Education Policy for Globalization: the Malaysian Experiences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v2i1.p279-285Keywords:
Education Policy, Globalization, Medium of Instruction PolicyAbstract
Phillipson (1998) argued that "globalization policies serve to ensure that the role of English is maintained and perpetuated. The key player in educational policy is the World Bank." Mazrui (1997) said "the World Bank's real position...encourages the consolidation of the imperial languages in Africa. Its strategies for stabilising and revitalising universities absolutely do not mention of the place of language at tertiary level of African education." According to Stiglitz (2002), "the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO were the three main institutions that govern globalization....they also have been at the centre of the major economic issues for the last two decades". According to Coulmas (1992), the spread of English is linked to modernisation in two ways. Firstly, English is seen as a central tool by which the process of modernisation (globalization) can be achieved particularly in developing societies. Secondly, monolingualism (English) is seen as a practical advantage for modern societies while multilingualism is viewed as a characteristic of traditional societies. The main issue in language policy in any country, especially those categorised as third world countries, is whether the policy is formed according to the agenda of the normal populace or the trans-national corporations. Spring, (1998) argued that "in this scenario elites need to be proficient in English in order to serve their own and global interest, and local languages must facilitate internal policing of an export – oriented economy and attempt to limit social unrest so that this economy can persist. Trans-national corporations are increasingly active in determining the content of education worldwide." Stiglitz (2002) also claimed that "globalization is powerfully driven by international corporations." This development illustrates how the needs and will of these trans-national corporations give rise to producing customer-like citizens more than critical citizens.References
Alidou, H. 2004, ‘Medium of instruction in post-colonial Africa’, in Medium Of Instruction Policies, eds., J.W. Tollefson and A.B.M. Tsui, LEA, New Jersey.
Alis, P. 2004, ‘Nationalism and Nationism: A Study of Language Medium Policy in Malaysia’. Paper presented at 36th World Congress of IIS in Beijing, 7-11 July.
Annamalai, E. 2004, ‘Medium of power: The question of English in education in India’, in Medium Of Instruction Policies, eds. J.W. Tollefson& A.B.M. Tsui, LEA, Mahwah, NJ.
Chai, C.H. 1971, Planning Education for A Plural Society, UNESCO Institute For Educational Planning, Paris.
Carnoy, M.2002, ‘Latin America: the new dependency and educational reform’. In Educational Restructuring in the Context of Globalization and National Policy, H. Daun, Routledge, NY.
Daun, H. 2002, Education Restructuring in the Context of Globalisation and National Policy, Routledge, London.
Davies, S. & Guppy, N. 1997, ‘Globalization and educational reform in Anglo-American democracies’, Comparatives Education Review, 41:4, pp 435-59
Enloe, C. 1973, Ethnic Conflicts and Political Development, Little Brown, Boston.
Fishman, J.A. & Fishman, S.G. 2000, ‘Rethinking language defence’, in Rights To Language: Equity, Power and Education, ed. R. Phillipson, LEA, NJ, Pp. 23-27.
Gill, S.K. 2004, ‘Medium of instruction policy in higher education in Malaysia vs. internationalization’ in Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda, Whose Agenda, eds., J.W. Tollefson& A.D.M Tsui, LEA, New Jersey, Pp. 135-152.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1975, Learning How to Mean, Explorations in the Development Of Language, Edward Arnold, UK.
Hassan, A. 2002, ‘Dasar bahasa dan peranan negara di Malaysia’, Siri Bicara Bahasa, No. 9, DBP, Kuala Lumpur.
Kunio, Y. 2001, Globalization and National Identity, UKM Publishers, Bangi.
Nababan, P.W.J. 1981, ‘Language perception and medium of instruction’, In NL As Medium Of Instruction, EdsAsmah Omar & Noor Ain Nor, DBP, KL.
Pennycook, A. 2002, ‘Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and governmentality’, In Language Policies In Education, Ed J. Tollefson, LEA, NJ, Pp. 91-110.
Phillipson, R. 1992, Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Ranaweera, A.M. 1976, ‘Sri Langka: Science teaching in the national languages’ in Prospects, vol.3, pp.416-423
Snodgrass, D.R. 1980, Inequality and Economic Development In Malaysia, Oxford University Publishers, KL.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1999, ‘Human rights and language wrongs a future for diversity’, Language Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 5. pp. 112-123.
Sotomayer, M. 1977, ‘Language, culture and ethnicity in developing self- concept’, Social Casework, 58, vol.1, pp 195-203.
Smith, A. 1998, Nationalism and Modernism, Routledge, London.
Spring, J. 1998, The Sorting Machine Revisited: National Education Policy Since 1945, Longmans, NY.
Stromquist, N.P. &Monkman, K. 2000, Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across Culture, Rowman, Lanham.
Shamsul, A.B. 2003, One State, A Few Nations and Many Languages: Language Identity, Formation and Nation Construction In Malaysia, paper presented at Solls, KL, 16-19 December.
Tollefson, J.W. &Tsui, A.B.M. 2004, Medium Of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda, Whose Agenda, LEA Publishers, NJ.
UKM, 1989, The Process Of National Integration In The Education Setting, Faculty Of Education, Bangi
Water, M. 1995, Globalization,Routledge, London.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 European Journal of Social Science Education and Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
