Celik Huruf Pembacaan, Matematik, dan Sains

ISNIN,  28  Mac 2011

Oleh:  ZULKIFLI  SALLEH

Seperti yang pernah katakan dalam tulisan sebelum ini, Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam  Bahasa Inggeris  (PPSMI), cukup kusut dan mengelirukan, bahkan tidak ubah seperti senjata pemusnahan besar-besaran (WMD) yang dijadikan  alasan oleh Presiden Amerika ketika itu, George W. Bush untuk menceroboh dan menyerang Iraq.  Apabila Iraq ditawan, tetapi didapati tiada senjata berkenaan, beliau mengubah alasan bahawa untuk membawa demokrasi dan kebebasan di negara itu. 

 Demikian juga dengan PPSMI yang pada mulanya bertujuan menyelesaikan kelemahan penguasaan bahasa Inggeris dalam kalangan pelajar, meskipun mereka dididik dalam mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggeris,  sekurang-kurangnya 11 tahun.  Apabila banyak pihak  mempersoalkan kewajaran dan keberkesanannya dengan disokong oleh data yang konkrit,  “medan pertarungan” berubah menjadi penguasaan sains dan matematik kerana kononnya negara yang menguasai kedua-dua mata pelajaran berkenaan ialah negara berbahasa Inggeris. 

Bagi pejuang bahasa, terutamanya sejak cadangan pelaksanaan PPSMI diumumkan pada tahun 2002, mereka sering diaibkan dengan bermacam-macam tohmahan, antaranya taksub terhadap bahasa Melayu, antibahasa Inggeris, dan ingin melihat anak-anak Melayu terus ketinggalan.  Banyak lagi tohmahan yang dilemparkan oleh pucuk pimpinan negara ketika itu yang  hingga kini masih menyanyikan lagu yang  sama dalam mempertahankan PPSMI.

Bagi pejuang PPSMI yang masih berkeliaran hingga kini, meskipun kerajaan membuat keputusan   menghapuskan  PPSMI, mereka  menggunakan pelbagai alasan dan “ukuran antarabangsa” secara terpilih  untuk meneruskan desakan mereka.  Mereka yang memperjuangkan PPSMI (termasuk beberapa akhbar),  jika diperhatikan, sesungguhnya tidak bercakap benar atau menyembunyikan fakta. Maklumat  antarabangsa tentang pengusaan sains, matematik, dan bahkan penguasaan bahasa Inggeris di negara berbahasa Inggeris tidak didedahkan kepada masyarakat kita. 

Dalam keluaran 31 Januari 2011, majalah Time melalui rencana utamanya, “The Tiger  Mom Manifesto” merujuk Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) Organisasi Kerjasama Ekonomi dan Pembangunan (OECD)  bahawa para pelajar Amerika terbenam di tengah-tengah: tempat ke-17 dalam pembacaan, tempat ke-23 dalam sains, dan tempat ke-31 dalam matematik.  PISA yang dirujuk itu adalah yang terbaharu, iaitu untuk tahun 2009.

Di bawah ini dipetik ringkasan PISA 2009 supaya kita rakyat Malaysia mendapat maklumat dan pengetahuan yang betul dan tidak terus-menerus  diperbodohkan oleh golongan tertentu yang   sering mendakwa diri mereka berpandangan dunia, berjiwa global; manakala bagi mereka, pejuang bahasa Melayu hanya golongan kolot dan minda tertutup. 

Reading Literacy Performance of 15-year-olds

Performance on the Combined Reading Literacy Scale

U.S. 15-year-olds had an average score of 500 on the combined reading literacy scale. This was not measurably different from the OECD average score (493). Compared to the 33 other OECD countries, 6 had higher average scores than the United States (Korea, Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and Australia), 13 had lower average scores, and 14 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. Compared to all other 64 countries and education systems, 9 had higher average scores than the United States, 39 had lower average scores, and 16 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average.

Performance of U.S. Students on the Reading Literacy Subscales

Since reading literacy was the major subject area for the 2009 cycle of PISA, results are shown for the combined reading literacy scale as well as for the three reading literacy subscales that describe reading aspects, or processes: accessing and retrieving information, integrating and interpreting, and reflecting and evaluating.

On the reflect and evaluate subscale, U.S. 15-year-olds had a higher average score than the OECD average. The U.S. average was lower than that of 5 OECD countries and higher than that of 23 OECD countries. Among all other 64 countries and education systems, 8 had higher average scores and 51 had lower average scores than the United States. On the other two subscales—access and retrieve and integrate and interpret—the U.S. average was not measurably different from the OECD average.

Proficiency Levels

Along with scale scores, PISA 2009 also uses seven proficiency levels (levels 1b through 6, with level 1b being the lowest and level 6 the highest) to describe student performance in reading literacy. An additional category (below level 1b) includes students whose skills are not developed sufficiently to be described by PISA.

