ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre

Innovations in ELT Practices

CLIL: THE CONTENT

TEACHERS’
PERSPECTIVES

RASHIDAH BINTI RAHAMAT

JECQULINE ANAK GELAU 79
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

ABSTRACT

The Malaysia Education Blueprint Education 2013–2025 highlights the aims of initiatives
in equipping teachers with up-to-date skills to meet the needs of the alpha generation,
the children of millennial. Content delivery for Science and Mathematics through the
second language has been going through changes in the Malaysian educational context:
from PPSMI to the Dual Language Programme (DLP). DLP, a CLIL-like initiative, which
focuses on one main issue which is language. The art of weaving the content using the
first language with second or third language is a skill needed by the content teachers.
This paper aims to highlight the Science and Mathematics teachers’ views towards using
the English Language in delivering their content. Data collected and analyzed from 132
science and mathematics teachers from different geographical locations show varying
views towards using the target language in their teachings. Findings of the negative
stand towards using English in their teaching are further explained in their responses to
some demotivating factors. However, the constructive reply from a few respondents
offer good insights for the Ministry of Education to continue this CLIL-like initiative with
some adaptions to current structure of implementation.
Keywords: CLIL, language, perspectives, language roles, DLP.

INTRODUCTION

“CLIL is not a new form of language education”

Coyle et. al (2011)

It is true. CLIL is not another form of language education for any language. The position
of the second “L” in the acronym CLIL, does highlight the important roles of language
in almost everything- be it in verbal or non-verbal form of language. In the Malaysian
education context, the negotiation tension of language has evolved over the years.
Hussaini Abdul Karim (2013) argued that Malaysian education policy is “dynamic“ as it
shows “…the seriousness to produce human capitals who can meet current and future
demands…” (Hussaini Abdul Karim, 2013).

Creating a CLIL-like initiative is believed to be a powerful renewal in school towards the

concept of 21st century teaching and learning. As Coyle (2011) states, CLIL benefits both
teachers and students where it can help improve language skills by incorporating active
student centred learning concepts/strategies. This paper aims to present the science and
mathematics teachers’ views towards the use of English as the second language in their
teaching and learning.
80
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Development of Language Policies In Malaysian Education

Prior to its independence from the British, Malaysia acceded English as the official
language and Malay, Tamil and Chinese were recognized as vernacular languages in
the early 1900s. Vernacular schools for the Malay, Tamil and Chinese communities were
established and the education system was designated in various mainstreams with English
as the second or foreign language. After the independence in 1957, the Malay language
(Bahasa Malaysia) took its role as the National Language in Malaysia. According to Heng
& Tan (2006), Malay language was the most spoken language by the local people in
the country. Thus, Malay language became a tool which united a nation’s multicultural
community (Heng & Tan, 2006).

Over decades, the Malaysian Government has implemented several language policies to
institute Bahasa Malaysia as the official language and to be used as medium of instruction.
Several reforms were made to the Education Act to regulate the education policies in
terms of the main language to be used in schools. This resulted with the endorsement
of the Education Act 1961 where, the Malay Language was enacted as the medium of
instruction to be used in schools. To enhance the implementation of using Malay language
as the medium of instruction, the National Education Policy 1970 was established. This
provision of change led to the abolishment of the English medium schools to be replaced
by national schools starting with the pupils in Standard One. English Language was made
a compulsory subject instead. Another reform occurred in 1982 where the education
system made Malay Language as a compulsory subject especially for all those who were
going to get the school-leaving certificate. Ramiza Darmil and Albion (2015) pointed this
as the turning point for the decline of English Language exposure to Malaysian learners
as they were only learning the language as a subject in schools.

