The Roadmap 2015-2025

I
English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

The Roadmap 2015-2025
ISBN: 978-967-5387-45-6
Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ii

Forewords
iii

FOREWORD
Minister of Education, Malaysia
he Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 highlights the need

to ensure that every child is proficient in at least two languages:
bahasa Malaysia and English. Fundamental to this goal is the
provision of the necessary resources required for language learning,
reflected in the various language-based initiatives within the Malaysian
education system. While the medium of instruction in our education
system remains bahasa Malaysia, the Ministry of Education believes that
the goal of bilingual capacity will be achieved if a concerted effort is made
to upskill teachers and students in English proficiency.
It gives me great pleasure to convey my congratulations to the English
Language Standards and Quality Council (ELSQC) in coming up with
the English Language Education Roadmap document. This document
is timely as it provides a roadmap for the main stakeholders on how to
move forward in addressing the challenges facing the nation in producing
human capital that is proficient in the English language, an undeniable prerequisite for Malaysia to succeed in this globalised world. The Common
iv
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) that we plan to adopt will

allow us to charter our course of action in improving the English language
proficiency of our students and teachers in terms of curriculum, teaching
and learning as well as assessment.
The Ministry of Education as the main driver of educational
innovation in the country, acknowledges the fact that change is inevitable
if we intend to move with the times. We must strive to ensure that all
our students are given the opportunity to realise their full potential and
equip them with competitive edge skills to become global players. Change
in the education system involves the introduction of new materials and
pedagogies as well as the change in mind-set and attitudes. The roadmap
will involve both types of changes while serving as a guiding force to
impact change at all levels of education. In order for the roadmap to
succeed, it is of utmost importance that all stakeholders take ownership of
this plan.
I am very hopeful that this plan will succeed as it has taken a

comprehensive and holistic approach that includes the whole educational
spectrum right from preschool to higher education, as well as the very
important lynchpin of teacher education. It is also my hope that everyone
will give their undivided support to the adoption and implementation of
this roadmap, just as it will be supported by the Ministry of Education.
PENDIDIKAN ITU KEGEMBIRAAN, PENDIDIKAN ITU
KEBAJIKAN, PENDIDIKAN ITU KETERBUKAAN
YB DATO SERI MAHDZIR BIN KHALID

Minister of Education, Malaysia

FOREWORD
Minister of Higher Education, Malaysia
he English language plays an important role in higher education. It

enables students to access information and engage in intellectual
discourse. Its role has become even more significant in todays
increasingly borderless world as education becomes more globalised and

economies more multinational. This then calls for stronger and more
concerted efforts by universities to equip their students with a good
command of English.
Pressure to raise student English proficiency levels is driven by the
need to perform academic tasks in the language, as well as from the rapid
development of a global system of higher education. Mobility programmes
and the international exchange of resources and personnel bring the world
to Malaysian campuses, requiring universities to ensure that their students
are capable of communicating effectively in English.
The Graduate Employability (GE) Blueprint (2012) views universities
as the cornerstone of a countrys supply of quality and talented human
resource. Therefore, developing competence in English for the workplace
vi
has also become an imperative role of universities in todays complex global
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) as a move to firstly, allow
employment market. Universities are now expected to ensure that their
us to view the English proficiency levels of Malaysian graduates on an
graduates are more employable by being linguistically competent in the
international scale and to set appropriate targets for the next decade.
English language.
Secondly, the CEFR provides a common denominator for reviewing
To do so, universities need to nurture learner-autonomy and selfdirected learning for graduates to continue developing as life-long language
learners. The ability to be self-aware, self-driven and independent will
and aligning English Language curricula, pedagogy and assessment in

universities, while still allowing individual universities to maintain their
autonomy.
stand them in good stead as entry-level employees and in the long term.
A paradigm shift is thus required for undergraduates to move away
from a culture of passive formulaic learning to embracing self-directed,
autonomous learning.
Thus this urgent need to develop English-proficient and self-directed
graduates is being given due attention in the English Language Education
YB DATO SERI IDRIS JUSOH
Roadmap developed by the English Language Standards and Quality
Minister of Higher Education, Malaysia
Council (ELSQC). The Roadmap proposes the adoption of the Common
vii

FOREWORD
Secretary-General of the Ministry of Education
would like to congratulate the English Language Standards and

Quality Council (ELSQC) for delivering this Roadmap for English
language education. The Council was commissioned to chart the way
forward for the teaching and learning of English in our education system,
and was given the autonomy to formulate a comprehensive plan to drive
English Language Teaching (ELT) development in the country.
I note with interest that the Roadmap takes forward the thinking that
has been developing over the last five years at the Ministry of Education.
Firstly, the Roadmap formalises the Ministrys on-going efforts to
strengthen ELT, as encapsulated in the Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia
Memperkukuh Bahasa Inggeris (MBMMBI) policy. Secondly, the
Roadmap provides the framework for the execution of the plans proposed
in the Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB) 2013-2025, for the future of
our education system, specifically in the area of ELT. It is also significant
to note that the Roadmap has utilised the findings of the Cambridge
baseline study on the teaching of English language in our schools. We now
viii
have a clearly focused plan for English language teaching which fully aligns
with the Ministrys language teaching policy.
Our efforts in the past have been largely directed towards the
expansion of our education system to ensure equal access to education
for all children from preschool to post-secondary, and tertiary level. Our
concern now is on establishing and sustaining a system of high quality
education that stands among the best in the region and beyond. A key
factor to attaining quality education, and ensuring its sustainability, is ongoing first-rate capacity building for our teachers. Investing in our teachers
is vital as we strive towards becoming a national provider of high quality
English language education.
A message that comes across very clearly from the Roadmap is that
a high performing education system combines equity in education with
its quality. In the case of English, we have to ensure that, irrespective of
gender, family background and socio-economic status, all children are
provided with an education that enables them to develop the English

language skills they would need to boost their future employability, as
well as their roles as responsible, productive citizens who could contribute
effectively to the well-being of the nation. This is in congruence with the
call to maximise student outcomes for every ringgit spent as expressed
in the MEB 2013-2025.
I look forward to significant improvements in English language
teaching that will follow the implementation of the Roadmap. I hope and
expect that this will be an important step towards the transformation of
our education system.
YBHG. TAN SRI DR. MADINAH BT MOHAMAD

Secretary-General
Ministry of Education, Malaysia
ix

FOREWORD
Director-General of the Ministry of Education
Bismillahhirahmanirrahim.
Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
he Ministry of Education Malaysia strives to ensure that

Malaysian students are prof icient in both languages, namely
bahasa Malaysia and the English language. This aspiration
is underpinned in Shift 2 of the Malaysia Education Blueprint
2013-2025 which focuses on developing students who are at
least operationally prof icient in bahasa malaysia and the English
language, and at the same time providing opportunities for students
to learn an additional third language. The Ministrys aim is for all
students leaving the education system to be independent users of
the English language.
The English Language Education Roadmap is a timely and
worthwhile effort that is intended to ascertain harmony and
continuity in the teaching and learning of the English language at all
levels of education in Malaysia. This Roadmap is a comprehensive
and holistic plan as it not only emphasises the skills and abilities
needed by students to become proficient and independent users of the
English language, but also the competencies required by the English
teachers of the language in order for the plan to succeed. Alignment

to the Common Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
has also made this Roadmap a more credible plan with international
relevance.
The Roadmap provides comprehensive guidelines for all
stakeholders to gauge the targeted proficiency levels of students from
preschool right up to tertiary education. This document will serve
as a guide for teachers to ensure students achieve the proficiency
levels set against international standards. Students will benefit from
the roadmap in which they will be equipped with the language skills
to be global players and positioned to be part of the workforce in a
globalised world.
It is also hoped that all initiatives encapsulated in the Malaysia
Education Blueprint 2013 2025 and all English Language Education
programmes use this Roadmap as a reference so that a concerted plan
of action is carried out with respect to the teaching and learning of
English in Malaysia.
I take this opportunity to thank the English Language Standards

and Quality Council (ELSQC) for producing this document. It is
my hope that all stakeholders involved will ensure the successful
implementation of the roadmap for the betterment of our present and
future generations.
.
Dato Sri Dr. Khair Bin Mohamad Yusof

Director-General
xi

FOREWORD
Chair of the English Language Standards and Quality Council
Bismillahhirahmanirrahim.
Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
eforming education is an enormous undertaking. We have

to start with a clear idea of what has to be done to make
an improvement, and we have to ensure that the planned
improvement can be carried out in practice in the real world. We
also have to convince the different stakeholders including teachers,
administrators, parents, employers and the general public that the
benefits will outweigh the cost and effort involved.
When the English Language Standards and Quality Council
(ELSQC) was asked to produce a roadmap for English language
education, the key decisions had already been taken. The Malaysian
Education Blueprint (MEB) had been published in line with the
MBMMBI policy, and Cambridge English had been commissioned
to benchmark our existing provision for English teaching, and their
baseline report had been submitted. Our task has been to complete
the preparations, and produce a timetabled plan to be implemented by
2025, or in the case of universities, by 2028.
xii
To create a top-performing education system, it is first necessary

to create a high-calibre teaching workforce. Intending English
teachers must be provided with world class education to give them
not only the English proficiency, but also the content knowledge
and the pedagogical skills they will need to achieve excellence in the
classroom. Teachers already in post need the means to improve their
proficiency, knowledge and skills, and to catch up on advances made
since they were themselves trained. The point is made several times in
the course of this document that teachers need support, and this is a
point that cannot be made too often or too strongly.
Employers can reasonably expect the national education system
to provide them with recruits who already have the basic knowledge of
English they will need, and who are ready for the more specific training
required for different kinds of employment. Education administrators
want a national education system of which they can feel proud, and
which makes a substantial contribution to national well-being and
advancement. Parents want their children to be given the English
proficiency they will need to find employment and advance in their
careers, and in some cases to bring their families out of poverty.
The interests of these and other stakeholders have been taken into
account in the preparation of this Roadmap, and it is presented in the
hope and belief that it is within our grasp to make substantial and
continuing improvements in our English language education in the
course of the next decade.
The most important of our stakeholders are the nations children.
The prosperity and international standing of our country by the
middle of the present century will depend in very large measure on
the start in life given to the children who are already progressing
through our education system or who are about to enter it. For the
foreseeable future, educational success for our children will include
proficiency in English.
Implementing the plan put forward here will be difficult, it will
require sustained effort, and it will be expensive; but these efforts
and costs are as nothing compared to the costs and reparatory efforts
that will otherwise be required, not to mention the waste of talent
and the losses to national economic development. This Roadmap is
offered in accordance with the principles of good housekeeping and as
xiii

a contribution to national advancement and the realisation of national

aspirations; but the most important consideration of all is that it has
been prepared for the benefit of the present generation of Malaysians
and the next.
PROF. DR ZURAIDAH MOHD DON

Chair of the ELSQC
xiv

Acknowledgements
xv

Acknowledgements
his project was supported and funded by the Ministry

of Education with the aim of creating a timetabled
implementation plan for the systemic reform of English
language education in Malaysia. The intended reform is part of a
wider initiative to bring about the transformation of the existing
English language education system not only in Malaysian schools from
preschool to post-secondary, but also at tertiary level, and in teacher
education.
The Roadmap completes for the special case of English plans for
the future of our education system that have been under development
at the Ministry of Education since 2010. I would like to thank the
Ministry for having the confidence in the English Language Standards
and Quality Council to commission it to take the next essential step in
developing English language education.
The preparation of this Roadmap has been a huge undertaking
and the writing of this document has constituted an enormous
amount of work. It would not have been possible without the help
and support of the many bodies and individuals who have each played
xvi
their part in turning the initial inchoate ideas into a comprehensive and
inclusive plan ready for implementation.
Having commissioned the Roadmap, the Ministry has given
the support which is so essential to see the preparation and writing
through to completion. Sincere gratitude for support goes to Dr
Ranjit Singh Gill, the former ELTC Director, who participated in the
initial development of this Roadmap, and to the current Director
Dr Mohamed Abu Bakar, and to the Deputy Director, Pn Zainab
Yusof. Among the individuals from the ELSQC Secretariat that
I wish to thank are Dr Suraya Sulyman, Dr Sivabala Naidu and Pn
Sarina Salim. I would like to say a special thank you to my colleagues,
especially my closest collaborators, who have worked tirelessly to
make success possible, and who have been admirably patient in
putting up with telephone calls at unsocial hours, and carrying out
essential work at short notice, or indeed no notice at all.
I would also like to thank my present and previous colleagues on
the ELSQC for their contributions. Chapters 4 to 9 in Section B were
delegated to groups of writers each headed by an ELSQC member
and reviewed by members of the ELSQC and Puan Hooi Moon

Yee. The chapters submitted have been edited as far as possible,
but the credit is due to the writers and the responsibility for the
content of the chapters remains theirs. I also wish to thank those
of my colleagues who kindly volunteered to review and improve the
text, and also the former members of the ELSQC who were with
me during the initial stages of the development of the Roadmap. The
whole of Sections A and C, and the editorial introduction to Section B
have been written centrally.
When the separate manuscripts are in, the work begins on
bringing them together in the form of a coherent document.
This would have been impossible on top of everyday academic
responsibilities, and I was fortunate in that the last three months
coincided with the beginning of my sabbatical leave. I wish to
express my appreciation to the Vice Chancellor of the University of
Malaya for granting me the sabbatical leave which made possible the
completion of the whole document.
This document is the result of input and insights provided by

numerous people, including the different stakeholders, over the last
two years, who have made a substantial contribution to the shaping of
the final document. Finally, I wish to thank those whose constructive
feedback, critical input and continuous help and support got us
through the final stages and enabled us to complete the document on
schedule.
Zuraidah Mohd Don

Chief Editor and Principal Writer
Professor, University of Malaya
xvii

English Language Standards and Quality Council
Prof. Dr Zuraidah Mohd Don
Prof. Dr Anna Christina Abdullah
Assoc. Prof. Dr Arshad Abd Samad
PA N E L M E M B E R
Assoc. Prof. Datin Dr.

Mardziah Hayati Abdullah
Dr Kuldip Kaur Karam Singh
CHAIRPERSON
Universiti Malaya
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Universiti Putra Malaysia
LeapEd Services
xviii
Dato Dr Lee Boon Hua
Ms Janet Pillai@Liyana Pillai
Dr Mohamed Abu Bakar
Ms Sarina Salim
Mr Mohamed Khaidir Alias
S EC R E TA R Y
S EC R E TA R I AT O F F I C E R
ACTING SECRETARIAT OFFICER
LeapEd Services
Independent Consultant
English Language Teaching Centre

Editor, Writers and Reviewers

xix

Chief Editor Zuraidah Mohd Don
Content of document
Writers/Authors
Reviewers
Acknowledgements
Zuraidah Mohd Don
Overview
Zuraidah Mohd Don
Editorial Introduction
Zuraidah Mohd Don
Zuraidah Mohd Don, Anna Christina Abdullah,

Mardziah Hayati Abdullah, Arshad Abd Samad,
Lee Boon Hua, Kuldip Kaur Karam Singh,
Janet Pillai, Hooi Moon Yee, Gurnam Kaur Sidhu,
Choong Kam Foong, Saidatul Zainal Abidin,
Lim Peck Choo, Stefanie Pillai, Hawa Rohany,
Zainab Yusof, Cheok Oy Lin, Sarina Salim
to Section A
Proofreaders Zuraidah Mohd Don, Hooi Moon Yee,
Mardziah Hayati Abdullah, Tan Kok Eng,
Chandrakala Raman, Pamela Devadason,
Marina Abu Bakar, Saidatul Zainal Abidin,
Malek Baseri, Jayanthi Sothinathan, Cheok Oy Lin,
Zainab Yusof, Audrey Lim Bee Yoke, Kamariah
Samsuddin, Kalminder Kaur, Mohamed Khaidir
Alias, Farah Mardhy Aman
xx
Chapter 1
Zuraidah Mohd Don
Chapter 2
Zuraidah Mohd Don, Sivabala Naidu,
Sarina Salim
Chapter 3
Zuraidah Mohd Don, Ranjit Singh Gill,
Chapter 6: Secondary
Arshad Abd Samad, Hawa Rohany,
Suraya Sulyman, Sarina Salim
Ramesh Nair, Leela James Dass,
Pamela Devadason
Chapter 7:
Kuldip Kaur Karam Singh, Gurnam Kaur
Post-secondary
Sidhu, Lim Peck Choo, Mazlina
Mohamad Aris, Marina Abu Bakar
Chapter 8: University
Zuraidah Mohd Don, Mardziah Hayati
Abdullah, Hooi Moon Yee, Saidatul
Akmar Zainal Abidin
Zuraidah Mohd Don
to Section B
Chapter 4: Preschool
Anna Christina Abdullah, Tan Kok Eng,
Chithra K.M.Krishnan Adiyodi,
Yeoh Phaik Kin, Regina Joseph Cyril
Chapter 5: Primary
Lee Boon Hua, Mardziah Hayati
Abdullah, Aspalila Shapii, Yong Wai Yee,
Chandrakala Raman, Mohamad Najib
Chapter 9:
Choong Kam Foong, Stefanie Pillai,
Omar, Regina Joseph Cyril
Teacher Education
Terry Yap, Cheok Oy Lin, Amar Shobha
Sarna
xxi

Zuraidah Mohd Don
to Section C
The Roadmap
Zuraidah Mohd Don, Anna Christina
Abdullah, Lee Boon Hua, Arshad Abd
Samad, Kuldip Kaur Karam Singh,
Hooi Moon Yee, Mardziah Hayati
Abdullah, Choong Kam Foong,
Sarina Salim
Overall design
Zuraidah Mohd Don, Hooi Moon Yee,
of the document
Sarina Salim, Mardziah Hayati Abdullah
xxii

Table of Contents
xxiii

Table of Contents
Forewords
iii
Acknowledgements
xv
English Language Standards and Quality Council

xviii
xix
Overview xxv
xxiv
Section A - Context and International Standards
Chapter 1 - The Provenance of the English Language Roadmap
Chapter 2 - The Historical Background to English Language Education in Malaysia
35
Chapter 3 - The CEFR
55
Section B - Looking Back and Moving Forward
83
Chapter 4 - Preschool
113
Chapter 5 - PrImary
157
Chapter 6 - Secondary
189
Chapter 7 - Post-secondary
227
Chapter 8 - University
245
Chapter 9 - Teacher Education
271
Section C - The Roadmap
315
Appendices
381
Glossary
397
List of Abbreviations
403
References
409
Contributors
423

Overview
xxv

Overview
he purpose of this document is to propose a Roadmap for

English Language Education from preschool to university to
enable us to embark on the reform of our English language
education system aligned to international standards. The Roadmap is
concerned for the most part with the English language programme,
which includes three components, namely curriculum, teaching and
learning, and assessment. The programme is part of the wider English
language education system, which includes the whole infrastructure
for the teaching and learning of English. While the proposals put
forward have implications for the English language education system
as a whole, the only part of the system other than the English language
programme that is considered in detail here is teacher education.
The document is divided into three sections, A, B and C. Section A
contains preparatory and background material, and deals with general
considerations that encompass the more specific issues that are dealt
with in Sections B and C. The chapters of Section B undertake a
critical evaluation of the current English language programme at
each stage of education from preschool to tertiary education and
including teacher education, and make recommendations for reform
and sustainable improvement. Section C presents the Roadmap in the
form of a set of tables based on the findings and recommendations
emerging from sections A and B, together with recommendations for
the formulation of policy. Aspirational targets are set for 2025 (see
Chapter 1 and the Roadmap) according to the CEFR global scale in
order to make explicit what we want to achieve in principle by 2025.
These will be supplemented by staged targets before the end of 2015,
so that we can track our performance and check that we are on course.
xxvi

SEC T ION
A
1


A
Context and International Standards
3

Context and International Standards
ection A introduces the Roadmap document, and sets the

scene for Sections B and C.
The first chapter is concerned with what we are trying to

achieve, and where we want to go. It deals with the provenance of the
Roadmap itself, and picks up ideas that have long been in the air such
as transforming our education system and making our English language
education system one of the best in the region and beyond and shows
how these ideas can potentially be turned into reality by 2025.
Chapter 2 traces the historical development of our education
system, and the changing position of English within it. The chapter ends
with lessons to be learned from our history, which need to be taken
into account in future plans. Chapter 3 is concerned with the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR1), which
has been selected to benchmark the performance of our current English
language education system against international standards, and monitor
developments in the years to 2025. The chapter includes the reasons
why the CEFR is the obvious choice for Malaysia.
Looking ahead, this section summarises the many different factors
and considerations that must be taken into account as we begin the task
of reform. Having benchmarked the current performance in English of
students and teachers from preschool to post-secondary level, we are
in a position to go on to align our English language education system to
international standards in the form of the CEFR. Detailed discussion
of the general points raised in this section including matters that go
beyond alignment to the CEFR are left to Sections B and C.
The acronym generally used is CEFR, although the shorter and possibly more appropriate
CEF is also used, but less frequently.

