Curriculum reform in Malaysia: The CEFR experience
List of Authors
  • Paramjit Kaur , Qistina Marzuki

Keyword
  • CEFR, curriculum reform, curriculum change, English, Malaysia

Abstract
  • Curriculum change and reform is needed for a country to stay relevant with the fast-changing global economy and social changes. However, often curriculum change and reform may not bring about the desired changes in school practices as teachers may not fully understand these changes in the curriculum. In Malaysia, the English language curriculum has undergone many cycles of changes and reform throughout the years since independence. In 2016, the Malaysian Ministry of Education (MOE) introduced the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) in the primary and secondary English language curriculum. This introduction of the CEFR introduces changes in the teaching approaches and the assessment methods used in English classrooms. This paper examines the perceptions and views of English school teachers on the introduction and implementation of the CEFR in the Malaysian school curriculum. This study used a 4-point Likert scale survey that was adapted from two sources. 500 primary school teachers were involved in the survey. Seven teachers were interviewed online as well. The study employed the snowball sampling method, whereby an online version of the survey was distributed to primary teachers in Malaysia. The findings from the survey indicated that the majority of teachers were generally positive about introduction and implementation of CEFR-aligned English curriculum (M=2.82). However, in the interviews, some teachers indicated that they had issues related to the implementation and practices of the CEFR-aligned curriculum. On the surface it seems that teachers may feel that the CEFR-aligned curriculum may be a positive step in terms of curriculum reforms, however in terms of actual implementation and execution these teachers expressed the challenges they faced in the initial stages. More support should be provided to teachers in terms of training and support so that the implementation of the curriculum can be optimised. Changing and reforming a curriculum needs to also take into account the voices of the teachers as the teachers are the important executioners of the curriculum.