In reading literacy, 30 percent of U.S. students scored at or above proficiency level 4—not measurably different than the percentage of students in the OECD countries on average who performed at or above level 4. At level 4 students are described by PISA as capable of "difficult reading tasks" and "critically evaluating" a text. Eighteen percent of U.S. students scored below level 2 in reading literacy—not measurably different from the percentage of students in the OECD countries on average who demonstrated proficiency below level 2. Below level 2 students may not be able to consistently "recognize the main idea in a text unless it is prominent" or to consistently "make valid comparisons or contrasts" based on even a single feature in the text.

Trends in Performance in Reading Literacy

There was no measurable difference between the average score of U.S. students in reading literacy in 2000 and 2009 or between 2003 and 2009. There were no measurable differences between the U.S. average score and the OECD average score in 2000 or in 2009.

Differences in Performance by Selected Student and School Characteristics

Gender. Female students scored higher, on average, than male students on the combined reading literacy scale in all 65 participating countries and other education systems. In the United States, the difference was smaller than the difference in the OECD countries, on average, and smaller than the differences in 24 OECD countries and 21 non-OECD countries and other education systems.

Race/Ethnicity. The results include the performance of students by race/ethnicity for the United States only. In reading literacy, White (non-Hispanic) and Asian (non-Hispanic) students had higher average scores than the overall OECD and U.S. average scores, while Black (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic students had lower average scores than the overall OECD and U.S. average scores. The average scores of students who reported two or more races were not measurably different from the overall OECD or U.S. average scores.

School Socio-economic Contexts. The results for the United States also include the performance of students in different categories of public schools according to the percentage of enrollment eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, a proxy indicator of the socioeconomic composition of the school. Students in public schools in which half or more of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL-eligible) scored, on average, below the overall OECD and U.S. average scores in reading literacy. Students in public schools in which less than 25 percent of students were FRPL-eligible scored, on average, above the overall OECD and U.S. average scores.

Mathematics Literacy Performance of 15-year-olds

The U.S. average score in mathematics literacy (487) was lower than the OECD average score (496) in 2009, as it was in 2003 and 2006. In 2009, among the 33 other OECD countries, 17 countries had higher average scores than the United States, 5 had lower average scores, and 11 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average. The OECD countries with average scores higher than the U.S. average were: Korea, Finland, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Belgium, Australia, Germany, Estonia, Iceland, Denmark, Slovenia, Norway, France, and the Slovak Republic. The OECD countries with lower average scores than the United States were Greece, Israel, Turkey, Chile, and Mexico. Among the other 64 OECD countries and education systems, 23 had higher average scores than the United States, 29 had lower average scores, and 12 had average scores not measurably different from the U.S. average score.

Proficiency Levels

PISA describes six mathematics literacy proficiency levels ranging from level 1 to level 6, the most advanced. Twenty-seven percent of U.S. students scored at or above proficiency level 4. This is lower than the 32 percent of students in the OECD countries on average that scored at or above level 4. At level 4 students can "complete higher order tasks" such as "solving problems that involve visual or spatial reasoning...in unfamiliar contexts." Twenty-three percent of U.S. students scored below level 2. Below level 2 students may not be able to consistently "employ basic algorithms," or make "literal interpretations of the results" of mathematical operations in real-life settings.

Trends in Performance in Mathematics Literacy

The U.S. average score in mathematics literacy in 2009 was higher than the U.S. average in 2006 but not measurably different from the U.S. average in 2003, the earliest time point to which PISA 2009 performance can be compared in mathematics literacy.

Science Literacy Performance of 15-year-olds

On the science literacy scale, the average score of U.S. students (502) was not measurably different from the OECD average (501). Among the 33 other OECD countries, 12 had higher average scores than the United States, 9 had lower average scores, and 12 had average scores that were not measurably different from the U.S. average score. The OECD countries with higher average scores than the United States were: Finland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Canada, Estonia, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Slovenia. The OECD countries with lower average scores than the United States were: the Slovak Republic, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Greece, Israel, Turkey, Chile, and Mexico. Among the other 64 countries and education systems, 18 had higher average scores, 33 had lower average scores, and 13 had average scores that were not measurably different from the U.S. average score.

Proficiency Levels

PISA describes six science literacy proficiency levels ranging from level 1 to level 6, the most advanced. Twenty-nine percent of U.S. students and students in the OECD countries on average scored at or above level 4 on the science literacy scale. At level 4 students "select and integrate explanations from different disciplines of science or technology" and "link those explanations directly to...life situations." Eighteen percent of U.S. students and students in the OECD countries on average scored below level 2. Below level 2 students may not be able to consistently "provide... explanations in familiar contexts or draw conclusions based on simple investigations" or consistently "make literal interpretations."

Trends in Performance in Science Literacy

The U.S. average score in science literacy in 2009 was higher than the U.S. average in 2006. While U.S. students scored, on average, below the OECD average in science literacy in 2006, the average score of U.S. students in 2009 was not measurably different from the 2009 OECD average.