Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 43

THE INFLUENCE OF LITERACY SUPPORT ON

READING, SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND ICT


LITERACY PERFORMANCE AMONG FORM
FOUR STUDENTS IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

MARCIA JANE A/P GANASAN

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA


2018
THE INFLUENCE OF LITERACY SUPPORT ON
READING, SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND ICT
LITERACY PERFORMANCE AMONG FORM
FOUR STUDENTS IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

by

MARCIA JANE A/P GANASAN

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements


for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

February 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Thomas Chow Voon Foo for

his unending support and encouragement throughout my research studies. I would also

like to thank the team of Malaysian Literacy Index in harnessing my research

experience. This journey is not made possible without the unwavering support of the

following individuals: My heartfelt thanks to Professor Nordin Razak for being such

an insightful mentor. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Prof. Dr.

Shameem, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Munir Shuib and Dr. Parameswari for contributing their

expertise to this body of work.

Much love and gratitude to both my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Ganasan who have always

been a source of inspiration in my academic pursuits – I am ever thankful. My sincere

thanks to Prophet Moses, Corry Lincoln, Kumar, Stella, Dr. Marlina Jamal, Renu and

Saraya Yakubu for making this arduous journey bearable.

Above all, to Almighty God, the Author of All Knowledge and Wisdom,

for His Strength – I am gratefully humbled

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..……………………..…………………………... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………….……… iii
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………….... ix
LIST OF FIGURES…………...……………………………………………... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………….. xiv
ABSTRAK……………………………………………………………………. xv
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………….. xvii

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………..... 1
1.2 The Role of Critical Literacy in the 21 st Century Education ………… 3
1.3 The Malaysian Learning Environment………………………………… 6
1.4 Statement of Problem …………………………………………………. 11
1.5 Research Objectives ……….……………….………………………….. 14
1.6 Research Questions..…………………………………………………… 15
1.7 Research Hypothesis…………………………………………...………. 15
1.8 Significance of the Study ………………………………………………. 16
1.9 Limitations of the Study ……………………………………………….. 18
1.10 Definitions of Key Terms ……………………………………………… 19
1.11 Plan of the Study ………………………………………………………. 21
1.12 Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 21

CHAPTER 2- REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


2.1 Introduction ……………. ……………………………………………… 23
2.2 The Development of Literacy…………………... ……………………… 23
2.3 Quantitative Approach..……………... ……………………………......... 25
2.4 Qualitative Approach……………………………………………………. 26
2.5 Pluralist Approach…………….... ……………………………………… 27
2.6 Assessing Literacy …………………………………………………….. 29
2.7 International Assessments………………………………………………. 30
2.8 Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA)……………... 31
2.9 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS)…….. 33

iii
2.10 The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)…………… 35
2.11 21 st Century Learning Skills…………………………………………… 36
2.12 International Adult Literacy Survey…………………………………….. 39
2.13 Functional Literacy……………………………………………………… 40
2.14 Text -Task Respondent Theory (TTR) of Functional Literacy ………….. 43
2.14.1 Seven Sets of Literacy Skills for Task ………………………….. 44
2.14.2 Respondent Skills………………………………………………... 48
2.15 The Revised Blooms Taxonomy (2001)……………………..…………… 51
2.15.1 The Knowledge Dimension……………………………………… 52
2.15.2 Factual Knowledge…………………….……..………………….. 52
2.15.3 Conceptual Knowledge……………………. ………………........ 53
2.15.4 Procedural Knowledge………….……………………………….. 53
2.16 The Cognitive Processes and Dimensions………..……………………… 54
2.16.1 Remember …………………………….…………..……………... 54
2.16.2 Understand ……………………………………..………………… 55
2.16.3 Apply ………………………………………….…………………. 55
2.16.4 Analyze …………………………………………….……………. 56
2.16.5 Evaluate ………………………………………………………….. 56
2.17 Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System’s Theory (1979)………………….. 58
2.18 The Theory New Literacy Studies (NLS)………………………………... 63
2.19 The Relationship between Cognitive Abilities and Social Practices……. 66
2.20 Reading Practices………………………………………………………... 76
2.21 Science Practices………………………………………………………… 77
2.22 Mathematics Practices…………………………………………………… 78
2.23 ICT Practices…………………………………………………………..... 79
2.24 The Notion of Literacy Assessment…………………………………….. 80
2.25 Interpretation of Scores…………………………………………………. 83
2.25.1 Standards in Norm-referenced Interpretations …………………. 84
2.25.2 Standards in Criterion-referenced Interpretations ………………. 85
2.26 Grading ……………………………………...……………………….…. 86
2.27 Rubrics …………………………………………………………………. 88
2.28 Previous Studies……………………………….………………………… 90
2.29 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………... 103

iv
CHAPTER 3- RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction ………………………………...…………………………. 105
3.2 Research Design ……………………………...………………………… 106
3.3 Background of the Study……………………………………………….. 107
3.4 Sampling………………………………………………………………... 108
3.4.1 Sample of Schools across States in Peninsular Malaysia………. 108
3.4.2 Sample Size……………………………………………………… 109
3.4.3 Sample Population………………………………………………. 110
3.4.4 Sample of Focus Group Interviews (FGI)………………………. 111
3.5 Research Instruments……………………………………………………. 113
3.5.1 Literacy Test……………………………………………………. 113
3.5.2 Questionnaire on Literacy Support………………………………. 114
3.5.3 Focus Group Interviews (FGI)…………………………………... 114
3.6 Development of Research Instruments…………………………………... 115
3.6.1 Literacy Test Design…………………………………………….. 116
3.6.2 Procedures of Test Development………………………………… 120
3.6.3 Key Components of the Literacy Test…………………………… 122
3.6.4 Questionnaire on the Literacy Support System………………... 124
3.7 Reliability of the Instruments…………………………………………… 125
3.7.1 Reliability for Literacy Test………………………….................. 125
3.7.2 Reliability for Literacy Support Questionnaire………………. … 126
3.7.3 Translation of the Instruments……………………………….….. 127
3.8 The Development of the Band Performance Scale………………………. 127
3.8.1 Agreement of Inter-Raters for Band Performance Scale………... 129
3.9 Procedures for the Focus Group Interview (FGI)……………………… 130
3.9.1 Agreement of Inter-Rater Reliability for FG1…………………. 131
3.10 Quantitative Data Analysis ……………………………………………. 132
3.11 Qualitative Data Analysis ……………………………………............... 133
3.12 Procedures for Conducting the Study………………………………….. 137
3.13 Pilot Study……………………………………………………………… 138
3.14 Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 139

