Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSN 2225-0883
IDOSI Publications, 2012
Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract: Arabic language is considered as a special language, at least for Muslims, as it is the language of the
Quran. Therefore the language has been given emphasis in Islamic education system. In fact, it is not only
introduced in religious stream schools but also in daily secondary schools as an elective subject. Realizing the
important of Arabic language, the Ministry of Education, Malaysia through the Islamic and Moral Education
Department has introduced Arabic Language Communication Model in the j-QAF programme. It was initially
implemented at primary school level in year 2005 and now has almost completed a round of its implementation.
As the Arabic Language Communication Model is still newly introduced, a research to identify the
effectiveness of its implementation has been conducted. 309 j-QAF teachers in Selangor state were involved
in this research. The quantitative data gained were analysed using the Statistical Package for The Social Science
(SPSS) programme. Besides discussing the research findings, the researchers also analysed the problems faced
in the implementation of the Arabic language Communication Model and a few suggestions have also been
highlighted.
Key words: Islamic education system
Arabic Language
INTRODUCTION
Communication Model
j-QAF programme
Corresponding Author: Asmawati Suhid, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: +60389467907.
95
Gender
Male
Female
82
227
26.5
73.5
Age
59
189
59
2
19.1
61.2
19.1
0.6
Position
Permanent
Training
158
151
51.1
48.9
Teaching j-QAF
Experience
1 year
2 years
3 years
148
78
83
47.9
25.2
26.9
SPM
STPM
Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
0
0
309
0
0
0
100.0
0
University
Overseas
Local
79
230
25.5
74.5
Specification
Islamic Studies
Islamic Education
Arabic Language
247
7
55
79.9
2.3
17.8
Research Findings
j-QAF Teachers Background: In terms of gender
(Table 1), 82 people (26.5%) were male teachers while the
rest were female teachers (227 people) whereas in terms of
j-QAF teachers age, their age range was 23-37 years old.
Overall it was found that the majority of j-QAF teachers
were of age 26-30 years old (189 teachers, 61.2%).
This was followed by those who were less than 25
years old (59 teachers, 19.1%) and those of 31-35 years
old (59 teachers, 19.1%). Only two (0.6%) j-QAF teachers
were more than 36 years old.
In terms of position status, 158 teachers (51.1%) were
permanent j-QAF teachers while 151 teachers (48.8%)
were in training. This means that more than half of the
j-QAF teachers have professional qualification - Diploma
in Education which was about 51.1%. With regard to the
highest academic qualification, it was found that all j-QAF
teachers had Bachelors degree.
In terms of j-QAF teaching experiences, majority of
them had teaching experiences for a year (418 teachers,
47.9%). This was followed by 83 (26.9%) teachers who
had more than 3 years of teaching experiences and 78
teachers (25.2%) who had 2 to 3 years of teaching
experiences.
j-QAF teachers in this research consisted of those
who had local and overseas qualifications. Majority of
them were locally qualified (230 teachers, 74.5%) while the
rest of them were overseas qualified (79 teachers, 25.5%)
such as from al-Azhar University, Jordan University and
universities in Indonesia. When they furthered their
-----------
------------
Agree
Strongly Agree
------------ ------------
-------------------
No. Statement
Mean
SD
0.0
0.6
2.3
131
42.4
169
54.7
4.51
.57
0.0
0.0
2.3
164
53.1
138
44.7
4.42
.53
0.0
0.6
1.6
152
49.2
150
48.5
4.45
.56
0.6
11
3.6
17
5.5
163
52.8
116
37.5
4.22
.76
1.3
1.3
16
5.2
160
51.8
125
40.5
4.28
.73
26
8.4
141
45.6 75
24.3 51
16.5
16
5.2
2.64
1.02
45.0 33
10.7 28
9.1
2.3
2.02
1.00
3.6
7.8
31.4
171
55.3
4.34
.91
1.9
11
24
97
Less Agree
-----------
Not Sure
Agree
f
Strongly Agree
--------------------
No. Statement
Mean SD
0.0
1.0
32
10.4 200
64.7
74
23.9
4.11
.60
0.3
29
9.4
36
11.7 180
58.3
63
20.4
3.89
.84
0.3
11
3.6
48
15.5 176
57.0
73
23.6
4.00
.75
1.6
50
16.2 41
13.3 150
48.5
63
20.4
3.69
1.02
43.0 39
12.6 28
9.1
1.6
2.01
.98
13
9.4
13.9 184
59.5
40
12.9
3.67
.95
4.2
29
43
Never
Seldom
Often
-----------------
---------------
-----------------
-----------------
Very often
------------------
No.
Statement
Mean
SD
1.
