97
Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review7 (1) 91 – 97 (2019)