A Comparative Study on the Delivery of English Curriculum and its Impacts on Students’ Cognitive, Socio and Affective Development
Keywords:
Cognitive, Socio and affective development, Delivery approachAbstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the delivery of the English curriculum in a private national primary school and an international primary school in Standard 4 and Year 5 with regards to the similarities and differences. The researchers further examined the students’ cognitive, socio and affective development through the delivery of the English curriculum. A total of four teachers out of a 30 were purposively selected as respondents. Qualitative data was collected using the records of the students from the database, document analysis, classroom observations, in-depth interviews and two class-based activity tasks. All the data was analyzed using a thematic analysis method. The findings revealed that students’ cognitive, socio and affectively development was affected by teachers’ delivery approach. Both groups of teachers were found to have similarities and differences with respect to the delivery of the English curriculum.
References
1. Portal Rasmi Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Primary school education [Internet]. [Cited 2019, May 21].
Available from: https://www.moe.gov.my/index.primaryeducation
2. Sri Tenby Curriculum. Tenby schools Malaysia [Internet].
[Cited 2019, May 18]. Available from: https://www.tenby.edu.
my/penang
3. Celebrating 50 Years of Tenby Schools Ipoh. 50th Anniversary.
Ipoh: Tenby Schools Ipoh; 2010.
4. Nasa A, Pillay S. International schools: Why their numbers
are growing [Internet] 2017. [Cited 2019, May 18]. Available from:
https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/04/233140/
international-schools-why-their-numbers-are-growing.
5. Malaysian-Education. Private schools and international
schools in Malaysia [Internet] no date. [Cited 2019, May 18].
Available from: http://www.malaysia-education.com/schools.html
6. Thirusanku J, Melor MY. The many faces of Malaysian English.
International Scholarly Research Network. doi: 10.5402/2012/138982;
2012.
7. Jeon-Ellis G, Debski R, Wiggleswort G. Oral interaction around
computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language
Learning and Technology, 2005; 9(3): 121-145.
8. Richards JC, editor. Theories of teaching in language teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
9. Darmi R, Albion P. English language in Malaysian education
system: Its existence and implication. In Proceeding 3rd Malaysian
Postgraduate Conference; 2013 July 3-4; Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
10. Muniandy M, Nair G, Krishnan SK, Ahmad I, Mohamed Noor N.
Sociolinguistic competence and Malaysian students English language
proficiency. English Language Teaching, 2010; 3(3): 145-151.
11. Tan M, Ong SL. Teaching mathematics and science in English
in Malaysian classrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on
classroom practices and student learning. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 2011; 10: 5-11.
12. Education Destination Malaysia. Guide to international &
private schools [Internet] 2017. Available from: https://issuu.
com/mint3/docs/edm2016_mar2017_1
13. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA,
Mayer RE, Pintrich PR,…Wittrock MC. A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of
educational objectives. New York: Longman; 2001.
14. Santos CA. Third and fourth grade teacher practices in
cognitive, emotional and social-emotional development and
their students’ academic self-concept and emotionally social
skills moderated by students’ mothers’ level of education
and time reading at home. Diss.: Dowling College. 2009.
15. Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services. Child development guide 9-10 years. [Internet]
2011. Available from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/Ref-Child-Centre-Nine.
16. Sugrue C. Complexities of teaching child-centred
perspectives. London: Routledge Falmer Taylor &
Francies group; 1997.
17. Rossano L. Perennialism [Internet] 2010. Available from:
http://www.newvisioneducation2010-2011.wikispaces.com/
file/view/Perennialisalism
18. Kennedy R. Progressive education: How children learn
[Internet] 2017. Available from: http://www.thoughtco.com/
progressive-education-how-children-learn-today-2774713
19. Von Glasenfeld J. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing
and learning. Washington: Falmer; 1995.
20. Jones G, Brader-Araje L. The impact of constructivism on
education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American
Communication Journal. 2002; 5(3)
21. Gardner H. Multiple intelligence: New horizons.
New York: Basic Books; 2006.
22. Armstrong T. Multiple intelligences in the classroom.
3rd ed. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development; 2009.
23. Kop R, Hill A. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future
or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning [Internet] 2008. Available from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/ 523/1103
24. Piaget J. The psychology of intelligence. Oxford, UK:
Routledge; 2001.
25. Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS, Masia BB. Taxonomy of educational
objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New York: David McKay; 1964.
26. Lo JTY. The Junior Secondary History Curricula in Hong Kong
and Shanghai: A comparative study. Comparative Education.
2004; 40(3): 343-361.
27. James V, Yusof SM, Sidin Z, Hamdan R, Sities J. Comparison
of UK curriculum with Malaysian curriculum zooming into English
for lower secondary (Year 7 and Form 1). Sains Humanika; 2014;
2(4): 209-216.
28. Lin CP, Chen W, Yang SJ, Xiet W, Lin CC. Exploring students’
learning effectiveness and attitude in group scribbles-supported
collaborative reading activities: A study in the primary classroom.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2014; 30: 68-81.
doi: 101111/jcal.12022
29. Avazpour A, Bahrani T. The effect of cooperative learning
techniques on promoting reading comprehension among EFL
learners in Gachsaran. International Journal of Language Learning
and Applied Linguistics World. 2015; 10(3): 32-44. Available from:
http://www.ijllalw.org.