v
CHAPTER 4- RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………. 140
4.1.1 Demographic Data…………………………………………….... 141
4.2 Students’ Performance in Reading, Science, Mathematics and ICT
Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………………………………………… 142
4.2.1 Performance in Reading Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia …….............. 142
4.2.2 Performance in Science Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………………. 145
4.2.3 Performance in Mathematics Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia ………… 147
4.2.4 Performance in ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia …………………. 148
4.2.5 Literacy Profile on Reading Literacy, Science Literacy
Mathematics Literacy and ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia……….. 150
4.3 Performance on Knowledge Domains and Cognitive
Skills in Reading Literacy, Science Literacy, Mathematics Literacy
and ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………………………………. 152
4.3.1 Performance in Knowledge Domains and Cognitive
Skills: Reading Literacy Performance…………………..………. 153
4.3.2 Performance in Knowledge Domains and Cognitive
Skills: Science Literacy Performance……………………………. 157
4.3.3 Performance in Knowledge Domains and Cognitive
Skills: Mathematics Literacy Performance……………………… 160
4.3.4 Performance in Knowledge Domains and Cognitive
Skills: ICT Literacy Performance………………………………... 163
4.4 Differences on Reading, Science, Mathematics and ICT Literacy
Performance in Peninsular Malaysia……………………………………. 168
4.4.1 Differences on Reading Literacy Performance among
States in Peninsular Malaysia ………………………………...…. 169
4.4.2 Differences on Science Literacy Performance among
States in Peninsular Malaysia …………………………………… 171
4.4.3 Differences on Mathematics Literacy Performance among
States in Peninsular Malaysia …………………………………… 173
4.4.4 Differences on ICT Literacy Performance among
States in Peninsular Malaysia …………………………………… 175
4.5 Predictors Influencing Reading Literacy, Science Literacy
Mathematics Literacy and ICT Literacy Performance…………………… 177
4.5.1 Predictors Influencing Overall Reading Literacy Performance…. 178
4.5.2 Predictors Influencing Overall Science Literacy
Performance……………………………………………………. 179
4.5.3 Predictors Influencing Overall Mathematics Literacy
Performance…………………………………………………….. 180
4.5.4 Predictors Influencing Overall ICT Literacy Performance……… 181
4.6 Predictors Influencing Reading Literacy, Science Literacy
Mathematics Literacy and ICT Literacy Performance
in Peninsular Malaysia……………………………………………………. 182
4.6.1 Predictors Influencing Reading Literacy Performance
in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………… 182
4.6.2 Predictors Influencing Science Literacy Performance

vi
in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………… 185
4.6.3 Predictors Influencing Mathematics Literacy Performance
in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………… 187
4.6.4 Predictors Influencing ICT Literacy Performance
in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………… 189
4.7 Findings of Focus Group Interviews………………………... …………… 191
4.7.1 Findings on Reading Literacy Practices………… ……………… 191
4.7.2 Findings on Science Literacy Practices……………..………….... 196
4.7.3 Findings on Mathematics Literacy Practice……………………... 200
4.7.4 Findings on ICT Literacy Practices……………………………... 204
4.8 The Summary of Findings………………………………………………. 208

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS


AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………... 212


5.2 Overview of the Study…………………………………………………… 212
5.3 Discussion on Research Question 1……………………………………… 213
5.3.1 Performance in Reading Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………. 213
5.3.2 Performance in Science Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………… 215
5.3.3 Performance in Mathematics Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…… 216
5.3.4 Performance in ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia……………. 217
5.4 Discussion on Research Question 2……………………………………… 217
5.4.1 Performance on Knowledge Domain and Cognitive…………….. 218
Skill: Reading Literacy
5.4.2 Performance on Knowledge Domain and Cognitive…………….. 219
Skill: Science Literacy
5.4.3 Performance on Knowledge Domain and Cognitive……………. 220
Skill: Mathematics Literacy
5.4.4 Performance on Knowledge Domain and Cognitive…………….. 222
Skill: ICT Literacy
5.5 Discussion on Research Question 3……………………………………… 224
5.5.1 Differences in Reading Literacy Performance in Peninsular
Malaysia…………………………………………………………. 224
5.5.2 Differences in Science Literacy Performance
in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………… 225
5.5.3 Differences in Mathematics Literacy Performance
in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………… 226
5.5.4 Differences in ICT Literacy Performance in
Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………….... 227

vii
5.6 Discussion on Research Question 4: Predictors Influencing Overall
Literacy Performance in Reading, Science, Mathematics and ICT……… 228
5.7 Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………….... 235
5.8 Theoretical Implications………………………………………………….. 237
5.9 Recommendations……………………………………………………….. 244
5.10 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….. 246

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………… 248
APPENDICES

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 2.1 PISA’s Literacy Domains………………………………………… 32


Table 2.2 Remember………………………………………………………... 54
Table 2.3 Understand………………………………………………………... 55
Table 2.4 Apply……………………………………………………………... 56
Table 2.5 Analyze………………………………………………………….... 56
Table 2.6 Evaluate…………………………………………………………… 57
Table 2.7 Summary of Key Areas…………………………………………… 73
Table 3.1 Sample Population across States in Peninsular Malaysia………… 110
Table 3.2 Categorization of Schools and Districts based on States ………… 111
Table 3.3 Participants of Focus Group Interview (FGI) for Each State…..... 112
Table 3.4 Research Methods and Samples..………………………………… 114
Table 3.5 Stimulus for Reading Literacy……………………………..…….. 116
Table 3.6 Stimulus for Science Literacy ……………………………………. 117
Table 3.7 Stimulus for Mathematics Literacy ……………………………... 119
Table 3.8 Stimulus for ICT Literacy………………………………...………. 120
Table 3.9 Types of Knowledge Domain…………………………………….. 123
Table 3.10 Functional Literacy Skills………………………............................ 123
Table 3.11 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient Value for Literacy Test……………...126
Table 3.12 Cronbach Alpha Coefficient Value for Literacy Support
Questionnaire…………...………………………………………….126
Table 3.13 PISA’s Band System (2009) and the Present Study……………….128
Table 3.14 Phases involved in the Development of the Band
Performance Scale…………………………………………………128
Table 3.15 The Results of Inter-Rater Agreement for the Band Performance
Scale……………………………………………………………….130
Table 3.16 The Phases of the Focus Group Interviews (FGI)…………………130
Table 3.17 Results of Inter-Rater Agreement for FGI……………………...….132
Table 3.18 Phases of Thematic Analysis………………………………………134
Table 3.19 Research Questions with Statistical Tests…………………………136
Table 4.1 Distribution of Gender based on States based on States……………141
Table 4.2 Distribution of Band Performance in Reading Literacy
in Peninsular Malaysia………........................................................ 143
Table 4.3 Overall Rank Order in Reading Literacy…………………………. 144

ix
Table 4.4 Distribution of Band Performance in Science Literacy
in Peninsular Malaysia………………………………………….... 145
Table 4.5 Overall Rank Order in Science Literacy………………………… 146
Table 4.6 Distribution of Band Performance in Mathematics
Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………………….……………… 147
Table 4.7 Overall Rank Order in Mathematic Literacy…………………….. 148
Table 4.8 Distribution of Band Performance in ICT Literacy
in Peninsular Malaysia………………………………………….... 149
Table 4.9 Overall Rank Order in ICT Literacy………………………………. 150
Table 4.10 Profile on Reading Literacy, Science Literacy, Mathematics
Literacy and ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia……………….. 150
Table 4.11 Mean Scores on Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills
in Reading Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…..….……………… 153
Table 4.12 Mean Scores on Conceptual Knowledge and Cognitive
Skills in Reading Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………….… 155
Table 4.13 Mean Scores on Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills
in Science Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………………………. 157
Table 4.14 Mean Scores on Conceptual Knowledge and
Cognitive Skills in Science Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia……... 159
Table 4.15 Mean Scores on Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills
in Mathematics Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………………. 160
Table 4.16 Mean Scores on Conceptual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills
in Mathematics Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………………. 162
Table 4.17 Mean Scores on Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills
in ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………………………….. 164
Table 4.18 Mean Scores on Procedural Knowledge and Cognitive Skills
in ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia………………………….. 165
Table 4.19 Mean Scores on Reading Literacy Performance among States
in Peninsular Malaysia……………………………………...……. 169
Table 4.20 ANOVA Results for Reading Literacy Performance……………. 171
Table 4.21 Mean Scores on Science Literacy Performance among States
in Peninsular Malaysia ….............................................................. 171
Table 4.22 ANOVA Results for Science Literacy Performance……………… 173
Table 4.23 Mean Scores on Mathematics Literacy Performance among States
in Peninsular Malaysia ………………………………………….. 173
Table 4.24 ANOVA Results for Mathematics Literacy Performance……….. 175
Table 4.25 Mean Scores on ICT Literacy Performance among States in
Peninsular Malaysia ……..……………………………………… 175
Table 4.26 ANOVA Results for ICT Literacy Performance…………………. 177
Table 4.27 Standardized Regression Coefficients on Reading Literacy
Performance………………………………………………………..179
Table 4.28 Standardized Regression Coefficients on Science Literacy
Performance………………………………………………………..180
Table 4.29 Standardized Regression Coefficients on Mathematics
Literacy Performance………………………………………………181
Table 4.30 Standardized Regression Coefficients on ICT Literacy
Performance………………………………………………………..182
Table 4.31 Standardized (β) and Unstandardized (b) Regression
Coefficients Influencing Reading Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia..184

