In Defence of PPSMI

“Vindicating PPSMI”

The Honourable Education Minister’s announcement on the 8th of July, 2009 of the government’s decision to reverse the policy on PPSMI (the teaching and learning of Mathematics and Science in English) sealed the policy’s fate to an early and untimely demise. PPSMI, envisioned by the country’s fourth prime minister as a means of propelling Malaysia and its people towards achieving the aims of Vision 2020, is now proverbially laid in its coffin, awaiting for the lid to finally shut in 2014, when it shall be interred and assigned to oblivion. It is being replaced by another policy that reinstates Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction for the two subjects and this new policy seeks to fortify the inculcation of the English language as well.

The decision to terminate an education policy that had only been in place for six years came as a surprise to many. This is so despite the foreshadowing of numerous allegations, riots and demonstrations by the policy’s detractors. Educated justification was believed to be in the offing as round table after round table was conducted to evaluate its merits and demerits. Holding on to the desire to witness the country standing at par with other developed nations; the policy’s supporters felt that it only required some adjustment and/or improvement (Azmi, 2009). Such optimism was fueled by the announcement made at the end of the fifth and final round table meeting on PPSMI in December 2008 of the suggestions made by participants to the conferences with regards to the fate of the policy that culminated into these seven options for the government to appraise (Haika Khazi, 2008):
1. Continue with PPSMI as is;
2. Use Bahasa Malaysia or the vernacular during the primary years and proceed with PPSMI during the secondary years;
3. Begin PPSMI during Primary Four through to the secondary years;
4. Use Bahasa Malaysia or the vernacular during the primary through to the secondary years;
5. Allow schools to decide on the language to be used as the medium of instruction for the teaching of Science and Mathematics;
6. Use Bahasa Malaysia or the vernacular during Primary One to Three, bilingual during Primary Four to Six and English during the secondary years; and
7. Abolish the Science subject during Primary One to Three but teach the subject matter by incorporating it in other subjects.

The government’s decision on Option 4 is made based on its concern over the inability of a majority of the country’s students mastering the English language while learning the two subjects if PPSMI was not abolished (Mingguan Malaysia, August 9th 2009). For the opponents of the policy the announcement justified their views, opinions and findings that it served the country and her people little purpose academically (see Isahak, Abdul Latif, Md. Nasir, Abdul Halim and Mariam, 2008; Johari, Nor Hasniza & Meor Ibrahim, 2006; Zaidi, 2003; Aziz, 2005). For another group of the policy’s detractor who viewed it as an attempt at unseating Bahasa Malaysia from its pedestal and thereby snubbing its consequentiality and potentially causing rifts in the nation (Nor Hashimah, 2009; Utusan Malaysia, July 19th, 2009), the announcement signaled a victory in its fight to preserve the sanctity of the national language.

The decision had been reached and there is of course no questioning the government’s prerogative. But, is PPSMI such a blunder it was made out to be? Is the policy’s ‘fault’ due to its design or is it ‘faulty’ by design? This article shall attempt to explain, from the academic standpoint, the reasons why PPSMI should not be blamed for its purported non-performance in order to dispel some fundamental misconstructions about it.

It is an oft heard statement – “learners fail to master English by learning Science and Mathematics in English”. Judging from the frequency that statement was made or quoted, it had come to be understood that PPSMI was conceived primarily to improve learners’ mastery of English, therefore when examinations results showed not so significant increase in such, the policy was denounced as having failed to fulfill its objective and thus the calls for its discontinuance.