The Provenance of the

English Language Roadmap

Chapter 1: The Provenance of the English Language Roadmap
his opening chapter outlines the circumstances which led

to the writing of a Roadmap for English language education
in Malaysia. The Roadmap has been made possible by
previous work which has been commissioned or undertaken by
the Ministry of Education, and which enables us to complete the
task of developing policy into a plan for English. This is discussed
in Section 1.1, which relates our work to developments in the
Ministry of Education since 2010. Section 1.2 is concerned with the
connection between the reform of our English language education
system and the achievement of our national goals. Section 1.3
responds to the aspiration to transform our education system,
and links transformation to reform and the creation of a quality
culture. The achievement of excellence in education is known to
depend on excellence in the teaching workforce, and this is the
topic of Section 1.4. The section that completes the chapter looks
ahead to the implementation of the Roadmap.
1.1 Developing policy into a plan
This Roadmap completes the preparatory stages of an
unfolding government plan for language teaching and learning in
Malaysia. The starting point is the new MBMMBI policy, which
was introduced in 2010, and defines the respective roles of
English and Malay in the education system. The next important
landmark was the appearance in 2013 of the Malaysian Education
Blueprint (MEB), which sets out a general plan for the reform
and development of the education system to 2025.
The Cambridge Baseline Results Report, which also appeared

in 2013, investigated the present state of English teaching and
learning, and provided hard evidence of where we are now in
relation to the state of affairs envisaged in the MEB with respect
to English. This document picks up the baton, and presents
in some detail exactly what we have to do to bring our present
English language education system up to the standard outlined in
the MEB. The next stage is to put the plans into effect.
1.1.1 The MBMMBI policy

The Roadmap is drafted in accordance with the new language
policy Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia Memperkukuh Bahasa
Inggeris to uphold Malay and to strengthen English. The new
policy took an important step forward in repositioning Malay and
English as respectively the national language and the language of
international communication.
The MBMMBI policy aims to uphold the rightful position of
Malay not only as the national language but also as the main
language of communication, the language of knowledge, and
the language for nation-building crucial towards achieving the
objectives of 1Malaysia (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2010, p.
6). Malay is thus seen as crucial for national identity and nationbuilding, and as having the potential to produce its own body of
knowledge.
At the same time, the MBMMBI policy strives to strengthen

proficiency in English as the international language of
communication and knowledge, thus enabling the exploration of
knowledge so vital to compete at national and global levels. The
MBMMBI policy views English as a means to empower the nations
citizens to compete in todays era of globalisation. This Roadmap
is concerned with the English part of the MBMMBI policy, and is
expected to complement a corresponding roadmap for Malay.
1.1.2 The Malaysian Education Blueprint

The MEB appeared in 2013, and is concerned with the
development of Malaysian education as a whole to 2025, with the
aim of transforming the existing education system and making it
one of the top third of education systems in the world. It contains
a brief sketch of the place of English in the wider educational plan,
and this sketch has now been elaborated in the form of a plan for
the reform of the English language education system (see Section
C). Although the proposed reform applies specifically to English,
many of the proposals apply mutatis mutandis to the teaching and
learning of other languages in Malaysia, so that English has the
potential to act as the trailblazer for other languages.
A major decision which has already been made (MEB, p. 4-1),
and which affects a large number of consequent decisions, is to align
curriculum and assessment to the Common European Framework of

Reference (CEFR), which is mentioned briefly below and discussed

at greater length in Chapter 3. Having an existing framework to
work with not only saves an enormous amount of time and effort,
but since it has been developed over a long period of time by scholars
from many different countries, we can also be confident that it will
cater for our specific needs in Malaysia.
The MEB identifies eleven fundamental shifts which need to be
undertaken in order to reform the education system. Seven of these
shifts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are relevant to English language
education in particular, and are discussed separately in the Editorial
Introduction to Section C. The programme of reform is timetabled,
and is planned to be implemented in three Waves. The Waves are
discussed in the Editorial Introduction to Section C, and referred to
several times elsewhere in this document. In order to synchronise the
reform programme outlined here with the original Waves, reference
is made in Sections B and C to three phases which come into line
with the Waves at the end of Wave 2 in 2020.
The comparative evaluation is known as benchmarking (see

Chapter 3), and its value is that it gives us a clear idea of how
our current performance matches that of other countries. The
report leaves us in no doubt whatsoever that although our current
English language education system may be sufficient for the
needs of the past, it is not at all sufficient for us to succeed as a
nation in a globalised world that requires English for international
communications of all kinds.
1.1.3 The Cambridge Baseline 2013
1.1.4 The Roadmap for English Language Education
In order to apply the general education planning put forward

in the MEB to the special case of English, we first have to know
where we are now. We have to ascertain our starting position in
order to measure the gap to be crossed by 2025. It is essential
to proceed not on the basis of opinion and hearsay but as far as
possible on the basis of hard evidence.
The essence of the problem that this Roadmap sets out to solve
is that we have an English language education programme that has
evolved since independence in 1957 to satisfy our national needs
as they were in the second half of the last century. In the present
century we find ourselves in a very different situation, and in order
to fulfill our national aspirations, we have to come to terms with
Part of Cambridge Language Assessment, which is itself part of Cambridge University.
Also informally the baseline report or the baseline study. References

unless otherwise stated are made to the Results Report.
2
This evidence is provided by a baseline study commissioned

by the Ministry of Education and undertaken by Cambridge
English1, which led to a Results Report submitted in 2013 and
entitled Cambridge Baseline 2013 (henceforth the Cambridge
Baseline)2. This baseline study used the CEFR to evaluate the
current state of English teaching and learning in Malaysia according
to prevailing international standards, and assessed the proficiency
of samples of students from preschool to post-secondary education,
and also the proficiency of a sample of English teachers.
the challenge not only of global English but also of ICT which uses
English as its resident language.
The reform is timely, because increasing global mobility,
including developments in ASEAN, adds urgency to the need to
reform our English language education system, and provide our
young people from all social backgrounds, school leavers and
graduates, with the means to compete successfully.
We have to create a programme that provides our young people
with the English proficiency that will enable them to communicate
effectively in social and professional contexts which for those
going on to tertiary education includes coping with the English
requirements of their academic courses and to find suitable
employment when they complete their education, and to succeed
in their careers. Our key aims are:
1. to produce an English language programme of international
standard supported by a quality delivery system;
2. to make available quality English language education to all
students, and as far as possible narrow or close achievement
gaps irrespective of ability, gender, socio-economic background,
and geographical location;
3. to produce a timetabled implementation plan or roadmap
supported by a dedicated team to oversee its effective delivery.
Plans for reform have to begin with three fundamental questions.

What are we trying to achieve? Where are we now and how did
we get here? How are we going to get to where we want to be?
The first of these questions is addressed in Section A, the second
is addressed with respect to the different stages of education in
Section B, and the third question is addressed in Section C. We
have to start with a clear idea of what we are trying to achieve
and of our present position in order to coordinate and integrate
the many different activities involved in the reform of our English
language education system.
1.2 Creating an agenda-driven English language programme
If we are to improve the existing English language programme,
we have to adopt and consistently maintain a clearly defined high
level principle of organisation that guides decisions made at lower
levels. The principle adopted for this Roadmap is here called agendadriven planning, and the aim is to create an agenda-driven English
language programme.
Our starting point is to observe what happens when there is
no clearly defined guiding principle. It is well known, for example,
that examinations have a washback3 effect on classroom teaching,
and perhaps on the curriculum and even on the perceived purpose
of learning. The effect of uncontrolled washback can be that the
students learn very little of any real value. Teachers understandably
3
Also known as a backwash effect. In using the term washback, we here follow the usage
adopted for the Cambridge Baseline Study.

concentrate their efforts on getting their students through the

examinations, and if the examinations do not test the right things,
much of this effort is as far as the outside world is concerned
entirely wasted.
The MEB deals at some length (pp. 4-2 4-4) with the three
dimensions of the curriculum, namely the written curriculum,
the taught curriculum and the examined curriculum, and draws
attention to problems (p. 4-3) in that the (written) curriculum
has not always been brought to life in the classroom and
examinations do not currently test the full range of skills that the
education system aspires to produce. The executive summary of
the Cambridge Baseline Study also identifies a problem of this kind
in Malaysian schools (p. 15).
When teachers teach for examinations, much of the curriculum
not included in the examining process will be perceived as
irrelevant, however well thought out and pedagogically desirable
it may be. For the same reason, textbooks may be regarded as
useless or irrelevant. According to the Cambridge Baseline (p.
16), 87% of teachers felt the textbook was inadequate. In these
circumstances it is not surprising if students do not quite understand
why they are learning English, or as the Cambridge Baseline puts
it lack motivation and do not recognise the importance of English
for their future (p. 8).
10
Examinations
Teaching
Student
Learning
The architecture of the current English

language programme- Examination-driven
Figure 1.1a
Curriculum
Textbooks
and learning
materials
Student
Learning
The architecture of the current English

language programme Curriculum-driven
Figure 1.1b
The current situation is represented in Figures 1.1a and 1.1b.

(see above). The first of these represents a situation in which
the examination system effectively controls what teachers do in
the classroom, and ultimately what students learn. Figure 1.1b
represents the relationship between curriculum and learning
materials, and reflects the fact that textbook writers are required
to design materials according to the curriculum.
The situation represented in the figures is found in many
countries across the world, and it is by no means unique to Malaysia.
The problem that immediately becomes obvious on inspection of
Figure 1.1 is that examinations and curriculum do not have much to
do with each other. Figure 1.1b represents what is officially going
on in classrooms in principle, and Figure 1.1a what is happening in
reality and in practice. No education programme can succeed with
conflicting goals.
The first step is therefore to reconcile the conflicting goals. It
is not possible in reality to negate the washback effect, but what
we can do is to harness it, so that instead of being a source of
problems, it becomes a source of strength. To do this, it is essential
to take two related steps:
1. The different components of the English language programme
curriculum, teaching and learning, assessment, and teacher
training must be very closely integrated, so that all parties
involved in the programme work in harmony towards the same
targets. For this to be possible, the targets must be clear and

explicit, and there has to be an implementation strategy in
place to make it happen.
2. The programme needs to be driven in a beneficial manner.
Although the examination system is in practice the usual
driver, it is not an appropriate driver and creates problems. The
curriculum must be in the driving position.
This creates a new situation as illustrated in Figure 1.2 (see below).
In an integrated curriculum-driven programme, the curriculum
provides teachers with appropriate content to teach at appropriate
times, while textbooks and other learning materials support the
teachers and the students, and forms of assessment evaluate
student performance in accordance with the aims of the curriculum.
It is important not to pre-judge the issue of assessment, and it
must not be taken for granted that student performance is best
measured by conventional examinations.
Examinations have an important place, but it must be clear
what that place is, and how examinations relate to other forms of
assessment. A curriculum-driven programme provides a natural focus
for teacher training, which is geared towards producing teachers to
contribute effectively to the programme.
A question prompted by the inspection of Figure 1.2 is where
the curriculum comes from. The obvious answer is that an English
11

Teaching &
Learning
Textbooks
and learning
materials
Assessment
Student
Learning
Curriculum
Figure 1 .2
Curriculum
A curriculum-driven programme
Teaching &
Learning
Assessment
Student
Learning
International
standards
Figure 1.3
12
A programme driven by international standards
curriculum is designed to teach English; but the fact is that there

are many different ways of teaching and learning a language. In an
interconnected and globalised world, it is essential to take account of
international best practice.
The problems that our English teachers encounter are faced by
language teachers and administrators the world over. By taking the
decision to use the CEFR as the guiding framework for curriculum
development, we also face the challenge of international standards.
The benchmarking which we have already begun evaluates our
curriculum and other aspects of our English language programme
according to the standards set by international best practice.
International benchmarking enables us to develop our English language
programme in a principled manner. This leads to a programme driven
by international standards, as illustrated in Figure 1.3 (see above).
The adoption of international standards brings with it a number
of advantages. For example, the use of a common framework will
ensure that our programme in Malaysia is fully up to date with
what is known globally about language teaching and learning and
about best practice. It is difficult under present conditions for
international employers or university admissions officers to evaluate
examination results indicating a level of success in relation to a
curriculum unique to Malaysia. Common international standards
will enable an informed comparison of levels of achievement in all
countries that use them. These will in practice be the standards
4
of the CEFR, and a further advantage of the CEFR is that we in

Malaysia are fully in control of what we take from it, and how we
make use of it for our own national advantage.
A further consideration in the design of the programme is peoples
motivation to learn languages, and people learn languages for many
different reasons. A traditional motivation is to read literature in the
original language, and the study of English at university level in Malaysia
was formerly closely related to the study of English literature.
Another motivation is to communicate with people in a
country in which one spends a long period of time, and for many
Malaysians this remains a powerful motivation to learn English.
However, it would appear from the baseline study (pp. 7-8) that
many Malaysians spend a lot of time learning English without quite
knowing why they are doing it.
There has to be a motivation for learning English that applies
equally to students from rural and urban areas, to boys and girls,
and to students studying the Arts and the Sciences. This motivation
comes directly from national aspirations. Malaysia has long aspired
to be recognised internationally as an advanced high-income nation
by 2020, and in order to turn aspiration into reality, there are certain
things we have to do, which means we have to have a clearly defined
agenda. For example, we need to increase the contribution to the
nation of our school leavers and graduates by making them more
employable4.
The National Graduate Employability Blueprint, MoHE.
13

Curriculum
Assessment
Quality student
outcomes
by 2025
National
Aspirations
International
standards
Figure 1.4
An aGENDA-driven
programme
14
Teaching &
Learning
In the case of the English language programme, this translates

into the need for graduates with sufficient English language skills
to obtain suitable employment, and at a lower level for school
leavers with the English proficiency necessary for jobs that require
contact with English speakers. It is in the national interest to
create a workforce with the necessary English language skills;
but it is also very much in the interests of individual graduates
and school leavers to develop these skills for themselves, whether
they work for an international corporation, or serve in a shop,
restaurant or hotel. Linking the English language programme to
national aspirations leads to the situation illustrated in Figure 1.4.
National aspirations have already motivated the decision to

benchmark our English language programme. A consequence of
benchmarking is that it brings to light ways in which the curriculum
needs to be modified in order to bring our English language
programme fully up to prevailing international standards. The
curriculum in turn drives teaching and learning, and teaching and
learning together drive the development of learning materials and
ultimately assessment and teacher training.
Note that in Figure 1.4, the international standards bubble is
placed below the line, because being international they are not
under Malaysian control. The other three, namely curriculum,
teaching and learning, and assessment are placed above the
line. The identification of national aspirations, along with the
curriculum, teaching and learning, and methods of assessment all
belong to Malaysia.
Benchmarking, by contrast, gives us information on how our
provision compares with international standards, and we can use
this information and exploit it to our own advantage. Although
benchmarking cannot of course control what we do, it can help us
decide what goes into our national curriculum in order to achieve
our national aspirations.
This subsection ends with a brief summary:

1. The English language programme must be driven not by
examinations but by our national agenda, which is itself based
on our aspirations as a nation, and which amounts to what we
as a nation want to achieve by making all our young people
learn English.
2. The different components of the programme curriculum,
teaching and learning, learning materials, and assessment
must be fully integrated, and we need a strategy in place to
ensure that this integration is achieved and maintained.
3. The development and implementation of the programme have
to keep to the timetable outlined in the MEB in the form of
Waves 1 to 3.
1.3 Bringing about transformation

A term which is currently in widespread use in the MoE is
transformation 5. Something is transformed when it is changed
from a less desirable state to a significantly more desirable state.
Transformation is not an action but the perceived outcome of
positive action. The positive action we need to take is to reform
our existing English language system. We resolve to undertake a
Government Transformation Programme: The Roadmap. The Prime Ministers Office, 2010.
15

Figure 1.5
the
reform
Process
Establishing
National
Aspirations
Reviewing
the existing
English
Language
Education
System and
Measuring its
Performance
programme of reform in the hope and expectation that it will lead

to transformation (see Figure 1.5).
The national aspirations have already been established (see
the MEB, p. E-1), and the review of the existing system has been
undertaken by Cambridge English. The findings of the Cambridge
Baseline will have to be followed up with a more detailed positive
critical evaluation, the aim of which is not to destroy, but rather to
identify shortcomings with a view to putting them right.
While the outcome may be negative in the short term, this
is ultimately a positive process that leads to positive outcomes.
In the case of English language education, we have to identify
16
Producing and
Implementing
a Roadmap
Transformation
of the English
Language
Education
System
areas in need of reform. Several such areas have been identified in

the baseline study and in Section B, and they include the spoken
proficiency of students and teachers, and teacher education.
Having been identified, these problem areas have to be
attended to as matters of priority, for otherwise we will not carry
out a worthwhile reform, we will not reach the goals set by the
national agenda, and the transformation will not take place. Our
task is not only to identify areas in need of reform, but also to
show how reform can be implemented so that the aspiration for
transformation becomes a reality.
Quality
English
Language
Programme
Quality
Delivery
System
Quality
Learning
Outcomes
Quality Culture in
English Language Education
Figure 1.6
ACHIEVING A QUALITY CULTURE

17

1.3.1 Creating a quality culture

The mechanism of reform by means of which we can bring
about transformation is the creation of a quality culture. Our
English language education system must bear the hallmark
of quality, which means that quality must be sustained and
maintained throughout, making the system comparable to highperforming education systems (MEB, p. 2-2). To create a quality
culture (see Figure 1.6), we need
1.
Quality in our English language programme;
2.
A quality delivery system;
3.
Quality in learning outcomes.
The achievement of quality in the English language programme

begins with the alignment of our programme to international
standards, so that we know how it compares with the rest of the
world, and the rest of the world knows how to evaluate Malaysian
educational qualifications. The different components of the
programme need to be integrated and aligned so that the curriculum
specifies the right things to be taught at the right time and in the
right order, and assessments test what students have been taught
and provide them with qualifications that indicate what they are able
to do in English when they have left the education system. Students
need to progress in a systematic fashion through the programme,
18
and make successful transitions from preschool to primary school

and then secondary school, and perhaps on to tertiary education.
Quality in the programme itself needs to be matched by the
way it is delivered to learners in the classroom. A quality delivery
system includes:
1. a continuous and sufficient supply of high-calibre teachers;
2. the provision of high quality learning materials including online
learning resources;
3. the creation of a high quality learning environment.
Quality would appear already to have been achieved in the
selection of recruits for teaching. The MEB reports (p. 5-3) rising
academic standards among applicants for teacher training, and a
ratio of no fewer than 38 applicants per place. The Cambridge
Baseline draws attention to the high level of commitment on the
part of Malaysian English language teachers.
However, the Cambridge Baseline also makes clear that
although Malaysia has a number of high-calibre teachers, the general
standard of performance in the classroom, both with respect to
English proficiency and professional skills, is disappointingly low.
The quest for quality in this case has to begin by ascertaining why
the early promise of teaching recruits is not followed through to
their later performance in the classroom.
Quality teachers need quality tools, and these include

textbooks and other learning materials of international standard,
and classroom equipment to enable them to make the most
effective use of class time, including where appropriate the use
of ICT for teaching and learning. The time of quality teachers is a
resource that needs to be well managed, and teachers should spend
their time doing things that only teachers can do. For example, the
introduction of school-based assessment could be undermined if
teachers are already overloaded with other work, and they need
to be relieved of work that could in principle be done by others.
The acquisition of quality textbooks would itself relieve teachers
at least in part of the need to produce basic learning materials.
A high quality learning environment is one that optimises the
conditions for student learning. This includes not only textbooks
and other formal learning materials, but also reading materials that
the students enjoy reading, and films and other video materials
that they enjoy watching. The rich environment needs to be
extended beyond the classroom, so that students are exposed to
English and can use English in situations relevant to their everyday
lives. Parents and others with sufficient English can be actively
involved in the childrens learning, and can even help in the school.
Quality in learning outcomes means that students achieve
what they are capable of achieving, and no students are left
behind for lack of opportunity. In accordance with the principle
of equity, we have to ensure that an improved English programme
reaches all our young people, and that they are given a chance to
succeed in learning English irrespective of their social background
or geographical location.
Opportunity goes beyond the classroom experience, and covers the
whole learning environment. Equality of opportunity for all, including
rich and poor, boys and girls, and for those from urban and rural areas
will not only give young people from less advantaged backgrounds a
better chance in life, but also take advantage of hitherto underutilised
talent and potential for the benefit of the nation.
The English Language Standards and Quality Council
(henceforth ELSQC) has been established as the overseer of
standards and quality in our English language education system.
What is clearly needed is a hallmarking system for taught courses,
teacher training programmes, assessments, and other ventures in
the field of English language.
Such a task would require resources far beyond those of the
ELSQC, and so much of the quality control would have to be
delegated to bodies answerable to the ELSQC whose members have
been ascertained to be of the right calibre. Procedures for assessing
teachers, for example, would themselves have to be hallmarked.
Hallmarking would also address another practical problem
facing our education system as a whole. Despite huge expenditure
on education, we are underperforming in relation to our national
wealth (MEB, p. 3-27), and we are obtaining a poor return on our
19

investment and expenditure. We need to get value for every ringgit

(MEB, p. 6-11). Hallmarking would save expenditure on poor quality
ventures unlikely to lead to improvements, and concentrate spending
on high quality ventures more likely to yield positive results.
1.3.2 Integration
Among the most important ingredients of quality is integration.
All the different components have to work together as a single
integrated functioning system. Decisions taken at one stage have
consequences for decisions to be taken further downstream. The
MBMMBI policy leads to the MEB, and the MEB leads to the
commissioning of this Roadmap. The Roadmap needs to include
the design of an internally consistent English language programme
that can be implemented in practice.
The inclusion in the programme of a national curriculum
aligned to international standards creates the need for teachers
to be trained to teach it. The different bodies that train teachers
have to be brought together to ensure that teachers are trained
to teach the right things in the classroom. In order to make the
teaching of the curriculum effective, students need access to
appropriate learning materials, and assessment procedures need
to test the right things and measure the extent to which students
are achieving the intended learning outcomes. All parties involved
must be working together towards common goals.
20
Integrating the system

The need to integrate the English language education system can
perhaps best be highlighted by drawing attention to problems that
arise when integration is lacking. The examples cited briefly here are
discussed at greater length in the relevant chapters of Section B. If
speaking proficiency is set as a top priority for the English language
programme but the assessment is limited to the testing of reading and
writing, then the assessment is not integrated with the rest of the
programme.
If the learning materials used do not match the curriculum,
or if they do not enable students to achieve the learning goals
associated with the curriculum, then there is a lack integration
within the programme itself. If students are expected to learn to
communicate in English, but teachers are not trained to enable
students to develop communicative competence, then there is a
lack of integration in the English language education system as a
whole. Problems of this kind manifest themselves at the same time,
and give students a flawed learning experience which may make it
difficult for them to learn at all, or at least to maintain morale.
Progress
Lack of integration causes problems of a rather different kind
as the student progresses through the education programme. For
example, if beginning readers are required to read whole sentences
before developing basic word recognition skills, or if learners are
expected to use grammatical forms in writing before recognising

them in reading, then there is a lack of integration that can only
hamper their progress.
understanding English grammar. In both cases, it appears that

children are expected to learn the same content at least twice in
the course of their education.
It is essential that as students progress through the learning

programme the things they are given to learn are appropriate
for their present stage of development in accordance with the
principle of developmentally appropriate practice and presented
in the right order, so that the programme is integrated when viewed
through time.
For example, according to the national curriculum, much of

Year 1 is concerned with letter recognition, and phonics teaching
proper begins in Year 2 and continues until Form 5. Children who
have already learnt the letters of the alphabet in preschool will not
have much to learn in Year 1, and primary school children who have
learnt to use phonics methods to recognise words will be doing it
all again in secondary school.
Progression
A consequence of the division of the programme into largely
independent modules is that particular attention needs to be
paid to the management of student transfer from preschool to
primary school, and then on to secondary school and perhaps
tertiary education. Students entering primary school will have
very different experiences of learning English at preschool level,
ranging from nothing at all to a good start in speaking and reading;
and similarly secondary schools take in students from primary
school with a range of ability in English.
Since children spend different lengths of time in preschool, the
handover between preschool and primary school can be expected
to be problematical. A problem which is discussed elsewhere in
this document concerns the teaching of beginning literacy. Among
the problems children face are recognising English words, and
Perhaps the most difficult handover problem involves the transition

from school to university. The transition is particularly problematical
in view of the different routes to university entrance and the different
kinds and amounts of tuition available, if any, to prepare students for
the English language demands of their university courses.
The consequence of the current lack of integration is that the
standard of English of many students coming up to university is
inadequate for their needs, and for these students it is probably
already too late to bring their English up to the necessary standard.
This situation has prompted remedial action at university level,
which is reported elsewhere in this document. The integration
of the English language programme includes the establishment of
handover procedures to ensure that students make the transfer
successfully at each stage.
21

Classroom teaching and

learning is an area which will
require a thorough reform in
order to be made compatible
with the philosophy of teaching
and learning which is built
into the CEFR and described
in the baseline study.
The ability range

A modern integrated education system is expected to cater for
all children across the ability range. Although aspirational targets
express the hope that all students will achieve a certain level of
proficiency in English at the end of each stage of their education,
the reality is that some students will not achieve this level, while
others will advance far beyond it.
The different needs of above average students, average
students and the weaker students need to be taken into account.
Intervention programmes will in some cases be required to provide
the above average students with a real challenge, and to prevent
the weaker students from being left behind.
22
The figures provided in the Cambridge Baseline give cause

for concern in connection with the extremes between Year 6 and
Form 3. The CEFR measures language proficiency on a scale
beginning with A1, and progressing through A2, B1, B2, and C1
to C2. The percentage of students below CEFR A1 falls from 32
in Year 6 to 12 in Form 3, while at the upper end, the percentage
above A2 rises from 13 to 31. The percentage in A1 or A2 remains
virtually unchanged, from 56 in Year 6 to 57 in Form 3. There is
a small amount of improvement, for the figure for A1 falls from
34% to 28%, while the figure for A2 rises from 22% to 29%. If we
now compare the figures for Form 3 and Form 5, we find that the
largest single group is the 29% in A2 in both cases.
The number below A2 falls from 30% in Form 3 to 27% in Form

5, while the number of those above A2 rises from 31% to 35%.
Although these figures do indicate some progress, this progress is
slow, especially in the middle of the range; and even in the extremes,
the progress slows down between Form 3 and Form 5.
raised in the Executive Summary of the Cambridge Baseline on

page 12, where in the upper picture the children are sitting in
rows listening to the teacher talking, although one child is more
interested in the photographer, while in the lower picture, children
are actively involved in learning.
There are many possible explanations for these figures, but

one possibility that needs investigation concerns the transfer from
primary school to secondary school. How is it that weak students
make more progress than average students? What is the favourable
circumstance that enables the more able students to flourish in the
first years of secondary school?
The approach to teaching must be based on what is known

about how children learn in general, and how they learn languages
in particular. Special attention has to be paid to early learning,
because this is when the foundations are laid for lifelong learning.
Shaky foundations in English will make it difficult for the child ever
to develop a high level of competence in English later on; while on
the other hand firm foundations provide the child with the means
to achieve excellence. Although the framework does not lay down
either how languages should be taught, or how communicative
proficiency should be assessed, there is no doubt that task-based
teaching and learning are strongly reinforced (Little, 2006, p. 169).
1.3.3 Quality in the programme

Quality in the programme begins with a quality curriculum,
which is then followed through by quality in teaching and learning,
in learning materials, and in assessment. The focus here is on these
last three components.
Teaching and learning
Classroom teaching and learning is an area which will require
a thorough reform in order to be made compatible with the
philosophy of teaching and learning which is built into the CEFR
and described in the baseline study (pp. 9-14). The problem is
Teaching at all levels has to take into account what the learners
are expected to do. Traditional language teaching does not always
make a clear distinction between learning about a language and
learning to use it in communication. Since the development of the
communicative approach to language teaching and learning from
the early 1970s, the emphasis has been on using the language, and
this approach is reflected, for example, in the can do statements
associated with each level of proficiency of the CEFR.
23

The adoption of a communicative approach to the learning of

English does not mean that acquiring the forms of English including
pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary is unimportant. This
is because communication skills are based on the knowledge and
understanding of the forms of a language, and so learners need to
know the forms of the language in order to develop these skills.
The forms of the language must be taught not for their own sake,
but in order to enable the learner to communicate. This requires
of the teacher a much deeper understanding of linguistic form than
for the mere teaching of such things as plurals, tense forms and
irregular verbs.
Language learning should as far as possible emulate authentic

classroom use;
The goal of language learning is using the language rather than

knowing about it;
Language learning is not additively sequential but recursive

and paced differently at different stages of acquisition;
Language learning is not the accumulation of perfectly

mastered elements of grammar and vocabulary, and learner
errors are to be expected;
The baseline study draws attention (p. 5) to the wide range of

achievement at different stages of school education. For example,
Form 3 is described as at level A2 on average. In fact this accounts
only for about 28% of students, for about 41% of students are
below this level, and about 31% above it. In order to be effective,
teaching will have to include differentiation strategies (p. 13)
providing support for the weaker students and suitable activities
for the more advanced students.
Language proficiency involves both comprehension and production

which come together in interaction, although comprehension
abilities tend to precede and exceed productive abilities;
Language use requires an understanding of the cultural context

in which communication takes place;
The ability to perform is facilitated when learners are actively

engaged in meaningful, authentic, and purposeful learning tasks;
Assessment reflects instructional goals and is based on

performance;
If our goal is to develop in learners the ability to communicate

in English, then our approach to learning must be guided by certain
principles including the following:
24
Educational technologies and textbook materials play support

roles for language learning, and should not determine the
curriculum (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011, p. 1).
the materials are trying to help children to learn, and the children
must be learning something useful and relevant. In the teaching of
a language, there must be no gaps or lacunae.
It is already too late at the time of writing to do much about

teaching and learning for Wave 1, and these issues will have to be
addressed in Waves 2 and 3 and reflected in teacher education.
What can be done in the shorter term is to reconsider the
curriculum and its influence on classroom practices.
On the other hand, the materials must be free of learner errors.