30. Beecher M, Sweeney S. Closing the achievement gap with
curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story
[Electronic version]. Journal of Advanced Academic. 2008; 19(3):
502-503.
31. Oluwole DA. The impact of mother tongue on students’
achievement in English language in Junior Secondary Certificate
Examination in Western Nigeria. Journal of Social Science. 2008;
17(1): 41-49. Available from: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-
journals/JSS/JSS-17-0-000-0002008-web/JSS-17-1
32. Merrell CB, Bailey K. Predicting achievement in the early
years, how influential is personnel, social and emotional
development? The Online Educational Research Journal.
2012; Available from: http://www.oerj.org
33. Che Musa N, Koo YL, Azman H. Exploring English language
learning and teaching in Malaysia. GEMA Online Journal of
Language Studies. 2012; 12(1): 35-51.
34. Haegeland T, Raaum O, Salvanes KG. Pupil achievement,
school resources and family background. Paper presented in
Technology and Change Conference in memory of Tor Jakob
Klette, University of Oslo, 2004 August 27-28th.. Available from:
http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp397.pdf
35. Onzima R. Parents’ socio-economic status and pupils
educational attainment, case study of St Jude Primary School
in Malabatown Council – Uganda. 2010; Available from:
http://www.academia.edu/407935/Parents_Socio_Economic_
Status_and_pupil
36. Santhiram RR, Tan YS. Problems and challenges of learning
through a second language: The case of teaching Science and
Mathematics in English in Malaysian primary schools. Kajian
Malaysia, 2007; XXV(2): 29-54.
37. Guven I, Gurdal A. A comparative analysis of the education
systems of Turkey and Canada: The similarity and difference.
US-China Education Review. 2011; B4: 534-546.
38. Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications
in education. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1998.
39. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3: 77-101.
40. Document Standard Curriculum and Assessment (DSKP),
Standard Curriculum for Primary School (KSSR) English language
National School Year 4, 2018: 4. Available from https://www.moe.
gov.my/index.
41. The National Curriculum in England Framework. Key Stages
1 and 2. 2015: 13. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/
organisations/department-for-education.
42. Siemen G. Learning development cycle: Bridging learning
design and modern knowledge needs. 2005; Available from:
http://www/cedma-europe.org/newsletter%20articles/misc/
Learning%20Development.
43. McIntosh J. Family background, parental involvement and
academic achievement in Canadian Schools. 2008; Available from:
http://www.economic.ca/2008/papers/0071.pdf.
Primary school education [Internet]. [Cited 2019, May 21].
Available from: https://www.moe.gov.my/index.primaryeducation
2. Sri Tenby Curriculum. Tenby schools Malaysia [Internet].
[Cited 2019, May 18]. Available from: https://www.tenby.edu.
my/penang
3. Celebrating 50 Years of Tenby Schools Ipoh. 50th Anniversary.
Ipoh: Tenby Schools Ipoh; 2010.
4. Nasa A, Pillay S. International schools: Why their numbers
are growing [Internet] 2017. [Cited 2019, May 18]. Available from:
https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/04/233140/
international-schools-why-their-numbers-are-growing.
5. Malaysian-Education. Private schools and international
schools in Malaysia [Internet] no date. [Cited 2019, May 18].
Available from: http://www.malaysia-education.com/schools.html
6. Thirusanku J, Melor MY. The many faces of Malaysian English.
International Scholarly Research Network. doi: 10.5402/2012/138982;
2012.
7. Jeon-Ellis G, Debski R, Wiggleswort G. Oral interaction around
computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language
Learning and Technology, 2005; 9(3): 121-145.
8. Richards JC, editor. Theories of teaching in language teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
9. Darmi R, Albion P. English language in Malaysian education
system: Its existence and implication. In Proceeding 3rd Malaysian
Postgraduate Conference; 2013 July 3-4; Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
10. Muniandy M, Nair G, Krishnan SK, Ahmad I, Mohamed Noor N.
Sociolinguistic competence and Malaysian students English language
proficiency. English Language Teaching, 2010; 3(3): 145-151.
11. Tan M, Ong SL. Teaching mathematics and science in English
in Malaysian classrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on
classroom practices and student learning. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 2011; 10: 5-11.
12. Education Destination Malaysia. Guide to international &
private schools [Internet] 2017. Available from: https://issuu.
com/mint3/docs/edm2016_mar2017_1
13. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA,
Mayer RE, Pintrich PR,…Wittrock MC. A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of
educational objectives. New York: Longman; 2001.
14. Santos CA. Third and fourth grade teacher practices in
cognitive, emotional and social-emotional development and
their students’ academic self-concept and emotionally social
skills moderated by students’ mothers’ level of education
and time reading at home. Diss.: Dowling College. 2009.
