Journal of Advances in Education Research

Download PDF (231.8 KB) PP. 31 - 48 Pub. Date: January 1, 2021

DOI: 10.22606/jaer.2021.61005

• Aina Hartini Mohamad Khair^*
  Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
• Parilah Mohd Shah
  Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

This study aims to investigate the English teachers’ views on the CEFR-aligned curriculum adoption in Malaysian primary ESL classroom. This paper intends to investigate the challenges surrounding teachers’ pedagogical practices on CEFR-based incorporated lesson. The study employs a quantitative approach where data were collected via survey questionnaires which is adapted and distributed to ESL primary school teachers in Malaysia via random purposive sampling. A descriptive statistic was used to analyse the quantitative data. The findings revealed that most of the teachers admitted having limited knowledge and minimum exposure on the CEFR implementation. Yet, they perceived positive perceptions on the revised CEFR-aligned curriculum adoption despite facing some difficulties and challenges. Teachers’ perceptions are vital for the authorities and policy makers to review and provide measures to ensure that stakeholders are fully prepared and capable to incorporate CEFR successfully and effectively in English language education.

teacher perceptions, Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), English language curriculum, education reforms, challenges

[1] 1. Abdullah, A. N., Talif, R., & Jan, J. M. (2012). Flowers in the garden: A glance on multilingualism in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistics (MJLL), 1(1): 45-51. https://doi.org/10.24200/mjll.vol1iss1pp45-51

[2] 2. Aziz, A. H. A. A., Ab Rashid, R., & Zainudin, W. Z. W. (2018). The enactment of the Malaysian common European framework of reference (CEFR): National master trainer’s reflection. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2): 409-417.

[3] 3. Aziz, M. S. A., & Uri, N. F. M. (2017). CEFR in Malaysia: Current Issues and Challenges in the Implementation of the Framework. In 3rd International Conference on Language Testing and Assessment and the 5th British Council New Directions in Language Assessment Conference, Shanghai, China.

[4] 4. Azman, H. (2016). Implementation and challenges of English language education reform in Malaysian primary schools. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature?, 22(3). http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2016-2203-05

[5] 5. Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). ELT Journal Advance Access published August 16, 2013. Multilingual Matters, 270: 34-95.

[6] 6. Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

[7] 7. Curriculum Development Division. (2011). Standard Document of Primary School Curriculum: Basic Core Module of English Language for National Schools. Putrajaya: Author.

[8] 8. Darmi, R., Saad, N. S. M., Abdullah, N., Puteh-Behak, F., Zakaria, Z. A., & Adnan, J. N. I. A. (2017). Teachers’ views on students’ performance in English language proficiency courses via CEFR descriptors. International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 3(8): 363-370. http://ijaedu.ocerintjournals.org/en/download/article-file/338673

[9] 9. David, M. K., & Manan, S. A. (2015). Language ideology and the linguistic landscape: A study in Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Linguistics & The Human Sciences, 11(1): 51-66.

[10] 10. Devi Krishnan, P., & Md Yunus, M. (2019). Blended CEFR in Enhancing Vocabulary among Low Proficiency Students. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, (5). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3431755

[11] 11. Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S., Brown, P., & Smith, M. (2011). Teachers’ reactions to CEFR’s task-based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies Europe, 6: 109-120. https://gerflint.fr/Base/Europe6/faez.pdf

[12] 12. Fei, W. F., Siong, L. K., Kim, L. S., & Yaacob, A. (2012). English use as an identity marker among Malaysian undergraduates. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature?, 18(1). http://ejournal.ukm.my/3l/article/view/956

[13] 13. Foley, J. A. (2019). Adapting CEFR for English language education in ASEAN, Japan and China. The New English Teacher, 13(2): 101. http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/newEnglishTeacher/article/view/ 3879

[14] 14. Ishak, W. I. W., & Mohamad, M. (2018). The Implementation of Common European Framework of References (CEFR): What Are the Effects Towards LINUS Students’ Achievements? Creative Education, 9(16), 2714-2731. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.916205

[15] 15. Ismail, A. A. M. (2018). Content analysis on CEFR English textbooks for advanced Malaysian ESL Learners.

[16] 16. James, P. R., & Aziz, A. A. (2020). Perceptions and Expectancies of Malaysian Students on Cultural Elements in Foreign Textbooks. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, 10(4).

[17] 17. Jerald, G. G., & Shah, P. M. (2019). The Impact of CEFR-Aligned Curriculum in the Teaching of ESL in Julau District: English Teachers’ Perspectives. In International Journal of Innovative Research and Creative Technology, 4 (6). http://www.ijirct.org/papers/IJIRCT1801023.pdf

[18] 18. Johar, N. A., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). Teachers’ Perceptions on Using the Pulse 2 textbook. https://cdn-cms.f-static.com/uploads/1759562/normal_5d7c40da6128a.pdf

[19] 19. Kaur, P., & Shapii, A. (2018). Language and Nationalism in Malaysia: A Language policy Perspective. International Journal, 3(7): 1-10. http://www.ijlgc.com/PDF/IJLGC-2018-07-03-01.pdf

[20] 20. Kok, N. M. & Aziz, A. A. (2019). English Language Teachers’ Perceptions on The Implementation Of CEFR-Aligned Curriculum Among Primary Schools in Malaysia. Seminar Wacana Pendidikan 2019 M (SWAPEN 2.0).