It is important to bear in mind that children will acquire poor
models of a language just as effectively as good models. Children
who do not have independent access to English outside school are
particularly vulnerable if they are given an inappropriate model
of English to learn. It is essential to set up a strict and effective
system of quality control for English language learning materials.
For example, Speaking has emerged in the baseline study as an

area of weakness (p. 6 and p. 9), and yet students are required to
learn to pronounce English words correctly and speak English with
appropriate stress, rhythm and intonation. The question is how they
can do this either (a) from a printed textbook or (b) from teachers
who cannot do these things for themselves. In this case, classroom
practices have important consequences for learning materials.
Learning materials
Learning materials reflect the learning culture for which they
are designed. If we change our classroom culture, we shall also
need learning materials of a new and different kind. The baseline
study (p. 16) outlines the strengths and weaknesses of a sample of
primary and secondary materials (see Chapters 5 and 6).
Learning materials must be fit for purpose. There are two sides
to fitness for purpose. On the one hand, it must be clear what
Assessment
Assessment has to reflect the values of the language programme
as a whole. What is taught in the classroom is determined by the
curriculum and ultimately by national needs. The purpose of the
assessment is to ascertain to what extent students have been
successful in achieving the goals set by the curriculum. Current
practice needs to be considered in the light of the comments in the
baseline study (p. 15). If our goal is communicative competence in
English, then this needs to be reflected in the forms of assessment
adopted.
The person in the best position to assess students is the
classroom teacher. As students develop new skills, their progress
can be recorded by the teacher. If the progress is genuine, and
25

the assessment properly carried out, students should be able to

demonstrate their skills in a snapshot type of test. The problem
with this, as pointed out in the baseline study (p. 13), is that
teachers are already overwhelmed by administration.
1.3.4 Targets
The national agenda sets as the overall target for our English
language programme the production of school leavers and graduates
with the level of English proficiency they need to make themselves
employable in the modern globalised world. It is not enough to
hope that students will reach the required level by the end of
their education: a quality system needs to set interim targets for
each successive stage. Here for example are some common-sense
interim targets:

Preschool: raised awareness of English, the ability to say simple

things in English and the first steps to English literacy;
Primary: basic functional English literacy and some limited

ability to communicate in English in familiar social situations;
Secondary: the ability to use English as a matter of course in

everyday situations with the potential to use English at the
place of work;
A1
Primary school
A2
Secondary school
B1/B2
Post-secondary
B2
University
B2/C1
Teacher Education
C1
CEFR TARGETS FOR

EACH STAGE OF EDUCATION
Figure 1.7

26
Preschool
Post-secondary: sufficient command of English to meet the

challenge of English at university;
Graduate: the skilled use of English in the context of

employment for those joining the workforce on graduation,
and in an academic context for those studying for a higher
degree at home or abroad;
Teacher education: a high level of English proficiency

(combined with pedagogical expertise) leading to effective
English teaching in the classroom.
These common-sense targets are presented here for purposes

of illustration, and the more carefully considered targets on the
CEFR scale are presented above.
A major advantage of using the CEFR is that common-sense
targets have already been considered in great detail and linked
to a standard scale. The CEFR scale enables us to convert our
common-sense targets into formally defined targets which are
understood internationally for each stage of our English language
programme (see the CEFR Global Scale in Chapter 3). The
targets set to be achieved by 2025 for our children to reach as
they progress through our English language programme are shown
in Figure 1.7.
Obviously not all students will reach the target set at each
stage; but on condition that the programme is reformed in
accordance with the principle of equity, we can reasonably expect
that between now and 2025, an increasingly large proportion of
our students from all social backgrounds will be achieving the
CEFR target set for each stage of education.
1.3.5 Research
A danger that inevitably accompanies highly standardised or
integrated education systems is that they are difficult to change. The
last thing we want is a juggernaut that creates its own momentum
and careers out of control and proves impossible to stop, or steers
to a different course. This is how new ideas are stifled and the
opportunity to make useful innovations is lost. We therefore need
to build flexibility into our English language programme.
The way to do this in an educational context is to take account
of relevant research undertaken elsewhere, and to promote
research of our own. We need a research culture to ensure that
relevant new knowledge, wherever it is created anywhere in the
world, is made available here in Malaysia, and used effectively to
keep our programme up among the international leaders.
The CEFR gives us a running start as it is itself based on the
research findings of several decades. At the same time, we need
27

to build up an English language research tradition of our own, and

become creators of international knowledge. Research at this level
is properly the responsibility of our research universities.
Educational research can be carried out at different levels,
and much useful work can be done by people who do not think
of themselves as researchers at all. For example, no matter
how carefully a new programme is devised, we have to expect
problems arising from imperfect integration and uncoordinated
implementation. We need a mechanism in place to ensure that any
such problems are systematically reported and solved.
Any teacher can report problems, and they can be solved by
experienced teachers with the necessary expertise. Innovations
should not be introduced in the belief that they might work, and
they need to be tested. After initial testing, they need to be beta
tested using an appropriate sample of teachers and students. The
creation of a research-led English language programme is essential
if the government is to achieve its ambition to make Malaysia an
educational hub for the region and perhaps beyond.
1.4 Teacher education

While current levels of teacher English proficiency may be
sufficient for internal communication within Malaysia, they are very
far from sufficient if students are to learn spoken English from their
6
How the worlds best-performing school systems come out on top accessed 28 May 2015 at
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_ School_ Systems_ Final.pdf
28
teachers and go on to speak English effectively in work situations

requiring English, or in international situations. Teachers are not
ordinary language learners, because they need to be aware of what
they are learning in order to teach their students effectively.
1.4.1 Creating a high-performing English education system

It has become internationally known in recent years that in order
to create a high-performing education system, it is first necessary
to produce a high-calibre teaching workforce. This subsection
outlines the challenge we face in the provision of education for
English teachers. A report published by McKinsey & Company
in September 20076 presents the findings of research into how
countries create high-performing education systems. It was found
that there were three major success factors that matter most:
1. Getting the right people to become teachers;
2. Developing them into effective instructors;
3. Ensuring that the system is able to deliver the best possible
instruction for every child.
Getting the right people begins with effective mechanisms for
selecting teachers for training. Trainees are ideally recruited from
the top third of each cohort graduating from the school system,
and are characterised by high academic achievement, good
communication skills, and high motivation for teaching.
Starting off with high calibre recruits is important, because the
negative impact of low-performing teachers is severe, particularly
during the earlier years of schooling. Top performing systems select
before training, and limit places in the training programme to those
selected, and are able in this way to match supply to demand.
This avoids wasting money on trainees who drop out, fail to
find teaching jobs or for other reasons do not become teachers.
The smaller number of trainees leaves more money to spend
on training each trainee teacher. The most successful model for
salaries is frontloading compensation, with good initial salaries,
which in top performing systems tend to be between 95% and 99%
of GDP per capita and in line with other graduate starting salaries.
Salary progression was found to be less important in attracting
recruits and in retaining teachers.
The second major factor is to turn trainees into effective
classroom teachers and improve classroom instruction. This
should include practical training to close the gap between what
trainees do in training and what they are expected to do in the
classroom. Success in this case relies on the ability of teachers to
take responsibility for their own development, including (a) being
aware of specific weaknesses in their own practice; (b) individually
Finland, the highest achieving

country in the world in reading,
mathematics and science, have no
standardised tests that resemble
ours whatsoever, though they
use teacher made tests in their
classroom and school accountability
system. Their system uses high
standards for allowing teachers
into the profession, awards high
pay and bestows high status to
those that enter teaching, provides
rigorous and extensive professional
development for the teachers, and
depends on trusting relationships
to improve academic achievement.
29

gaining an understanding of specific best practices; and (c) having

the motivation to make the necessary improvements.
Success in the classroom also includes placing teaching coaches
in schools, appointing principals who are also instructional leaders,
and creating a situation in which teachers are able to learn from each
other. Good teacher training makes it possible to reduce total spending
on school systems. The OECD average in 2002 was 20% of GDP per
capita per student; but top performers spent less than the average, and
were able to save money further by increasing class size.
The third major factor is that high-performing systems provide
the best possible instruction for every child. In the case of the top
performers in PISA, there is a low correlation between outcomes
and the home background. Finland is an example of a country
with a top-performing education system. The Finnish experience
underlines the value of high quality teacher training. High teacher
standards and professional development have brought about a
transformation in the performance of Finnish students. According
to Nichols and Berliner (2005):
Finland, the highest achieving country in the world in reading,
mathematics and science, have [sic] no standardi[s]ed tests that
resemble ours whatsoever, though they use teacher made tests in
their classroom and school accountability system. Their system uses
high standards for allowing teachers into the profession, awards
high pay and bestows high status to those that enter teaching,
30
provides rigorous and extensive professional development for

the teachers, and depends on trusting relationships to improve
academic achievement (pp. 165-166).
Finland has set up a system of interventions to support
individual students in schools, employing special education
teachers in a ratio of one to seven class teachers. A large number
of students are given support, which in itself lessens the stigma
of being perceived to be falling behind, and on occasion the best
students are provided with additional instruction.
1.4.2 English teaching in Malaysia
It is clear from the Cambridge Baseline, which considered teacher
performance at some length (pp. 9-14), that the standard of English
teaching in our schools falls far short of what is required in a highperforming education system. The most serious cause for concern
is the general level of English language proficiency among teachers,
which in some cases could be affecting their effectiveness as teachers.
The greatest weakness is in Speaking, and as pointed out
elsewhere in the report, this affects what students learn. It is also
clear from the report that in addition to improved proficiency,
teachers need to develop further their professional knowledge and
skills. This aspect of the teaching of English in Malaysia is discussed
in more detail in Chapter 9.
Frequent mention is made of the need for additional teacher

training; but what is meant by training is in some cases left vague. It is
not, as is sometimes implied in the materials that have been consulted
in the preparation of this Roadmap, a kind of all-purpose medicine to be
applied in doses, so that if teachers are insufficiently trained, they must
need another dose of training. Teachers needs are in many cases highly
specific, and so it is necessary to spell out in sufficient detail what their
precise needs are in order to identify appropriate solutions.
status of teaching to a graduate profession. In this way, teacher

training has joined other kinds of training at university level, such
as medical training or training in scientific method, which require
high levels of ability and academic acumen.
Outside the university context, the term training usually refers to
the development of low level skills which offer little or no intellectual
challenge. People are trained to drive a car, develop physical fitness,
operate a factory machine or use a piece of computer software. The
very phrase teacher training can be interpreted to imply that teachers
are trained to do simple things in the classroom.
There is a hidden semantic problem in the use of the word

training. In the days before mass higher education, intending
teachers attended teacher training colleges, such as the Malayan
Teachers Training College at Kirkby near Liverpool, and received
an education different in kind from the academic training on offer
in universities. In recent decades, there have been huge advances
in our understanding of learning in general, of the learning of
languages, and of the learning of English in particular. Teachers
need this new knowledge and associated skills if they are to succeed
in the classroom, and so the modern teacher needs a much more
advanced academic education than the teacher of fifty years ago.
1.5 Preparing the Roadmap
In the research-led environment of universities worldwide, the

changing needs of teachers have been taken for granted, so that
although the old term teacher training has been retained, the actual
content of courses has changed to include much more academic
university-level material. This is reflected in the raising of the
This introductory chapter has reconnoitred the road ahead to

anticipate the consequences of using the CEFR to benchmark our
English language programme, and taking into account the findings of the
Cambridge Baseline Study. This final section is divided into two parts.
If we are to develop a high-performing English education

system, we have to begin with a fundamental change in the
attitude towards the preparation of teachers for a career in
education. What teachers need is not low-level training but highlevel education. Teachers are not to be trained to do a job, and
they need education to perform as professionals.
31

The first is concerned with anticipated problems in implementation.

The second is concerned with the seven steps that have to be taken.
1.5.1 Implementing the Roadmap

In this connection, there are a number of important issues to
which attention is drawn in the Roadmap, but which will have to
be addressed in the course of implementation.
Curriculum, Teaching and learning and Assessment

This Roadmap has been developed in accordance with the
policy decision that the CEFR is to be used in the development of
our English language programme. The actual implementation of
the Roadmap will inevitably encounter practical problems which
will require attention to be paid to the legitimate interests of the
many stakeholders involved.
For example, teachers have a legitimate interest in ensuring
that any proposals made can be implemented in practice in the
classroom. It goes without saying that at some stage we need
to go through a consultation process giving all stakeholders an
opportunity to react to the Roadmap as proposed, with a view to
producing an improved final version.
32
Officers in the Curriculum Development Division and the

Examinations Syndicate have in particular a legitimate interest in
the development of the kind of integrated agenda-driven programme
that has been proposed, and in order for the implementation to
be successful, it is vital that they take ownership of the plans put
forward in the Roadmap. However, dealing with any problems
that might arise in this connection is not within the remit of the
writers of this Roadmap, and will have to be addressed by those
responsible in the course of the implementation process itself.
A third problem arises from the report in the Cambridge
Baseline Study on standards of proficiency in English among English
teachers. This is a matter that requires delicacy and tact, because
the cooperation of the teachers is essential if the development plan
is to be successful. We have a systemic problem with regard to our
national standards of English, and we have to start by understanding
how and why we have a problem. While it would be very easy to
seek to blame the teachers for not teaching English properly, such an
attitude is unhelpful, since it takes a logical shortcut that is consistent
neither with fairness nor with an understanding of the problem.
A systemic problem does not come about overnight, and the
problem we have with standards of English is a chronic problem, in
the sense that it has grown gradually over the years and decades.
The next chapter deals with the historical development of English
teaching in Malaysia, and it would be difficult to identify a historical
period when the teaching profession as a whole could reasonably

be said to be blameworthy.
It would be equally difficult to identify a stage in the career of
individual teachers when they can reasonably be said to have been
negligent in the development of their own personal proficiency. In fact,
it makes no sense at all to blame our teachers for their own lack of
proficiency, and they have to be seen not as people who are failing to
do a proper job, but as people who need support and a higher level of
education in order to carry out the job now required of them.
This point is repeated several times in the course of this
Roadmap. The historical reality is that changes in the outside
world have led to much more being demanded of our teachers, and
the reasonable response is to provide them with effective training
and expertise to do a quality job as professionals in the classroom.
It is also true that more is now required of our students. Different
groups of learners will in practice have to be specially catered for
as the Roadmap is implemented. While some students will use
English routinely at home, for others English may be a second or
third language that they encounter only in the classroom.
The learning situation is different for students in national and
national-type schools, and for students in rural and urban schools.
We also have to cater for children with different learning abilities
and those with special needs. As explained in chapter 2, some of
these differences have a long history.
While it is appropriate to set general targets for all our students,

the Roadmap will have to be implemented with sensitivity to ensure
that all our students achieve the highest level of proficiency in
English that is within their capabilities. Reform in education must
be taken in compassionate, generous and nurturing ways where
care for the individuals becomes a genuine core value (Galway,
2012, p. 22).
1.5.2 The seven steps

In accordance with the agenda-driven planning model outlined
above, what we need to do in order to transform our English language
programme can be summarised in the form of seven steps:
1. Establishing evidence-based and realistic targets. The
first task will be to establish agreed realistic targets at different
educational levels so that the English language programme as a
whole makes the intended contribution to the national agenda.
These targets will be associated with matching levels on the
CEFR scale A1 to C2, and the initial targets will be determined
in accordance with the findings of the Cambridge Baseline
Report, and will be achievable in the immediate or short term.
Targets are dealt with further in the Editorial Introduction to
Section B.
33

2. Revising the curriculum. The national curriculum will need

to be revised to enable the maximum number of students to
achieve the targets set on the CEFR scale. Particular attention
will have to be paid to the handover from preschool to
primary school and from primary school to secondary school.
Independently of the curriculum, it will also be necessary to
manage the handover from school to post-secondary and
tertiary education.
3. Reviewing classroom practices. Classroom teaching and
culture will need to be revised to maximise student success
according to the agreed CEFR scale.
4. Providing appropriate learning materials. Textbooks and
other learning materials will need to provide help and support
to both students and teachers, and facilitate student learning
and progress to the targets set on the CEFR scale. In order
to ensure the quality of learning materials, a quality control
mechanism will have to be established and maintained.
5. Assessing student achievement. The aim of examinations
and other forms of assessment will be to measure the extent
to which students have achieved the proficiency targets set on
the CEFR scale. Assessment outcomes (including grades and
marks) need to be aligned to international standards.
34
6. Intervention. Although teaching is typically aimed at

students in the middle range, due attention needs to be paid to
the needs of underachieving students, and of those who excel.
This will require special intervention for both extremes, and
also training for teachers to enable them to deal appropriately
for these two groups of students.
7. Training teachers. Teacher education needs to be reorganised
to ensure that teachers are provided with the knowledge and
expertise to facilitate student learning in accordance with
the revised curriculum. Particular attention needs to be paid
to (a) the teaching of English grammar, and (b) the teaching
of spoken English both in connection with beginning literacy
and with the development of spoken communicative skills.
Teachers will also need sufficient knowledge of spoken English
to help students with the development of receptive skills.

