There was an interesting letter to the Editor of The STAR concerning what was perceived as changes in the frequency and the raised fees for the MUET exams & the deterioriating standard of marking.
Here's the letter below and the accompanying reply by the MOE of Malaysia for your information.
Rodney Tan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday December 18, 2011
Don’t make a mockery of MUET
AS A newly-retired English language teacher
who has taught MUET ( Malaysia University English Test) classes for more than a
decade, I have always subscribed to the view that decisions taken about
educational matters should always be guided by the best interests of the
students and not sacrificed on the altar of financial gains.
Thus when I recently learnt that the test
would be conducted three times next year — March, July and November — and the
registration fee raised from RM60 to RM100, I am compelled to offer my views on
many of the issues affecting the MUET classes.
To begin with, logic will dictate that many
school candidates will now choose to sit for the test in March to secure a good
Band score as fast as possible (which is what many Lower Six students are going
to do ), failing which they can then choose to sit for the exam in July and
November to secure higher scores and in the process, swell the coffers of the
Malaysian Examinations Council (MEC).
And that is what administering the MUET
three times a year will bring about — making a mockery of the whole purpose of
introducing MUET in the first place.
So now, instead of the recommended 80 hours
of MUET sessions, many schools will have to make do with less than 35 hours.
Leaving aside the question on whether such a move is practical or wise the
issue should be: What good will such a plan bring about when students are
allowed to sit for their MUET exam so soon? Clearly, a case of the left hand
not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Unhappy situation
As matters now stand, the students are
being given the option to sit for the MUET in May instead of November creating
an unhappy situation whereby after the test, MUET teachers have a hard time
getting students to stay engaged in their MUET lessons. In previous years, to
keep my English classes going after the MUET in May, I would teach my students
Phonetics and Business Communication, among other things. However there were
students who upon receiving their MUET results in July, were not keen to follow
the MUET lessons, especially if they had secured Bands 5 and 4. This in effect
meant that I only had to teach the group of students who registered to resit
their MUET exam in November. With Lower Six students now allowed to sit for
their MUET exam in March, students would be left to their own devices once the
exams are over.
They would most likely use their MUET
periods to revise their other STPM subjects.
And such unfortunate circumstances have
conspired to make MUET teachers the butt of jokes and resentment in schools for
allegedly getting paid for having such a “good” time in school, no thanks to
the flexible MUET dates.
Having taught MUET classes for so many
years, I must say the standards of marking and grading MUET papers have
somewhat become inconsistent over the years.
In the early years of MUET, only two or
three students would manage to secure a Band 5. Then, after some years, just
like the grade inflation plaguing SPM subjects, almost half the students in the
better MUET classes were able to secure Band 5. In fact, even average students
were able to obtain a Band 4! And it is surprising to find that students who
fared so poorly in their written English have still managed to secure a low
Band 5 for the test.
The fact is that when students are able to
work out most of the answers for the Reading Comprehension paper which carries
45% of the overall aggregate scores (under the old test specifications) and do
moderately well in the speaking and listening components, which together carry
30% of the aggregate scores, it is still possible for them to secure a low Band
5 even if they barely pass the writing component which constitutes 25 % of the
aggregate scores.
Thus, when MUET is not perceived as a
reliable measure of the candidates’ English language proficiency, it has become
largely optional, if considered at all, in applying for admission in local
private colleges with “twinning” courses with their overseas counterparts which
allocate little importance to it.
When students head to Singapore for their
tertiary education, they are made to sit for the English Qualifying Test, even
if they have secured a high Band 5 in MUET. This is not surprising as many
applicants can’t even write a few sentences without grammatical errors!
It is a sad reflection of how the standard
of English has deteriorated in schools these days.
Poor standards
Below is an example of an an opinion
written by a student on whether modern advertising is a bad influence on
today’s youth.
“… nowadays, when we swift on the
televisyens, most of the time is for advertised the advertisement. When they
watching the TV programme, the children are also watching together by them.
….Some of the business people are using a women body to advertised their
product …”
Let me also point out that fine tuning the
writing component by replacing Question 1, which was formerly a summary
question with a question on the interpretation of data will not do any good as
MUET teachers do no have the luxury of time to put their charges through an
intensive course to polish up the latter’s grammar and vocabulary skills. To
persist with the current writing paper is akin to putting the cart before the
horse.
It would also be wise if the MEC takes note
that since Question 1 in the writing component now involves statistics, some
calculations and analysis of data, maintaining the 1½ hours for the paper is
hardly sufficient.