Reference
  • 1. Abd Samad, A., Husein, H., Md Rashid, J., & Zainab Syd Abd Rahman, S. (2014). Training English language pre-service teachers using a team based learning approach. English Language Teaching, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n1p44 2. Abidin, N. Z., & Hashim, H. (2021). Common European framework of reference (CEFR): A review on teachers’ perception & Plurilingualism. Creative Education, 12(04), 727–736. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2021.124051 3. Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659–663. 4. Alih, N. A., Abdul Raof, A. H., & Md. Yusof, M. A. (2021). Policy change implementation: The case of the CEFR in Malaysian ESL classrooms. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(2), 296-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss2pp296-317 5. Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum development: Teacher involvement in curriculum development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106-107. 6. Aziz, A. H. A. A, Rashid, R. A. & Wan Zainuddin, W. Z. (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. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13307. 7. Azli, N., & Akmar, A. (2019). Implementation of CEFR-aligned assessment tools in Malaysian ESL classroom. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 4(2), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.31580/apss.v4i2.688 8. Azman, H. (2016). Implementation and challenges of English language education reform in Malaysian primary schools. The Southeast Asian Journal of English language studies, 22(3), 65 – 78. 9. Bacolod, D. B. (2022). Mobile learning as a solution for restricted learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Digital Educational Technology, 2(1), ep2203. https://doi.org/10.21601/jdet/11584 10. Bhat, A. (2019). Snowball sampling: Definition, method, advantages and disadvantages. QuestionPro. Retrieved from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/snowball-sampling/ 11. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher (Washington, D.C.: 1972), 33(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033008003 12. Chong, G. & Yamat, H. (2021). Teachers' implementation of CEFR-aligned curriculum: a preliminary study. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, vol. 3, no. 3, 2021, pp. 5-9. doi:10.32996/jeltal.v3i3.1366 13. Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14. Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304661. 15. Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S., Smith, M. & Crowley, K. (2011). Teacher reactions to CEFR’s task-based approach for ESL classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Special Issue 14(2), 1-19. 16. Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccs037 17. Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 18. Hardman, J. & A-Rahman, N. (2014). Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia. Language. Culture and Curriculum, 27(3), 260-277. 19. Hassan, F., & Selamat, F. (2017). WHY AREN’T STUDENTS PROFICIENT IN ESL: THE TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVE. The English teacher, 17.A 20. Kanchai, T. (2019). Thai EFL university lecturers’ viewpoints towards impacts of the CEFR on their English language curricula and teaching practice. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 24(35), 23-58. 21. Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation‐based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764–789. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21385 22. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610. 23. Losby, J. & Wetmore, A. (2012). CDC coffee break: Using Likert Scale in evaluation survey work. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/pubs/docs/cb_february _14_2012.pdf 24. McNamara, T. (2011). Managing learning: Authority and language assessment. Language Teaching, 44(4), 500-515. 25. Md Nawawi, N., Zuhaimi, N., Sabu, K., Mahamud, N. S. R., & Moh Nasir, N. A. (2021). CEFR for languages and its effective implementation in secondary schools in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning,11(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol11.1.6.2021 26. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education Malaysia. 27. Mundy, K. E. (2008). Comparative and international education: Issues for teachers. Toronto; New York: Canadian Scholars’ Press, Teachers College Press. 28. Mustafa, Z. (2018, July 11). Proficient way to better English. New Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/education/2018/07/389562/proficient-way-better-English 29. Nagai, N. & O’ Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 6, 141-152. 30. Ng, S. W. (2009). Why did principals and teachers respond differently to curriculum reform? Teacher Development, 13(3), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530903335558 31. Nguyen, N. T. (2017). EFL teachers’ perceptions towards the use of CEFR-V. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(4), 74-86. 32. North, B. (2014). Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use. Language Teaching, 47(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444811000206 33. Phoolaikao, W., & Sukying, A. (2021). Insights into CEFR and its implementation through the lens of preservice English teachers in Thailand. English Language Teaching, 14(6), 25. 10.5539/elt.v14n6p25 34. Robinson, M., Galaczi, E.D., Docherty, C., King,A. & Khalifa, H. (2014). Supporting national education reform: The Cambridge Malaysia Baseline Project. Research Notes, 58, 40-44. 35. Sakai, S. & Jimbo, H. (2010). JACET survey on CEFR: A comprehensive study on the framework of English Language teachers’ professional development in Japan. Tokyo: JACET SIG. 36. Shanmugam, M. (2017). Unemployment among graduates needs to be sorted out fast. The Star Online, Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business- news/2017/03/25/ unemployment-among graduates needs- to-sorted-out-fast/ 37. Sidhu, G., Kaur, S., & Lee, J. C. (2018). CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 452-463. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311 38. Spolsky, B. and Moon, Y. (2012). Primary school English language education in Asia: from policy to practice. London: Routledge. 39. Teoh, L. V. (2018). Malaysian secondary school English teachers' perception towards the implementation of CEFR-aligned curriculum (Unpublished Project Paper). Universiti Utara Malaysia. 40. Uri, N. F. M., & Aziz, M. S. A. (2018). Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia: Teachers’ awareness and the challenges. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 24(3), 168 – 183. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-13 41. Wok Zaki, A., & Darmi, R. (2021). The implementation of CEFR in ESL Learning: Why does it matter to the Malaysian Education System?. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol11.2.1.2021 42. Xuan, M. N. (2017). Diffusion of the CEFR among Vietnamese teachers: A mixed methods investigation. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 19(1), pp.7-32 43. Yuen, T. W. W., Cheung, A. C. K., & Wong, P. M. (2012). A study of the impact of the first phase of the curriculum reform on student learning in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Educational Management, 26(7), 710–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/0951 3541211263782. 44. Zheng, Y., Zhang, Y. & Yan, Y. (2016). Investigating the practice of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) outside Europe: A case study on the assessment of writing in English in China. ELT Research Papers. Southampton: University of Southampton. 45. Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521.