The Historical Background to

English Language Education in Malaysia
35

Chapter 2: The Historical Background to English Language Education in Malaysia
he aim of this chapter is to explain how the present English

language programme came to be the way it is, and to
ascertain our starting off point for future developments.
We trace the development of the education system as a whole,
with the focus on language education and on English language
education in particular. The perceived purpose of education has
changed fundamentally over the decades, and taking into account
changes in the perceived purpose in response to changes in the
outside world, we can divide the historical account into four main
periods (Zuraidah Mohd Don, 2014):
1. Before Independence
2. After Independence
3. Globalisation
4. The contemporary situation
Our concern here is not just with historical facts, interesting
in themselves though these may be. We need to understand the
circumstances that led from one historical period to another, in
order to understand the contemporary situation with sufficient
depth to make informed plans for the future. A matter of particular
interest is what sort of people education was intended for, and
what sort of education they were given. The material is presented
in such a way that we can now learn and benefit from our own
educational history.
36
English language
education was first
introduced to the future
Malaysia and indeed to
South East Asia on the
opening of the Penang
Free School in 1816.
In tracing the history of education in Malaysia, we are not
concerned with mere historical facts, but to look for clues
which point to the main historical issues, including who receives
education, and what the education involves. This enables us to
place current initiatives now taking place in the fourth of these
periods including this roadmap in their historical context, and
build on the successful initiatives of the past.
2.1 Before Independence

English language education was first introduced to the future
Malaysia and indeed to South East Asia on the opening of the
Penang Free School in 18161. Soon afterwards, in 1823, Stamford
Raffles founded the Singapore Institution, now the Raffles
1
2
http://www.pfs.edu.my/
http://www.ri.edu.sg/
Institution2. Following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, Penang and

Singapore were joined by Melaka to form the Straits Settlements,
and 1826 saw the foundation of Malacca High School. There are
few details about the curriculum taught at this time, but we do
know that these schools were open to children regardless of race
or religion, and that Malacca High School admitted girls as well as
boys, followed in this respect in 1844 by the Singapore Institution.
The Straits Settlements were at this time governed by the
East India Company, and would be affected by Macaulays Minute
on Indian Education of 1835, which introduced English language
education to India. British interests in the region extended to
Perak following the Pangkor Treaty of 18743, and eventually the
Malay College was founded in Kuala Kangsar4 in 1905.
3
4
D.G.E. Hall (1994) A History of South East Asia, p. 595. London: Macmillan.
http://www.mckk.edu.my/
37

Students could take the Cambridge Overseas School Certificate

Examination, and go on to such higher education as was available
anywhere in the Empire. Local higher education began with the
Medical School in Singapore which was founded in 1905, and later
became the King Edward VII College of Medicine before merging with
Raffles College to form the University of Malaya. The outcome was
that long before the foundation of present-day Malaysia, high quality
English language education was already in place and open to children
of all races, and at least in some cases open to girls as well as boys.
Although English-medium schools were open in principle to
all ethnic groups, they depended in practice on the population
within their catchment areas. Since they were typically located
in towns, they recruited mainly from an urban and substantially
Chinese population, and included many fewer urban Indians and
urban Malays (Ozg, 1993). The introduction of English language
education had the effect of creating a largely urban privileged class
drawn in different proportions from each community, but ultimately
separate from the rest of the community (see e.g. Asmah, 1995).
Having English as a common language, Malays, Indians
and Chinese from privileged backgrounds would share more of
their values and way of life with each other than their separate
communities. English was already becoming associated with
economic opportunity and social mobility, and taking on the role
of the language of prestige in education, law and government. The
long term consequence of this is that Malaysia still has privileged
38
groups with an international outlook and excellent English, drawn

from all races, and including men and women.
Some education was available for Malays in Islamic schools and
government-funded village schools known as sekolah pondok hut
schools (Mior Khairul 2011, p. 35). These schools typically provided
four years of education in practice, in contrast to the officially claimed
seven years, and used Malay as the medium of instruction for reading
and writing, simple arithmetic, and geography (Ozay, 2011). This
was a practical kind of education designed to provide poor children
with the knowledge they would need to follow in the footsteps of
their parents and grandparents as farmers or fishermen.
There were also rapidly growing immigrant groups including
Indians recruited to work on the estates, and Chinese workers in
the tin mines. For children in these communities, it was important
to maintain ties with their home country, and this was achieved
through elementary education. As in England, those interested
in providing education were allowed to set up their own schools
(Powell, 2002; Watson, 1980).
The education system was thus made up of different strands
with different educational goals and brought about by different
initiatives. Chinese schools in towns benefited from financial
support from private individuals and organisations, and from
the assistance of mainland Chinese authorities concerned with
Chinese education overseas, which gave them access to the
well-developed education system of mainland China, complete

with curricula, textbooks and teachers supplied directly from
China. They remained independent until the introduction of
the registration of schools in 1920 (Kua, 1999, pp. 2337) which
brought them under government control.
For the Indians, by contrast, a rudimentary Tamil education
was provided at primary level by rubber estate owners, often in
dilapidated buildings. As Asmah (1993) points out, some of the
teachers sent from India to maintain ties with the old country
were ill trained, and the education did little more than prepare the
children to work on the rubber estates.
In the later nineteenth century, the government in London
began to take more seriously its responsibility to educate all of its
people. This was reflected in a new attitude that emerged after
the formation in 1895 of the Federated Malay States, and the
establishment of vernacular schools for the Malays, including a
limited number of secondary schools.
An important figure at this time was the Malay scholar R. J.
Wilkinson, who having been appointed Acting Inspector of Schools
in 1899, set out to provide the new Malay schools with libraries
(Lim, 2008), and went on to serve as Federal Schools inspector
from 1903 to 1906. Wilkinson promoted publications in Malay, and
established a Malay Literature Series for schools published by the
company that in 1906 came to be known as MPH. The influence
of Wilkinson can be traced to efforts after independence to build

a new nation with Malay as the national language (Ozay, 2011).
We now take for granted that education should be available for
all children, whether their families are rich or poor, and whether
they live in the town or the countryside, and that education should
give children from less privileged backgrounds a better start in life.
In the United kingdom, the 1944 Education Act made provision for
free secondary education for all children up to the age of 15, and
paved the way for mass higher education later in the century. This
came alas too late for British Malaya, for the final years leading up
to independence were dominated not by education but by national
security. It fell to the new independent government to usher in
post-primary education for all5.
2.2 After Independence

The government that took over the newly independent Federation
of Malaya in 1957 was faced with a seemingly impossible task. Apart
from the substantial minorities that would have to be catered for,
the new government was facing the internal troubles known as the
Malayan Emergency. In 1963 the former British territories of North
Borneo and Sarawak were added to Malaya to form Malaysia. If the
new country was to survive at all, it was essential to bring these
disparate and far-flung populations together to form some kind of
5
According to the former Minister of Education, only 7% of the population had
secondary education or more in 1957, compared with 76% in 2013. Source: http://
www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/muhyiddin-education-blueprint-toput-malaysia-within-top-countries, 9 November 2013. Accessed 25 April 2014.
39

Sekolah pondok or hut

schools typically provided
four years of education in
practice, in contrast to the
officially claimed seven
years, and used Malay as the
medium of instruction for
reading and writing, simple
arithmetic, and geography.
national unity. This situation posed a major challenge for education in
general, and for language education in particular.
English was still needed for practical reasons, but as the former
colonial language it was singularly ill-fitted for a role in creating
national unity. The only language which could do this was Malay.
Just before independence, the Razak Report of 1956 proposed that
English should be retained at least for a time, but that Malay should
be phased in as the national language, particularly in education and
in connection with government, for example as a qualification for
entry into government service (Gaudart, 1987).
The report also proposed education at secondary level,
with either Malay or English as the medium of instruction.
English remained the medium of instruction at tertiary level. On
40
independence in 1957, Malay was officially given the status of the

national language under the terms of the Malaysian constitution,
while English was to be the co-official language for ten years.
During this period, English was to be used for official purposes
amongst others in Parliament and in state legislative assemblies.
The Rahman Talib Report of 1960 took an important step to
raise the status of Malay. Although English was retained alongside
Malay for use as the official languages of education, the ultimate
intention was to make Malay the main medium of instruction
(Gaudart, 1987). Public examinations at secondary level were
to be in English or Malay, so that other schools were put under
pressure to adopt English or Malay as the medium of instruction.
The Education Act of 1961 went further, and foresaw an

educational system in which the national language is the main medium
of instruction (cited by Gill, 2007, p. 114). The emphasis was now
clearly on Malay as the national language and as the medium of
instruction. The co-official status of English was brought to an end
by further legislation in 1963 and 1967, although it was retained for
certain official purposes in education and administration.
Following the events of May 1969, the decision was taken
to replace English by Malay as the medium of instruction, and
to convert English-medium schools to Malay-medium (Gaudart,
1987). According to the Second Malaysia Plan of 1971, Malay was
to be introduced progressively for the teaching of all subjects apart
from English and other languages, in primary schools by 1975 and
in secondary schools by 1982 (Asmah, 1985, p. 42).
The 1970s saw the implementation of ideas developed earlier for a
national education system which provided for national schools using
Malay as the medium of instruction alongside national-type schools
using English, Mandarin or Tamil as the medium of instruction, but
including English and Malay as compulsory subjects (Asmah, 1985,
pp. 4142). Malay took precedence over English following the New
Education Policy of 1971, and in 1983, Malay became the official
medium of instruction in institutions of higher education.
The consequence of the legislation was that English was

replaced by Malay as English-medium schools were converted to
Malay-medium schools, and reduced to the status of a language
taught as a school subject and used in universities for the teaching
of science and technology. The next generation went through their
education in Malay, and as a result had less access to English than
their parents. The inevitable outcome was a decline in national
standards of proficiency in English, and as Asmah put it (1983, p.
338), It is unrealistic to aim for a level of proficiency equivalent
to that attained by students in English schools when learning and
teaching is done in Malay.
2.3 Globalisation
By a historical accident, the phasing out of English in Malaysia
coincided with two other developments, namely the rapid
improvement of the education system, and accelerating globalisation.
The growth of education in Malaysia enabled many people to obtain
a good education and even gain entrance to university, with the
result that the number of qualified people rapidly increased.
The creation of a generation of educated young people
meant that Malaysia could aim higher, and raise its profile on the
international stage. The new climate was epitomised by Vision
2020 put forward in 1991 by Tun Mahathir Mohamed during his
41

time as Prime Minister, with the aim of getting Malaysia recognised

as a developed nation by the year 2020.
It was clearly recognised from the time of the Razak Report
in 1956 that Malaysia would continue to need English. The Third
Malaysia Plan (1976 1980) included measures to ensure that English
is taught as a strong second language (Government of Malaysia,
1976, p. 386), in order to keep abreast of scientific and technological
developments in the world and to participate meaningfully in
international trade and commerce(p.391). According to Gaudart
(1987) although intentions were expressed in national plans and
elsewhere to train teachers and maintain standards of English, there
were no actions to put the good intentions into effect.
Since the 1980s, increasing investment by multinational
companies had created a growing need for skilled workers, and
since these companies used English, their recruits also needed
English. The international requirement for Malaysians able to
communicate in English at an international level was increasing at
the very time when the phasing out of English as the medium of
instruction was reducing national levels of proficiency in English
and the number of Malaysians able to use the language effectively.
The problem was that without sufficient English, it was becoming
increasingly difficult for educated people including teachers and
academics to perform appropriately or even to obtain employment
commensurate with their qualifications and aspirations.
42
Those who were disadvantaged most by the new requirements

for English were young people who had benefited from the
extension of education to the extent of obtaining academic
qualifications, but who discovered that the English they had learnt
at school was not sufficient to get them a suitable job or support
them in their careers. The switch to Malay made little difference
to children from wealthy families, because they could still be sent
abroad for an English education. Nor did it make much difference for
many people whose need for English was minimal in any case.
Scholarships enabled some bright children from less privileged
backgrounds to go to residential school and obtain a quality grounding
in English, but for many, insufficient English proficiency was to prove
a serious handicap. Nor was the problem shared equally between
the town and the countryside. A quarter of a century ago, Rosli and
Malachi (1990) found a huge difference in performance in English
between rural and urban schools, so that the extension of education
to rural areas had done little for the poor.
2.3.1 The return of English

In the new century, English was to be brought back for the
teaching of Mathematics and Science, and then phased out again.
Policy changes were clearly required, as low levels of proficiency
in English were making it difficult for Malay-educated graduates to
find employment in the private sector. Phan, Kho and Chng (2013)
see this as the impetus behind the change of policy announced in
2002 by the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed.
... there was no step-by-step or

year-by-year changeover schedule
as was the case when the English
schools were converted into Malaymedium national schools. Nor
was there any warning given to
teachers, parents, textbook writers,
and publishers on the change that
was suddenly to come. Teachers
instead experienced hands-on
on-the-job training in teaching
these subjects in English and
retired teachers fluent in English
were brought back to teach in the
schools. Textbooks were written
as the teaching proceeded.
The supply of textbooks, whether by writing original

textbooks in Malay or translating them from English, had not
kept up with demand; and since the textbooks and the results of
scientific research were written in English, the best solution was
for Malaysian students to use English textbooks. The new policy
Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa
Inggeris the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics
in English (PPSMI) required Science and Mathematics to be
taught in English with effect from 2003, and applied from the first
year of education to tertiary education.
The success of the policy would depend on the ability of teachers
to teach Mathematics and Science in English; but most teachers
belonged to the generation that had been educated in Malay, and
would therefore need special training in English. Textbook writers
educated in Malay would also need training in English.
Students would need sufficient proficiency in English to
benefit from being taught in English. The teaching of Mathematics
and Science would need to be closely monitored to check that the
new policy was yielding the improved results hoped for, and that
mechanisms were in place to deal with any problems that might
arise in the course of its implementation.
43

2.3.2 The reversal of policy

In the longer term, the manner in which the PPSMI policy was
introduced may have compromised its viability and implementation.
Asmah (2007), for example, commented on the haste with which the
PPSMI policy was implemented, which resulted in poor structural
implementation:
there was no step-by-step or year-by-year changeover
schedule as was the case when the English schools were
converted into Malay-medium national schools. Nor was there
any warning given to teachers, parents, textbook writers, and
publishers on the change that was suddenly to come. Teachers
instead experienced hands-on on-the-job training in teaching
these subjects in English and retired teachers fluent in English
were brought back to teach in the schools. Textbooks were
written as the teaching proceeded. (pp. 355356).
Having themselves studied Mathematics and Science in Malay,
the majority of teachers were unable to conduct effective contentbased teaching and learning in English. According to the Ministry
of Education (2010), many schools continued to use Malay despite
the PPSMI policy in the teaching of both subjects. The problem
identified by Asiah Sharif (2013) was that the teachers lacked
44
Teachers were also forced to teach in Malay to help students

understand the subject matter better. This problem was especially
prevalent in the rural areas, and a widening gap in academic
performance for both subjects emerged between the rural and
urban areas during the period of the implementation of this policy.
A second change of policy was made public on 8 July 2009,
in the face of immense pressure from mother-tongue education
lobbyists and despite support from urban educated Malaysians,
when the Education Minister announced that the teaching of
Science and Mathematics in English would be phased out from
2012. Students who had started learning these subjects in English
would be allowed to continue to do so until they completed
Form 5. The government adduced research findings and public
consultation outcomes to argue that the teaching of Mathematics
and Science in English was not effective.
2.4 The Contemporary Situation

The reversal of policy which took place in 2009 meant that
some other means had to be found to make an appropriate response
to the continuing challenge of global English. The response or
rather the series of responses that was made has already been
described in some detail in the first section of Chapter 1, which
traces the provenance of this document. Our perspective here is
rather different, since the intention is to relate recent developments

to their historical context.
The first step was to formulate the new MBMMBI policy to
redefine the respective national and international roles of English
and Malay. English is now increasingly viewed as a facilitator
of economic development. The repositioning of English as the
driver of national development and global competitiveness under
MBMMBI policy coincided with the implementation of a number
of National Key Result Areas (NKRAs) under the Government
Transformation Programme (GTP).
Given that the objectives of many NKRAs are related to
national economic development, much emphasis has been placed
on programmes to enhance the teaching and learning of English,
especially under GTP 2.0, with the intention that English should
contribute more effectively to the economic well-being of the
country. It may be that, in this new role, English will carve out a more
stable and strategic position in the Malaysian education system.
The new policy led to a comprehensive review of the Malaysian
education system undertaken by the MoE in October 2011, the
eventual outcome of which was the Malaysian Education Blueprint,
the MEB, which appeared in September 2013. The MEB identifies
eleven shifts which need to be undertaken in order to transform the
education system. The shifts most relevant to English language
education are discussed in Section C. The programme of reform
is timetabled, and planned to be implemented in three waves

from 2015 until 2025, each wave having a different focus (see the
English Language Education Roadmap in Section C).
The MEB stimulated a number of initiatives designed to put
some flesh on the bones, and aiming to improve learning on the
part of students, or teaching on the part of teachers, or both.
Many initiatives were of course already in place, and some of these
were continued. The main initiatives are listed in the Editorial
Introduction to Section B, and some are mentioned in the chapters
of that section.
In order for any reform of our education system to succeed, it is
essential to pay attention to quality. The first step was to evaluate
the quality of the existing English language education system, and
this was done by commissioning a baseline report from Cambridge
English. The outcome of the study was that the existing system
was benchmarked against international standards by means of
the CEFR, so that the system was henceforth de facto open to
international comparison and so to external quality evaluation.
While the MEB was in preparation, approval was given
for the establishment of the English Language Standards and
Quality Council (ELSQC), which came into being in 2013. The
establishment of this body put in place an internal mechanism
for quality assurance. The ELSQC was given the task among its
many responsibilities to prepare policy papers, concept papers,
45

proposals papers, information papers and executive summaries.

It was therefore fitting that the first major task assigned to the
ELSQC was the preparation of this Roadmap for English language
education in Malaysia.
2.5 History and planning: why history matters

It has been said that the only lesson to be learnt from the
study of history is that the lessons of history are never learnt. In
the present case, in our attempt to reform the English language
programme, we have in fact much to learn from the history of
English teaching in our country. Moreover, we have to understand
and learn from our own history if we are to devise an effective
reform plan for the coming years.
There are three important lessons to be learnt. The first is
that education, including language education, has a purpose, but
this purpose is not fixed and immutable, and changes in the course
of time. The second is that in order to understand contemporary
problems, it is essential to approach them in the spirit of historical
realism. The third lesson concerns the important moral aspect of
education.
46
2.5.1 The changing purpose of education

When evaluating education systems and policies, it is necessary
to start with the purpose of education. The contemporary purpose
of education may be so obvious to us that it is scarcely necessary
to make it explicit; but later generations have to reconstruct
it according to the evidence that happens to have survived. An
abundantly clear finding from the study of earlier education
systems that the purpose of education is not fixed, but changes in
the course of time.
All governments need a workforce to carry out the business
of government, and one of the real-world goals of education is
to produce people who can do government work. When Britain
had an empire, one of the purposes of the public schools was to
produce an administrative class for service at home and overseas,
and those stationed in Malaya set up schools of the kind with which
they were familiar to educate local people in their own image.
The government needed workers proficient in English, and so
English was the medium of instruction. Independent governments
after 1957 also needed a government workforce, but they faced
the pressing question of national unity, and this is reflected in a
change of emphasis in education policy to contribute to nation
building.
Further change followed the challenge posed by globalisation

towards the end of the century. In this new situation, the perceived
purpose of the national education system is to contribute to
national goals, and this is the driving force behind the agendadriven planning model for English language education outlined in
chapter 1. The reform of our English language education system
has to be undertaken in order to provide our young people with the
English language skills they need to maximise their contribution to
national goals.
In order to understand why, it is essential to grasp the concept

of discontinuous change (Handy, 1989). There is likewise no
specific point in time when English ceased to be the colonial
language and began to be the global language, or when it ceased
to be in the national interest to phase English out and it came
to be in the national interest to phase English back in. But when
the change has been completed, we can look back and see that a
change has indeed taken place. And when we look back, we see
with the perfect 20-20 vision that comes with retrospect.
Change does not happen suddenly, and even the British

Period did not come to an abrupt end on 31 August 1957 to be
replaced by the Independence Period on 1 September. There was
time to prepare for and manage the changes that would follow
independence. Changes began to take place after the Second
World War, and were reflected in the Barnes Report of 1951, and
the change was not completed until the phasing out of English
many years after 1957.
Of course while the change is taking place, things are not so

clear at all. We can now look back and see clearly that Malaysias
need for English was going to increase rapidly to meet the
demands of globalisation. We can also see that Malaysia would
need a workforce able to use global English not only for external
purposes, but also as globalisation came to Malaysia within the
country itself.
Similarly, globalisation did not happen overnight, but took place

incrementally over a long period. There is, of course, no specific point
in time at which an independent Malaysian language policy took over,
or when English became a global language, although in both cases it
is clear in retrospect that a major change has taken place.
The successful management of change includes awareness of

its discontinuous nature, and acting proactively as change is taking
place instead of delaying a response until the change has been
completed. In this connection, it is greatly to Tun Dr Mahathirs
credit that he became aware of the major changes that were taking
place in the global status of English during his time as Prime Minister.
47

We now have in place the educational infrastructure to

support the reform of English language education, starting with
the MBMMBI policy and other developments reported above, and
we are ready to implement reform. Understanding the changing
nature of education enables us to grasp the problem we are trying
to solve. We are no longer trying to solve the problems of the past,
and we are preparing our young people to compete successfully in
the world of the future (see e.g. Chapter 8).
2.5.2 Historical realism

When we compare the present with the past, we have to start
with a realistic understanding of conditions in the past. A typical
unrealistic approach is to look back with the benefit of hindsight,
and see with perfect clarity the shortcomings of past times.
It is true, for example, that the British authorities only provided
rudimentary primary education for the rural poor in the period before
independence; but mass secondary and higher education across the
world is a product of the second half of the last century. Equally
unrealistic is the opposite tendency to look back to a past when all
was well, and students learnt their lessons and did their homework,
and teachers knew exactly what to teach and how to teach it. These
two together contribute to the prevailing but unjustified negative
evaluation of the state of Malaysian education. The real story is one
of progress and success, for it is a matter of fact that since 1957 the
48
Malaysian government has raised standards of mass education to the

extent that it is now taken entirely for granted.
Governments in the decades following independence are
routinely blamed for the decline in standards of English which
followed as an inevitable consequence of the language policy. The
context in which this has to be seen is one in which the government
was seeking to create a nation out of disparate and far-flung
populations; and while there is a long list of newly independent
nations that have fallen apart in the course of the last fifty years,
Malaysia is mercifully not on that list.
It is not logically possible to criticise the language policy without
at the same time implying that the government should not have set
as its priority the creation of a viable nation. Again, the main story
is one of success and not one of failure. If English had not risen to
global dominance in the way it has, we might well now be praising
the phasing out of English as a great success.
A matter that has to be considered seriously but critically is
the routine complaint that standards of English in Malaysia are in a
state of chronic decline. If this is true, then it follows logically that
there must be at least one sector of Malaysian society that has
experienced the decline. The historical question we have to ask is
which sector or sectors of Malaysian society this applies to.
As observed above, when we trace the history of education in
Malaysia, we have to ask who was receiving it. Education before
independence was largely for the privileged few, not for ordinary
people. Malaysia still has privileged people with excellent English,
and it would be difficult to argue that their standards of English
have declined.
The introduction of mass education has given students from
less privileged backgrounds who in previous generations would
have had no access to English at all at least some opportunity to
learn it. Although the results may be regarded as insufficient, it
would be impossible to argue logically that standards of English
among the unprivileged have actually gone down. This leaves the
people in the middle. It is surely this group that has benefited most
from greater access to education.
Far from experiencing a decline, it is in this group that the
greatest advances have been made since 1957 in raising standards
of English. It is very unlikely that there has been an absolute
national decline in standards of English, which would mean that the
number or proportion of Malaysians able to use English effectively
has gone down over the last fifty or hundred years. When people
complain about declining standards of English, what they are really
talking about is a relative decline.
As in other countries, mass education creates opportunities at
the top. The school leaver who would formerly have worked in a
shop is now at university, and the bright youngster whose ambition
was formerly to teach in the local school is now a university
lecturer. It may be that some of those who take their places come
from social backgrounds without the same advantages.
Although the purpose of education has changed over the
decades, this does not mean that what young people need to get
out of their education has changed. Education involves very much
more than transmitting to the next generation the content of
academic subjects. Young people need to be prepared for the adult
world in which they are going to spend their careers and live their
social lives. This includes the soft skills that have traditionally been
associated with education, and in the case of English it includes
the ability to use the language interactively in real social situations.
The expansion of our education system has led to the social
mobility expected of a modern education system, but the
provision of academic content needs to be complemented by the
rest of personal education. This is the context in which we have to
consider the problem of graduate employability.
There is only a problem at all because of our success in creating
mass higher education, and enabling larger numbers of young
people to study for a degree. When access to higher education
is restricted to the privileged, then of course graduates have
the command of English and other social skills associated with
privilege. The few ordinary people who get into higher education
are under pressure to adopt the manners and style of those from
more privileged backgrounds.
49

Those who need support

most urgently are perhaps
those young people from less
privileged backgrounds who
have the potential to escape
from poverty but who now
find themselves vulnerable
on account of their lack of
The introduction of mass higher education, however, has had

the inevitable consequence that some of the new graduates will
have the academic ability to get a degree, but not the social skills to
succeed in an international world formerly and to some extent still
dominated by privilege. The failure to provide the new graduates
with the English skills they need undermines to a considerable
extent the success of the extension of higher education.
Similar arguments apply to the familiar complaints about
standards of English teaching. When the education sector is
small, and opportunities for bright young people are limited,
bright young people from favourable social backgrounds will go
into education, bringing their social skills with them. But if, as
has happened, the education sector expands massively at the
50
same time as opportunities for bright young people are greatly

increased, it is inevitable that some of those drawn into teaching
will have less opportunity than their predecessors to develop the
language proficiency and teaching skills that they need to perform
effectively in the classroom.
The education system is clearly succeeding if young people
from humble backgrounds are enabled to go into teaching and
other professions; but their education needs to prepare them for
the role they are expected to play. Social mobility could, taken out
of context, give rise to the widespread impression that standards of
English are in chronic decline among graduates, English teachers,
and others. There might even appear prima facie to be objectively
measurable evidence of decline.
If the University of Malaya recruits students from privileged

backgrounds, standards of English in the university will be very
high; but if the university recruits students on merit, including
students from less privileged backgrounds with no tradition
of speaking English, then the mix of new students will include
some without the traditional high levels of proficiency in English.
Students from privileged backgrounds who cannot get into the
University of Malaya will still have good English, and so the overall
net effect is a national rise in standards of English.
The real problem is that our standards of English have not kept
pace with the advance of our own education system and the social
advance that it has helped to bring about. From a national point
of view, what is important is that young Malaysians have much
greater opportunities open to them than former generations. An
optimist will point to the increasing number of graduates, while
a pessimist will point to their inadequate English; and both will
be right. The supply of teachers must also be seen in the wider
historical context. It is easy to complain about our teachers and
lose sight of the important fact that we have succeeded in building
up a large teaching workforce that makes universal secondary
education possible.
beyond repair, then there is no solution to be found. On the other

hand, if we accept that we have a system designed a long time ago
for a purpose very different from the one required in the twentyfirst century, then the solution is to reform our present system and
bring it up to date.
Many countries have much the same problems as Malaysia,
and thanks to research undertaken over the last 70 years or so,
there are internationally known solutions already available for us
to use. The whole of our English language programme has to be
benchmarked and aligned to prevailing international standards,
and these are de facto defined by the CEFR, which is the topic of
Chapter 3.
It is also known that the key to a top-performing education
system is to recruit a high calibre teaching force, and this is dealt
with in Chapter 9. In sum, the important lesson to be learnt from
history is that while we face a difficult task, it is not an impossible
one. We have to build on the successes of the past, and complete
the task of creating a top-performing English language education
system as part of a world class education sector.
Tracing the problem to a failure to keep pace has important

consequences for the solution we adopt. If we take the pessimistic
view that our present English language system is broken and
51

We have to ensure that the new

programme enables children
from poor rural backgrounds
to succeed in English, that the
style of teaching and learning is
appropriate for boys as well as girls,
and that the programme makes
equitable provision for children
from different ethnic backgrounds.
2.5.3 Education and morality
52
and sometimes conflicting legitimate interests, but also with

a horizontal stratification with different layers made up of the
privileged, the poor, and those in between. The first group has
always been able to look after itself, and can continue to do so
without government support.
The third lesson is that education has an important moral side.