In order to judge whether such disapproval of PPSMI carries merit, it is necessary to examine what were its objectives. As stated in a circular send to all schools announcing the implementation of the policy dated November 27th, 2002, it is mentioned that:

“Dasar ini digubal berasaskan hakikat bahawa Sains dan Matematik adalah bidang ilmu yang sangat dinamik dengan pelbagai penemuan baru dan sebahagian besar maklumat yang berkaitan dengannya terdapat dalam bahasa Inggeris. Matlamat akhir dasar ini adalah membolehkan murid mengakses maklumat yang berkaitan melalui pelbagai media supaya mereka mampu menguasai ilmu Sains dan Matematik dan lebih berdaya saing di peringkat antarabangsa di samping melahirkan generasi yang kukuh dalam penggunaan bahasa Inggeris.”
(Jemaah Nazir Sekolah, 2006, p.13)

From the citation above, it is apparent that by the utilization of a variety of media to access information, PPSMI’s objectives were to:
i) Enable learners master Science and Mathematics;
ii) Prepare the learners so that they become more competitive internationally; and
iii) Engender a generation of learners who are well-versed in the English language.

As it perhaps served their purpose of immediacy, the detractors to the policy made the third objective their focus and as it turned out to be, it became one of the main bases why the decision to discontinue the teaching and learning approach was made - a majority of the country’s students has been determined as being incapable of mastering English while learning the two subjects. However, it ought to be noted that the English being used in PPSMI classrooms was not meant to fortify the English language lessons. Rather, the medium of instruction was to increase the learners’ competency in English for Science and Technology. Terminologies, instructions, data collection, problem-solving strategies, methodology and reporting were emphasized on and less prominence was given to language accuracy. English as a language could, and should only, be mastered via proper instructions in a language classroom. The English of PPSMI would probably more accurately described as a tool or a means to get the lesson material across and by doing so in the language in which a good part of the body of knowledge is available in, allows for Malaysia’s new generations to acquire knowledge without having to rely on having the required information go through the hands of translators which carry with it the inherent danger of the knowledge being altered or lost during the process of language rendering.

The lesser emphasis on the first two objectives by the detractors of the policy in their bid the end it was understandable perhaps by reason of them requiring a much longer time to prove or disprove. For example, although the result of Sijil Peperiksaan Malaysia (SPM), one of the country’s major public examinations, showed a rise in 2007 (Farik, 2008), the increase was insufficient and inconclusive evidence that the learners, who were the first batch of secondary students under PPSMI and they had learned Science and Mathematics subjects in English since Secondary One in 2002, were able to master the subjects through the medium of English. The data to support such claim need to come from several batches of exam-takers for the conclusion to be more reliable. Needless to say, the second objective would require for the learners to have completed their studies under PPSMI and joined the workforce in order to gauge their level of competitiveness globally, a datum that would only become available years to come.

After all, although it is more properly perhaps if discussed by a semanticist, it ought to be noted that considering the three objectives of PPSMI as of equal importance may be faulty. This is as, in reference to the quotation above, the conjunction ‘dan’ and the preposition ‘di samping’ would indicate a difference in the degree of importance placed on each of the three statements of objectives. ‘Dan’ which literally translates as ‘and’ denotes that the first two statements have equal weight or importance. ‘Di samping’ or ‘besides’, meanwhile, relegates the importance of the third objective comparative to the former two. In other words, the objective to ‘melahirkan generasi yang kukuh dalam penggunaan bahasa Inggeris’ is actually only a derived benefit from the execution of the policy, not the main reason why the policy is planned for in the first place, which are the first and second objectives. It is improper to base criticism and decision-making on a statement that embodies not the desired outcome but rather a ‘fringe’ benefit of the PPSMI policy.

The annulment of PPSMI also carries with it the inherent risk Malaysians losing their competitive edge in the era of globalization. In a borderless world’s occupation market, where job-seekers have the freedom to ‘sell’ their skills in any country, one guarantee a potential employee has, besides having the right qualification, is to be conversant in the language universally spoken and understood. For the present the English language serves that particular purpose. Not only it fulfills the communicative purpose, the workers would also share a universal set of work-related terminologies and rubrics. In such light, therefore, true to the ideal of the second objective of PPSMI, it would be ideal for Malaysians, if they want to be able to ply their wares in other places beside their own country, to be familiar with the language spoken the world over. An early exposure to the language of Science and Technology, which is an opportunity accorded by PPSMI, is a step in the right direction to enable the citizens of this country to become “a scientific and progressive society” (Mahathir, 1997, para. 15). By becoming such, Malaysians would not only be on the correct path to achieve Vision 2020, but also make themselves marketable as they seek their fortunes on the global job market.

The earlier mentioned decision to reverse the policy of PPSMI came about due to the government’s concern that 3 million students would lag behind in English language proficiency if the policy were to carry on. The fear was that those students would fail to master English while learning Mathematics and Science subjects in the said language (Mingguan Malaysia, August 9th 2009). The merit of PPSMI being used to teach the language has been discussed earlier. There is a need to point out here that oral and academic language proficiency could only be attained after a considerable number of years of specialized instruction in ESL (English as the Second Language) or bilingual education. In fact, even in a language environment that is predominantly English, it was found that the former proficiency requires 3 to 5 years, while the latter needs 4 to 7 years to develop (Hakuta, Butler and Witt, 2000). In Malaysia where English has less prominence, those durations might be a little longer. Therefore, even if, say for argument’s sake, PPSMI was meant to teach English to the learners of Mathematics and Science, six years (the policy came into being in 2003, annulled in 2009) is too short a time for learners to attain oral, let alone academic proficiency in the language. Furthermore, PPSMI was devoid of the features of a specialized language instruction which include, for example, the teaching of the four language skills, namely reading, writing, listening and speaking. The policy was not for the teaching of English but rather it was designed for the learning and mastery of the subjects of Mathematics and Science as well as acquainting the learners with English for Science and Technology necessary for their survival in years to come.

In reference to teachers’ preparedness to teach under the PPSMI policy, Mohd. Rasdi (2003), from Isahak et al. (2008), found that 78% of teachers whom were his study subjects reported having low proficiency in the English language especially in speaking and writing. Rohana’s (2002), from Isahak et al. (2008), also reported that there existed a high percentage of her subjects: primary and secondary Science and Mathematics teachers, Form Six teachers teaching the same two subjects as well as Matriculation Centres lecturers, that had low proficiency in the said language. These studies were conducted on teachers who were still very much shell-shocked by becoming the first batch of educators, whom prior to that were complacent and comfortable with years of teaching Science and Mathematics in Bahasa Malaysia, to have to teach the two subjects in English. Added to the surprise was perhaps the fact that they were educated during their trainee days in Bahasa Malaysia. It is of little wonder that that the study reflected their sense of inadequacy. Perhaps it would more appropriate to find out how teachers who were yet to be mainstreamed into the education system were prepared for the eventuality of teaching under PPSMI policy as these were the educators tailored to the needs of PPSMI.

Teachers training also had moved in tandem with the birth of PPSMI. These teachers-to-be were groomed to teach the subjects in English. They were well aware of the trial that awaited them upon their graduation. An indication of this is a study by Cheah, Ng and Tai (2004) which showed that although a little apprehensive about the prospect of having to teach under the PPSMI policy, teacher trainees showed moderate to positive attitude about doing so and they also expressed their willingness to rise up to the forthcoming challenges. Aziz (2005) meanwhile, reminded teachers of the need to come up with the best teaching strategies and guidance to ensure maximum benefit to their learners. Both studies indicated that teachers were being made ready and they were prepared to teach their learners Mathematics and Science using English as the medium of instruction. In view of such therefore, it may be said that teachers’ preparedness was not much of, and should not have made into, an issue with regards to the success or failure of the policy.

In 2007 a research, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2007), was conducted by the Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Massachusetts, USA on 14 year-olds in 59 countries including Malaysia. While it bore little connection to PPSMI, its results were quoted as proof of PPSMI’s ‘failure’ (NST, February 10th, 2009). This is because there was a marked drop in Malaysian students’ achievements and the country’s placing internationally between results for the year 2003 and the said year. There are 2 facts that may disprove the contention of the ‘failure’. The first is that the study was conducted on 14 year-olds, which means that in the Malaysian Education system, those involved as subjects in the study were in Form Two. It is important to note that, those students were from a batch that had only been inducted into PPSMI the year before (that is when they were in Form One). They had never learned the English and Mathematics in English when they were in their primary years. As such, it may be argued that having only just slight more than a year’s worth of instructions in the two subjects through the English medium meant that they were still in the process of coming to terms with the new ‘paradigm’ of the teaching and learning. It was their unfamiliarity that may have contributed towards their poor performance.