x
Table 4.32 Standardized (β) and Unstandardized (b) Regression
Coefficients Influencing Science Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia..186
Table 4.33 Standardized (β) and Unstandardized (b) Regression
Coefficients Influencing Mathematics Literacy in
Peninsular Malaysia………………………………………………. 188
Table 4.34 Standardized (β) and Unstandardized (b) Regression
Coefficients Influencing ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…… 190
Table 4.35 Responses towards Reading Literacy Practices…………………… 191
Table 4.36 Responses towards Science Literacy Practices…………………… 196
Table 4.37 Responses towards Mathematics Literacy Practices…………….... 200
Table 4.38 Responses towards ICT Literacy Practices………………………... 205

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Semantic and Pragmatic Skill Set…………………………………. 45
Figure 2.2 Coordination of Literacy Skills in Performing
Literacy Skills …………………………………………………….. 47
Figure 2.3 A Model of Ecological System………………………………........ 58
Figure 2.4 Theoretical Framework of the Study…………………………….. 66
Figure 2.5 Conceptual Framework of the Study……………………………. 75
Figure 3.1 Distribution of States, Schools and Classes……………….………113
Figure 3.2 Procedures of Test Development….……………………………... 121
Figure 4.1 Distribution of Gender…………………………………………… 141
Figure 4.2 Performance Bands in Reading Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia... 143
Figure 4.3 Distribution of Band Performance in Science Literacy in
Peninsular Malaysia……………………………………………….145
Figure 4.4 Performance Bands in Mathematics Literacy in Peninsular
Malaysia…..……………………………………………………….147
Figure 4.5 Performance Bands in ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia ……..149
Figure 4.6 Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in Reading Literacy
in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………………….153
Figure 4.7 Conceptual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in Reading
Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………………..155
Figure 4.8 Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in Science Literacy
in Peninsular Malaysia………………………………………….....157
Figure 4.9 Conceptual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in Science
Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia……………………………....…. 158
Figure 4.10 Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in
Mathematics Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………………... 160
Figure 4.11 Conceptual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in
Mathematics Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………………… 162
Figure 4.12 Factual Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in
ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………….. 163
Figure 4.13 Procedural Knowledge and Cognitive Skills in
ICT Literacy in Peninsular Malaysia…………………………….. 165
Figure 4.14 Distribution of Mean Scores in Reading Literacy
Performance among States in Peninsular Malaysia…………….… 170
Figure 4.15 Distribution of Mean Scores in Science Literacy
Performance among States in Peninsular Malaysia…………….… 172
Figure 4.16 Distribution of Mean Scores in Mathematics Literacy
Performance among States in Peninsular Malaysia……………… 174
Figure 4.17 Distribution of Mean Scores in ICT Literacy
Performance among States in Peninsular Malaysia……………… 176
Figure 4.18 Themes on Reading Literacy Practices…………………………....193
Figure 4.19 Themes on Science Reading Literacy Practices…………………...198
Figure 4.20 Themes on Mathematics Literacy Practices……………………….202

xii
Figure 4.21 Themes on ICT Literacy Practices………………….……………..206

xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEC ASEAN Economic Community


ALP Adult Literacy Performance
BRLT Blooms Revised Learning Taxonomy
CRT Criterion Referenced Test
EPI English Proficiency Index
FL Functional Literacy
FGI Focus Group Interview
IALS International Adult Literacy Survey
ICT Information and Communication Technology
MOE Ministry of Education
MES Malaysian Examination Syndicate
MOHE Ministry Of Higher Education
NAAL National Assessment for Adult Literacy
NALS National Adult Literacy Survey
NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress
NAPLAN The National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy
NCES National Centre for Education Statistics
NLS New Literacy Studies
NRT Norm Referenced Test
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PISA Program for International Student Assessment
PLD Performance Level Descriptors
PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
SPM Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia
TTR Text -Task Respondent
TIMMS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

xiv
SATU KAJIAN TENTANG PENGARUH SOKONGAN LITERASI

TERHADAP PRESTASI LITERASI DALAM MEMBACA, SAINS,

MATEMATIK DAN ICT DALAM KALANGAN PELAJAR TINGKATAN

EMPAT DI SEMENANJUNG MALAYSIA

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji tahap prestasi literasi, kemahiran

pemprosesan kognitif dan perbezaan prestasi pelajar di negeri Pulau Pinang, Perak,

Perlis, Kedah, Selangor, Kelantan, Terengganu dan Johor. Lapan negeri yang

menyertai kajian ini bertujuan untuk mewakili zon Utara (Pulau Pinang, Perak, Perlis,

dan Kedah), zon Selatan (Johor), zon tengah (Selangor), dan zon Timur (Kelantan dan

Terengganu) di Malaysia. Domain membaca, sains, matematik, dan ICT disepadukan

sebagai subjek yang memberikan suatu disiplin yang menyeluruh untuk meneroka

tahap keupayaan dan literasi pelajar bagi negeri-negeri tersebut. Kajian ini juga

bertujuan untuk mengkaji pengaruh indikator bagi individu, rumah, sekolah, dan

komuniti terhadap pretasi literasi pelajar dalam membaca, sains, matematik, dan ICT.

Kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan kaedah bercampur yang menggabungkan kedua-

dua pendekatan kualitatif dan kuantitatif. Soal selidik kuantitatif memperlihatkan data

yang berhubung dengan prestasi pelajar dalam setiap domain literasi dan juga menguji

faktor-faktor yang menyumbang kepada prestasi literasi. Pendekatan kualitatif pula

melibatkan temu bual dalam kumpulan fokus yang bertujuan untuk memperlihatkan

tanggapan pelajar terhadap nilai dan praktis literasi untuk tujuan triangulasi. Sampel

kuantitatif melibatkan 813 orang pelajar manakala sampel kualitatif melibatkan 160

orang pelajar. Secara keseluruhan, hasil dapatan kajian dalam prestasi literasi telah

menunjukkan bahawa pelajar di seluruh negeri mencapai tahap 3 (Asas) dalam

membaca, tahap 4 (Cekap) dalam literasi sains, dan tahap 3 (Asas) dalam literasi

xv
matematik dan ICT. Hasil dapatan ini menunjukkan bahawa pelajar yang berumur 16

tahun mencapai literasi asas dalam tiga domain literasi yakni literasi membaca, literasi

matematik dan ICT, dan mencapai tahap cekap dalam literasi sains. Hasil dapatan

kajian juga menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya perbezaan dalam prestasi literasi di

seluruh negara. Berdasarkan data keseluruhan, penemuan yang mengenai pengaruh

sokongan telah menunjukkan bahawa terdapatnya persamaan di seluruh negara,

apabila kedua-dua indikator personal dan rumah didapati memperlihatkan pengaruh

yang kuat dalam prestasi literasi. Keadaan ini juga memperlihatkan bahawa negeri-

negeri dari Semenanjung utara Malaysia (seperti Perlis dan Kedah), Semenanjung

timur Malaysia (seperti Kelantan dan Terengganu) dan negeri pusat (Selangor) telah

menunjukkan tahap literasi yang kurang daripada sederhana. Berdasarkan hasil

dapatan, kajian ini boleh disimpulkan bahawa faktor-faktor literasi sokongan boleh

menjadi pemangkin untuk meningkatkan prestasi literasi. Kedua-dua domain kognitif

dan bukan kognitif adalah penting untuk menggalakkan literasi fungsian dalam

kalangan pelajar. Oleh hal yang demikian, terdapatnya keperluan untuk meningkatkan

kerjasama dalam kalangan agen literasi bagi mewujudkan suatu persekitaran literasi

sokongan dan begitu juga untuk mencapai tahap yang lebih baik bagi kesaksamaan

dan keadilan dalam literasi.

xvi
THE INFLUENCE OF LITERACY SUPPORT ON READING, SCIENCE,

MATHEMATICS AND ICT LITERACY PERFORMANCE AMONG FORM

FOUR STUDENTS IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

The study aims to examine students’ literacy performance levels, knowledge

and cognitive skills and performance differences in the states of Penang, Perak, Perlis,

Kedah, Selangor, Kelantan, Terengganu and Johor. The eight states that participated

in this study represent the North zone (Penang, Perak, Perlis and Kedah), South zone

(Johor), Central zone (Selangor) and the East zone (Kelantan and Terengganu) of

Malaysia. The domains of reading, science, mathematics and ICT are integrated as

subjects that provide a holistic discipline to explore students’ abilities and literacy

levels across the states. The study also investigates the influence of personal, home,

school and community predictors on students’ literacy performance in reading,

science, mathematics and ICT. This study employs a mixed methods approach

incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative surveys

attempt to draw data in relation to students’ performance in each literacy domain as

well as examine factors that contribute to literacy performance. The qualitative

approach involved focus group interviews that endeavor to draw insights regarding

students’ values and literacy practices for the purpose of triangulation. The

quantitative sample consisted of 813 students while the qualitative samples comprised

160 participants. The findings on the overall literacy performance showed that

students across states attained Band 3 (Basic) in reading, Band 4 (Proficient) in science

literacy, Band 3 (Basic) in mathematics and ICT literacy. The findings revealed that

sixteen year old students attained basic level in three literacy domains namely, reading,

mathematics and ICT literacy and attained proficient level in science literacy. Results

xvii
also showed that there are differences in literacy performance across states. Based on

the overall data, the findings on the influence of literacy support revealed that there

are similarities across states as both personal and home predictors were found to have

had strong influences on literacy performance. It also revealed that states from the

north Peninsular Malaysia (such as Perlis and Kedah and East peninsular Malaysia

(such as Kelantan and Terengganu) and central state (Selangor) of Peninsular

Malaysia performed below an average literacy. Based on the findings, it is inferred

that supportive literacy factors can be a catalyst in enhancing literacy performance.

Both cognitive and non-cognitive domains are integral in influencing functional

literacy among students. Thus, there is a need to intensify co-operation among literacy

agents in order to create a supportive literacy environment as well as achieve improved

levels of equality and equity in literacy.

xviii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The 21st century has shaped our everyday lives in distinctive ways, creating

new opportunities and causing fundamental changes in all aspects of life namely

education, workforce, training and leisure (Morrell et al., 2012; Kalantzis & Cope,

2005; Salpeter, 2003). Accelerated transformation in Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) has led to the rise of new types of occupations that require new skill

sets necessitating an amalgamation of a new set of skills and knowledge. In that stance,

the role of education cannot be belittled as it plays a key function in contributing to

knowledge economy and preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century.

The emergence of knowledge societies has made literacy even more critical in

today’s global world as new knowledge and current skills pave students’ successes in

the 21st century (Wan Nor Fadhilah et al., 2016; Kivunja, 2015; Murnane et al. 2012;

Rotherham & Willingham, 2012; Schleicher, 2007; Gilbert, 2005). In addition, it is

equally important to equip students with knowledge and skills necessary to enable to

survive in this age of information and advancement in ICT which has propelled

Malaysia to attain the status of a fully developed nation by 2020 (Kek Yih et al. 2007).

Literacy skills are undeniably needed for effective and functional purposes and

participation in society particularly in preparing young adults with a strong working

knowledge and skills base essential for the future workforce. Literacy topics that are

much publicized since the beginning of the millennium delve in the areas related to

adolescent literacy and designing assessments that closely align to international

standards. The scenario above concludes that none can escape from the responsibility

of deciding what students should do in the 21st century (Allvin, 2016; Cassidy &

Ortlieb, 2012; Bellanca & Brandt, 2010).

1
The Department of Statistics (2009) states that 47.7% of the labour force in

Malaysia is between 15 to 24 years old and a total of 64% of these workers have

completed 11 years of formal schooling. This shows that the majority of workers

possess a basic diploma and a secondary school certificate. At the workplace,

employers report that novice workers lag in employment opportunities due deficits in

employability skills and mismatching of skills that do not suit the job specifications

and requirements (Heidi Yeen & Mai Neo, 2016; Dania et al, 2014; Nooraini &

Khairul, 2014). Consequently, this results in an increased level of the unemployment

rate (Abdullah et al. 2012; Ananda, 2010; Jelas & Azman 2005). This trend cuts across

the globe as youth unemployment is reported as three times higher than unemployment

rate of adults (Government of Malaysia, 2010).

To prevent the youth unemployment rate from rising, researchers concur that

students should be equipped with the requisite skills to qualify for the job market

(Mahmood et al., 2014; Mason et al. 2009). Students will not only need basic

knowledge, but also need to develop a range of skills known as ‘common knowledge’

of the new age (Trilling & Fadel, 2009; Havnes & McDowell, 2008). Education

systems should then embrace the realities which concern knowledge and skill

acquisition or risk a mismatch between what is taught in schools and what is required

in the real world (Gonzales & Ruiz, 2014; O’Hara, 2007). Houser et al. (2005) stressed

that deficits in literacy skills pose irreversible impact between the citizens and the

actual needs of the economy.

Also, the ability to perform at the optimal level in the workplace largely

depends on the effective application of transferrable knowledge and skills attained

through education. Youths need to be equipped with transferrable skills that meet the

real world’s needs. This would minimize risks and ensure potential career prospects

in new times emphasizing the importance and needs of transferrable skills to curb

2
unemployment rates among school leavers that largely stems from their inability to

transfer knowledge in new environments (Healey, 2016; Hilton, 2015; Pellegrino,

2014; Smith & Cumming, 2009).