The provision of education is unusual and possibly unique in its
moral consequences. It is not a zero-sum game, so that one party
gains at the expense of some other party, but creates a win-win
situation, in which both education providers and those provided
with education have much to gain as a result. Even though the
provision and extension of education may initially be motivated by
practical real-world goals, the implementation of an enlightened
education policy brings with it substantial moral benefits.
The word school derives from Greek skhole meaning leisure,

which reflects the fact that until very recently, only the rich had
the leisure and the means to obtain and benefit from an education.
Todays privileged children can be sent abroad to the UK or
Australia to enjoy a complete English language education.
Malaysian education policy has not only to provide for

diverse groups within the population, each with their different
The poor, especially the rural poor, who traditionally had very
little access to education, need support, and while much has been
achieved since 1957, the task has not yet been completed. We
no longer take the condition of the poor to be part of the natural
order of things, or take for granted that the children of the poor will
follow in their parents footsteps, without the hope of improving
the conditions in which they live.
While it might seem from their way of life that they have little
or no need for English, this is not true: these are the very people
for whom English has most to offer in providing opportunities for
a better life. It is therefore a matter of concern that the baseline
study found significant differences between urban and rural and
remote schools both in performance in English, and in provision for
English language education.
The life chances of children in the middle group are reduced
by their insufficiency in English. Without the growth of this group
there would be no problem at all, especially if Malaysia were
content to survive indefinitely as a sleepy nation growing rice and
making nails. A problem only exists because Malaysia has with good
reason come to demand more of itself, and has greater ambitions,
which are to be achieved by satisfying the needs of the middle
group and enabling them to contribute to national development.
2.6 Conclusion
It is something of an irony that as educational standards
have been forced up by economic necessity and other practical
considerations, the scope for developing the moral side of education
has greatly increased. Mass education provides the government
with a more effective workforce; but a quality education system
would also enable young Malaysians from humble backgrounds
almost certainly for the first time in history to improve their
situation in life.
In planning changes to our English language programme, we
have to understand and address the problems that we have inherited
from our history. We have to ensure that the new programme
enables children from poor rural backgrounds to succeed in
English, that the style of teaching and learning is appropriate for
boys as well as girls, and that the programme makes equitable
provision for children from different ethnic backgrounds. Taking
a moral approach, and balancing the national advantage with the
needs of the students themselves, is built into the very fabric of
the Education Blueprint, and is accordingly taken for granted in
the preparation of this Roadmap.
The three important lessons to be learnt from our educational
history lead to three important insights to guide the reform of our
English language system. The first is that the task we face is to build
53

something new. Whatever the merits or demerits of our existing

system, it was designed for the decades following independence,
and we now have to design a system to respond to the demands of
global English in the twenty first century.
The second insight is that if our current provision for English is
perceived to be inadequate, it is because the teaching of English has
failed to keep up with the advance of our own education system.
The solution to this part of the problem is in our own hands, and
we have every reason to be confident that we can solve it.
The third insight is that we can make the greatest contribution
to the national economy, and bring about the greatest benefit to
the people of Malaysia, by concentrating on the needs of the most
vulnerable groups in the population, so that by taking advantage
of education they cease to be vulnerable. These include the poor,
and those in rural and remote locations. Those who need support
most urgently are perhaps those young people from less privileged
backgrounds who have been able to take advantage of the advances
in our education system, and who have the potential to escape
from poverty for the first time in our history, but who now find
themselves vulnerable on account of their lack of proficiency in
English.
54

The CEFR
55

Chapter 3: The CEFR
his chapter explains some of the references to the Common

European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR) made in chapter 1, and develops further some
of the points made there. It also provides the background to the
proposed use of the CEFR in the development of the English
language programme discussed in some detail in the chapters of
Section B. In this way, this chapter is intended to provide a link
between chapter 1 and Section B.
3.1
What the CEFR is all about
This section begins with the two best known components

of the CEFR, namely the global proficiency scale and the can
do statements, and ends with an explanation of the common
framework.
3.1.1 The global proficiency scale
Language teachers have always categorised learners as
beginners, intermediate or advanced learners, and on the CEFR
scale these stages or levels are referred to respectively as A (basic
user), B (independent user), and C (proficient user)1. Each
level is subdivided into level 1 and level 2, giving the full scale A1,
A2; B1, B2; C1, C2 (CEFR, pp. 23-4)2. These levels are also given
labels (see below):
On this scale, A is least advanced and C most advanced. This differs from typical marking
scales in which A is highest and C lowest.
Note that the phrase the CEFR refers to the framework itself, and that CEFR in
italics and without the article is used here to refer to the Council of Europe document.
56
CEFR
LEVEL
NAME
C2
Mastery
C1
Effective
Operational
Proficiency
B2
Vantage
B1
Threshold
A2
A1
Waystage
Breakthrough
USER
}
}
Proficient user
Independent
user
The scale is so designed that it can be subdivided further as

required. Discussion in the literature suggests that the need for
further subdivision is greatest at the lower end, especially when
the scale is used for small children. The examples illustrated on
CEFR pages 32-3 follow a binary branching tree structure, so that
A1 is divided into A1.1 and A1.2, and A2 is divided into A2.1 and
A2.2, and so on.
These levels are referred to as common reference levels since
they are not tied to any context. They can be used for children or
adults, and in connection with curriculum, teaching and learning,
or testing, and intended uses of the CEFR include the planning
of language learning programmes, language certification, and selfdirected learning (p. 6).
3.1.2 Can do descriptors
Basic user
(The term Waystage is peculiar to the CEFR and seems to mean

a low to middle level of ability in a foreign language. Vantage is a
shortened form of advantage, and is used in the expression vantage
point, a favourable position providing a good view.)
To be of value, the common reference levels need objective

definitions, so that meaningful comparisons can be made between
students in different sectors or in different countries. This is done by
means of positive can do descriptors, e.g. a student at level A1 can
interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly, and
can introduce him/herself and others (see Figure 3.1 below).
The evaluation is essentially positive, and contrasts with a
more conventional approach that assesses learners according to
57

Common Reference Levels: Global scale

Proficient
User
Able to fully
participate in
professional and
academic life.
Independent
User
Able to express
views and hold
ones own in
social discourse.
Basic
User
Able to carry out
real life tasks of
a touristic nature.
C2
Able to understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Able to summarise information
from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent
presentation. Able to express himself/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely,
differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations.
C1
Able to understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning.
Able to express himself/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for
expressions. Able to use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional
purposes. Able to produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing
controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
B2
Able to understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including
technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Able to interact with a degree of fluency
and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain
for either party. Able to produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a
viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
B1
Able to understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Able to deal with most situations likely to arise whilst
travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics,
which are familiar, or of personal interest. Able to describe experiences and events, dreams,
hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.
A2
Able to understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most
immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography,
employment). Able to communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct
exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of
his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
A1
Able to use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of
needs of a concrete type. Able to introduce himself/herself and others, and can ask and answer
questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/
she has. Able to interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is
prepared to help.
Figure 3.1 Common Reference Levels: Global Scale
58
what they are unable to do. These can do descriptors are not
tied to any particular theory or method of teaching and learning,
but resonate naturally with the action-oriented approach outlined
on CEFR pages 9-16.
The global scale presented is the model for several more
specific tables with their own sets of can do descriptors. The
self-assessment grid presented on pages 26-7 addresses can do
statements to learners so that they can work out their own positions
on the proficiency scale. Table 3 on pages 28-9 reformulates the
can do statements as qualitative aspects of language use under
the headings range, accuracy, fluency, interaction and coherence.
Tables relating to language skills spell out in more detail what
the can do statements of the global scale mean at the level of
individual skills, including oral production (pp. 58-60), written
production (pp. 61-2), listening (pp. 66-8), reading (pp. 68-71), and
interaction (pp. 73-87), including turn taking. Particular emphasis
is placed on interactive skills first because they presuppose and
involve the integration of the traditional four language skills, and
secondly because that is what learners can be presumed to be
learning the language for in the first place.
The CEFR can do statements are concerned with the
learners ability to interact successfully in social situations using
the target language. This goes beyond the traditional four skills,
because social interaction typically requires different skills to be
combined, e.g. a conversation requires both listening and speaking

skills. The CEFR statements do not refer to linguistic form, but
they do presuppose that the learner has sufficient knowledge of
form including vocabulary, grammar and relevant aspects of the
spoken language to interact in the manner described. However,
the CEFR does not necessarily specify the means of achieving
these goals. For example, the CEFR document (p. 26) sets the
goals for reading at level A1, but in order to get there, children
have to develop a basic literacy infrastructure, crucially including
word recognition.
3.1.3 A common framework

The expression common framework of reference might
initially seem somewhat forbidding, but the idea behind it is
familiar enough in education and in other areas of cooperation.
Two teachers teaching the same course will not necessarily teach
exactly the same things, but will normally come to a general
agreement on what they are going to teach. A teacher designing a
test for a course taught by colleagues will normally find out what
they have been teaching, and test using related examples rather
than the same examples. These are simple examples of referring
to a common framework.
59

At a higher level, a curriculum provides a common framework

for the many different courses in which it is implemented, possibly
in many different educational institutions. A national curriculum
lists topics to be covered in all schools, and can take the form of a
recipe laying down exactly what is to be taught when and how, so
that the government knows what all teachers are teaching at three
oclock on a Thursday afternoon.
Alternatively, the curriculum as in the case of the Malaysian
curricula can amount to a set of guidelines on what is to be
covered in the course of a school year, leaving schools and teachers
free to use their own judgement on how best to implement it. The
guidelines type of curriculum acts as a kind of common framework
used by all schools in planning their courses.
In the case of language teaching, it is obviously impossible
to lay down a precise recipe for teaching two or more different
languages, because languages are formally structured in different
ways. A curriculum for a single language will include the topics to be
covered, and in the case of English, this will include for example the
sh spelling, the present continuous tense, and perhaps a learner
vocabulary. It is also possible to devise a common framework for
two or more languages, for example for English and Malay, but in
this case the framework has to be more abstract. This is because
Malay does not have sh spellings or a present continuous tense,
and the vocabulary is different from English.
3
60
See 3.5 below.
What is possible is to find corresponding tasks in different

languages, e.g. how to introduce oneself or order a meal in a
restaurant, or read aloud the formula 5 + 3 = 8. These common
learning outcomes are then interpreted as appropriate for different
languages. Although what is taught in the classroom differs for
different languages, teaching and learning are linked to a common
framework. In the case of the CEFR, these corresponding tasks
are expressed in the form of can do statements.
3.2 Where the CEFR comes from

The CEFR belongs to a research paradigm concerned with the
measurement of language proficiency which has been underway
since the 1950s, and which has led to the development of a number
of common frameworks. It is the outcome of work undertaken
since 1971 by European scholars involved in language teaching and
drawing on the pooled resources of the countries of Europe.
Although originally devised to improve language teaching in
Europe, the CEFR is now being implemented worldwide. Many
countries including Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Ecuador,
Canada, Sweden, Spain and Finland have made use of the CEFR
as a basis for reforming English language education in their own
countries3.
The relevance of the CEFR to

language education is firstly
that the descriptive scheme
offers a starting point to review
curriculum content, and secondly
that the common reference
levels provide a framework for
putting curriculum objectives,
entry testing, syllabus definition,
materials organisation, progress
testing and certification of
proficiency into one coherent
local system that is appropriate
to the context, related to
real world language ability,
and easily communicated,
internally and externally.
4
5
The details of the CEFR framework are written up in a Council

of Europe document entitled Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment4. The
framework is of course designed for any language, not just English,
but a further document entitled English Profile: Introducing the
CEFR for English has been produced specifically for English5.
Although described as a framework, the CEFR is actually very
much more, because it brings together the knowledge gained from
research on language teaching and learning over many decades,
and also best practice in the teaching of many languages in different
parts of the world. It is best known for its detailed proficiency
descriptions for beginners and intermediate and advanced learners,
but it encompasses a whole philosophy of language teaching and
learning. To quote North, Ortega and Sheehan (2011, p. 6):
The relevance of the CEFR to language education is
firstly that the descriptive scheme offers a starting point
to review curriculum content, and secondly that the
common reference levels provide a framework for putting
curriculum objectives, entry testing, syllabus definition,
materials organisation, progress testing and certification
of proficiency into one coherent local system that is
appropriate to the context, related to real world language
ability, and easily communicated, internally and externally.
published in Strasbourg by the Language Policy Unit of the Council of Europe (www.coe.int/lang-CEFR)
produced by a consortium including Cambridge ESOL Examinations and Cambridge University Press
61

The CEFR is a planning tool which provides a common and

comprehensive framework for language teaching and learning,
and for the development of language teaching programmes, and
provides the means to communicate more easily what we mean
and understand by language competencies and proficiencies
(North, 2007, p. 659).
3.3
The reasons for choosing the CEFR
The adoption of the CEFR as the exemplar of international

standards gives access to a sequence of procedures which can
be guaranteed to lead to a substantial improvement in language
education, and which if carried out with sufficient determination
and rigour, can also lead to excellence at the international level.
3.3.1 The need for international standards

It is in the context of establishing international standards that
attempts have been made since the end of the Second World War
to find appropriate ways of setting standards for language teaching
and learning. The approach taken by the CEFR has received
international recognition as by far the leader in its field, and the
CEFR has been used increasingly over the last ten years in the
planning of language education in many countries across the world.
62
There is no point at which the CEFR suddenly became the

leader in its field for this is another instance of discontinuous
change as described in chapter 2 (2.5.1) but in preparing this
roadmap, we recognise that an important change has taken place
in language planning, and that countries now increasingly align
their language programmes to international standards.
The CEFR was originally developed to support language
teaching and learning in Europe, a continent in which many
different national languages and minority languages are spoken.
Although it is in practice often used in connection with English, it
has in principle no particular connection with English at all.
While we are proposing the use of the CEFR to develop the
English language programme, it could equally well be used for the
teaching and learning of Malay, Mandarin or Tamil or indeed any
other language. It is of course vitally important that if the CEFR is
to be regarded as an international measure, the principles that lie
behind it must apply equally to any language.
Any country or other body that makes use of the CEFR is
free to take as much or as little from it as is desired. But as in the
case of the metric system, it makes sense to adopt the system as
a whole. For example, in adopting the metric system, it would be
possible but pointless and foolish to adopt metric weights but
retain imperial miles and furlongs for distances.
We can likewise take what we want from the CEFR and ignore
the rest; but in practice it would be wise to ignore parts of the
CEFR only if there is a cogent reason for doing so. What we cannot
do is to ignore constitutive rules; for example, if we were to set up
a Malaysian kilogramme of 900 grammes we would not in fact be
using the metric system at all. In the same way, we cannot use the
language and terminology of the CEFR without the key concepts
that make up the common framework, and simultaneously claim
to be using the CEFR.
3.3.2 Benchmarking
An important reason to set up and follow international
standards is that they can be used to compare different language
education systems, and to assess a single countrys language
education system relative to international best practice. This
process is referred to as benchmarking.
Since the term benchmarking is used in several different and
overlapping senses, it is essential to be clear about the way it is
used in connection with the CEFR. To begin with, benchmarking
has lost all connection with the original sense concerned with
literally making marks on a bench, and refers to the measurement
of current performance with respect to some objective standard.
against internationally recognised standards (CEFR, p. 3). Using

the CEFR to benchmark our English language programme tells us
how good it is compared to programmes in other countries across
the world. This is the important first step which needs to be taken
before implementing a reformed English language programme.
3.3.3 Alignment
Benchmarking leads on to alignment. This term is used in a
variety of senses, and so it is necessary to explain its uses. To begin
with, a Malay text is aligned with its English translation when we
know which sections of the one correspond to which sections of
the other. We can align originals and translations because we know
in advance that their parts are intended to correspond.
Using this understanding of alignment, we might look for
correspondences between our existing curriculum or assessment
procedures and the skills associated with different points on the
CEFR scale. However, this is to assume that reasonably close
correspondences already exist, and we know that there are some
fundamental differences, because for example the curriculum is
concerned in detail with how students achieve such things as basic
literacy and a command of English grammar, whereas the CEFR
is concerned with the ability of students to use language skills and
knowledge in communication.
In the case of education systems, this involves obtaining a

clear picture of how an education system is currently performing
63

When we talk of aligning an existing language education system

to the CEFR, we are using the term alignment in the different sense
of bringing it into alignment. This involves very much more than
a one-to-one matching, and requires the overhaul of the existing
system. It is in this sense that alignment is the obvious next step
following benchmarking.
The purpose of benchmarking is to find ways of improving
performance, inter alia by recognising shortcomings and making
them good. The management of a three-star hotel, for example,
needs to know what it has to do to upgrade, and bring its standards
into alignment with those of four-star hotels. A hotel might have
to, for example, open a restaurant, install lifts, or construct a
swimming pool. The benchmarking of an education system brings
to light what has to be done to align it to international standards.
Alignment in this sense implicitly includes quality. The
restaurant is expected to serve acceptable food, lifts are expected
to be in working order, and the swimming pool is expected to be safe.
The alignment of an education system to international standards
similarly takes a quality culture for granted. Alignment ideally has
a target, for example, to be in the top third of comparable systems
internationally, or to come up to the standards of top-performing
systems worldwide.
64
3.3.4 Calibration
Alignment opens up the possibility of calibration. Calibration
involves comparing a test instrument with a standard instrument
for some known measurement; for example a shopkeepers scales
may be calibrated with standard statutory weights, in which
case the kilogramme on the shopkeepers scales has to match the
statutory kilogramme. The condition for calibration is that different
instruments measure the same things. A barometer, for example,
cannot be calibrated with a thermometer. On the other hand,
different measures can be used as long as the one can be converted
into the other: metric and imperial scales can be calibrated, as can
Celsius and Fahrenheit thermometers.
In the case of education systems, calibration is essential
whenever there is a need to compare educational qualifications
awarded in different countries. Without calibration it is impossible
to assess the value of a B grade, or interpret a transcript reporting
good performance. Different countries can use any grading
system, but as long as their programmes and assessments are
aligned to the CEFR, their grades can be calibrated with the CEFR
scale, so that reasonably accurate equivalents can be ascertained.
3.4
The CEFR and language teaching and learning
Although the CEFR may be associated in the first place with

testing and assessing achievements, it is based on a whole philosophy
of language teaching and learning. While it would be possible to adopt
just the assessment part of the CEFR, and ignore the philosophy, to
do so would miss much of the point of using the CEFR. It would also
be counterproductive, because the philosophy itself sets international
standards of practice for language teaching and learning.
In sketching the background to the CEFR, John Trim (2012)
makes a distinction between Classical and Modern paradigms
of language teaching and learning. The Classical paradigm
stretches back many centuries, and as the name implies, was
originally devised for the teaching of Latin and Ancient Greek in
Europe. The Modern paradigm, although newer, still has a long
history, being traced back to the work of the seventeenth century
Czech education reformer usually known by the Latinised name
Comenius (Trim, 2012, pp. 14-15).
The aim of the Classical paradigm was to provide the learner
with sufficient knowledge of the target language to read works of
ancient literature. In the days before students could be provided with
books, the teacher had the knowledge and the students started with
no knowledge at all, and so learning was inevitably directed by the
teacher, and the teacher did most of the talking.
Students might talk occasionally in class, usually in answer to

the teachers questions, but in view of the emphasis on accuracy,
they might also be reluctant to do so for fear of making a mistake.
Teaching in this paradigm involved transferring knowledge from
teacher to student, which is the source of the metaphor that treats
learners as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge. Learning
was typically tested by written exercises, especially translation
into the target language or from the target language into the
mother tongue, which is the source of the slightly derogatory term
the grammar-translation method.
In this approach, learning the language was separated from learning
to speak it. Students would learn how to analyse or parse the grammar
of written sentences in order to extract their meaning. Teacher and
student would have to share some rudimentary understanding of
how words were pronounced in order to know what words they
were talking about; but this fell far short of what we now think of as
pronouncing the words of a language.
Since very little was actually known about the spoken form of the
language, learners were left to rely on their innate language learning
ability. In the case of modern languages, students from privileged
backgrounds might have a tutor who was also a native speaker of the
target language, or travel to a country where the language was spoken
and so learn to speak it; but for many and for nearly all students of
dead languages language learning meant reading and writing.
65

The Modern paradigm has always put much greater emphasis on

the problems faced by the student in learning the everyday form of the
target language. A major step forward in the teaching and learning of
the spoken language was taken by the introduction of phonetics.
The study of phonetics can be traced to the work of Hindu
grammarians in ancient India, but in late nineteenth century Europe it
was applied to the teaching of modern languages (Trim, 2012, pp. 1619). In this and other ways, new findings about the nature of spoken
languages were beginning to find their way into language teaching in
the first half of the last century.
After the Second World War, language teaching was brought
into the ambit of applied linguistics, to the extent that applied
linguistics became virtually synonymous with language teaching.
By the 1970s, applied linguists were developing the Communicative
Approach to language teaching and learning, which as the name
implies put the emphasis on enabling the student to develop
communicative skills.
Among the ideas now increasingly taken for granted are
student-centred learning, the notion that learners should do some
of the talking and practise speaking the target language in realistic
situations, and that students should be allowed to make mistakes as
part of the learning process. However, this development coincided
in the most unfortunate manner with new ideas in mainstream
linguistics.
66
Chomsky (1965) developed the idea of linguistic competence,

which refers to the intuitive knowledge native speakers have about
their own language which enables them to produce grammatically
well-formed sentences in that language. He dismissed performance,
the actual use of language, as unworthy of serious study. Language
teachers may attempt to help their students develop competence in
this sense, but they also have to pay close attention to performance
whenever they teach in class or mark an exercise.
Whatever the value of competence in mainstream linguistics,
it was of little practical value in the classroom. In 1968, Chomsky
contributed to a new emerging discipline known as generative
phonology (Chomsky & Halle, 1968) which contained rules of a
kind we might now say belong in a computer program, but which
in any case have little to do with the teaching of pronunciation in
the classroom.
Some universities introduced the new ideas from mainstream
linguistics into MA courses for language teachers, which inevitably
and understandably resulted in resistance to the study of grammar
and the spoken language. Although the Communicative Approach
represented in principle a major step forward in the teaching
and learning of languages, it also in some respects took a step
backwards in the teaching of linguistic form.
If the Classical approach represents the thesis, and the Modern

approach the antithesis, then the CEFR represents the synthesis.
The CEFR neatly sidesteps a number of potentially divisive issues
by not adopting any position at all on how languages should be
taught, and concentrating instead on the abilities that learners
need to develop, expressed in the form of can do statements.
There has been much comment on the positive nature of these
statements, which is felt preferable to focusing on what learners
cannot do or have failed to do. But if learners are to develop
communicative abilities, it is self-evident that they need the
infrastructure of linguistic form to enable them to do so.
Basic to the CEFR approach is the notion of Communicative
Competence, first put forward by Dell Hymes in 1972 (Hymes,
1972). It is not enough to produce grammatically well-formed
sentences, and speaking another language also includes knowing
the appropriate things to say in different social contexts. In order
to succeed with the CEFR, Malaysian learners will not only have
to acquire the knowledge associated with the Classical approach,
but also to apply it interactively in different social situations as
envisaged by the communicative approach and other variants of
the Modern paradigm.
Communicative language
competence can be considered as
comprising several components:
linguistic, sociolinguistic and
pragmatic. Linguistic competences
include lexical, phonological,
syntactical knowledge and skills
and other dimensions of language
as system. Sociolinguistic
competences refer to the
sociocultural conditions of language
use. Pragmatic competences are
concerned with the functional use
of linguistic resources (production
of language functions, speech acts)
and also the mastery of discourse,
cohesion and coherence, the
identification of text types and forms,
irony, and parody (CEFR, p. 12).
67