In order to, serve both the primary and secondary schools, the government came up with
a new curriculum in 1983, which was Kurikulum Baru Sekolah Rendah (KBSR) for primary
level, and Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah for secondary school in 1989. Both
the curriculars were aimed at developing learners’ English Language proficiency as well
as to enhance their repertoire of language usage involving the four language skills. The
KBSR curriculum provided the basic skills and knowledge of the English Language and
the KBSM curriculum acted to “extend the learners English proficiency in order to meet
their needs to use English in certain situations in everyday life, for knowledge acquisition,
and for future workplace needs” (Malaysia Ministry of Education, 2000).

81
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

The Beginning of CLIL-like Initiative in Malaysia

In 2003, the Ministry of Education introduced the teaching of Mathematics and Science in
English (PPSMI) to help improve learners’ language competency especially in preparing
young learners for tertiary education and employability. However, the government ended
the six-year English policy in 2009 when the grades for Science and Mathematics papers
deteriorated in the SPM examination. Thus, the teaching of Science and Mathematics
reverted to Malay to address the problem. The phasing out of the policy strengthened
the Malay Language resulting in a limited exposure to the English language usage among
Malaysian learners.

In early 2016, the Dual Language Programme (DLP) was introduced as the Ministry of
Education’s initiative under the ‘Upholding Bahasa Malaysia and Strengthen English’
policy’ MBMMBI. This CLIL-like initiative mainly aimed to provide a platform for students
in selected national primary and secondary schools to have the opportunity to use either
English or Malay in other content subjects such as Science, Mathematics, Information
Technology and Communication, and Design and Technology. The implementation
of this initiative although optional, is expected to boost the standards of English via
other content subjects. The learners are hoped to master English language and at the
same time, able to proliferate future employability market when these learners have
completed their tertiary education.

What is CLIL?
CLIL is the abbreviation for Content and Language Integrated Learning. The acronym can
be referred to “...educational settings where a language other than the students’ mother
tongue is used as a medium of instruction...any second or foreign language can become
the object of CLIL...” (Dalton-Puffer, 2007: 1). It is generally meant for other subjects
being taught in the second or foreign language (Dale, Liz & Tanner, 2012). According
to Dalton-Puffer (2011), CLIL has a dual-focused approach; it is not only meant to teach
the language per-say but to improve the language via other content subjects such as
Science, Mathematics, History or any other language subject. A few scholars define CLIL
as

...a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the
learning of both content and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process,
there is a focus not only on the content, and not only on the language. Each is interwoven,
even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time.
(Coyle et. al, 2011)

The representation of this dual-focused approach would be best taken from Dale et. al
82 (2012), the visual of Sky and Water 1 by Esher (1988). The display of the visual shows that
the focus is on the connection between content and language; it is interwoven between
the fish and the bird. The bird would represent the language and the fish representing the
content. It is undeniable that the content teacher most of the time puts more attention
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

on the content and less on the language; there will be times he or she would stress on
the language. If the content is on the fish, then the focused will be more on the fish
compared to the birds.

FIGURE 1: Sky and Water by Esher (1988)

CLIL is also claimed as the umbrella which describes learning of another subject through
another language; and that “another” language is referred to the language which is
not the mother tongue of the learners. According to Dale and Tanner (2012), CLIL has
the educational potential based on the claim from general learning theories as well
as language learning theories. There are few benefits of CLIL for learners as listed by
these two writers. The benefits are seen as CLIL learners a) are motivated, 2) develop
cognitively, 3) develop communication skills, 4) make new personal meanings in another
language, 5) progress faster in learning a language, 6) receive a lot of input and work
effectively with that input, 7) interact meaningfully, 8) learn to speak and write, 9) develop
intercultural awareness, 10) learn about the ‘culture’ of a subject, 11) are prepared to
83
study in another language and 12) learn in different ways (Dale and Tanner, 2012).
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

The Basic Principles of CLIL

The basic principles of CLIL relies on the 4Cs: Content, Communication, Cognition and
Culture (Coyle et. al, 2013). Content in CLIL is referred to as the subject which is being
taught. The term content would refer to the common subjects listed in the curricula like
science, mathematics, geography or history. The second C is communication. To deliver
the respective content to the learners, teachers need a medium which is language.
Language is vital in ensuring that teachers and students are communicating. A teacher
needs a medium to deliver his or her content and this is done through the communication
which can be categorised as the core element in CLIL.