1.2 The Role of Critical Literacy in the 21st Century Education

Education is seen as a catalyst in producing skilled and capable human capital

to ensure continued maintenance of a nation’s competitive edge in challenging era. In

critical times, many have turned to schools for answers to sustain competitiveness in

the changing global era as schools are often held responsible for nation’s economic

concerns (Christensen et al. 2008). Education in the 20th century was designed to meet

the needs of the industrialization era creating docile workers that fit a model of factory

education. Therefore, knowledge acquired in the 20th century has lost its relevancy in

the 21st century (Yong Zhao, 2014). It is timely that students are prepared with

knowledge and skills essential in developing lifelong learning.

The abilities to solve problems and think innovatively across all content areas

involving multiple levels of Blooms Taxonomy in the 21st century education is

currently widely researched (Yong Zhao, 2014; The Partnership for 21st Century

Skills, 2008; enGauge 21st Century Skills, 2003; Pillay & Elliott, 2001; Prensky,

2001; Hurd, 1998). As such, 21st century skills focus on the ability to search, analyze,

innovate and make informed decisions. These skills take precedence particularly in

jobs that entail analytic, non-routine tasks that do not involve machines and interactive

communication.

According to enGauge (2003) and Wagner (2008), education that is

concomitant with 21st century needs, focuses less on academic content knowledge and

prioritizes cognitive processing as a key skill. Numerous studies have indicated that

having proficiency in the 3R’s is rendered insufficient when employees are not able to

3
think critically in various situations (Morell, 2015; Keane et al., 2016; Crockett et. al,

2012; Schwarz, 2001). Such an insufficiency severely compromises employees’

competitiveness in securing a job despite completing formal education. It was found

that although students generally move into the workforce with varying amounts of

knowledge, they do not have sufficient understanding in applying cognitive skills in

the real world (Mkandawire & Walubita, 2015). This reveals that although students

possessed knowledge, they lacked critical literacy skills notably the ability to analyze

and solve problems. The U.S Bureau of Labour Statistics reported that individuals who

were born between after the age bracket of 1964 between the ages of 18 and 44 held

11 different occupations on average (as cited by Dohm, 2000). However, with the

current workplace demands, employees need to think critically to respond to new

situations as well as be part of the knowledge pool workers in the 21st century.

Roberts et al. (2008) state that the primary purpose of education is to equip

school leavers with the necessary skills for good careers. He posits that critical

thinking, problem solving, reasoning, analysis, interpretation and synthesizing of

information are the traits that corroborate with the current needs of education.

Universally, schools act as a focal agent in preparing students for the associated traits

in which students’ abilities are mustered developmentally (OECD, 2009).

As concerns have been raised by relevant authorities in measuring students’

abilities and their work readiness as explained above, literacy assessments such as

international assessments are interested in measuring students’ functional skills and

benchmarking students in literacy education programmes such as the Programme for

International Student Assessment (PISA), National Assessment for Adult Literacy

(NAAL), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) and as

well as addressing methodical approaches and performance outcomes (Rolf &

Monica, 2016; Broadfoot & Black, 2004).

4
These assessments reflect an increased effort to raise literacy rates across the

globe as data generated act as a basis for countries with relatively low literacy

attainments. The aim of these surveys is to provide a common denominator for

improving achievement rates and providing valuable insights for policy interventions

and identifying abilities along a band scale of competencies in determining

individuals’ literacy attainment (Esposito et al. 2011). Also, data obtained from these

assessments responsively serve as a system-level monitoring record to mark the

strengths and weaknesses of achievement so that the needs of the global education in

the 21st century can be addressed (PIRLS, 2016).

Thinking skills which involve the ability to identify, reason, evaluate and

provide solutions take precedence in one’s learning as they equip students with a

strong skills set which will surely assist then in securing employment. Studies indicate

that graduates are not as adept in tackling higher level knowledge wherein there is a

need to instill these skills as they are the forefront of today’s education (Cavanagh et

al. 2006; Baron & Henry, 2006; Mitchell, 2005).The core skills include competencies

in analyzing problems, solving problems as well as thinking critically which are

developed through constant practice and exposure to a range of cognitive processes

achieved through various literacy interactions. The Partnership for 21st century

proposed that the development of these skills will enable students to transfer their

thinking abilities into various contexts.

Researchers argue that a major educational challenge lies in increasing the

amount of ‘thinking in the curriculum’ to foster cognitive proficiency among all

students as the basic goal of education is to improve the ability of students to think

critically (Resnick, 2010). The demands of the 21st of century necessitate the usage of

higher order thinking skills as an important component raising students’ achievement

standards in order to thrive in the global workforce (Zandi, 2016; Singh et al. 2012).

5
Pink (2008) states that “we’ve moved on from an economy built on people’s backs to

an economy built on people’s right brains” (p.50). The proposition shows that the

current workforce clearly requires employees who are able to assimilate data and facts

leveraging on thinking capacity.

A standard based expectation for all students is likely to be met when teaching

methods benefits the mind, particularly when the thinking faculty is enhanced through

the introduction of thinking skills (Protheroe, 2007). When teaching and learning

emphasize higher order thinking, it focuses on consequential learning that centres on

deeper learning and discounts rote memorization (Tufekci & Demirel, 2009).

Moreover, with deliberate effort and support, critical literacy skills can be further

developed and learnt. In the attempt to propagate critical literacy, the roles of literacy

support such as individuals, home, school and community cannot be dismissed as

they are essential in providing a conducive environment in nurturing a supportive

literacy environment skills as well as providing an improved quality of education

(Zalizan et al., 2016; Partnership of 21st Century Skills, 2008 & Bronfenbrenner,

1979). The provision of an overview on the current education system and learning

practices is needed to best meet the requirements of the 21st challenges in line with

the workforce needs. The following section provides a cursory glance into the teaching

and learning environment in Malaysia.

1.3 The Malaysian Learning Environment

In 2011, findings from a research by the Higher Education Leadership

Academy (AKEPT) conducted on 41 schools indicated that 50% of the lessons

delivered did not sufficiently engage students and relied on a more passive lecture

format of content delivery. The focus was more to prepare students for summative

assessment purposes, instead of cultivating higher-order thinking skills. The Ministry

of Education has put in much effort and has carried out initiatives in improving the

6
current education system. The Blueprint was implemented to respond to the

languishing state of students’ critical thinking skills as reported in the international

assessments results such as PISA and TIMSS. The Malaysia Education Blueprint

(2013-2025) was found to be a manifestation of government transformation in getting

the best returns in human capital. The aim is to drive all national development

aspirations in transforming the national education system by introducing the different

waves periodically.

The First Wave (2013-2015) focuses on improving teacher quality and

students’ literacy, the Second Wave (2016-2020) focuses on accelerating the

improvement of the education delivery system and the Third Wave (2021-2025) is

focused on enhancing operational flexibility to cultivate a peer-led culture that leads

to professionalism. In addition, higher order thinking skills system (HOTS) was

introduced into the teaching and learning process through which students are required

to employ thinking skills to solve problems. The Ministry of Education has also

proposed a change in the exam dominated system that was highly centralized in the

direction of the school based assessment (SBA) in 2012. The SBA is a combination of

centralized examinations with school based assessments; the teachers are given more

autonomy in tailoring classroom learning and teaching instructions. Teachers’ roles

change to facilitate and monitor students’ learning activities prompting students to

engage in tasks that involve thinking skills while classroom activities are being carried

out.

In 2013, The Ministry of Education implemented the i-Think programme in

developing students’ thinking capacities particularly in nurturing thinking skills

among primary and secondary school students with the aim of cultivating lifelong

learning covering more than 1000 schools in Malaysia (Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011).