Candidates will face severe time
constraints in tackling the writing paper and only with constant practice can
they hope to do well in the paper. Upper Six students will be hard-pressed to
do well if they are allowed to take their MUET exams so early in March. The
selection of examiners for MUET’s speaking component is another issue that
needs to be urgently addressed. It is puzzling why so many competent MUET
teachers are sidelined when it comes to appointing examiners for this component
while those not at all involved in teaching MUET classes are selected.
Let me cite an example of a team leader who
was not a MUET teacher overruling his junior co-examiner who was a MUET
teacher, by assessing a candidate who spoke excellent English and performed
impressively for both the individual presentation and group discussion task a
Band 4, when it was obvious that the candidate was clearly of Band 5 or Band 6
calibre. The rationale? The team leader, dogmatically claimed that they should
avoid giving candidates a high band score for speaking as far as possible, as
instructed by their superiors!
This undesirable state of affairs is played
out in some STPM subjects as well. It brings to mind what a Maths teacher
involved in marking STPM exam scripts said about one of his co-markers who was
a Chemistry graduate, and not a bona fide Maths teacher.
The latter had refused to accept a candidate’s
Maths answer because the candidate had used another approach. The examiner, who
was apparently more at home with Chemistry, chose to blindly follow what was in
the marking scheme and penalised the poor student for securing the answer using
a formula that differed from the one in the marking scheme!
Such instances are reasons why it is
crucial to ensure that only competent and experienced examiners who are
teaching the respective subjects be given the task of marking public exam
papers which determine the academic future and career prospects of the
candidates.
Anything short of that will not only affect
the credibility of the marked papers, but also victimise some candidates
through no fault of their own.
The rationale given for the introduction of
MUET in 1999 was that undergraduates in local universities were wasting their
time learning basic grammar, and therefore MUET was introduced to address the
low English proficiency of students before pursuing higher education.
If that is the case, the present MUET
general test specifications and MUET format do not address the poor grammar and
vocabulary skills of many of the candidates. And things won’t get better with
the early registration for the test when candidates simply do not have
sufficient and sustained MUET lessons to improve their low language proficiency
in English.
Grammar skills
There is a dire need to test grammar to
ensure candidates take pains to improve their grammar and vocabulary skills and
be aware of the common failings displayed in their written English. Grammar is
an integral part of effective academic writing.
Thus, developing a better understanding of
how individual words and groups of words work to form coherent sentences and
paragraphs to construct academic texts will be useful. With knowledge born out
of hard classroom experience, it is my contention that instead of the MUET
general test specifications and exam, Form Six students are better off if they
are given a well-crafted English course conducted by committed teachers to
prepare them for entry to tertiary education. They can then be made to sit for
a rigorous common English entrance examination for admission into public
universities.
It is about time the MEC carried out a
survey to find out if the present coursework and MUET serves to achieve the
original aims. The council should not be too concerned with raising fees to
swell its coffers. The MUET exam must surely be a means towards an end and, not
an end by itself.
HENRY SOON
Via e-mail
RESPONSE TO NEWSPAPER REPORT
Ministry
of Education (MOE) would like to refer to an article by Henry Soon published in
Sunday Star dated 18 December 2011 on the issue of – Don’t make a mockery
of MUET.
The
Malaysian University English Test (MUET) is an English language proficiency
test designed to measure the English language ability of students wishing to
pursue first degree studies in local institutions of public learning. With
MUET, English is taught at Sixth Form or pre-university level to equip students
with the appropriate level of proficiency in English to enable them to perform
effectively in their academic pursuits at tertiary level.
The
Malaysian Examinations Council (MEC) fully agrees with Mr Henry Soon’s opinion
that decisions on educational matters should be in the best interests of
students. MUET will be conducted three times a year beginning 2012, in March,
July and November. This policy is made after receiving numerous requests from
students who intend to take MUET and after an in-depth study of its
implications.
At
present, candidates who take the Mid-Year MUET face problems in their appeals
for intake into institutions of higher learning. The closing date for such
appeals is end of June whilst the results for Mid-Year MUET are released in
July. With MUET being offered three times a year, candidates who take the March
MUET are able to obtain their MUET results prior to the closing date for
appeals.
At
present too, MUET dates clash with the examination schedules, new student
intake and semester holidays of various institutions of higher learning. Hence,
providing an additional test will offer better alternatives to students from
these institutions to select the MUET session that best suit their needs.