15. Washington State Department of Social and Health
Services. Child development guide 9-10 years. [Internet]
2011. Available from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/Ref-Child-Centre-Nine.
16. Sugrue C. Complexities of teaching child-centred
perspectives. London: Routledge Falmer Taylor &
Francies group; 1997.
17. Rossano L. Perennialism [Internet] 2010. Available from:
http://www.newvisioneducation2010-2011.wikispaces.com/
file/view/Perennialisalism
18. Kennedy R. Progressive education: How children learn
[Internet] 2017. Available from: http://www.thoughtco.com/
progressive-education-how-children-learn-today-2774713
19. Von Glasenfeld J. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing
and learning. Washington: Falmer; 1995.
20. Jones G, Brader-Araje L. The impact of constructivism on
education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American
Communication Journal. 2002; 5(3)
21. Gardner H. Multiple intelligence: New horizons.
New York: Basic Books; 2006.
22. Armstrong T. Multiple intelligences in the classroom.
3rd ed. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development; 2009.
23. Kop R, Hill A. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future
or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning [Internet] 2008. Available from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/ 523/1103
24. Piaget J. The psychology of intelligence. Oxford, UK:
Routledge; 2001.
25. Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS, Masia BB. Taxonomy of educational
objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New York: David McKay; 1964.
26. Lo JTY. The Junior Secondary History Curricula in Hong Kong
and Shanghai: A comparative study. Comparative Education.
2004; 40(3): 343-361.
27. James V, Yusof SM, Sidin Z, Hamdan R, Sities J. Comparison
of UK curriculum with Malaysian curriculum zooming into English
for lower secondary (Year 7 and Form 1). Sains Humanika; 2014;
2(4): 209-216.
28. Lin CP, Chen W, Yang SJ, Xiet W, Lin CC. Exploring students’
learning effectiveness and attitude in group scribbles-supported
collaborative reading activities: A study in the primary classroom.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2014; 30: 68-81.
doi: 101111/jcal.12022
29. Avazpour A, Bahrani T. The effect of cooperative learning
techniques on promoting reading comprehension among EFL
learners in Gachsaran. International Journal of Language Learning
and Applied Linguistics World. 2015; 10(3): 32-44. Available from:
http://www.ijllalw.org.
30. Beecher M, Sweeney S. Closing the achievement gap with
curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story
[Electronic version]. Journal of Advanced Academic. 2008; 19(3):
502-503.
31. Oluwole DA. The impact of mother tongue on students’
achievement in English language in Junior Secondary Certificate
Examination in Western Nigeria. Journal of Social Science. 2008;
17(1): 41-49. Available from: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-
journals/JSS/JSS-17-0-000-0002008-web/JSS-17-1
32. Merrell CB, Bailey K. Predicting achievement in the early
years, how influential is personnel, social and emotional
development? The Online Educational Research Journal.
2012; Available from: http://www.oerj.org
33. Che Musa N, Koo YL, Azman H. Exploring English language
learning and teaching in Malaysia. GEMA Online Journal of
Language Studies. 2012; 12(1): 35-51.
34. Haegeland T, Raaum O, Salvanes KG. Pupil achievement,
school resources and family background. Paper presented in
Technology and Change Conference in memory of Tor Jakob
Klette, University of Oslo, 2004 August 27-28th.. Available from:
http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp397.pdf
35. Onzima R. Parents’ socio-economic status and pupils
educational attainment, case study of St Jude Primary School
in Malabatown Council – Uganda. 2010; Available from:
http://www.academia.edu/407935/Parents_Socio_Economic_
Status_and_pupil
36. Santhiram RR, Tan YS. Problems and challenges of learning
through a second language: The case of teaching Science and
Mathematics in English in Malaysian primary schools. Kajian
Malaysia, 2007; XXV(2): 29-54.
37. Guven I, Gurdal A. A comparative analysis of the education
systems of Turkey and Canada: The similarity and difference.
US-China Education Review. 2011; B4: 534-546.
38. Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications
in education. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1998.
39. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3: 77-101.
40. Document Standard Curriculum and Assessment (DSKP),
Standard Curriculum for Primary School (KSSR) English language
National School Year 4, 2018: 4. Available from https://www.moe.
gov.my/index.
41. The National Curriculum in England Framework. Key Stages
1 and 2. 2015: 13. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/
organisations/department-for-education.
42. Siemen G. Learning development cycle: Bridging learning
design and modern knowledge needs. 2005; Available from:
http://www/cedma-europe.org/newsletter%20articles/misc/
Learning%20Development.
43. McIntosh J. Family background, parental involvement and
academic achievement in Canadian Schools. 2008; Available from:
http://www.economic.ca/2008/papers/0071.pdf.
Downloads
Published
2020-08-30
How to Cite
Woodruff, V. ., & Keow Ngang, T. . . (2020). A Comparative Study on the Delivery of English Curriculum and its Impacts on Students’ Cognitive, Socio and Affective Development. KKU Research Journal (Graduate Studies) Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(2), 128–144. Retrieved from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/gskkuhs/article/view/245327
Issue
Section
บทความวิจัย (Articles)