7
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Education has taken prompt steps to improve the current

learning and teaching situation among students and educators. However, the challenge

persists in forging partnerships among stake holders in developing a smart culture with

quality of thought progression. Therefore, there is a need to pay close attention to

support system and its interactions as the influence of support system impacts

students’ performance outcomes directly (Reschly & Christenson 2006; Roeser et al.

2000).

Many raised concerns that the current education system in Malaysia is

examination oriented as securing a good grade in public examinations has become the

main priority (Lee et al. 2010; Yu Cheng et al. 2009; Fook & Sidhu, 2006). Students

learn based on the kinds of questions, content and selected skills that will be tested in

public examinations due to the tedious process of preparing students for public

examinations. This is a common teaching and learning culture in the Malaysian

classroom.

Studies conducted by Semry et al. (2015), Che Musa et al. (2012) and Harrison

(2010) found that English language learners are heavily exposed to grammar based

teaching and learning. Students are taught in a mechanistic manner whereby much

priority is given to literal comprehension skills at the word and sentence recognition.

Studies conducted in the past also suggested a similar finding asserting that English

language learners are taught to focus on discrete and singular skills (Koo, 2001).

Students learn language skills that are transferred into examinations which leave them

uncritical readers when evaluating texts (Norbaiyah et al. 2014). Shafie and Nayan

(2011) posited that current reading instruction adopted in Malaysian classrooms have

produced surface readers who depend on memorization and facts making no

connection to the text. This shows that the school system has left a majority of students

without the basic skills and strategies that are required to read effectively.

8
Hussin (2006) states that science teachers tailor questions aligned with those

similar to the SPM examination (Malaysian Certificate of Education) resulting in the

design of more factual oriented questions that dwell recall as opposed to

comprehending a large passage of text. He also stated that science learning lessons in

classrooms were devoid of problems that tap thinking skills. A study conducted by

Lay Yoon (2009) found that students’ logical abilities were lower than the average

mean in most of the science competencies examined. Meng et al. (2014) reported that

secondary school students lagged in science achievement in Trends in International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for three consecutive years scoring 510 in

2003 to 471 in 2007 and 426 in 2011. This shows there is a need to foster proper

initiatives for better educational outcomes (IEA, 2008; 2012 & MOE, 2012). In fact,

Hurd (1998) observed that science textbooks in Malaysia often did not stress on

practical knowledge that could be applied in everyday life. It is argued that 21st

century science students should master critical thinking skills to better equip

themselves in meeting the challenges of the global world.

Also, drilling and practice are the most common teaching approaches adopted

by Malaysian mathematics teachers as indicated by local studies (Lim & Chew, 2007).

Traditional teaching approaches emphasize memorization and rote learning as

opposed to analytical thinking and reasoning skills. According Noor Azina (2008),

more than 70% of mathematics teachers reported using textbooks as the primary basis

of their lessons as curriculum and textbooks are regulated by the Ministry of Education

(MOE). Classroom instruction that is teacher-oriented is less likely to engage students

in mathematical reasoning (Jing Jing et al. 2016; Tan & Saw Lan, 2011).

Sam et al. (2009) found that students who had problems in solving non-routine

mathematical problems were also weak in statistical reasoning even though they

passed their mathematics examinations. It was also pointed out that although the MOE

9
had introduced teaching courseware, it lacked activities that enhanced cognitive

abilities that involved mathematical reasoning and problem solving skills. The net

effect shows that the general inability of learners in making effective linkages between

the information acquired and its application in problem solving tasks invariably stunt

the development of creativity and innovation resulting in a generation that lacks

thinking skills (Tambychik & Meerah, 2010; Nordin, 2009).

Many countries regard the understanding of ICT literacy and mastering its

basic skills and concepts as being an important core component of holistic education

besides reading, writing and numeracy. In step with prevailing international trends,

the Ministry of Education in Malaysia embarked on a programme in 2007 to expose

learners to ICT skills and concepts through the introduction of ICT literacy classes in

Malaysian secondary schools (Ministry of Education, 2003). Essentially, the ICT

syllabus in Malaysian classrooms revolves around the acquisition of terminologies,

concepts and facts about ICT. Nevertheless, ICT policy in schools remains a

contentious issue among researchers with regard to learning achievement (Hamzah et

al. 2010). Thus, learners are not required to acquire information literacy skills in order

to achieve top results in exams as information literacy does not constitute part of the

examination framework as ICT skills are not tested in examinations.

Given this backdrop, it is obvious that the culture of memorization and

regurgitation of information as model answers is highly prevalent in excelling in

examinations despite the changes in the education system. The pressure is also felt by

teachers and students to perform well in an examination dominated culture. The

conundrum has led to a surge of incompetent learners who lack thinking skills. This is

partly because learning has become mechanical and the true essence of learning is ill

captured. This is worrisome as the 21st century calls for an infusion of learning

contexts that leverage on students’ thinking abilities. Similarly, the Partnership of the

10
21st century (2008) concurs that, the 21st century learning environment act as a

support system in which students learn best when they are placed in a conducive

environment. This is because different types of inputs that students receive within the

environment will influence students’ performance outcomes. Therefore, the inclusion

of a support system that comprises the environments of home, school and community

plays an integral part in nurturing learners’ literacy skills. Hence, it can be surmised

that a similar thread runs across the four subjects- reading, science, mathematics and

ICT literacy which call for the integration of support that infuses pertinent skills in

line with 21st century learning. The following section discusses the statement of

problem of this study.

1.4 Statement of Problem

The Malaysian education context suggests that the national curriculum

specifications (2003) aspire to develop citizens who are able to think, reason and solve

problems effectively. However, heavy emphasis on examinations distorts the intended

aspirations of the curriculum as noted by the local researchers (Chap Sam & Cheng

Meng, 2010; Yu Cheng et al. 2009; Nambiar, 2007; Hussin, 2006). Past studies have

also indicated the effects of rote learning and exam drills have hampered students’

thinking skills. Rosnani & Suhailah (2003), in their book the ‘Teaching of Thinking

in Malaysia’, claimed that “many studies have begun to reveal symptoms of the

decline in students’ ability to think well, especially when schools begin to focus on

the mastery of subject content more than the process of deriving products” (p.1). The

overemphasis on examinations has caused educators to use strategies such as rote

learning and ‘spoon feeding’ that produce mediocre educational outcomes as students

are trained to answer questions aligned to national examinations (Hussin, 2006;

Anandha, 2006 & Adi Badiozaman Tuah (2006). This showed that much emphasis is

11
placed on preparing students for public examinations than equipping students with the

actual skills of learning.

The researchers posited that the students’ habit of practicing with the

forecasting of questions and memorization of answers as being two of the reasons that

they are unable to apply thinking skills when solving problems (Tan & Arshad, 2011

& Nurfaradilla, et al. 2010). The findings from international assessments such as the

Programme for International Student Assessment (2009) showed that Malaysian

students performed below the bar and were ranked in the bottom third out of 74 and

65 participating countries in reading, science and mathematics literacies. PISA results

suggest that Malaysia was 100 score points below Singapore, Japan, South Korea and

Hong Kong in these three subjects (PISA, 2009). TIMSS also showed a drop in rank

for mathematics and science attainments from the 16th (1999) to 10th (2003) and 20th

(2011) in Mathematics. Science rankings dropped from 22nd (1999), to 20th (2003),

then to 21st (2007) and dropped drastically to 32nd (2011).