Offering
three exams a year too, allow more opportunities for candidates to improve
their MUET score. They do not need to wait 6 months before taking the next
MUET. This benefits school candidates, private candidates, and also university
students who require a stipulated minimum MUET band to qualify for entrance or
graduate from university. Private candidates who work in the private or public
sector too have a better choice of MUET sessions as some take the MUET for
promotional purposes.
Contrary
to Mr Soon’s claim, the decision to include an additional MUET session in our
yearly schedule was never made for “financial gains”. The additional session in
fact will put more demands on MEC’s operational, administrative and financial
resources, but having the best interests of our clients in mind, we believe that
the benefits to our clients and nation far outweigh the additional costs
incurred. In an era where institutions of higher learning are opening up
opportunities for flexible entry and exit points for tertiary education, the
additional MUET session will provide flexibility and enhance student mobility
in line with national and international development.
On
the issue of school candidates sitting for MUET in March, students not being
keen to stay engaged in MUET lessons after taking the MUET early and MUET
teachers being the butt of jokes and resentment due to the flexible MUET dates,
this is a school administrative matter. It is stipulated clearly in a circular
to schools and also in the MUET Test Specifications (page 9) that “the MUET
programme should involve 240 hours of teaching time spanning three school
terms. Instruction should be carried out for 8 periods a week at 40 minutes per
period.” If schools do not comply with this and students feel they are prepared
to take the test earlier, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the MEC. We are,
however, confident that school administrators and MUET teachers will have the
necessary expertise and creativity to manage the teaching-learning process in
their schools. Instead of viewing the additional MUET session as a burden, we
believe schools will make full use of the flexibility offered for the benefit
of their students.
With
regards to the issue of students scoring Band 5, well, like Mr Henry Soon
stated, they are students from “the better MUET classes.” With stringent
marking and a standardized set of scoring criteria, only the proficient can
attain Band 5. So far, and again contrary to Mr Soon’s claim of a “grade
inflation”, national records show that only 1% out of 85000 candidates have
managed to obtain Band 5.
Students
who apply to universities in the United Kingdom, United States or Singapore are
required to sit for the IELTS, TOEFL or qualifying tests because that is the
entrance requirement of such institutions.
Question
1 of the MUET writing paper has been changed from summary writing to report
writing as this skill is more reflective of academic writing in universities,
that is writing reports that incorporate the skills of analyzing and
synthesizing ideas based on data given. Candidates are not required to carry
out any calculations. The example of a piece of writing given on “modern
advertising” is not based on any previous MUET question or script.
On
the issue of teachers not having enough time to teach grammar and vocabulary
and the MUET Test Specifications not addressing the students’ poor grasp of
grammar and vocabulary, please refer again to the recommended number of hours
of teaching time as stated in the Test Specifications.
MUET
teachers are selected to be MUET examiners based on their qualifications in
English or TESL. Some MUET teachers do not choose to be examiners, hence to get
a larger pool of examiners, MEC has to appoint teachers who teach Forms Four or
Five. MUET teachers have done well and are very committed in preparing their
students for the MUET and the examiners too have responsibly marked the MUET
scripts. Examiners for Speaking and Writing have to sit for a proficiency test
and are given training on marking besides attending marking coordination
meetings. It should be pointed out that MUET is a criterion-referenced test,
i.e. there is a set of established criteria or standard of performance for each
band. If a candidate has met the criteria set for a high band, there are no
reservations in awarding the candidate the mark or band he or she deserves. As
pointed out earlier, the issue of “grade inflation” (or ‘deflation’ in this
case) does not arise in MUET – candidates get what they deserve according to a
set of established criteria.
MUET
fees have to be raised from RM60.00 to RM100.00 due to the rising costs of
administering the test. MEC, in fact has been bearing the extra costs incurred
which are not covered by the previous fee of RM60.00. MEC carried out a
comprehensive study taking into consideration the views of students, teachers,
lecturers, examiners, institutions of higher learning and State Education
Departments before reviewing and implementing the MUET Test Specifications,
administrative procedures and costing.
Finally,
we would like to assure Mr Henry Soon and members of the public that as an
examination body, MEC has always strived for continual improvement. We adhere
to internationally established practices of assessment in ensuring the validity
and reliability of MUET which includes among others, training of examiners,
close analysis of test performance, benchmarking with and correlational studies
against international tests, and constant communications with our stakeholders,
including feedback from students, teachers, examiners, universities and experts
in the field. Our close monitoring of MUET shows that it is a reliable measure
of candidates’ proficiency in English in relation to their readiness for
tertiary education.
CORPORATE
COMMUNICATION UNIT
MINISTRY
OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA
ELA members staging a flash mob to introduce their association to other students.
