I refer to the letter by Teo Kok Seong of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia that many English teachers are not competent (NST, May 21).
One reason why many English teachers are incompetent is due to our society, which, overall, doesn’t speak much English. Thus, an English-speaking environment is absent.
One of the ways for people to speak a language fluently, and be a good teacher of that language, is to grow up in an environment of speaking and reading in that language.
If people want to be good Mandarin teachers, they must be fluent in Mandarin. To be fluent, they must be in a Mandarin-speaking environment.
Similarly, to be good English teachers, they must speak and write in English since young.
There is a marked difference between those who grow up in an English-speaking environment and one who just learns English but doesn’t speak it.
The former can be a good English teacher, the latter may or may not.
Therefore, when conducting interviews to hire English teachers, we should consider applicants’ competence more than the qualification, that is, we cannot rely on their resume.
One may wonder why people having a PhD in English are not fluent in English.
Writing a PhD thesis takes years. It can be re-written repeatedly. The thesis is sent to an editor. As a result, the language of the thesis is almost perfect.
But speaking the language is another matter. One must have the natural ability of the language.
This natural ability comes from one’s daily use and exposure to the language since young, which is the environment.
To know if applicants can speak the language fluently, interviewers must ask questions that draw the applicants’ natural talent of speaking the language, not a rehearsed one.
Applicants can rehearse to answer interview questions, which are available on the Internet.
I ask applicants to describe unusual incidences they have experienced or books they have read.
For those who are fluent in the language, this will be easy.
Good English teachers can teach writing better if they are good in writing.
So, during interviews, test applicants’ writing skills.
We need to be aware that it took our society 30 to 50 years to lose its English-speaking ability.
In the 1960s and 1970s, most of us spoke good English as subjects in school were taught in English.
Now, only those from English-speaking families can speak it fluently.
For our society to speak good English again may take another 30 years.
Hence, we must not change second-language policies too often.
In 2003, we re-started teaching Maths and Science in English.
Many studies revealed that those who learnt subjects in a foreign language would be good at that language faster.
Had we been more patient and not stopped teaching Maths and Science in English soon after, we could have made headway, considering there are about 400,000 school leavers each year.
We would have had six million students exposed to English.
Among these six million, there would be good ones, who, in turn, can be good English teachers.
In another 15 years, our society could have reverted to having good English.
We should not change second language teaching policies often.
Due to the nature of second language learning, the results of such policies take time to bear fruit.
Dr Megawati Omar
Shah Alam, Selangor