The aforementioned issues do not provide a realistic estimate of students’

overall achievement and raises concerns about the roles of literacy agents in relation

to critical literacy performance. It is critical to provide a strong support system to

achieve a balanced collaboration and active engagement which stems from a number

of sources for effective impetus of change (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025).

This is primarily because literacy agents such as parents, schools, teachers and the

larger community members play crucial roles in developing critical literacy skills. In

other words, it is also how the support system enables students to grow by providing

a stimulating literacy environment. From this perspective, the learning context is

composed of critical systems that affect students’ literacy performance as both internal

and external enablers share a common mutual goal aiming to develop and nurture

critical thinkers prepared to step into the global world.

12
It is no surprise that findings from the past research correspond that education

is slanted towards producing individuals who score well in examinations but are

derailed in their ability to think critically which affects their overall functionality. In

effect, students are blamed for being inept as critical thinkers and are unable to fully

function effectively in the workforce. Only very few research projects have focused

on the importance of social support in facilitating students’ literacy and as a result,

limited research has been done to address the influence of literacy support in nurturing

critical literacy skills (Lee & Shute, 2009). Also, not much attention has been paid to

the roles of social agents in preparing students for the 21st century workforce.

Malaysia is working towards improving achievement test scores and education

outcomes among the school going population (Ministry of Education, 2013).

However, the extent of the influence of the support system is not really known in the

Malaysian context; there is an abundance of research done pertaining to the

relationship between parental, teacher and community engagement and achievement

in the Western contexts and in developed countries. Previous studies indicate that an

individual’s development is nurtured within the social contexts as supported by the

theory of human development. The foundation of their learning environments is

influenced by the interactions and social engagements that primarily occur within the

layers of environments such as home, school and the larger community (Smith, 2013;

Allen & Fraser 2007).

Having mentioned that, collaborative efforts of literacy support system

empowers students by capitalizing and fostering literacy skills particularly in the area

of critical literacy skills. Studies show that the roles of social context factors cannot

be dismissed in accounting for students’ literacy development (Peralta & Galaviz,

2013). This issue warrants attention as there seems to be little interest in investigating

the roles of internal and external social environments encompassing critical literacy

13
skills in gauging students’ performance. In order to be equipped with cognitive skills

such as the ability to think critically and to solve problems that allow individuals to

contribute successfully in society, it is important to consider the roles of supportive

literacy agents in cultivating a conducive literacy climate. This is because to produce

dynamic and successful knowledge contributors, it is vital to first create a literacy-rich

environment that promotes literacy in order to hone students’ literacy skills. This will

better prepare them for the future workforce which involves collaboration between

support systems to raise performance literacy standards.

This study investigates the extent to which the components of the support

system simultaneously influence students’ literacy performance as a collection of both

internal and external factors that contribute to performance levels in reading, science,

mathematics and ICT literacy. This is because the support systems are the sources

responsible for spurring and meeting educational goals and improving students’

academic achievements. This study attempts to shed some light on the relevant factors

affecting students’ literacy performance levels to draw implications for policy

implementations and better equip students for a challenging future workforce.

1.5 Research Objectives

The objectives of the study are to:

1. determine Form Four students’ literacy performance in a) reading literacy

b) science literacy c) mathematics literacy and d) ICT literacy in Peninsular

Malaysia

2. determine Form Four students’ performance in the domains of knowledge and

cognitive skills in a) reading literacy b) science literacy c) mathematics literacy

d) ICT literacy in Peninsular Malaysia

3. determine Form Four students’ performance differences in a) reading literacy

b) science literacy c) mathematics literacy and d) ICT literacy in Peninsular

14
Malaysia

4. examine the influence of literacy support (personal, home, school and community)

on a) reading literacy b) science literacy c) mathematics literacy and d) ICT literacy

performance in Peninsular Malaysia

1.6 Research Questions

The research questions of this study are as the follows:

1. How have Form Four students performed in a) reading literacy, b) science

literacy c) mathematics literacy and d) ICT literacy in Peninsular Malaysia?

2. How have Form Four students performed in the domains of knowledge and

cognitive skills in a) reading literacy b) science literacy c) mathematics literacy d)

ICT literacy in Peninsular Malaysia?

3. To what extent does Form Four students’ performance differ in a) reading literacy

b) science literacy c) mathematics literacy and d) ICT literacy in Peninsular

Malaysia?

4. To what extent does support system (personal, home, school and community)

influence Form Four students’ a) reading literacy b) science literacy c)

mathematics literacy and d) ICT literacy performance in Peninsular Malaysia?

1.7 Research Hypothesis

Based on the research questions advanced previously, several hypotheses were

drawn for research questions 3 and 4 as shown below:

3(a) H01: There is no difference in reading literacy performance among states in

Peninsular Malaysia?

(b) H02: There is no difference in science literacy performance among states in

Peninsular Malaysia?

15
(c) H03: There is no difference in mathematics literacy performance among states

in Peninsular Malaysia?

(d) H04: There is no difference in ICT literacy performance among states in

Peninsular Malaysia?

4(a) H01: Support system (personal, home, school, community) does not influence

reading literacy performance in Peninsular Malaysia?

(b) H02: Support system (personal, home, school, community) does not influence

science literacy performance in Peninsular Malaysia?

(c) H03: Support system (personal, home, school, community) does not influence

mathematics literacy performance in Peninsular Malaysia?

(d) H04: Support system (personal, home, school, community) does not influence

ICT literacy performance in Peninsular Malaysia?

1.8 Significance of the Study

This study attempts to examine the influence of the support system such as

individuals, the home, the school and the community on students’ literacy

performance in reading, science, mathematics and ICT literacy in Peninsular

Malaysia. This study investigates learners’ overall performance in four important

areas namely reading, science, mathematics and ICT literacy.

Assessing students’ literacy performance is an important task as it can

empower policy makers, educationists and employers to make data-driven decisions

aimed at determining students’ performance for a variety of purposes. Firstly, such an

attempt will benefit policy makers, education practitioners, curriculum designers and

even employers as it will help them identify the general literacy skills that underscore

students’ abilities. This is because the findings regarding the relative strengths and

weaknesses of learners can serve as useful inputs in guiding policy formulation,

16
implementation and evaluation at the curriculum level. This will enable policy makers

and curriculum designers to make necessary changes to realign syllabi integrating

thinking skills with students’ valued practices.

Secondly, important baseline information can also be obtained pertaining to

respective performances in reading, science, mathematics and ICT literacy as the study

measures the abilities of sixteen year olds in applying knowledge and skills in each

literacy domain. The study will provide empirical evidence about the representation

of literacy performance trends across states analyzed in this study, in monitoring

students’ literacy performance outcomes that will assist policy makers and curriculum

designers in planning as well as implementing collaborative literacy activities among

home, school and community literacy support agents.

Also, remedial assistance and immediate attention could be provided to

students from the states selected for this study, where literacy performance is found to

be at a critical level or below the average literacy baseline from the performance levels.

In addition, the roles of literacy agents could be monitored so that these literacy trends

are observed and profiled in order to serve as a useful input for improved collaborative

planning and policy-making. This is in line with the Malaysian Education Blueprint

(2013-2025) plan that aims to provide access to quality education that emphasizes

critical thinking skills.

Finally, the information and data generated is useful in guiding educational

practitioners, parents, educational planners, employers, policy makers and

communities in preparing students’ transitional process from school to the work force.