3.5
The CEFR around the world
Before embarking on a project of the scale of implementing

the CEFR in our English language programme, it is as well to
consider the experience of other countries, and where possible
learn from their experience. This section takes a Malaysian view
of the experience of the CEFR elsewhere. The task is greatly
lightened thanks to the publication of an edited book (Byram &
Parmenter, 2012b) recounting the experiences of no fewer than
eleven different countries around the world.
Perhaps the first important insight this book provides is into the
international status of our current English language initiative. From
an internal point of view, we are taking a major stride forward in
developing the potential of our young people, with especial regard
to English. But so, apparently, is the rest of the world. As Wu
(2012, p. 213) puts it, Influenced by the force of globalization,
every country in the world has made the cultivation of human
talent a priority in the 21st century. Our aim is to move forward,
but we also have to take a major initiative just in order to maintain
our current international position.
68
3.5.1 The use being made of the CEFR

A point that quickly emerges is that the problems and
opportunities faced by Malaysia are shared with other countries.
The CEFR is often brought in at a time of curriculum change (Byram
& Parmenter, 2012a, p. 114), and is typically imposed from above
following a government decree or other decision of the central
government intended to overhaul the existing programme (Pea
Dix & de Meja, 2012, p. 140; Porto & Barboni, 2012, p. 119). The
motivation is in some cases to deal with perceived shortcomings in
the existing language programme; for example, Goullier (2012, p.
38), states quite candidly that Language teaching in France does
not achieve the results that society expects of it. The decision to
use the CEFR can thus be taken as a positive sign of the intention
to improve the existing language programme.
It is not always clear from the different contributions to what
extent the CEFR has been used to bring about genuine reform
in language education. Reporting on Taiwan, Wu (2012, p. 221)
points out that
Having noted the problems and issues that have emerged
from the adoption of the CEFR since 2005, we realize
that simply making a decision to adopt the CEFR and
mandating its use as a policy are absolutely insufficient to
serve the overall educational purpose.
which suggests that in some cases the use of the CEFR may be
essentially cosmetic, disguising unchanged practices with a thin veneer.
In most cases, as in the case of Japan (Sugitani & Tomita,
2012, pp. 201-203), the use of the CEFR includes the can do
statements and general proficiency levels. In Germany, in the state
of North-Rhine Westphalia (Rnneper, 2012, p. 55), it has been
used for the development of teaching and of the curriculum. In
Poland, it has influenced the curriculum and assessment, but has
had less effect on teaching methods (Poszytek, 2012, p. 102).
In Taiwan, it is used mainly for English language assessment
for students, English teachers and civil servants, with an emphasis
on finding score equivalents for Taiwanese internal assessments
(Wu, 2012, pp. 215-218), which is difficult unless the internal
assessments test the same things as international assessments
based on the CEFR. Wu (2012, p. 219) also points to the need to
bridge the gap with teaching. The experience of Taiwan confirms
the need for coordination in implementing the CEFR at different
educational levels (Cheung, 2012, p. 225), including textbooks
(p. 226), and what they call occupational domain (p. 227), e.g.
General English or Business English.
The report from China is perhaps of particular interest
to Malaysia. Chinese language education traditionally takes a
quantitative approach, for example concentrating on such things as
word lists (Zou, 2012, pp. 184-185). In concentrating on linguistic
form, this approach has some similarity to the Classical paradigm in

Europe. Teaching is oriented towards testing (p. 187), and focuses
on vocabulary and grammar:
Our past practice was to focus on something quantitative
in assessment. For instance, what is your reading speed?
How much is your vocabulary? How many words can you
write each minute? (p. 191)
The implementation of the CEFR can be partial not only with
regard to what parts of the language programme are modified,
but at what level it is implemented. In Japan, it is implemented
predominantly in universities (Sugitani & Tomita, 2012, p. 198). Taken
positively, this could suggest a procedure for phased implementation.
The CEFR is already in use for the teaching of some languages
in some Malaysian universities, and universities have the means to
move ahead with the CEFR irrespective of what is happening in the
rest of the language programme. If implementation were to start
only at preschool level, it would take many years for the effects to
be observable at tertiary level; but if a push at preschool level were
to be complemented by a pull at tertiary level, implementation
could be completed in a much shorter time.
69

3.5.2 Attitudes towards the CEFR

The introduction of the CEFR is received in different ways
ranging from enthusiasm to suspicion and fear. Commenting on
the reaction in France, Goullier (2012, p. 42) refers to two sides,
the one feeling
...an understandable concern about the required evolution
in their practices by reference to an instrument known to
very few
and the other filled with
enthusiasm... for a text to which many tended to attribute,
almost with a sense of magical thinking, all the qualities of
innovation.
It is essential to disseminate accurate information about the
CEFR, allaying fears on the one hand, and modifying exaggerated
expectations on the other.
Negative reactions to the CEFR have led to a number of
criticisms which have been reported in the country contributions.
An important caveat to bear in mind is that the authors cited below
are reporting on conditions in their respective countries; they are
not reporting their own views, and it cannot be assumed that they
share the views they report.
70
Some complain that the CEFR takes a utilitarian or instrumental

approach to language learning. Here are two views, from France and
Germany respectively:
a utilitarian conception of language, to the detriment of the
educational and cultural dimensions (especially literary)
which are highly prized in France. (Castellotti, 2012, p. 47)
The underlying concept of language was considered to
be one-sidedly instrumental-functional; the aesthetic,
affective, creative, moral and cultural dimensions of
language and language learning seemed underdeveloped.
(Hu, 2012, p. 68)
Argentina claims to have gone on from a product-oriented
approach to one that allows children and young people to become
citizens of the world (Porto & Barboni, 2012, pp. 120-121). Porto
(2012, pp. 135-136) outlines two world models of education:
One is the human capital education model that views
(language) education as a tool for learners to open up the
world and have access to knowledge, information, health,
education, employability, economic growth and social
and economic mobility. The second model of education
is Progressive Education, the main tenets of which are
education for active citizenship, for social justice and for
the protection of local languages, celebrating the students

interests and participation.
From a Malaysian point of view, far from being a shortcoming,
this is a positive virtue of the CEFR. For the government and for
students alike, English is studied for utilitarian purposes in the first
instance, and successful students can go on if they so wish to read the
works of Shakespeare. Malaysia also subscribes to values associated
with education, and takes into account aesthetic, affective, creative,
and moral considerations; and these are written up in the proper
place in the MEB. However, values of this kind are not specific to
English or to language, and while they will be appropriately reflected
as a matter of course in our English language programme, it is not the
business of the CEFR or of our English language programme to act
as sole champion for these values.
Related to this is the objection that the CEFR is foreign
(de Meja, 2012, p. 151; Pea Dix & de Meja, 2012, p. 147). In
a globalised world, the best ideas and best practice are adopted
worldwide irrespective of where they originate. One imagines that
the objectors are quite happy to use the foreign metric system,
and type out their objections using foreign software installed on
foreign computers. The criterion is whether the CEFR is fit for its
purpose, and its foreignness is entirely irrelevant.
Some criticisms are self-revealing in ways that are no doubt

unintended. For example, Zou (2012, p. 193) reports two interesting
complaints from China:
The CEFR is not easy to understand, and very few people
know about this document.
Besides it is hard to design a test based on can-do statements,
and you still need something quantitative for testing.
Komorowska (2012, p. 109) reports from Poland a complaint
concerning insufficient dynamics of phonological competence
development referring to page 117 of the CEFR document. The
reference is actually to part of a brief discussion of pronunciation
and prosody on pages 116-7. The CEFR is perfectly clear to anyone
who understands this area, just as references to English grammar
are clear to anyone familiar with English grammar. It does not
suggest how to teach pronunciation and prosody for the same
reason as it does not recommend methods for teaching grammar
and vocabulary.
The inadequacy of complaints and criticisms is not of course
evidence of the excellence of the CEFR. However, if there were
serious shortcomings, they would surely have come to light in the
years since the document was published in 2001, and they would
be reflected in Byram and Parmenter (2012b). The absence of
71

serious criticisms is a good sign, and Malaysia can go ahead with

some confidence in using the CEFR.
3.5.3 The Vietnamese experience

Vietnam is not one of the countries included in Byram and
Parmenter (2012b), and is accordingly dealt with here in its own
subsection, having been compiled from materials available on the
internet. Vietnam is important because it is a fellow member of
ASEAN, and a suitable comparator country for Malaysia.
Tien (2013, pp. 67-68) reports that the Ministry of Education and
Training has issued the Common Framework of Levels of Foreign
Language Proficiency based on the CEFR, and set the targets A1 for
the end of primary school, A2 for lower secondary school, and B1
for general school leavers. The target seems to be still B1 for most
university graduates, although those graduating from language colleges
are expected to get B2 or C1. Tien discusses a number of problems (p.
67) including an improved curriculum which is nevertheless beyond
the reach of the majority of students at general school, poor teacher
quality, the traditional teaching of grammar rules grammar
exercises and vocabulary, insufficient classroom facilities, and
testing that focuses only on checking language knowledge rather than
language skills.
72
Vietnam has initiated a National Foreign Languages 2020 Project,

which includes among its aims the target for teachers to achieve B2
in English. An interesting detail from a Malaysian point of view is that
some teachers will be expected to teach Mathematics in English.
According to the executive manager of the project, the target is
set to find out how many teachers need government-funded language
training; but the teachers naturally fear that if they fail they will lose
their jobs. According to others described as officials, teachers need
B2 in order to read academic papers to contribute to their professional
development. The current success rate is 18% in Hanoi, 61 out
of 700 in Ben Tre province, and only 1 in 700 in a province that
remains unnamed. The highest rate was achieved in Hue following
screening by the British Council.
At this point we have to consider what the targets actually
mean. The matching of primary school with A1, lower secondary
with A2 and upper secondary with B1 is neat and intuitively
satisfying, but this is beside the point. The first question is whether
the students can achieve the targets. Given the very low success
rate of teachers reaching their target of B2, this seems unlikely.
The second question is what percentage of students are
expected to reach the targets. In the real world it is impossible for
100% of students to succeed, and if no percentage target is set, if just
1% succeed, the target could be said to have been met. Targets are
actually meaningless unless they are accompanied by percentages.

The third question concerns the consequences of success or failure.
A target set for university entrance could mean that students not
reaching the target would be denied university entrance, and language
graduates failing to reach B2 could be denied their degrees. But primary
school children failing to reach A1 would presumably not be denied
entrance to secondary education. The fact that teachers appear not
to know the consequence of not reaching their target does not give
confidence that the consequences have been thought through. In
short, judging by the information available on the internet, it is not
clear what the targets are for, they would appear to be unrealistic, and
there is no way of ascertaining whether they have been met or not.
Huge amounts of money are budgeted to improve standards of
English. Project 2020 is said to have a budget of USD443 million.
According to TuoitreNews6, Long An Province set aside some
USD20.8 million to enable students to speak English after graduating
from high school, while Binh Dinh Province plans to spend some
USD8.4 million to improve the teaching and learning of English by
2020. A new curriculum taught by retrained teachers should be in
place in 70% of Grade 3 classes (age 8-9) by 2015 and throughout by
2019. Other initiatives include a workshop organised by the British
Council7 in 2013 to provide input on how teachers might better
integrate the CEFR and its can dostatements into their teaching
as well as classroom based exam preparation techniques.
Press comment has pointed to the unrealistic nature of the

project. Thanh Nin News8 suggests that Vietnam is trying to
do in seven years something that took Singapore thirty years. An
article in the UK Guardian Weekly9 suggests that a miracle will be
required. What seems to be missing is a plan commensurate with
the size of the problem or one might suggest a roadmap to
enable aspirations to become a reality.
3.6 The CEFR in Malaysia
The purpose of this section is to draw attention to the
consequences for Malaysia of adopting the CEFR, and to the
advantages that will accrue as a result.
3.6.1 Adopting a common framework
The introduction of a common framework can be expected to
bring with it a new culture of English language teaching and learning.
The CEFR and the English language programme

The CEFR approach to the curriculum complements the
approach taken in the present curriculum. It specifies the outcomes
to be achieved, but does not indicate how they are to be achieved,
whereas the present curriculum specifies what is to be taught, but is
less clear on the outcomes of teaching. For example, the basic level
http://tuoitrenews.vn/education/11052/central-vietnam-province-to-spend-4-mln-on-english-teaching, accessed 17 May 2014.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/accessenglish-news-bringing-cefr-to-vietnam.htm, accessed 17 May 2014.
8
http://thanhniennews.com/special-report/pygmalion-effect-unlikely-to-propel-vietnams-english-upgrade-plans-1921.html, accessed 17 May 2014
9
November 2011; http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/nov/08/vietnam-unrealistic-english-teaching-goals, accessed 17 May 2014.
6
7
73

of reading at A1 is described (p. 69) as Can understand very short,

simple texts a single phrase at a time, picking up familiar names,
words and basic phrases and rereading as required.
The corresponding pages 8-9 of the KSSR for years 1 and 2
(SK) include references to phonics and to phonemic awareness,
and the curriculum (pp. 16-17) deals with such things as letter
recognition, phoneme recognition and production, and segmenting
and blending. Although these components undoubtedly contribute
to early reading, the question is how they fit logically together to
form a consistent pedagogical approach, and how they enable the
learner to understand short simple texts. In this case, the CEFR
greatly facilitates the task of upgrading the curriculum, as task
which has to be undertaken in any case.
The common framework brings with it the advantage that it can
be used by all parties working on the English language programme.
It would be difficult enough for assessors and curriculum developers
to integrate their work without a common framework to work to,
and well-nigh impossible to bring teachers and materials developers
into line. The possibility of getting assessors, curriculum developers,
teachers and materials developers to produce a pedagogically
ordered and internally consistent programme from preschool to
tertiary level would be zero without a common framework, and not
worth even considering. It might be possible to devise a framework
ad hoc, but it is obviously preferable to use a framework which has
already been developed, and tried and tested.
74
The CEFR levels and descriptors are already available, and can
be used by all parties, including curriculum designers. teachers,
materials producers and assessors alike. For example, at level A1,
teachers know they have to teach students to introduce themselves,
materials producers have to create materials to support the teachers,
and assessors can appropriately test whether the students can do it.
International standards
The current educational initiative of which the preparation
of this roadmap constitutes a part is timely since it comes at the
confluence of two long term historical developments outlined in
chapter 2. On the one hand, the Malaysian education system has
advanced to the point where it is both feasible and desirable to take
the quantum leap required to achieve national goals: if Malaysia
is to be recognised as a developed country, then we need the
educational infrastructure to support developed country status.
On the other hand, we have to come to terms with English as the
global language. If we take the right steps now, English will support
our development and keep us in touch with the international
network.
The last two centuries or so have seen the emergence of
international standards of all kinds. Independent countries have the
right to decide on their own standards, but it is of advantage to
all countries to use the same standards. For example, it is much
to our advantage and to the advantage of countries that trade
and otherwise interact with us to use the metric system. In the

same way, we have adopted ISO and many other international
standards. This is clearly an appropriate time to move over to
international standards in language education. Adopting the CEFR
is the appropriate next step.
The adoption of international standards saves an enormous
amount of unnecessary work. As part of a comprehensive scientific
system of weights and measures, the metric system has the great
advantage of saving Malaysian scientists the need to work out their
own weights and measures, for example to measure atmospheric
pressure. In the same way, much of the work involved in developing
a language programme has already been done as the CEFR has
evolved over the years, so that we do not now have to start at the
beginning and do all the work for ourselves.
If the question is asked why we have to import a foreign
framework, when we are quite capable of producing one for
ourselves, there are two answers. In the first place, there is no
point in doing so, as the work has already been done. Secondly, a
domestically produced framework would face the same problems
as traditional weights and measures such as kati and tahil, in that it
would be irrelevant outside the home country in a world that has
gone over to an international standard.
At the same time, the metric system does not actually do the
work, and cannot weigh a durian or compute the size of Kelantan:
someone who understands the metric system has to use it to do

the weighing and measuring. In the same way, we cannot take the
CEFR off the shelf and expect it to provide us with a ready-made
development plan for our English language programme. It is our
responsibility to put in the time and effort to understand the CEFR
at the necessary level of detail, and then use it to devise our own
development plan.
Benchmarking, alignment and calibration
The recent baseline study was a benchmarking exercise which
involved assessing the English proficiency of a large number
of students and teachers on the CEFR scale. From the large
number of individual scores it is possible to compute averages
and distributions, and make comparisons with other countries
or with our own performance at some other time. Meaningful
comparisons of this kind can only be made if all the scores relate to
a common framework. The benchmarking of our English language
education system has brought to light what we have to do to align
it to international standards, and this includes integrating the
components of the English language programme, training teachers
in communicative language teaching, and enforcing high standards
for learning materials.
Alignment to a common framework enables the comparison of
qualifications from different countries. Suppose a foreign student
applies to study at a Malaysian university, claiming to have achieved
75

an A in English in some examination XYZ. We have no idea how to

evaluate this A, because we do not know what XYZ sets out to test,
or what is required to get an A. On the other hand, if XYZ is linked
to a known framework, we are able to work these things out. The
same, of course, applies to Malaysian students applying to foreign
universities, or seeking employment with international organisations.
The precise comparison of grades and qualifications depends on
accurate calibration. For example, if we want our English qualifications
such as the MUET to be recognised abroad, it would be a great
advantage to have the MUET calibrated with the CEFR. We first
have to ascertain that the MUET is aligned to the CEFR, because only
in this way can we be sure that the same things are being measured.
For example, the approach to grammar laid down in the national

curriculum follows the tradition of English school grammar,
and the sound system associated in the curriculum with phonics
teaching is primarily concerned not with the sounds of the spoken
language but with the spellings of the written language. As already
reported in Chapter 1, the Cambridge Baseline found the spoken
language a source of weakness for both teachers and students.
There is no need for the MUET to use the CEFR scale from A1
to C2, and it can use any scale at all, as long as each point on the
MUET scale matches a corresponding point on the CEFR scale. Since
the CEFR is a framework and not an examination, some precision is
required to clarify exactly what is being compared to what. Calibration
comes at the end of a long process beginning with benchmarking and
continuing with alignment.
As in other countries, individual Malaysian English teachers

adopt a variety of approaches to teaching and learning. Some
including perhaps some of the best and most experienced teachers
will follow the Classical paradigm, and even associate the Modern
paradigm with dumbing down and lowering standards. Others will
follow some variant of the Modern paradigm, and perhaps regard
the Classical paradigm as old fashioned and out of date.
The philosophy of language learning
There may be a third group of teachers who follow conventional

classroom practices without having much idea of their purpose or
of what paradigm they belong to. Each of these groups has much to
learn and much to gain by bringing the different paradigms together
to enable our English learners to develop communicative competence
One of the major tasks that confront us is to change the

culture of English language education, including the philosophy
that is expressed in teaching and learning in the classroom. The
76
relevance to present day Malaysia of the discussion above of the

Classical paradigm is that, although we would have to undertake
an extensive investigative research project to prove the point,
all the evidence we have indicates that Malaysia has inherited a
Classical paradigm for the teaching and learning of English.
in English. The Modern paradigm must be underpinned by a full

understanding of the content knowledge that teachers need in the
language classroom.
The point was made in Chapter 2 that English language
education was first introduced to Malaya for the children of the
privileged. Students would hear English spoken all around them,
or complete their education in England, so that the shortcomings
of the Classical paradigm would be made good. The same solution
has worked up to the present time, and explains how and why
so many Malaysians have excellent English. However, what is
appropriate for the education of the privileged is not necessarily
appropriate for the mass education that has been introduced and
developed since 1957.
Most students have not had the opportunity to complement
school English with the regular day-to-day contact with English that
is necessary for them to learn to speak English well. It is not in the
least surprising that the baseline study found the problem greatest in
rural areas where contact with and access to English is least.
3.6.2 Benefiting from experience elsewhere

One of the advantages of coming relatively late to the adoption
of international standards is that much of the work has been done.
The CEFR is based on research on measuring language proficiency
which has been underway since the 1950s, and since the work has
already been done, we do not need to start at the beginning and do all
the work ourselves. The outcome of this work is the development of
common frameworks, so that instead of making ad hoc measurements
and comparisons, these things are interrelated in a principled manner.
There are now several frameworks available, and we have to
select the one most suitable for Malaysia. Again we are fortunate
in that relevant work has already been done, in this case in Canada.
Although the Canadian language situation is very different from
our own, the need for a common framework is much the same.
The reasons that led to the decision to use the CEFR in Canada10
apply equally to Malaysia.
We are also in a position to benefit from the experiences of
other countries. A lesson that comes across very clearly is that
superficial flirting with the CEFR serves no purpose whatsoever.
Any change in the existing English language programme will be
expensive, and involve huge amounts of time and effort. We
therefore have to get value for every ringgit, and the time and
effort must result in better teaching and more effective learning.
The worst possible outcome would be a hybrid programme, with
some aspects of the CEFR superficially grafted on to the old
programme, which would leave teachers and students not knowing
which way to turn, and quite possibly lower the overall level of
attainment instead of raising it.
New Canadian Perspectives: proposal for a common framework of reference for languages
for Canada. Published in 2006 by the Canadian Government Publishing and Depository
Services.
10
77

The experience of other countries confirms what we already

knew concerning the things that have to be done, including (a)
teacher training, (b) reviewing the programme and (c) disseminating
information.
1. Teacher training. Our first priority has to be improved
teacher training, including retraining existing teachers and
introducing new approaches to learning into the classroom.
Without changes in the classroom, the influence of the CEFR
will remain superficial. This is the only way to achieve genuinely
higher standards by the end of Wave 3.
2. Reviewing the programme. We need to review the whole
English language programme, including the curriculum,
methods of assessment, and teaching and learning, in the light
of the CEFR, and in accordance with the agenda driven model
outlined in Chapter 1.
Work on the CEFR has been progressing for over forty years,
and the CEFR document is long and complex. It is beyond
the capacity of any single individual to write, and few if any
individuals are likely to be able to understand it fully in its entirety.
Implementing the CEFR and even handling the CEFR document
will therefore require the cooperation of a group of people with
complementary skills and high levels of expertise working closely
together. For example, an expert grammarian may not be a good
writer of classroom materials, and the materials writer may not
11
78
Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah: Bahasa Inggeris (SJK), p14.
be an expert on English grammar. Exploiting the possibilities

offered by the CEFR will necessarily be a group effort.
The ELSQC may be the appropriate body to play a leadership
and supervisory role, but for the implementation of a revised
programme, the Ministry of Education will need to be able
to draw on the services and expertise of several groups of
appropriately qualified contributors, including teachers,
materials producers, curriculum designers and language testers.
In this connection, the introduction of the CEFR has important
implications for materials production. For example, teachers
are typically required to teach students to pronounce English
words correctly, and speak with appropriate stress, rhythm
and intonation11. But they cannot enable students to do things
they cannot do for themselves, and if their only resource is a
silent printed textbook.
Instead of teachers having to follow the textbook, materials
producers will have to cater for the needs of teachers and their
students. Given the constraints of time, it will be impossible in
practice to produce suitable home-made materials in time for
teachers with improved levels of training. It will therefore be
necessary to consider the possibility of buying existing CEFRaligned learning materials, at least in the short term.
3. Disseminating information. The introduction of the

CEFR has to be accompanied by the dissemination of reliable
information. However benign the new system may be, it
could still cause resistance and even be perceived as a threat
by those who do not properly understand it. Considerable
efforts will therefore have to be made to ensure that all those
involved in implementing the CEFR understand what it is
about and why it is being introduced. This is also the way to
avoid ill-informed criticism. Teachers and curriculum designers
will need to be made aware of the CEFR, while for others,
including materials developers and testers, awareness of the
CEFR and the knowledge and expertise to operate at the
appropriate professional level should be made a condition of
appointment.
These things have to be clear and explicit, for otherwise, as

in Vietnam, teachers are likely to be demoralised. Students also
need to know explicitly how their academic progress and future
careers are likely to be affected by the effort they put in to
learning English. Thirdly, expectations like targets must be
realistic, and related to our current position and the resources
made available for development.
Malaysia has much to learn from the Vietnamese experience.