[21] 21. Lo, Y. Y. (2018). English teachers’ concern on Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR): An application of CBAM. JuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 6(1): 46-58. https://juku.um.edu.my/article/view/11174

[22] 22. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

[23] 23. Mezirow, Jack (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74(1): 5–12.

[24] 24. Ministry of Education. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013–2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary Education). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.

[25] 25. Moser, J. (2015). From a knowledge-based language curriculum to a competency-based one: The CEFR in action in Asia. Asian EFL Journal, 88: 1-29.

[26] 26. Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the implementation of the CEFR in Asian contexts: Focus on communication strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46: 771-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.196

[27] 27. Ngo, X. M. (2017). Diffusion of the CEFR among Vietnamese teachers: A mixed methods investigation. Asian EFL Journal, 19(1): 7-32.

[28] 28. Normand-Marconnet, N., & Bianco, J. L. (2013). The European Conference on Language Learning 2013, Official Conference Proceedings. The International Academic Forum (IAFOR) 2013 Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution Non-Commercial International. Proceedings ISSN, 2188, 002X.

[29] 29. North, B., & Panthier, J. (2016). Updating the CEFR descriptors: The context. Research Notes, 63: 16-23. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/301971-research-notes- 63.pdf#page=18

[30] 30. Piccardo, E. (2012). Multidimensionality of assessment in the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR). OLBI Working Papers, 4. https://uottawa.scholarsportal.info/ottawa/index.php/ILOB-OLBI/article/view/1106/958

[31] 31. Rashid, R. A., Abdul Rahman, S. B., & Yunus, K. (2017). Reforms in the policy of English language teaching in Malaysia. Policy Futures in Education, 15(1): 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1478210316679069

[32] 32. Runnels, J., & Runnels, V. (2019). Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference—A bibliometric analysis of research from 1990-2017. CEFR Journal, 18.

[33] 33. Sabbir, F. (2019). Perceived View Of Teachers Towards Pentaksiran Tingkatan Tiga (PT3) (Form Three Assessment) English Language: A Case Study. https://education.uitm.edu.my/ajue/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 12/MEDC-4.-Fatima_binti_Sabbir.pdf

[34] 34. Savski, K. (2019). Putting the plurilingual/pluricultural back into CEFR: Reflecting on policy reform in Thailand and Malaysia. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(2): 644.

[35] 35. Selvadurai, S., Liu, O. P., Radzi, M. M., Hoon, O. P., Tee, O. P., & Saibeh, B. (2017). Debating education for nation building in Malaysia: National school persistence or vernacular school resistance? Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 11(13). http://ejournal.ukm.my/gmjss/article/view/19111

[36] 36. Shah, P. M., & Ahmad, F. (2007). A comparative account of the bilingual education programs in Malaysia and the United States. GEMA Online? Journal of Language Studies, 7(2). http://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/ view/180

[37] 37. Shulgina, T., & Sagaran, G. (2017). A Survey of English Language Teaching in Higher Institutions of Learning in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. doi:10.20944/preprints201711. 0013.v1

[38] 38. Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., & Chi, L. J. (2018). CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2): 452-463. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311

[39] 39. Srakang, L. (2014). A study of teachers’ perceptions toward using English textbooks: A case study of 10th grade English teachers in Maha Sarakham Province (Doctoral dissertation).

[40] 40. Subramaniam, G. (2007). The changing tenor of English in multicultural postcolonial Malaysia. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature?, 13. http://ejournals.ukm.my/3l/article/view/1029

[41] 41. Sülü, A. & K?r, E. (2014). Language teachers’ views on CEFR. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 1(5): 358-364. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/69/97

[42] 42. Thirusanku, J., & Yunus, M. M. (2014). Status of English in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 10(14): 254.

[43] 43. Tiep, N. N. (2017). EFL Teachers’Perceptions Towards the use of CEFR-V. European Journal of English Language Teaching. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejel/article/view/856

[44] 44. Uri, N. F. M., & Abd Aziz, M. S. (2018). Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia: Teachers’ awareness and the Challenges. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature?, 24(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-13

[45] 45. Uri, N. F. M., & Aziz, M. S. A. (2019). Teachers’ Evaluation of The Suitability of Reading Syllabus Specifications to the CEFR.

[46] 46. Yamat, H., Umar, N. F. M., & Mahmood, M. I. (2014). Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the English Language Policy: An Education Reform. International Education Studies, 7(13): 197-205. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1071266

[47] 47. Yee, B. C., & Periasamy, V. (2019). English Language Teachers’ Perceptions Towards Malaysian University English Test (MUET) as a measure to test teachers’ language proficiency.

[48] 48. Yuniarti, Y. (2017). Developing speaking materials based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for increasing the students’ speaking skill. Pedagogy: Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(2): 143-156. https://doi.org/10.32332/pedagogy.v4i2.384

[49] 49. Zaaba, Z., Aning, I., Gunggut, H., Ramadan, F., & Umemoto, K. (2010). English as a medium of instruction in the public higher education institution: A case study of language-in-education policy in Malaysia. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 2(5): 157-165.

[50] 50. Zaaba, Z., Ramadan, F. I., Anning, I. N. A., Gunggut, H., & Umemoto, K. (2011). Language-in-education policy: A study of policy adjustment strategy in Malaysia. International Journal of Education. http://hdl.handle.net/ 10119/9488