This study will aid literacy support agents, educational practitioners and policy makers

in developing students’ critical literacy skill in setting up mutual partnerships among

key literacy enablers within the environment. Since employers lament that graduates

are not ready for work as they lack certain skills deemed crucial by the partnership of

17
the 21st century skills Such a move will empower students to become dynamic

learners and thinkers thereby preparing them for the future workplace in a much better

way.

1.9 Limitations of the Study

This study is limited within the scope of literacy performance that focuses on

fourth form students and benchmarking sixteen year old students. The literacy survey

focuses on four core subjects namely reading, science, mathematics and ICT literacy

and assesses only selected knowledge and cognitive processing skills of students’

literacy performance. In addition, the number of items in the literacy achievement test

is limited in each section due to the constraints of time.

The study only focuses on the influence of the literacy support system in the

provisional aspect of literacy. The study does not include other non-cognitive variables

such as motivation, self-perception of ability, or social-emotional skills in relation to

literacy performance. The study aims to provide a general representation of 16 year

old literacy skills in the selected schools from eight states. Hence, matters pertaining

to teaching techniques, classroom instruction or strategies are not included in this

study.

18
1.10 Definitions of Key Terms

1. Literacy Support

Literacy support refers to personal, home, school and community support that

influence students’ literacy performance. It is a support system that creates an

engaging literacy environment in developing students’ literacy skills leveraging on

provisional support such as availability of facilities and resources such as materials

and tools (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

2. Reading Literacy

Reading literacy refers to understanding, interpreting, comprehending as well as

engaging in informational texts in order to function and participate effectively in

society (PISA, 2009).

3. Science Literacy

Science literacy refers to the ability to use scientific knowledge to understand, identify,

explain and draw evidence-based conclusions based on scientific reasoning to function

and participate effectively in society (PISA, 2009).

4. Literacy ability

Literacy ability refers to the learner’s capability in performing tasks that utilizes the

operation of the knowledge domain and cognitive processing skills that involve the

ability to remember, understand, analyse, apply and evaluate in reading, science,

mathematics and ICT literacy related tasks.

5. Literacy Practice

Literacy practice refers to literacy activities that are regulated as acts of ‘doing’ for

everyday practical purposes related to reading, science, mathematics and ICT

literacy (Baynham, 1985).

19
6. Value

Values refers to affective association towards literacy practices that causes one to

place positive or negative values based on benefits and practical usage (Street, 1984).

7. Literacy Performance

Literacy performance refers to the varying levels of the students’ performance

measured using bands scores such as Band 1(scores: 0-20), Band 2(scores: 21-40%),

Band 3(scores: 41-60%), Band 4(scores: 61-80%) and Band 5(scores: 81-100%)

(PISA, 2009). It is an attempt to link literacy with levels of skills that one needs in

order be attain functionality in the investigated areas related to the study.

8. Functional Literacy

Functional literacy refers to one’s ability in carrying out the demands of tasks

successfully as well as possessing the required knowledge and skills in order to

function effectively in a society (White, 2011).

20
1.11 Plan of the Study

This study consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter which

describes the background of the study and the statement of the problem. This chapter

also sets out the research objectives and the research questions of the study. Other

components of the chapter include the significance of the study, the definition of key

terms and the limitations of the study.

Chapter 2 which is allocated to the review of literature elaborates on issues that

ground the study. This chapter reviews areas related to literacy such as functional

literacy, literacy performance and literacy support. The chapter reviews theories

related to the study and provides a theoretical framework of the study.

Chapter 3 elaborates on the methodology employed in this study focusing on

data collection and analysis. It centres on target population selection, research

techniques utilized and procedures adhered to, in conducting this study. Chapter 4

presents the empirical findings and results of the study.

Chapter 5 summarizes the entire study and contains a discussion on the

findings in line with the research questions of this study. It also details the conclusions,

contributions and implications of the findings and recommendations for future work.

1.12 Conclusion

This chapter provides a discussion on the expansion of literacy to literacies as

the notion of a ‘literate’ society is more than a society with high literacy rates. Literate

societies should enable individuals to acquire, develop, sustain and use relevant

literacy skills through basic schooling through good quality youth and adult literacy

programmes and environments. Therefore, the influence of literacy support is vital in

creating a functionally literate society. This chapter emphasizes the importance of

21
preparing students to meet the challenges of the 21st century which calls for core skills

that are relevant in today’s new learning environment. Also, the influence of the

support system is valuable in improving and nurturing literacy for better performance

outcomes. In the following chapter, a review of the related literature will be discussed

pertaining to the current study.

22
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Global education focuses on balancing knowledge transmission with explicit

emphasis on 21st century skills aimed at equipping young adolescence for future

employment. This is because the core of a quality education focuses on instilling

students with the required knowledge and skills to succeed in a competitive global

market. As initiatives are being undertaken to infuse critical skills in learning, it is

timely to connect and leverage a supportive network because relevant issues, concerns

and interests have been raised by key international league players such as UNESCO

and international assessments in setting a standard benchmark in the 21st century. This

chapter specifically reviews the theoretical underpinnings related to the present study

and offers relevant discussion to unravel various perspectives stemming from the

issues addressed to shape concrete initiatives.

2.2 The Development of Literacy

The conventional understanding of literacy which focuses on one’s ability to

read and write is currently unsuitable to fit in reality of the millennium that involves

more than making sense of “page bound, official, standard forms of the national

language” (Cope and Kalantzis, 2000, p. 9; Fong & Peng, 2016). Radical changes in

the political, economic, technological and social platforms require immediate

responses in addressing fundamental changes in today’s global society (Ntiri, 2009;

Jacobs 2009). The Education for All Global Monitoring Report (2006), also posits that

academic research, national policies and agendas have influenced the augmentation of

the concept of literacy in its scope and meanings. These changes have compelled the

23
need for re-visioning novel perspectives on literacy resulting in growth and expansion

of definitions of literacy as there is a need to accommodate these literacies in the

current literacy climate (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Ahmed, 2011; Stordy, 2015).

Literacy research has assimilated many areas and includes a wide range of

disciplines, deriving application perspectives from education, psychology, sociology,

anthropology and history thus paving the way for different kinds of literacy such as

information literacy, media literacy, health literacy, financial literacy, cultural literacy

and metaliteracy. The term literacy was introduced in the nineteenth century that

basically entails one’s ability to decode and encode texts (Gurak, 2001). In the 1980’s,

literacy gained paramount importance as it takes on various forms of literacies

(Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). The concept of literacy has been reconceptualized to

absorb characteristics from various fields creating new literacy branches (Caroll,

2011). It shows the diversity and multi-faceted roles that literacy has taken on over the

years and is ever expanding to co-exist with time (Joint Task Force, 2010; Koo, 2001).

To put it succinctly, literacy is described:

“Like sand, without intrinsic shape, defined and redefined over time”
Venezky, Wagner &Ciliberti, 1990: IX)

In addition over the last century, theorists and practitioners have looked at

literacy which can be summed as three major tenets of quantitative, qualitative and

pluralist literacy approaches. The quantitative definition primarily refers to

quantifiable numbers that are used in understanding literacy for instrumental,

pragmatic and political reasons. The qualitative definition refers to descriptions of

literacy characteristics and traits and the pluralist defines literacy as the acquisition

and application of literacy and its dimensions in multiple social contexts (Roberts,

1995).

24

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi