THE debate on the teaching of Mathematics and Science in English has raged with increasing fervour.

This is probably due to the question of whether or not to revert to Bahasa Malaysia for the teaching of Mathematics and Science.

Fundamentally, much that has been said about the role of English in the teaching of Mathematics and Science -- in terms of its intended goal -- is flawed.

I would like to bring to attention two concerns related to this issue: first, the aim of and grounds for the change in medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science, and second, the means of addressing the standard of English in schools.

On the first, it is important to understand the Education Ministry's primary reason for the change.
"The rationale of changing the medium from Bahasa Malaysia to English in the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics is due to the government's concern with the need to develop human capital in line with the objective of achieving developed nation status.

"In order to compete globally, preparation should begin in the early schooling stages. It is generally accepted that Science and Mathematics are the basis for a nation's progress.

"Innovations and discoveries in these fields are rapid and information pertaining to their development is mostly accessible in English.

"English is the international language of communication and mastery of it facilitates the acquisition of knowledge in these fields.

"Therefore, the decision to implement the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English is driven by the need to master Science and Mathematics which resources are available mainly in English.

"In doing so, students will have a better grasp of the English language."

English is merely a tool or a medium for acquiring mathematical and scientific knowledge, and that developing English language competencies is incidental to the primary objective of learning Mathematics and Science.

Therefore to propose that the change in the medium of instruction for Mathematics and Science is for the purpose of improving the standard of English in schools is both weak and unacceptable.

However, the argument that a poor command of the English language is likely to jeopardise the learners' ability to understand and apply scientific and mathematical knowledge is valid.

With regard to the teaching and learning of English, it is interesting to note the many theories of how the language should be taught and learned that have been discussed in the media lately.

This includes the one highlighted in the NST on Sept 4 titled Wrong to Learn Language This Way.

In understanding language learning you must first appreciate the role and function of language.

Basically, any language is a means of communicating a multiplicity of things whether these are information- or emotionally driven.

By the same token you only learn a language if you see a use for it -- either for everyday communication or for other instrumental reasons.

We must accept that no one is going to learn a language for no reason at all.

The scenario in many Malaysian schools is that learners are asked to pick up English for no other purpose than to pass examinations.

Many of these students also know that passing or failing English examinations has little effect on their everyday lives and, to some extent, advancing to the next level of education.

The obvious challenge for the language teacher is to provide learners with an authentic purpose for the study of language and a context in which they may have opportunities to apply their abilities.

While this may be possible in the language classroom, the need to use English outside the classroom diminishes significantly in other areas of school life and even more so in the learners' immediate socio-cultural environment outside of school.

Unlike what many would like to believe, language competency does not equal mastery of language rules, be they grammar, syntax or cohesion, among others.

We must also understand that languages were never created after their rules were constructed.

The rules of language use are merely a means of making sense of how language works or how it may be structured.

More importantly these rules evolve with time and the changing function of language. So they should be used as guides for language use.

In a language like English there may be as many exceptions as there are rules.

Attempting to teach or learn rules may be a traumatic and less than functional experience.

Among the languages that we speak and write, for how many do we know the formal rules?

How many did we learn through formal means? How is it that we are able to speak or write languages appropriately even without knowing their rules of grammar?

If teaching of grammar rules explicitly were the only way to learn a language, when was the last time you noticed that the past participle form was used accurately in your or someone else's speech or writing?

Current research in language learning suggests that explicit rule-driven language teaching may be of little significance in producing competent language users.

There have also been many studies which indicate that rule-based language teaching may produce people who know the language and can explain it but are themselves unable to use it appropriately.

To be able to use language accurately and appropriately one needs opportunities to use and practise, and in the process hypothesise, test, make mistakes, be corrected or self-correct and learn.

There is no other way to acquire competence in language.

Given the limitations of context for English language use outside the language classroom in many educational settings around the country, the Education Ministry has attempted over the years to artificially simulate language use opportunities.

Reading and literature programmes, English language-based competitions in choral speaking, public speaking, debates, drama, choir, and English language camps have all been used to provide a purpose for language learning as well as to create opportunities for language use.

The question is to what extent have these been successful in enhancing English language competencies?

Similarly, in the English language classroom the need to use English in learning important content-based subjects is motivation for language learning. This is because learners realise that improved language competence means enhanced performance in these subjects.

Long-term prospects for improved performance in these subjects are possible if we are willing to accept and arrest teething problems at the early stages.

One crucial area that has to be revisited -- whether we are trying to improve the teaching of English or that of Mathematics and Science in English -- is approach and methodology.

One option would be to consciously bind some of the content of the English syllabus together with Mathematics and Science language content.

This may offer the possibility of enhancing Mathematics and Science language in the language classroom, indirectly helping learners develop stronger interdisciplinary literacies.

Although the development of English language competency is not the primary goal of the policy, it is wrong to assume that it cannot occur through using English to teach content subjects such as Science and Mathematics.

I believe that it is also time to revisit not just the scope and content of Mathematics and Science as they are taught in schools today but also the teaching methods used for these subjects.

Mathematics and Science are subjects that require the understanding and application of concepts, skills, procedures and processes to a range of situations.

In teaching Mathematics, the focus is on problem-solving while in Science, it is inquiry orientated.

In both subjects, it is essential that the knowledge and skills are closely linked to real world situations and problems at all times.

This way the learning of abstract mathematical and scientific concepts becomes meaningful and relevant to the learners.

Another probable methodological precondition to the learning of these subjects is that they are meaningfully experiential.

Given these basic issues related to Mathematics and Science instruction, it is prudent for us to not only look at language as the problem but also the modes of delivery and the experiences that are created in the classroom.

If there is one thing that we know about learning, it is that when there is interest, motivation and real-need learning become expedited.

One apparent misgiving in this ongoing debate is probably the lack of input on this matter from experts in language education and content area study.

Even if they prefer to do their talking or work "where it really matters" -- in classrooms, lecture halls and in research -- public opinion may shape the outcome of the debate if these experts choose to remain silent.

Success and failure are two sides of the same coin but what we attain should not be left to the pitch-and-toss.

Whatever we decide to do with the teaching of English, Mathematics and Science should not be a decision based on the here and now.

It must be a decision that shapes and charts Malaysia's ability to engage with and harness the forces of globalisation.

Dr Ganakumaran Subramaniam is President of the Malaysian English Language Teaching Association and Senior Lecturer at the School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. He can be contacted at tpha@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my