Secondly, teachers of the two subjects acknowledge the fact that the lesson contents have been reduced and ‘watered down’ compared to the pre-PPSMI syllabuses. It is their opinion that the ‘old’ syllabus was more compact and informative. The same opinion is also voiced on the questions or exercises given to learners – pre-PPSMI’s questions were more challenging as well. By such revelation it is not difficult to understand why 2007 Form Two students performed relatively poorer than their counterparts of 2003 – they learned less material and they tackled less challenging exercises. The policy to teach Mathematics and Science in English did not cause the students’ performance to decrease; it was due to the syllabuses that had been ‘shortened and simplified’ to cater for a smooth transition of learners into the new teaching and learning approach.

Much had been written about how PPSMI victimized learners from the rural areas as they are not as proficient in English as the urbanites (Mingguan Malaysia, July 19th, 2009; Nor Hashimah, 2009; Isahak et al., 2008; Nor Hashimah, 2003). PKPIM (The Union of Malaysian Islamic Students) alleges that PPSMI would widen the rural-urban rift as the latter would greatly benefit from the education policy while the former will drift farther backward socially and economically. All these effects culminated from the assumption that urban students have better mastery of English and as such stand to gain more comparatively from PPSMI. The union further contends that PPSMI was unfair to the rural students as the use of English in their classrooms had denied them quality education (PKPIM, 2008). In a research into languages and Mathematics achievement conducted on Primary Four students from urban and rural areas, Arba (2009) found that rural students’ mean score in a non-moderated (English only) test is not statistically significant from the mean scores attained in a moderated (English/Bahasa Malaysia) test. This means that for students from the rural area, whichever language is used to teach Mathematics mattered little to them – their achievement will not vary by much. The bottom line is that their score was low, indicating that they were in fact weak in content knowledge. Data from urban students indicated that they did benefit significantly from the use of Bahasa Malaysia moderation and while their scores were consistently higher than the rural students’, the scores did not show that the pupils had mastered the subject well either. They too, were weak in content knowledge.

Has English hindered their achievement or for that matter their ability to master the subject matter? ‘No’ on both counts for rural students according to the study above. Since their achievements are ‘similar’ in both the non-moderated and moderated tests, it may be inferred that their ability to learn the content material would also be similar when they are taught using either English or English/Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction. The use of English in the inculcation of Science and Mathematics should not be made the culprit in justifying the lower achievement of rural students comparative to urban students. What the students (both rural and urban) need to improve on is their mastery of the subject matter.

A majority of students who were tutored under the PPSMI policy would be contented to continue learning Mathematics and Science in English. That is one phenomenon that should have been taken into consideration in the decision to reverse PPSMI. Those learners have become accustomed to the use of English in the learning of the two subjects, especially those who began their Primary One in 2003 – what about them? Won’t they be deprived of ‘quality’ education when they need to suddenly switch to learning them in Bahasa Malaysia? Imagine the toils they would have to through due to the ‘conversion’. What if some portion of them fail to successfully do so? Then the country would witness another set of students suffering due to a policy change. In this instance, their number would probably well surpass the three million whom would be saved by the reversal of PPSMI (Mingguan Malaysia, August 9th, 2009). The questions then are who would ‘save’ them and how do we minimize the casualties of the policy change?

PPSMI has been accused of decreasing learners’ interest in Science and Mathematics, causing a rural and urban rift, and risking the future of millions of students among other things. All these allegations were made under one assumption – that all the cogs and wheels of the policy’s machinery run smoothly without flaws. Is that really so? One instance that hints at the machinery’s fault was when teachers had the impression that Mathematics and Science classroom instructions were to be executed one hundred percent in English. Even after attending a series of English for the Teaching of Mathematics and Science (ETeMS) courses, very few actually had the proficiency and the capability to do so. That was not so surprising after all considering that so few of them had been privileged to have learned or have been taught to teach the subjects in English. Therefore, circumstances such as reported by Rohana (2002) and Mohd. Rasdi (2003) occurred and many relied heavily on translation while some forwent translation approach altogether and taught the subjects in the learners’ mother tongue. What mattered was that the learners understood the lessons well. As such, the execution of PPSMI had only been able to realize its first objective, which is to inculcate learners Mathematics and Science. It was questionable whether learners are being prepared to be competitive globally and the third and final objective of the policy, as least important as it was made to be from the above discussion, where the learners were supposed to become familiar with the English for Science and Technology could never materialize.

Is there a methodology by which the first and the third policy may be attained and thereby making the second objective of PPSMI a plausible reality? The is no need to look far for the answer as it may well be contained in the pedagogical approach advocated by the Malaysian education system – the integrated curriculum for primary and secondary school (KBSR and KBSM). Perhaps it was in the fervent desire to see the policy through that it was overlooked or bypassed.

As most Malaysian learners are English language learners (ELLs) , one promising instructional approach that integrates language and content instructions is to use the Sheltered English Approach. Watson, Northcutt and Rydell (2002) mentioned that this approach has dual goals, namely:
i) To assist learners learn the academic content of a subject; and
ii) To help them master a second language.

It would be useful at this juncture to explain this approach so that the resemblance between it and KBSR/KBSM becomes apparent. This approach does not assume English fluency (Freeman & Freeman, 1988) but rather the teacher relies of physical activities, visual aids and whichever means possible to help learners understand the subject matter and learn the language of instruction as well. Watson et al. (2002) outlined several strategies for teachers utilizing this approach. Among these are:
i) Increase the comprehensibility of the lesson by incorporating second language acquisition principles with traditional teaching methodology;
ii) Adjust the language demands of the lesson – modify speech rate and tone, use contextual clues and models;
iii) Relate instructions to learners’ experiences;
iv) Utilize analogies and avoid idiomatic expressions;
v) Bridge the gap between the teacher’s language ability and the learners’ listening skills;
vi) Use the same lesson format repeatedly so that learners may easily decipher how a new information is presented;
vii) Use visual aids, experiments, realia and animations to illustrate concepts;
viii) Increase learners’ interaction by using small group cooperative learning;
ix) Minimize lectures;
x) Increase wait-time to allow learners sufficient time to formulate their replies; and
xi) Instruct learners in study skills.

Furthermore, as this approach utilizes Vyogsky’s theories of cooperative learning and Zone of Proximal Development, and expounds on Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences it becomes all the more apparent that the methodology and strategies of the Sheltered English Approach are quite familiar to teachers who had their pedagogical training in Malaysian Teacher Training colleges. As a matter of fact, except for the first strategy which is perhaps more relevant to language teaching, the other strategies as well as Vyogsky’s and Gardner’s theories are elementary features of KBSR/KBSM used in all Malaysian schools. Many teachers have overlooked these strategies during the execution of PPSMI policy to the detriment of the its objectives.

Another important feature of The Sheltered English Approach is that the content of the lesson is not made easier compared to one that is taught to native speakers of English (or in Malaysia’s scenario one that was taught prior to PPSMI when the subjects were taught in Bahasa Malaysia). As had been discussed earlier, some teachers of Science and Mathematics opined that PPSMI’s syllabus had been truncated and ‘watered down’. Since this was the case, learners who had been able to master the lessons material had actually learned less than what their counterparts did several years earlier when they studied the same topics in Bahasa Malaysia. In short, the syllabus that catered for PPSMI had undermined learners’ achievement and shown disrespect for their potentials and abilities. The policy would have been more successful if the previous syllabus was retained and only the change only happened to the medium of instruction while the teachers adhered to the Sheltered English Approach, which essentially is KBSR/KBSM in essence.

Finally, in defence of PPSMI, recall the nation’s aspiration to achieve ‘Internationalism’ (Asmah, 1994). Malaysia aims to achieve the developed nation status by the year 2020. It was this aim that brought forth the policy in the first place – the desire to co-exist with the other developed nations of the world with ‘dignity and honour’ (Mahathir, 1997, para 4). As such, a pragmatic move (Musa, 2002) was made to provide the nation a boost on its path towards the fulfillment of Vision 2020. Such ‘leap of faith’ is consistent with ‘Nationism’ (Asmah, 1994). Its ‘followers’ understand the need for the policy to exist.

They were met head on by those who favoured ‘Nationalism’ (Asmah, 1994). This group favours Bahasa Malaysia which is deemed important in uniting Malaysia’s multiracial communities. Furthermore, it is the accorded with the national language status and is believed to be the ‘final bastion’ that the Malays intend to keep undefiled (Muhamad Normujahid, 2009). It was this tussle between the forces of ‘Nationism’ and ‘Nationalism’ that we witnessed since 2003 when PPSMI was launched. With the announcement of the reversal of PPSMI, the battle seems to side with the latter. Such fight might be spectacular sights, but sadly, the war is making victims of our learners. PPSMI would not have been side-lined if it were not for such narcissistic reasons and if Vision 2020 remains as the nation’s ultimate aim.

In conclusion, it may be said that PPSMI as a policy did not fail. The fact that it had prevailed for six years before being rescinded and during all those years have produced respectable results in examinations prove that the teaching of Mathematics and Science in English performed admirably under the circumstances. In the final analysis, hindrances that took the forms of misinterpretation, misrepresentations, misguided pride and misdirected fervor had rendered it unviable.


REFERENCES

Arba Abdul Rahman (2009). Languages and Mathematics Achievements among Rural and Urban Primary Four Pupils. (Masters Dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MARA)
Asmah Hj. Omar (1994). Nationism and exoglossia: The case of English in Malaysia. In Chan, S. H. & Tan, H. (2006) English for Mathematics and Science: Current Malaysian Language-in-education Policies and Practices. Language and Education, v20 n4 2006 (p306-321). Retrieved September 5th, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost. com.
Aziz Nordin (2005). Students’ Perception On Teaching And Learning Mathematics in English. Retrieved February 23rd, 2008 from http://eprints.utm.my/1507/1 /KERTASINT.pdf
Azmi Abdullah (2009). PPSMI Hanya Perlu Penambahbaikan. Utusan Malaysia. Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009.
Farik Zolkepli (2008). Official: Use of English not a Hindrance. The Star. Friday March 14th, 2008.
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (1988). Sheltered English Instruction. ERIC Digest. Retrieved September 15th, 2009 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ ericdocs2sql/ content_storage_
Haika Khazi (2008). 7 Pilihan Ajar Sains, Matematik. Berita Harian. Wednesday, December, 17th, 2008.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y.G., Witt, D. (2000). How Long Does it Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency. Retrieved September 16th, 2008 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/51/ab.pdf
Isahak Haron, Abdul Latif Hj. Gapor, Md Nasir Masran, Abdul Halim Ibrahim & Mariam Mohamed Nor (2008). Kesan Dasar Pengajaran Matematik dan Sains dalam Bahasa Inggeris di Sekolah Rendah. Retrieved September 14th, 2008 from http:// www.nst. com.my/ Current_News /NST/PDF/Math-Science%20Report
Jemaah Nazir Sekolah (2006). Info PPSMI Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris Edisi 2. Putrajaya: AS Printer.
Johari Surif , Nor Hasniza Ibrahim and Meor Ibrahim Kamaruddin (2006). Masalah Pembelajaran Matematik Dalam Bahasa Inggeris Di Kalangan Pelajar Tingkatan 2 Luar Bandar. In: Annual Conference on Teacher Education, 6-8 Sept 2006, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. (Unpublished) Retrieved February 22nd, 2008 from http://eprints.utm.my/2228 /1/3_9.pdf
Mahathir Mohamad (1997). Vision2020: The Way Forward. Retrieved February 25th, 2009 from http://mgv.mim.edu.my/MMR/9706/970602.Htm
Mingguan Malaysia (August 9th,2009). 3j Murid Rugi Jika Teruskan PPSMI.
Mingguan Malaysia (July 19th, 2009). PPSMI Satu Kesilapan.
Mohd Rasdi Saamah, (2003). Kesediaan guru-guru sekolah rendah melaksanakan perubahan bahasa pengantar mata pelajaran Sains dan Matematik. In Isahak Haron, Abdul Latif Hj. Gapor, Md Nasir Masran, Abdul Halim Ibrahim & Mariam Mohamed Nor (2008). Kesan Dasar Pengajaran Matematik dan Sains dalam Bahasa Inggeris di Sekolah Rendah. Retrieved September 14th, 2008 from http:// www.nst. com.my/ Current_News /NST/PDF/Math-Science%20Report
Muhamad Normujahid Muhamad Yusof (2009). Kenapa PPSMI Perlu Diteruskan? Retrieved September, 15th, 2009 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/9642094/KENAPA-PPSMI-PERLU-DITERUSKAN
Musa Muhamad (2002). ). Reconstruction of education. In Chan, S. H. & Tan, H. (2006) English for Mathematics and Science: Current Malaysian Language-in-education Policies and Practices. Language and Education, v20 n4 2006 (p306-321). Retrieved September 5th, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost. com.
Nik Safiah Karim, Farid M. Onn, Hashim Hj. Musa & Abdul Hamid Mahmood (2008). Tatabahasa Dewan Edisi Ketiga. Kuala Lumpur. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin (2009). Why PPSMI Reversal Makes Sense. New Sunday Times. Sunday July 19th, 2009.
Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin, (2003). Penerimaan Sains dan Matematik Dalam Bahasa Inggeris di Kalangan Pelajar dan Guru. In Isahak Haron, Abdul Latif Hj. Gapor, Md Nasir Masran, Abdul Halim Ibrahim & Mariam Mohamed Nor (2008). Kesan Dasar Pengajaran Matematik dan Sains dalam Bahasa Inggeris di Sekolah Rendah. Retrieved September 14th, 2008 from http:// www.nst.com.my/Current_ News/NST/PDF/Math-Science%20 Report
NST Online, (February, 10th, 2009). Union: English Policy a Failure. Retrieved March 3rd, 2009 from http://nst.com.my/ Current_News/NST/ Sunday/Frontpage
PKPIM (2008). Menolak Usaha Meneruskan Pengajaran, Sains, Matematik dan Teknologi dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI) di Peringkat Sekolah Hingga ke IPT. Retreived September 15th, 2009 from http://www.pkpim.net/v2/info/memorandum/72-menolok-usaha-meneruskan-ppsmi.html
Rohana Man, (2002). Sains, Matematik: Kementerian sedia skrip mengajar dalam Bahasa Inggeris. In Isahak Haron, Abdul Latif Hj. Gapor, Md Nasir Masran, Abdul Halim Ibrahim & Mariam Mohamed Nor (2008). Kesan Dasar Pengajaran Matematik dan Sains dalam Bahasa Inggeris di Sekolah Rendah. Retrieved September 14th, 2008 from http:// www.nst. com.my/ Current_News /NST/PDF/Math-Science%20Report
Watson, ID., Notrhcutt, L. & Rydell, L. (2002). Teaching Bilingual Students Successfully. Retrieved September 15th, 2009 from http://content.ebscohost.com.newdc.oum.edu.my/ pdf9/pdf/1989/EDL
Zaidi Yazid (2003). Support for Science and Mathematics Teachers in The Implementation of PPSMI: Challenges Ahead and Strategies to Sustain The Momentum. Retrieved May 13th, 2008 from eltcm.org/eltc/Download/conferences/ 8_parallel paper_28.pdf


Note:
1. This was written a few days before, during and after Hari Raya Aidil Fitri 2009.
2. It is a rather yet to be polished piece of work. My kind supervisor, Dr. Parmjit Singh a/l Aperapar Singh of UiTM Seksyen 17, Shah Alam, Malaysia, is the person on whom I am relying to transform this piece from what it is to something more educational and hopefully, publishable.