Cognitive is the third “C” of the CLIL principle. Based on Coyle (2013), the complex and
challenging tasks in subject lessons allow individuals to construct their own understandings
and be challenged-whatever their age or ability. CLIL provides authentic settings
which develops thinking skills in both Basic and Interpersonal Communication Skills
(BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). Learners are challenged
beyond comfort and engaged in Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS); problem solving
and reflecting. The fourth C in CLIL is the Culture. Why the need of culture in CLIL?
Byram (1993), explains that, there are seven categories of culture and they are: belief
and behavior, social interactional levels of formality, national history, social identity
and social groups, social and political institution, stereotypes and national identity, and
national geography. According to Susiana Kweldju (2015), culture exists in the classroom
whether the teacher or the students like it or not. The following graphic is the overall
representation of the 4Cs principles in CLIL.

84
FIGURE 2: The 4Cs of CLIL (Source: Coyle et. al, 2013)
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Language Roles in CLIL and CLIL-Like Initiative

In CLIL, the language is referred to the additional language of the learners’ mother tongue;
it can be the second, third or a foreign language (Llinares, Morton & Whittaker, 2012). The
focus principles of language in CLIL are language of learning, language for learning and
language as learning. In CLIL, language used can be divided into two categories: Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP). BICS is referred to the daily conversation or the social conversation which one
carries with other people around such as greetings, giving instructions or following
orders. Whereas, CALP is where the use of language is “cognitively demanding” such as
demonstrating an experiment, giving instructions for a science project which require the
person to use more of the academic terms (Dale & Tanner, 2012).

The concepts of BICS and CALP are derived from the theory of second language
acquisition by Jim Cummins (1984). According to Cummins (1984), teachers must provide
context rich instruction to enable students to perform both BICS and CALP successfully.
In addition, this scholar also summarized his view of BICS and CALP by adapting the
iceberg model. The use of BICS and CALP would assist both the teacher and students to
grasp the use of social language and academic language (Haynes, 2007). Clegg (2009)
highlighted in his writing that for a learner learning a subject through the medium of
English as a second language, they will need three kinds of language skills which are:
basic second language skills, academics second language skills and metacognitive skills.

85

FIGURE 3: The Iceberg of CALP and BICS (Source: Source: Dale & Tanner, 2012
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Malaysian CLIL Classroom

The CLIL classroom provides a natural environment for language learning as students
engage with the language as it is used daily. Students are in control of the classroom
activity (Coyle, 2010) and they can produce the language which stretches their current
levels of competence (Ortega, 2009). With reference to Mortimer and Scott’s framework in
science education, knowledge is presented in classroom talk; an interaction and dialogue
through which the teacher and learners communicate about the content. Language is not
taught separately but infused as a medium of instruction and classroom communication.
The consistent help from teachers nourish the opportunities for learners to familiarise
themselves to various terms in science and mathematics. Content subject teachers
explore chances for language learning through reading texts. Learners’ participations
are enhanced through the classroom context practices as they are given the platform
to deliver ideas on the topic for a variety of purposes via interaction between the
teachers and students. Thus, language is the wheel to generate talk in BICS and CALP.
As mentioned in Kolb (1984), genuine learning comes from experiences and in Malaysia,
this experiential learning takes place in classrooms.

METHODOLOGY

This small-scale study was deployed using the quantitative design method aiming to
measure the teachers’ perceptions towards the use of English Language in their content
subject teaching. The following sub-headings in this section will focus on the related
samples, instrument, data collection and data analysis.

The samples
The selection of samples was done through the purposeful sampling technique. The
participants involved were the content teachers who took part in the online course for the
Dual Language Programme (DLP) organized by the Ministry of Education. The participants
consisted of 162 teachers from both primary and secondary levels throughout Malaysia.

The Instrument
The instrument used in this study was constructed and prepared via google form and
was labelled as Perceptions towards Teaching Other Content Subjects in English. The
instrument was divided into three sections which were: Demographic information of
the teachers, Perceptions based on a Likert scale and open-ended questions to further
gather information. The demographic section was mainly about the subject taught, years
of teaching experience and the location of their schools. There were 7 statements which
86
represented the perceptions construct applying a 5-point Likert Scale with the values
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The following table represents the
summary of the items found in the questionnaire.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

NO. OF
SECTION ITEM ASPECT
ITEM

A Demographic Background Information 4

B Likert Scale Perceptions 8

C Open-ended Perceptions 2
TABLE 1: The Summary of the Instrument

The reliability of the item was analysed using SPPS version 19 resulting in a value of 0.925
in the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. Therefore, the statistical analysis of the construct
provides a strong indicator that the items were reliable and measured what they were
supposed to measure. The following table depicts the summary of the reliability of the
items:-

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha Based on

N of Items
Alpha Standardized Items

.925 .925 8
TABLE 2: The Reliability Statistics of the Instrument

Data Collection and Data Analysis

The data was collected online. The online instrument was sent through the personal
e-mails of the samples. The participants of this small-scale study were informed on the
purpose of the e-mail and they were given links to the instrument. The form was opened
to them from 10-20 September 2017. Descriptive analysis was carried out based on the
automatic results provided by the Google Form.

FINDINGS

The analysis of the data was based on the responses received from 137 teachers. The
initial teachers given were 162 but only 137 responded. The following are the findings
based on the responses. The results of the analysis also show that 61 (44.5 %) teachers
taught science, 59 (43.1 %) taught mathematics and the remaining 17 (12.4%) taught
both science and mathematics. Figure 4 exhibits the distributions of this finding.
87
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

FIGURE 4: The Distribution of the Subjects Taught by the Participants

The analysis of the demographic information shows that the teachers who responded
to the questionnaire are were mostly less experienced teachers. The analysis revealed
that, 44 teachers had between 1 to 5 years of teaching experience as compared to the
others. The results showed teachers who had teaching experience between 6 to 10 years,
totaling up 33 teachers, 11 to 15 years of experience summing up to 24 teachers, 16 to
20 years totaling up to 12 teachers and those with more than 20 years of experience with
24 teachers. Figure 5 displays the summary of this analysis.

44
45
40 33
35
30 24 24
25
20 12
15
10
5
0
1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 16 to 20 More than
years years 20 years

FIGURE 5: The Teachers’ Teaching Experience

The analysis of the perception items from 137 science and mathematics teachers
illustrated that generally the teachers were quite unreceptive towards using English as
88
the medium of instructions in the class.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

25 57
Allow students to express thoughts in English 55
36 84
Students prefer to use English during lesson 18
39 76
Using English is beFer compared to Bahasa Melayu 23
35
Prefer to use mother tongue to explain content 44 60

42 71
Prefer to use English in teaching. 26
Using English during lesson is easy 23 52 62
49
Teaching in English is enjoyable 34 54

49 59
Teaching in English is easy 29
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Disagree Slightly Agree Agree

FIGURE 6: The Results for the Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions
towards Using English in Teaching

The responses gathered from 137 teachers concerning their views on the item Teaching
in English is easy showed that a total of 29 teachers agreed and strongly agreed to the
statement, 49 of them slightly agreed, 59 teachers disagreed and strongly disagreed. To
triangulate their views, the following item was analysed: It is easy to use English during
my lesson. The analysis revealed that, 23 of the teachers agreed and strongly agreed,
52 slightly agreed and the remaining 62 chose to disagree and strongly disagree with
the statement. As for the statement It is enjoyable to teach the content using English, a
total of 34 respondents agreed and strongly agreed, while 54 of them slightly agreed, 49
teachers disagreed and strongly disagreed to the statement.

Apart from those statements, 26 (19%) of the science and mathematics teachers agreed
and strongly agreed that they preferred to use English in their lesson, 42 (31%) slightly
agreed and the remaining 71 teachers (65%) disagreed and strongly disagreed. The
results for the item which directed them to compare the use of the Malay language or
Bahasa Melayu and English to deliver the content indicated that, only 23 of the teachers 89
agreed and strongly agreed that using English is better compared to Malay language
or Bahasa Melayu, another 39 slightly agreed and the balance of 76 teachers disagreed
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

and strongly disagreed with the statement. As for the item, I would use mother tongue
to explain some content, the analysis reported that 44 teachers agreed and strongly
agreed, 60 of them slightly agreed and, 35 teachers disagreed and strongly disagreed to
using their mother tongue to explain some of the content to their students.

In addition to that analysis, results of the exploration of the students’ preferences to

use English during the Science and Mathematics lesson revealed only 18 (13%) of the
teachers agreed and strongly agreed that the students used English during the lesson,
36 (26%) slightly agreed, whereas 84 (61%) of them disagreed and strongly disagreed. As
for the item which highlighted the teachers allowing the students to express their ideas
and thoughts in English, generally, 55 teachers (45%) agreed and strongly agreed, 57 or
41% slightly agreed and, 25 of them (18%) disagreed and strongly disagreed. Figure 6
displays the summary of the analysis for all the items.

DISCUSSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

This section discusses the main findings of this small-scale survey which highlighted a few
interesting aspects. Despite the not-so encouraging feedback on the content teachers’
preference not to use English in their teaching and learning, the discussion shall be more
focused on how the findings can relate to the 4Cs of CLIL.

The results of the analysis disclosed that, basically, the content teachers who were
involved in this survey were not so positive towards using English in their practice to
deliver the content. However, it was also notable that there were some who preferred to
use and admitted the enjoyment of using English during their Science and Mathematics
lessons. Thus, one of the 4C’s in CLIL’s framework, which is the communication, was
evident during the teaching and learning process. It can be concluded that, the use of
Basic Interpersonal Communications Skills (BICS) and the Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP) took place to assist both teachers and students to grasp the use of
social language and academic language (Haynes, 2007). These content teachers had
helped in giving students more exposure towards the correct language to be used in a
different context. This is as stated by Cummins (1984) “…the context rich instructions…”
from the content teachers will facilitate the success of BICS and CALPS. From the
90
findings, the content teachers did make some rooms for the students to exchange ideas
and thoughts, either between teachers and students or among students in English. This
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

is another attention-grabbing point from the data. Communication takes place during
the classroom talk. There is thus evidence to indicate that English is widely used in
the classroom during Science and mathematics lessons. Classroom talk enhances the
language users’ level of confidence to correspond using the second language in various
contexts.

When the teachers show the effort to use the language, they create the next C in the 4Cs
of CLIL framework which is the Culture. The culture of using the second language which
is in this context, English Language. Teachers need to be the trendsetters to ensure
students will use the language not only during the English language lesson. As Papaja
(2013: pg.1) pointed, “…The role of a teacher in the CLIL classroom is important”. The
culture created by the content teachers will give some impact on the students’ linguistic
competence as well as the habits of using language other than the mother tongue. The
content teachers need to understand that they are establishing the change of students’
habits towards learning a second language, as well as the teachers’ own approach in
the teaching and learning of the content subjects. CLIL teachers, in this context, the
Science and Mathematics teachers, need to seek a better approach and materials to be
used to ensure the delivery of the content helps the students in both ways: improvement
in language ability and comprehension of the content. To furnish the students with
the content and the correct lexicons, will require the teachers to take another step in
their pedagogical practice: they need to rethink redesigning their approaches. This is
the concept “The Tip of the Iceberg” as mentioned by Dale and Tanner (2012). The
pedagogical content knowledge will be scrutinized to ensure the BISCS to be used will
help the CALPS. Content teachers will need to ask themselves some crucial questions
such as: “Will the choice of translating from mother tongue to English all the time be
effective all the time?” “Will my students understand better using this approach?” “Will
the students be able to perform the tasks” “Will they enjoy the tasks and learn at the
same time?” “How can this material be used to enhance understanding of the content
using English?” and many other questions.

The data from the National Transformation 2017 Review (National Transformation
Programme, 2017) reported encouraging results of the Dual Language Programme
especially on the students’ outcomes both for language as well as the subjects (Science
and Mathematics). The English scores improved by 36.4% among primary school students
91
and 46.4% among the secondary school students for the year 2017. This shows that
using dual language has proven to have some positive impact on students’ proficiency.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

Therefore, the content teachers should not deny the idea of using English to deliver
the content. The results from this small case study may not be representing the whole
nation’s point of view however, it can be used as a positive indicator towards the use
of English language in a CLIL-like-initiative which should be retained in the Malaysian
education context. Killing two birds with one stone is another way of simplifying the
benefits of using English as a second language to deliver other content subjects. It opens
another path for English Language practitioners to assist the content teachers build up
their BICS and thus, sharpening their CALPs.

92
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

REFERENCES

Byram, M. (1993). Language and culture: the need for integration. In M.Byram (Ed),
Germany: Its representation in textbooks for teaching German in Great Britain.
Frankfurt: Diesterweg.

Clegg, J. (2009). Skills for CLIL. http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/

articles/article-skills-for-clil/501230.article. Retrieved 20 February 2016.

Coyle, D. (2011). Teacher education and CLIL methods and tools. http://www.cremit.it/
public/documenti/seminar.pdf. Retrieved 18.1.2016.

Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: an investigation into successful learning across

CLIL contexts, Journal of Bilingual education and Bilingualism, 16:3, 244-266.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2013). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and

pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities: A resource for subject and language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Haynes, J. (2007). Explaining BICS and CALP. http://www.everythingesl.net/

inservices/bics_calp.php. Retrieved 20 February 2016.

Heng, C.S & Tan, H. (2009) English for Mathematics and Science: current Malaysian
language-in-education policies and practices. Language and Education, 20, 306-
321.

Hussaini Abdul Karim. (2013). Evolution of the Malaysian education policy. May 15,
Retrieved from:.https://hornbillunleashed.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/45687/

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning:experience as the source of learning and

developmental. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.

Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher-order-thinking. Theory into Practice,
32(3), 131-137.
Llinares, Morton & Whittaker, (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge
Language Teaching Library: Cambridge University Press.
93
Malaysia Ministry of Education. (2000). Sukatan pelajaran kurikulum bersepadu sekolah
menengah. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum: Kuala Lumpur.
 ESL Practitioner: The Journal of the English Language Teaching Centre
Innovations in ELT Practices

National Transformation Programme. (2017). Annual Report 2017 Review. Civil Service
Delivery Unit: Putrajaya.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Hodder

Education.

Papaja, K. (2013). The role of a teacher in the CLIL classroom. Glottodidactica Xl/1
Adam Mickiewicz University Press Poznań. Retrieved from: https://repozytorium.
amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/11048/1/strony%20odglottodidactica_xl-12.pdf

Ramiza Darmil & Albion, P. (2015). English Language in the Malaysian Education
System: Its Existence and Implications. Noor, Rahman & Ismail (eds). 3rd Malaysian
Postgraduate Conference, 3-4 July, Malaysia Hall Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
Susiana Kweldju. (2015). Teaching thinking skills and culture (PPT). Specialist Certificate
on Content and Language Integrated Learning, 5-23 Oct 2015, SEAMEO RELC
Singapore.

Rashidah Binti Rahamat

English Language Teaching Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia
rashidah.rahamat@eltc.edu.my

Jecquline Anak Gelau

SMK Taman Ehsan
madammejecquline@gmail.com

94