Thematic approach
1.9
2.3
80
25.9
175
56.6
41
13.3
2.77
.77
2.
Ajuk-Hafaz approach
0.3
0.3
11
3.6
202
65.4
94
30.4
3.25
.56
3.
Natural approach
0.3
0.3
41
13.3
216
69.9
50
16.2
3.01
.58
4.
Direct approach
0.3
0.3
36
11.7
202
65.4
69
22.3
3.09
.61
5.
Drill method
0.0
0.0
19
6.1
158
51.1
132
42.7
3.36
.59
6.
Eclectic approach
1.0
14
4.5
82
26.5
174
56.3
36
11.7
2.73
.76
7.
296
95.8
0.0
0.6
2.9
0.6
0.12
.61
Table 5: The effectiveness of Arabic Language Communication Model teaching and learning techniques
Not prepared
Not Effective
Not sure
Effective
-----------------
----------------
-----------------
-----------------
Very Effective
------------------
No.
Statement
Mean
SD
1.
Thematic approach
1.6
1.9
66
21.4
178
57.6
54
17.5
2.87
.77
2.
Ajuk-Hafaz approach
0.0
0.0
11
3.6
195
63.1
103
33.3
3.29
.53
3.
Natural approach
0.0
0.0
42
13.6
203
65.7
64
20.7
3.07
.58
4.
Direct approach
0.0
0.0
37
12.0
187
60.5
85
27.5
3.15
.60
5.
Drill method
0.0
0.3
12
3.9
161
52.1
135
43.7
3.39
.58
6.
Eclectic approach
0.6
10
3.2
69
22.3
178
57.6
50
16.2
2.85
.74
7.
293
94.8
0.0
0.6
11
3.6
1.0
0.15
.69
Less Good
Average
Good
Very good
-------------
--------------
--------------
---------------
--------------
No. Statement
Mean SD
1.
0.0
0.6
38
12.3
176
57.0
93
30.1
4.16
2.
0.0
2.3
95
30.7
158
51.1
49
15.9
3.80
.72
3.
10
3.2
23
7.4
134
43.4
108
35.0
34
11.0
3.43
.90
4.
0.0
1.9
39
12.6
188
60.8
76
24.6
4.08
.66
5.
0.0
2.9
64
20.7
177
57.3
59
19.1
3.92
.71
6.
0.0
17
5.5
110
35.6
147
47.6
35
11.3
3.64
.75
7.
12
3.9
34
11.0
133
43.0
105
34.0
25
8.1
3.31
.91
8.
1.3
20
6.5
105
34.0
145
46.9
35
11.3
3.60
.82
9.
0.0
2.6
69
22.3
181
58.6
51
16.5
3.89
.69
10.
0.0
2.9
76
24.6
183
59.2
41
13.3
3.82
.68
11.
1.6
19
6.1
97
31.4
152
49.2
36
11.7
3.63
.82
12.
21
6.8
37
12.0
128
41.4
96
31.1
27
8.7
3.22
1.00
.65
No. Statement
Weak
-----------f
%
Less Satisfy
-------------f
%
Average
-------------f
%
Satisfy
--------------f
%
Very Satisfy
--------------f
%
Mean
SD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
2
6
0
1
2
0
4
2
3
6
300
12
20
10
12
5
13
34
8
9
16
0
61
56
40
46
32
60
52
41
37
62
1
184
184
190
185
189
183
173
191
188
181
5
50
43
69
65
81
53
46
67
72
44
3
3.86
3.77
4.02
3.97
4.10
3.89
3.72
4.01
4.02
3.77
0.12
.74
.83
.69
.73
.69
.72
.89
.71
.74
.82
.71
Undergo Training/Course
Prepared teaching aids
Textbooks
Students Exercise/Activity Books
Teachers Guidebook
Guidance and advice from the school authority
Allocated teaching time
Support from the school authority
Support from the management
Support from the parents
Others (Please state) :
0.6
1.9
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
1.3
0.6
1.0
1.9
97.1
3.9
6.5
3.2
3.9
1.6
4.2
11.0
2.6
2.9
5.2
0.0
19.7
18.1
12.9
14.9
10.4
19.4
16.8
13.3
12.0
20.1
0.3
59.5
59.5
61.5
59.9
61.2
59.2
56.0
61.8
60.8
58.6
1.6
16.2
13.9
22.3
21.0
26.2
17.2
14.9
21.7
23.3
14.2
1.0
CONCLUSION
Arabic Language Communication Model class is
among the initiatives taken by Ministry of Education
Malaysia to instill students interest in Arabic language.
100
2.
3.
4.
5.
REFERENCES
1.
6.
101