First, targets must be realistic, and related to what we know about
the current state of affairs. The Cambridge Baseline is of major
importance in this case, because it gives us a clear insight into
where we are now, and so what would be possible to achieve in
the course of Wave 2 and Wave 3. Secondly, people need to know
how the new programme will affect them. For example, teachers
need to know how they are going to benefit if they put in the time
and effort required to improve their proficiency and qualifications,
and conversely what problems they will face if they do not.
3.6.3 Using the CEFR in planning
12
There are only eleven years left to the end of Wave 3, which
is just over a third of the time it took Singapore to overhaul its
English language programme, and what will be achievable in that
time will be limited by the available resources and by the will and
determination to see the project through to completion.
Forming explicit connections between the curriculum and the

CEFR can do descriptors illustrates one way in which the CEFR
can be used in planning. Using the CEFR to develop the curriculum
will involve not only reviewing content but also the setting of
target proficiency levels (A1 and A2 or Basic User; B1 and B2 or
Independent User; and C1 and C2 or Proficient User) to describe
what learners are expected to achieve at each stage of learning
from preschool to university.12 Preliminary investigations indicate
that the CEFR levels will have to be subdivided, especially at the
For further discussion of targets, see the editorial introduction to section B.
79

lower end (e.g. A1.1, A1.2 etc), each new level representing a
significant advance in English proficiency, and building on learning
at previous levels.
As already mentioned in passing above, the subdivision is
especially important for lower levels where learners may spend
several years mastering A1 and A2. It will enable learners to
measure their own progress on the proficiency scale more finely
and in smaller increments than using undivided levels, which can
require study for several years in order to move up to the next
level. The subdivision will also facilitate classroom organisation
and the delivery of language instruction. In this respect, Malaysia
will be able to take good advantage of experience elsewhere (see,
e.g. French Elementary Secondary Curriculum, 2011, p. 5).
To the extent that the existing curriculum corresponds to
the progression implied by the CEFR, we can align the two by
matching corresponding items in the curriculum and the CEFR.
But we must also anticipate the need to bring our curriculum
into alignment, by changing the order of items, introducing new
items and perhaps discarding existing items. It is also the case that
correspondence does not mean sameness, and it is important to be
aware and to bring out the differences.
Items that on the surface look alike may on closer examination
prove to be different. For example, the curriculum for speaking and
listening begins with the acquisition of declarative knowledge, e.g.
13
Orthoepy means correct pronunciation. This is a rather odd word to use in this context,
because in English the term orthoepist is typically used to refer to someone who claims the
right without any justification to tell other people how words should be pronounced.
80
listen to and repeat simple greetings, while the corresponding CEFR

standard requires students to be able to use that knowledge in social
situations. The difference may sound subtle or even trivial; but it has
profound consequences for the way the spoken language is taught in
the classroom.
A key notion is communicative language competence, which
includes among its components linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic
competences (p. 13). These competences are discussed further on
pages 30-1, and later explained in some detail (pp. 108-130), and
include lexical, grammatical semantic, phonological, orthographic and
orthoepic13 competence (p. 109).
Communicative language competence thus includes but goes
beyond mere linguistic knowledge and involves the ability to use that
knowledge appropriately in a range of communicative situations.
Chapters 4 to 9 of the CEFR document draw on an extensive body of
research in the field of language education to spell out in some detail
how the scale A1 to C2 applies in learning, teaching and assessment.

SEC T ION
B
81

82

B
Looking Back and Moving Forward
83

Looking Back and Moving Forward
ection B builds on Section A by developing issues raised in

Section A, and examining them more specifically at the five
different stages of the education programme, namely preschool, primary, secondary, post-secondary and tertiary. Each of
these stages is considered in a chapter by itself:

Chapter 4: preschool
Chapter 5: primary
Chapter 6: secondary
Chapter 7: post-secondary
Chapter 8: university
The last chapter in this section, Chapter 9, deals specifically with

teacher education.
In the preparation of each chapter, attention has been paid to
a number of issues which are dealt with in different ways at each
stage of education. These include:
84
a critical evaluation of the curriculum, teaching and learning,

and assessment;
initiatives already taken;
the current state of progress;
recommendations for improvement;
specifying the conditions essential for any successful

reform and for the reform to be sustainable.
Each of the chapters 4 to 9 views the general state of affairs

from its own perspective, but some of the issues and problems
raised are shared by all levels of education from preschool to
tertiary, and they apply to learning as much as to teaching. The
remainder of this editorial introduction provides an overview of
three common areas of interest and concern. These are (1) current
performance; (2) key interventions; and (3) a discussion of critical
issues in the teaching and learning of English which lie beyond the
purview of the CEFR.
1. Current Performance
Table B.1 brings together the overall results published in 2013
of the Cambridge Baseline (i.e. the pooled results for Listening,
Reading, Writing and Speaking) expressed as percentages and
taken from tables on pages 17 to 29 of the Results Report.
Preschool
Y6
F3
F5
C2
F6
2
C1
B2
13
17
21
B1
12
17
26
32
29
27
27
14
A2
22
29
A1
16
34
28
<A1
Table B.1
78
32
12
the overall distribution

of CEFR levels
85

At the present time

78% of preschool children are working towards A1, the

remaining 22% having achieved A1 or A2;
By Year 6, the largest group (34%) is in A1, and a majority

(66%) is in A1 or below;
By Form 3, the largest group (29%) is in A2, and a majority

(57%) is in A1 or A2;
By Form 5, the largest group (29%) is in A2, while 26%

have advanced to B1, and 27% still remain in A1;
By Form 6, the largest group (32%) is in B1, while 27%

remain in A2, and 14% in A1 or below.
1.1
The middle of the range
In order to describe the present situation in more detail, we

have to consider the whole distribution, starting with the middle of
the range, or the grade that typical students can expect to achieve.
The middle of the range corresponds to below A1 for preschool,
A1 for Year 6, A2 for Form 3 and Form 5, and B1 for Form 6.
Note that the middle of the range is also the biggest group, i.e.
the largest percentage in each column. The general tendency is for
the size of the biggest group to decrease, from 78% to 34%, 29%,
86
29% before rising again to 32%. This pattern reflects the increasing
range from high performers to underperformers remarked upon in
the Cambridge Baseline. The increase for Form 6 is to be explained
by the fact that many underperformers will have left the education
system at this stage.
Judging by the figures in Table B.1 and taking into account our
current level of national performance, A1, A2 and B1 would appear
to be appropriate teaching targets for respectively Year 6, Form 5
and Form 6. Future performance targets can take the form either
of increasing the percentage of students achieving the target level,
or of raising the target itself.
1.2 High Performance and Underperformance

While large numbers of students are in the middle of the range
(see Table B.1), others score below or above it. The majority of
students are not more than one level above the middle range at
preschool level, and not more than one level above or one level
below the middle range at all other levels. This includes 94% of
students at preschool level, 88% at year six, and 74% at Form 3.
For Form 5 we have to guess the number remaining below A1,
but if we make the generous assumption that the 12% at Form 3
has halved, the majority group includes 66% of students. The
corresponding figure at Form 6 is 60%. What these figures show
is that the distribution flattens out over the years. Whether this
is a positive or negative phenomenon depends on the numbers of

students below or above the majority group.
High performing students are those who score two or more
levels above the middle, and underperformers score two or more
levels below the middle. The figures for high performance are 6%
at preschool level, 13% at year 6, 14% at Form 3, 19% at Form 5,
and 6% at Form 6 (where the middle itself rises to B1). These
figures raise the question whether high performers are sufficiently
stretched, or whether appropriate intervention could further raise
the number or level of performance of high performers. The only
reliable figures for underperformance are 12% at Form 3, and 14%
at Form 6.
The 12% and 14% belong to the set of the more worrying
figures to emerge from the Cambridge Baseline concerning the
number of students who make very little progress if any in the
study of English:

Preschool: 78% below A1
Year 6: 32% below A1
Form 3: 12% below A1
Form 5: 27% in A1 or below
Form 6: 14% in A1 or below
Although the figures do decline from preschool to Form 6, the

remaining number of underperformers nevertheless represents a
waste of potential from a national point of view, and no doubt a
loss of career opportunities for many of the students themselves.
Although general teaching levels will be set to suit the majority of
students, attention has also to be paid to the needs of those students
whose performance falls below the median level. This will have
consequences for classroom teaching, for example in practising
differentiated teaching, as proposed by the Cambridge Baseline.
The figure of 78% of preschool children below A1 (see Table
B.1) includes a wide range from those just missing A1 to those who
have learnt almost nothing at all. The same is true of the 32%
who are still below A1 in Year 6. The Cambridge Baseline figures
indicate that some at least of those who do not reach A1 in primary
school nevertheless make progress in secondary school, and reach
A1 in Form 3 and A2 in Form 5.
However, the figures also indicate that a substantial number
of students have still made at best very little progress by Form 5.
Leaving aside students who have difficulties in language learning on
account of some disability or disorder, the target size and date for
this non-performing group should be zero by 2020, and the setting
of this target needs to be accompanied by a remedial programme
designed to get the students started in learning English.
87

Students who get started in this way will join the

underperformers two or more levels below the median level. An
indication of the size of this group is given by the 12% at Form 3,
and the 14% at Form 6. This group should also be reduced to zero,
but in view of its size, it would be unrealistic to achieve this target
by 2020. A more realistic aim would be to reduce the group to
zero by the end of Wave 3 in 2025.
The Cambridge Baseline also gives figures for students whose
performance is two or more levels above the middle:

Preschool: 16% in A1 and 6% in A2;
Year 6: 22% in A2, 12% in B1 and 1% in B2;
Form 3: 17% in B1, 13% in B2, 1% in C1;
Form 5: 26% in B1, 17% in B2, 2% in C1;
Form 6: 21% in B2, 4% in C1, 2% in C2.
High performers two or more levels above the median level

amount to 6% at preschool level, 13% in Year 6, 14% in Form 3,
19% in Form 5, and just 6% in Form 6 for which the median level
is B1. It would be unrealistic to set targets for this group beyond
recognising the desirability of maximising its size. Intervention is
also needed for this group, for example by providing the more able
88
students with training to become autonomous language learners,

and so enable them to realise their full potential.
2. Key Interventions
In accordance with the aims set out in the MEB, a number of
key interventions referred to as short-term initiatives have been
introduced across the Malaysian education system (Figure B.1),
and implemented and monitored by divisions of the MoE.
Existing initiatives were reviewed following the launch of the
MEB in 2013, and consolidated to bring them into line with new
initiatives. Our main concern here is with initiatives that have been
developed specifically for English, although account also needs to
be taken of initiatives which affect the education system in general,
but which also have an impact on English language education
in particular. For example, the introduction of the set system is
specifically designed to improve English language proficiency,
whereas the initiative to promote higher order thinking skills is a
system-wide initiative that impacts all subjects including English.
All initiatives specific to English come within the remit of the
Jawatankuasa Kerja Inisiatif Bahasa Inggeris (English Language
Initiatives Working Committee) chaired by the Director-General
Teachers
Students
Pro-ELT
Native Speaker
Programme
Fulbright Teaching
Assistants
School Improvement
Specialist Coaches
(SISC+)
Standards-based
Curriculum
School-based
Assessment
Oral Proficiency for
Secondary Schools
LINUS 2.0 for Years 1-3
Sets for English
learning in Secondary
Schools
Obligatory pass in
SPM English
of the Ministry of Education. Selected

initiatives are also reported to the
Jawatankuasa
Induk
MBMMBI
(MBMMBI Committee) chaired by
the Minister of Education.
The impact
is to be
ascertained
by a
rigorous
evaluation
procedure.
We first review briefly in

chronological order a number of
initiatives associated with Wave 1 of
the MEB (see Table B.2), including
some that started earlier but which
remain of current relevance. The
different initiatives are dealt with in
more detail in the relevant chapters
of Section B. We then consider the
effectiveness and success of these
initiatives.
Figure B.1
Short-term initiatives to support teachers and

students in teaching and learning English
89

2.1
Short-term Initiatives
Pro-ELT
Pro-ELT Professional Up-skilling for English Language
Teachers is an in-service course for English teachers which
began with a pilot project in 2003 with 5,000 teachers, followed
the next year by 9,000 teachers. The course aims simultaneously
to improve proficiency and teaching skills: to strengthen the
Malaysian primary and secondary school teachers English language
proficiency, language teaching and learning through a blended
learning approach that includes: face-to-face training supported
[by] on-line learning and integrated proficiency and methodology
training1.
The Standards-based Curriculum

The standards-based Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah
(KSSR) was introduced in 2011, and it is to be complemented by the
Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah (KSSM), the introduction of
which is planned for 2017. This initiative will be overtaken by the
general alignment of the English language programme, including
curricula, to the CEFR.
School-based Assessment
School-based assessment was introduced at secondary level
for all subjects in 2012 to improve assessment methods and provide
a fair measure of student progress and achievement.
The Native Speaker Programme

The Native Speaker Programme began in 2010, and provides
ESL teachers with 75 hours of professional input through individual
mentoring at least once a fortnight. This includes personal
mentoring and training, and also training at cluster and zone level
through Teacher Professional Development (TPD) workshops
carried out by their native English speaker mentors.
Eshtehardi, R. 2014. Pro-ELT; A Teacher Training Blended Approach. Advances in

Language and Literary Studies 5.5: 2203-2214.
90
Oral Proficiency for Secondary Schools

The Oral Proficiency for Secondary Schools (OPS-English)
programme is designed to improve students listening and speaking
skills, and develop their confidence and ability to communicate in
English. The programme is targeted at Forms 1 and 2, and piloted
in 2012 in 20 schools. It was extended in 2014 to 827 Band 3 to
Band 6 schools.
Fulbright Teaching Assistants
LINUS 2.0
The Fulbright Teaching Assistants Programme involves the

placement of Fulbright scholars as Teaching Support Assistants
(TSAs) on one-year attachments to selected schools. The
programme began in 2012, and involves 100 Fulbright scholars
each year to 2017. The TSAs support the local, trained English
language teachers as they provide instruction in class by facilitating
learning activities. They also conduct additional activities to extend
opportunities available for students to use English in authentic
contexts beyond the classroom.
The English Language Literacy Programme or LINUS 2.0 is

intended to address the problem of English literacy among lower primary
school students without learning problems. Students experiencing
difficulty with English literacy are given additional support by grouping
them together during relevant classes and teaching them according to
their needs. In addition, selected teachers are being trained as literacy
coaches to assist teachers to reach a target of 100% age-appropriate
literacy by the end of Year 3. Teachers are given targeted training by
the literacy coaches to provide them with the best strategies to help
students catch up and get back into the mainstream.
School Improvement Specialist Coaches (SISC+)

The School Improvement Specialist Coach Plus (SISC+)
programme was set up in 2013 to help teachers improve their
English proficiency and pedagogical skills. The programme employs
experienced teachers and educators who have achieved excellence
in curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy to provide integrated
coaching in these areas. They occupy full time positions to allow
them to work more frequently on site with more teachers in lower
band schools, i.e. those in Bands 5, 6 and 7. The intervention of
School Improvement Partners (SI Partners), with the involvement
of peer coaches, heads of panel (Ketua Panitia), and school
principals will greatly assist the development of effective English
language teaching practices.
Sets for English

The introduction of the set system for English in secondary schools
attempts to provide a form of differentiated instruction to address
the learning needs of students with varying levels of English language
proficiency. The system has been implemented in more than half of all
secondary schools for Form 1 and to a lesser extent Form 2. Students
with low English proficiency are in sets of 20 to 30.
91

An obligatory SPM pass in English

A required pass in SPM English originally planned for 2016 has
now been postponed to a date to be decided.
2.2 Monitoring and Evaluating the Effectiveness and

Success of Initiatives
Initiatives need to be effectively monitored and evaluated.
There needs to be a general mechanism in place to optimise
individual initiatives, and a cyclical procedure is described in
the editorial introduction to Section C. At the same time, it is
necessary to examine the set of initiatives being taken at any one
time, and this is the purpose of this subsection.
There are no fewer than four initiatives involved in teacher
support (see Figure B.1), which is itself an indication of serious
shortcomings in the current arrangements for teacher training.
Initiatives involving student support provide further evidence that
teachers are not sufficiently trained to provide students with what
they need in the English classroom. In these circumstances, the
initiatives give the impression of patching up a system that is not
working, when what is really needed is a thorough review of the
education of English teachers.
92
Systemic problems must be distinguished from more superficial

problems, and tackled in a different way. The LINUS 2.0
programme followed the finding that almost half of Year 1 students
had failed to acquire levels of basic literacy in English appropriate
for their age. The baseline study found that the problem is greatest
in rural and remote areas, which are also served in some cases
by less effective teachers, and where students have least contact
with English in their everyday lives.
A problem emerging in Year 1 can be traced to preschool,
where English teachers do not have to have any qualifications at
all, may have only a minimal ability to speak English, and may have
no understanding at all of beginning literacy. This is a prototypical
example of a systemic problem, which needs to be analysed
fully, and its component problems addressed. To deal with just
the literacy problem requires materials to be produced by teams
with expertise in remedial teaching, early learning and beginning
literacy; and the coaches appointed need authenticated expertise
in these same three areas.
At a more specific level, the introduction of school-based
assessment presupposes that teachers are qualified to assess their
students in a manner that is reliable, valid and fair. There is no
evidence to support such a contention. There is also a practical
problem reported in the baseline study, namely that teachers
are already overburdened with administrative work (p. 109). For
MALAYSIAN EDUCATION BLUEPRINT INITIATIVES

WAVE 1 (2013-2015)
Strengthening the current system
WAVE 2 (2016 2020)

Introducing Structural Change
CONCERNS
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Low proficiency
among English
Teachers
Set a minimum proficiency requirement

for English teachers
Teachers with at least CEFR B2 at

primary level and C1 at secondary
level
Review B2 as the minimum

proficiency for teachers
The minimum proficiency

level for all teachers
raised to C1
Implement Pro-ELT: Up-skilling for inservice English language teachers.
Teachers achieve higher English

proficiency levels
Monitor and evaluate the

effectiveness of the initiative
A report on teacher
proficiency and the
impact of initiatives
Benchmark teacher proficiency

against international standards
Quality of English
language teaching
Improved quality in teaching and

learning, and understanding the
curriculum

effectiveness of initiatives
A report on the impact of

initiatives on the quality
of English teaching
Introduce the standards-based

curriculum
KSSR introduced in 2011

effectiveness of initiatives
A report on the impact of

initiatives on the delivery
of English teaching
Implement Ops-English
Improvement in the spoken English

of secondary students
Implement the Native Speaker

Programme: mentoring in-service EL
teachers by native English speaker
mentors
Implement the Fulbright English
Teaching Assistant Programme
Implement the Expanded Specialist
Coach (SISC+) role for English
Strengthening the
delivery of English
teaching
KSSM to be introduced in 2017
Conduct an Impact study
Implement the Set system for teaching Improved delivery

and learning
Language Policy
updated to promote
proficiency in English
Table B.2
Introducing LINUS 2.0 as a remedial

intervention programme to address
English literacy at primary level
Improvement in basic literacy in

English
Making it compulsory to pass the SPM

English language subject paper
Improvement in student proficiency Benchmark student proficiency A report on student

against international standards performance
(This was originally scheduled for

implementation in 2016 but has been
postponed to a later date.)
Continue implementing the

policy
Further improvement in
student proficiency
The Monitoring and Evaluation of short-term initiatives

93

school-based assessment to succeed, it will be necessary to relieve

teachers of some non-teaching work.
The introduction of different groups of people to provide
teachers with classroom support raises the question of their
qualifications. To assess any impact, it is also essential to know
what they actually do in the classroom in applying their special
expertise. Since any outside observers change behaviour in the
classroom (a well-known effect known as the observer paradox),
the statistical question is whether the impact of those introduced
to classrooms is any different from the introduction of any arbitrary
group of people.
Although there is a widespread but erroneous belief that
anyone who speaks a language can also teach it, the reality is that
native speakers of English are ordinary members of the public
unless they are qualified to teach English. Teachers selected
to coach their colleagues must first satisfy rigorous criteria in
accordance with international standards. Coaches must also have
expertise in the right areas; it is not obvious, for example, that
those with expertise in curriculum, assessment, and pedagogy are
the appropriate people to help with the teaching of English.
In order to deal successfully with systemic problems, individual
initiatives need to be part of a coordinated overall plan, and play
complementary roles to achieve a common goal in such a way that
their impact can be assessed. Providing this overall plan is the
94
function of the Roadmap. Table B.2 includes these initiatives in

a timetabled implementation plan specifying their implementation
in Wave 1 followed by the monitoring and evaluation of their
effectiveness.
3. Critical issues in the teaching and learning of English

This last section of the introduction brings together a number
of critical issues in the teaching and learning of English, some of
which have been touched upon in the chapters of Section A, and
most of which come into the discussion or in some cases lie
behind the discussion in the chapters of Section B. What these
have in common is that they are not included within the purview
of the CEFR, so that the corresponding problems will not be
automatically put right as our programme and teacher education
are aligned to the CEFR. These are issues that have to be addressed
independently of the CEFR by the education providers themselves.
The Roadmap would be failing in its task if it were to leave
them unaddressed on the assumption that the areas of English
language teaching and learning involved are sufficiently well
understood. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that they are in
fact insufficiently understood and often misunderstood. Critical
issues are discussed here in extenso to provide the wider context
for problems and proposals arising in chapters 4 to 9.
3.1
Content knowledge and the teaching of English
As in the case of any subject, teaching a language requires

a combination of content knowledge and pedagogical expertise.
Teachers have to present the language in such a way that the
students are able to learn it. Whereas it is taken for granted that
physics teachers have to know physics, and history teachers have
to know history, the knowledge expected of language teachers is
less well defined. This is because there is a widespread popular
belief that anyone who can speak a language can also teach it.
It is in accordance with this belief that trained teachers who
also know some English are expected to teach English in Malaysian
schools, irrespective of the subject they were trained to teach. The
point is that language teaching in general, and English teaching
in particular, is a specialism just like physics teaching or history
teaching, and for the same reasons English should be taught by
teachers whose specialism is in English Language Teaching.
The content knowledge required of a physics teacher is directly
related to the level of the course: an advanced course requires more
advanced knowledge than an introductory course. In language
teaching the relation is an inverse one. Anyone can explain a new
word to an advanced foreign learner, and advanced learners with
the right skills can solve most problems by themselves anyway.
On the other hand, teaching beginners particularly beginners
in preschool requires a high level of technical knowledge and
pedagogical expertise. Although the things that young children are

required to learn are simple for adults, so that it may superficially
appear that anyone can teach them, what young children are
learning is highly complex in relation to what they knew before, and
this requires knowledge and expertise on the part of the teacher.
Preschool teachers, although in practice generally the least
qualified, actually need to know the most about early language
learning and early learning in general in order to understand the
problems faced by their students. The same is true of the language
problems faced by undergraduates who have failed to learn English
properly at school and have to take remedial courses at university.
The problems may seem simple; but it takes knowledge and
expertise on the part of the teacher to understand those problems
from the point of view of the learner, and find a way of helping the
learner to solve them.
Content problems will not be solved by the adoption of the
CEFR. This is because the CEFR is concerned, for example,
with what a learner can do in the target language; but it leaves
the education provider to decide how the learner is to develop the
necessary skills. It is concerned with learning outcomes rather than
with the details of the instruction that leads to learning. Children
have to learn to read, but how they do that is the responsibility of
the education provider. Chapters 4 to 9 contain many instances of
teaching and learning problems which arise from the lack of the
necessary content knowledge, and which will remain problems
95

after the adoption of the CEFR unless steps are taken to provide
English teachers with the necessary content knowledge. The
relevant areas are sketched in outline below, and are accompanied
by as objective an explanation as possible of how and why there is
a problem.
The education providers responsibility to decide how things
should be taught creates a procedural dilemma that runs through
this subsection. There is general agreement that our present English
language programme is not working as it should, and in order to
find ways of improving it, we first have to understand precisely and
in detail what is going wrong. But it is difficult to point out what is
wrong without appearing to point the finger and apportion blame.
For example, it is reasonably clear from the baseline study that
many English teachers do not have the English proficiency required
to teach English, and it might therefore seem that teachers are at
fault for not teaching English properly; but it would be both irrational
and unreasonable to blame teachers for their own lack of training.
What we are facing is a systemic problem, and finding someone to
blame is not an appropriate approach to the problem, and it is in any
case not going to help find a solution. We have to adopt the position
of a medical practitioner whose task is not to blame the patient
for an unhealthy lifestyle, but to diagnose the patients condition
objectively, and find an appropriate course of treatment.
For a good discussion in the context of the CEFR, see Jos Lpez Rama and Gloria Luque
Agull (2012) The role of grammar teaching: from Communicative Approaches to the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Revista de Lingstica y Lenguas
Aplicadas, 7, pp. 179-191.
96
3.2
Linguistic form and meaning
When people use language to communicate with each other,

they are primarily concerned with the giving and receiving of what
in very general terms is referred to as meaning. The ability to
communicate is not the same as perfect mastery of some aspect
of language, for people can perform a task successfully, and still
make mistakes. However, in order to make oneself understood, or
understand what other people are saying, speakers and hearers have
to draw on a linguistic infrastructure generally known as linguistic
form, which includes vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. A
question that has vexed language teaching and learning for several
decades is how and indeed whether linguistic form should be
taught to the language learner2.
Traditional language teaching typically involves the direct
teaching of form, using the sequence Presentation, Practice and
Production (Rama & Agull, 2012, p. 184). The teacher introduces
some aspect of the form of the language, the students practise
it, and then are assumed to be able to produce it. This approach
conforms to what was traditionally known about language and
about teaching and learning. To be successful, it requires a high
level of skill on the part of the teacher, and a high level of ability
on the part of the student, who has to understand an abstract
linguistic description and apply the new knowledge deductively
when using the language.
Students who have been taught by traditional methods may

acquire what is known as declarative knowledge of the target
language. They may be able, for example, to describe the forms
of the simple present tense, or list the definite and indefinite
articles used in English. Declarative linguistic knowledge is more
appropriately taught in university courses in Linguistics, and while
teachers need to acquire relevant declarative knowledge in the
course of their training in order to teach effectively, it will not
directly help the majority of their students. This is because using
tense forms or articles appropriately in speech or writing requires
a different kind of knowledge known as procedural knowledge,
which involves knowing how to do things. Students who have the
procedural knowledge to say and do things in English may use the
language well without having any idea of the theory behind their
procedural knowledge.
The so-called communicative approach to language teaching
has been gaining ground since the 1970s, and as the name
implies, puts the emphasis on the ability to use the language in
communication rather than on knowledge of linguistic form. This
is not one approach but a collection of related approaches (see
Rama & Agull, 2012) which adopt very different attitudes to
the teaching of form. What is ultimately most important is not
what the teacher teaches but what the learner learns. However
the language is taught, the learner has to learn its form, because
without a knowledge of linguistic form, it is impossible to speak or
write a language, or understand it when it is spoken or written.
One of the most unfortunate developments in English

language teaching is that the differences between the traditional
and communicative approaches developed into mutual distrust
in the 1970s, following the widespread acceptance in Linguistics
Departments worldwide of models of language form which were
of no value whatsoever in the classroom. The attempt to teach
the new models to English teachers led to much disillusionment
among applied linguists and language teachers concerning the
value of linguistic theory, to the extent that the rift that opened
up has not yet been closed. The long-term effect in Malaysia as
elsewhere has been a tendency to reject theoretical linguistic
knowledge even when it is directly relevant to language teaching
and learning, to the extent of a lack of awareness that relevant
areas of knowledge actually exist.
The damage caused by the rift has been particularly marked in the
teaching of grammar and phonics. It is logically impossible to understand
what grammar is and claim that students should not be learning it; and
the same applies to phonics rules. In both cases, however, misguided
classroom practices can make teaching in these areas virtually useless.
Although the MoE has laid down both grammar and phonics in English
teaching, there will inevitably be those who argue that the MoE has
got it wrong, and that these areas should not be taught, or that some
other approach should be adopted.
97

The communicative teaching of grammar and other aspects

of linguistic form puts much greater demands on the teacher
than the teaching of form for its own sake. Teachers need both
the procedural knowledge that leads to proficiency in order to
provide their students with appropriate models, and also sufficient
declarative knowledge to deal with the learning problems their
students will inevitably encounter. Communicative language
teaching when carried out properly pays due attention to form
as before, but with a different emphasis and with a clear new
direction to facilitate communication. What has happened in
practice, all over the world, is that there has been a decline in the
traditional teaching of linguistic form without a corresponding rise
in the teaching of form for communicative purposes.
The Malaysian English teachers who were sent for training to
Kirkby College before the 1970s will have been given a thorough
grounding in relevant aspects of linguistic form; but Malaysian
teachers trained more recently are unlikely to have the same grasp
of the same material. At the present time, it would appear from
the Cambridge Baseline that the communicative approach to
language teaching has not taken root in Malaysian classrooms, so
that some teachers still teach in the traditional manner but without
the knowledge of form associated with traditional teaching.
A major challenge for a new English language programme is to
provide teachers with the knowledge of linguistic form that they
need in order to perform effectively in the classroom and enable
their students to develop communicative competence.
98
The decline in the understanding of the role and importance

of linguistic form in language learning has led in recent years to
the widespread acceptance of a rather strange notion, which is
not only misleading, but also counterproductive. This is the notion
that native speakers of English have lost the ownership of their
own language, and that learners can speak English as they like.
From a logical point of view this may be perfectly true, because
there is no scientific test that can distinguish correct English from
incorrect English. However, in the real world, Malaysians who
speak English as they like cannot expect international examination
boards and employers to take them seriously. Given the agenda
that drives our English language programme, Malaysians have to
speak English in a manner that enables them to communicate with
the rest of the world.
3.3 Lacunae
If teachers are to teach English effectively and successfully,
they need to acquire the requisite knowledge of English in the
course of their initial and in-service education. This knowledge
needs to be built into the reformed English language programme
if it is to achieve its aims, and it has to be internally consistent if
we are to create an integrated English language system and enable
our students to develop confidence as they progress through their
school education.
But what is the nature of this requisite knowledge of English?

Although it is well known internationally, and although it
continues to accumulate as more relevant research is carried out,
the knowledge taken into account in the existing English language
programme and in teacher training is in some respects incomplete.
Where teachers need knowledge, there are gaps and blindspots
which are here referred to collectively as lacunae.
The problem of a lacuna is not just that it represents a branch
of relevant knowledge that remains unknown, but that there is
a lack of awareness that such a branch of relevant knowledge
actually exists. For this reason, attention is drawn in this section
to evidence for lacunae in the text of the national curriculum; and
as ever, the purpose is not to find fault, but as far as possible to
find objective evidence of shortcomings that need to be put right if
we are to move forward.
The three lacunae discussed here are phonics and early
reading, spoken language, and grammar. The problems associated
with these lacunae emerge in the early years, and so much of
the discussion below concerns preschool and primary education.
In fact, new problems continue to emerge. Students need more
advanced phonics rules when they learn more difficult words,
and medical students need phonics rules at university level to
pronounce words such as xerotic or epithelium. Students also need
more advanced grammar and spoken English skills to cope with
the demands of secondary and tertiary education. Because the
challenges become greater as students grow older, it is essential to

get children off to a good start at the beginning of their education.
3.3.1 Phonics and early reading

The acquisition of beginning literacy marks a major step forward
in childrens language education. In view of the importance of
literacy, it is important for the teaching of beginning literacy to be
based on a clear understanding of principles and objectives. When
children start to read, they learn the alphabet and then put letters
together to recognise whole words, and successful beginners go
on to understand the meaning of whole texts, typically childrens
stories. The long-term purpose of teaching Malaysian children
to read English is not for them just to recognise English words,
but to extract meaning from English texts, including English
online materials, textbooks written in English, and day-to-day
correspondence in a job that requires English.
However, it is obvious that we cannot understand a text unless
we can recognise a sufficient proportion of the words. The better
we understand a text, the more successfully we can work out the
meanings of words and expressions we have never seen before;
and the more words we recognise, the better we understand the
text. Text understanding and word recognition are complementary
skills in the process of reading. It is therefore unfortunate that in
some approaches to reading, they are seen as alternatives or even
99

as opposed methods of reading. For example, the whole language

method3 rightly emphasises the importance of text understanding,
but some proponents appear to imply that readers are able to
understand a text top down without recognising the words.
say, and some interpretations of the whole word method4 have

assumed that children can be taught to recognise words as a
whole. The concept of sight words is based on the assumption
that some words can only be recognised in this way.
A top-down mechanism needs to work on information lower

down, in this case derived from the recognition of words, in order
to construct the higher level understanding. Of course, the reader
does not have to understand every single word in order to extract
the meaning from a text; but a sufficient number of words have to
be understood in order for top-down understanding to take place.
Although it may appear that the reader can recognise words

effortlessly and immediately, this is now known to be an illusion. A
lot of processing goes on in the brain below the level of consciousness
before the recognised word suddenly pops into consciousness
(Dehaene, 2014). In view of what is now known scientifically
about reading in the brain, it is beyond doubt and controversy that
early reading has to begin with word recognition, and that word
recognition has to begin with the recognition of letters.
Various methods and approaches to teach children to recognise

words have been put forward since the early nineteenth century,
but these have been overtaken by two major scientific discoveries.
The first is that spoken words are made up of strings of phonemes
corresponding to the strings of letters that make up written words.
The second discovery has to do with the way readers recognise
written words. It has long been known that visual perception begins
at a very low level, and in reading this involves such things as the
edges of letters and the angles formed by these edges. Recognising
the letters of a word written alphabetically is an essential stage
in the conscious recognition of the whole word (Dehaene, 2009).
The discovery that letter recognition is prerequisite for word
recognition is of fundamental importance for the teaching of
beginning reading. Many reading schemes including look and
3
http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/post/2010/09/23/What-is-the-Whole-LanguageeApproach-to-Teaching-Reading.aspx
4
http://www.helpingeverychildtoread.com/index.php/causes-of-difficulty/reading-theories/
whole-word-method
100
Phonics and phonemes

The obvious way to teach beginning readers to recognise words
is to give them the rules that link spellings to phonemes, generally
known as phonics rules. This is not a matter of opinion, but follows as
a logical necessity. If learners are to link spellings to phonemes, they
need to know what these phonemes are. This means that anyone
teaching beginning English literacy needs to be familiar with the 44
phonemes of the variety of English taught in Malaysia. Someone who
does not know the 44 phonemes cannot teach children to pronounce
English words any more than someone who does not know the 26
letters of the alphabet can teach children to write them. Similarly,

just as the teacher needs to be able to write the letters in order to
teach them to children, the teacher needs to be able to produce all
the phonemes in order to teach spoken English.
While a knowledge of phonemes is necessary, it is not in itself
sufficient. The beginning reader also needs to learn to analyse
words. Although in many cases a single letter corresponds to a
single phoneme, in other cases groups of letters correspond to a
single phoneme, e.g. in ship, sh corresponds to the phoneme
//.The pronunciation of the word also needs to be divided into
its constituent phonemes, e.g. ship is made up of the phonemes
/, , p/. Children are sometimes taught to divide words into
phonemes and sound out each phoneme in turn. Sounding out is
quite different from normal pronunciation, and so learners need
to learn the complementary skill known as blending to put the
separate phonemes together again and reconstruct the original
pronunciation. Phonics rules are essentially concerned with the
correspondences between spelling and pronunciation, but the
phonics method correctly taught also includes sounding out and
blending. Children who learn about the phonemes of the target
language develop phonemic awareness, and sounding out and
blending go further into a more general area known as phonological
awareness.
The teaching of phonics is much misunderstood, and has

notoriously been a matter of controversy for several decades. The
outcome of the controversy is that a version of phonics known
as synthetic phonics has been adopted in countries such as the
UK and Australia, and is already and appropriately laid down in
the Malaysian national curriculum. The important characteristic
of synthetic phonics is that it includes sounding out and blending,
and is designed to enable children to develop phonemic and
phonological awareness. There is an increasing body of research
evidence to indicate that children taught in this way develop strong
foundations in literacy, and make better progress later on.
Nevertheless, in view of the historical controversy, there may
be some who still hold the opinion that the Ministry should not be
advocating phonics teaching at all, and that some other method
should be adopted for the teaching of beginning reading. Any
opinions of this kind need to be substantiated by hard scientific
evidence, which is unlikely to be forthcoming.
The point was made above that the purpose of reading is to
extract meaning from written texts. For the beginning reader, the
text is a single word. Children need to understand the words they
are reading. Some reading methods include imaginary or nonsense
words such as blick or sleg to give children practice in interpreting
spelling conventions; but although nonsense words have an
important place in the teaching of phonetics and phonology at
101

university level, and in the diagnosis of certain aphasias, they

have no place at all in early reading on account of the absence of
meaning.
In this connection, it is important to recognise the difference in
the role of meaning for children learning to read their first language,
and those learning to read a new language. The child who already
knows English, and who manages to link the spelling ship to the
pronunciation /p/ has immediate access to the meaning. For this
child the word ship has a spelling, a pronunciation and a meaning.
But for children just beginning to learn English, /p/ is merely
the pronunciation of a nonsense word. These children need to be
given the meaning of the words they are attempting to read. More
generally, the teaching of reading by phonics methods needs to be
extended to include meaning.
Principle and practice in phonics teaching

This discussion of phonics has so far been concerned with
matters of principle. Questions of quite a different order are
concerned with the extent to which principle is translated into
practice, in the curriculum5 and in the classroom. A problem that
emerges on the examination of the curriculum is that it is not
pedagogically organised to optimise learning. Although children
are expected to read words, phrases and simple sentences at 4+,
5
The versions of the curriculum consulted include Preschool (2010), drafts for SK Years 1 and 2
(2011) and Year 3 (2012); Years 4 and 5 (2003) and 6 (2004); and Forms 1 to 5 (2003).
102
instruction is concerned at this stage with letter recognition and

understanding the properties of letters (phonemes being treated by
implication as properties of letters). Sounding out and recognising
the initial sounds of words are not introduced until 5+, even though
children need to sound words out (and blend the phonemes) at 4+
in order to read words.
The relevance of initial sounds is left unclear, and may not
in fact be needed until much later, when children learn to use
a dictionary. The preschool target laid down in the national
curriculum is ambitious, and includes the ability to speak politely
with appropriate intonation, read simple story books, and [a]t
the same time recognise alphabets [sic], know basic phonics
and write simple phrases; but it is not at all clear how they are
expected to learn to do these things.
Primary school children are expected to read up to paragraph
level and use a dictionary, but the tools they are given do not
enable them to get as far as word recognition. The curriculum
for Years 1 and 2 includes tables containing paired spellings and
pronunciations, mainly consonants for Year 1 and mainly vowels
for Year 2. A close look at the entries for Year 1 shows that 21 out
of the 32 entries involve the sounds associated by default with
letters of the alphabet, so that phonics teaching proper does not
get underway until Year 2. More seriously, the content of the
tables is unconnected with the associated rubric Able to recognise
and articulate initial, medial and the final sounds in single syllable
words within [sic] given context or with the requirements Able
to blend two to four phonemes into recognisable words and read
them aloud or Able to segment words into phonemes to spell.
In Year 3, students are expected to speak English with correct
word stress, and recite rhymes and tongue twisters, but no
indication is given of what this means or how it is to be achieved.
In Year 5, they are given what is described as a sound system
but which actually consists of correspondences between spellings
and phonemes and phoneme strings. They are also given phonics
rules to learn which do not distinguish the letters of the spelling
from the sounds of the pronunciation; for example, the list of
sounds to be learnt includes the initial letter x, digraphs and
silent letters. In Year 6, the sound system is extended to include
blends and contractions, but it is not made clear how these relate
to the phoneme system of English.
At secondary level, students are expected to undertake
tasks of increasing linguistic complexity, but the spoken language
teaching continues with phonics. In Form 1, they are given a list
of consonant spellings, some but not all of which are accompanied
by a phonetic symbol, and this is followed by subsets of the
vowel system, plural forms and contractions. In Form 2, different
subsets of the vowel and consonant systems and plural forms are
accompanied by a subset of past tense forms. Form 3 students
are given basic phonics rules, e.g. to pronounce fan and set, and
rules for pronouncing plural and past tense forms, including agent
as a plural form [sic] and blank and rank as past tense forms [sic].
Form 4 students are given incomplete tables containing further
subsets of vowel and consonant spellings, and are also required to
tackle stress in four syllable words. Three examples of four syllable
words are given, and two of the three stress patterns are incorrect.
The curriculum for Form 5 again includes an incomplete table of
spellings with some phonetic transcriptions (several of which are
incorrect), the first example conveying the information that bb
in bubble is pronounced /b/.
The problems encountered in the phonics sections of the
national curriculum are such that an appropriately qualified
teacher would not be able simultaneously to follow the curriculum
and to provide the students with the understanding of the written
and spoken forms that they need to become literate in English.
In view of the importance of phonics to early literacy, this part
of the curriculum will have to be completely re-done when the
curriculum is next revised, in order to provide learners with an
internally consistent sequence of pedagogically ordered learning
tasks based on current knowledge of spoken and written English
and on developmentally appropriate practice.
103

3.3.2 Spoken English

CEFR level
Year 6
Form 3
Form 5
Form 6
C2
C1
B2
11
13
B1
11
19
27
A2
20
21
24
24
A1
59
56
31
15
<A1
16
10
16
Speaking skills at
different educational levels
Table B.3
104
According to the baseline study, Speaking is the weakest of the

four skills. Table B.3 shows the results compiled from tables in the
Results Report (pp. 18 29).
The majority group progresses from A1 for Year 6 and Form 3
to A1/A2 for Form 5 and A2/B1 for Form 6. The majority group
in Form 6 includes only 51% for Speaking in comparison with 61%
in A2/B1 for Listening and 79% for Reading, and 82% in B1/B2
for Writing. The concentration of effort has clearly been on the
written rather than the spoken language. However, Table B.3 also
shows a group who never get to A1 for speaking, and after reaching
a minimum of 7% in Form 3, the figure then rises to 16% in Form 6.
The comparable figures for Writing, which is the most successful
skill, are 14% below A1 in Year 6 and 27% in Form 3, falling to
18% below A2 in Form 5 and just 5% below A2 in Form 6. After a
possible problem in lower secondary school, most students attain
some level of literacy in English.
An important question to ask is why there should be such a
difference in success in producing spoken and written English.
The Cambridge Baseline has not so far provided a clear answer.
However, it is quite possible to learn a written language without
bothering with the spoken language at all. Some deaf people, for
example, pair the written language not with the spoken language
but with a sign language. Scholars have long studied texts written
in dead languages, in some cases not knowing much at all about

the spoken form. The Cambridge Baseline results are consistent
with the possibility that some Malaysian learners of English learn
almost nothing at all about spoken English.
The Cambridge Baseline results, together with routine
references to the poor Speaking skills of students and even of
their teachers, give a clear indication that something fundamental
is missing in the teaching of spoken English. One such lacuna
has already been discussed, and concerns the speech sounds or
phonemes that correspond to the letters of the written language.
Just as it is impossible to spell a word without knowing all the
letters that make up the spelling, so it is impossible to pronounce a
word properly without knowing all the phonemes that make up the
pronunciation. Teachers need sufficient basic phonemic awareness
for themselves in order to teach their students how to pronounce
English words.
To enable students to develop the spoken language skills needed
at secondary level, teachers need more advanced phonological
awareness, including relevant aspects of English prosody. Teachers
who frequently read samples of English aloud in class need specific
training in how to read English aloud. Otherwise they provide their
students with poor models of spoken English.
The language arts have the advantage of being enjoyable for
students and no doubt also for teachers, and if properly taught
enable students to develop appropriate patterns of stress, rhythm

and intonation. However, teachers have to understand what they
are teaching. Rhythms and rhymes can be used very effectively in
the teaching of spoken English, but children given inappropriate
input can also be induced to speak English in a manner unrelated
to the prosody of normal spoken English. The unskilled teaching of
the language arts can actually do damage and make it much more
difficult for the students to acquire appropriate English prosody
later on. Unless teachers develop for themselves the necessary
awareness of spoken English and acquire spoken English skills, we
are never going to solve the problem of students leaving school and
even university without being able to speak English properly.
The learning of spoken English is an area in which improvements
are urgently required in order to achieve national ambitions and
to increase levels of graduate employability. In order to make
themselves employable in sectors that require English, graduates
and also school leavers need to speak English at the appropriate
level of proficiency. Some students will have independent access
to good models of spoken English to imitate, but many will have no
choice but to learn from their teachers.
This puts the teachers themselves in the difficult position of
having to rely in large measure on their own performance, even
if their spoken English is poor. If the teachers spoken English is
poor, this initiates or continues the cycle whereby students whose
105

command of spoken English is inadequate grow up to become

English teachers and pass their own poor English on to their
students. This is a cycle that has to be broken.
A fundamental question that has to be raised concerns the
nature of the means whereby Malaysian students are expected
to develop proficiency in spoken English. The national curriculum
includes such means as the language arts, reading aloud and
classroom conversations; but these are designed to enhance
proficiency that is already developing. The primary means of
initialising the development of spoken English proficiency in the
national curriculum is in fact synthetic phonics, which has already
been identified as an area of difficulty. There is no other means
included in the national curriculum whereby a student who has no
knowledge of spoken English at all can expect to acquire at least
some proficiency in spoken English.
Phonics is of course usually associated with beginning reading,
as indicated in the last subsection. However, by associating spellings
with phonemes, it brings the sounds of the language to the learners
conscious attention. The student who can sound a word out, match
the phonemes to units of the spelling, and then blend the phonemes
to make a natural pronunciation will thereby build the foundations on
which spoken proficiency is based. Indeed, countless students from
across the world have successfully learnt to speak new languages in
this way for hundreds if not thousands of years.
106
It is because phonics correctly taught lays the foundation for

both literacy and spoken English that priority must be given to the
development of a high quality phonics programme designed for the
needs of learners for whom English is not the first language. The
teaching of literacy goes on to develop text understanding, and
the teaching of spoken English goes on to develop more advanced
aspects of phonological awareness. For this reason, the teaching
of phonics needs to be integrated into the structured teaching of
spoken English more generally, in order to produce school leavers
and graduates who can speak English properly.
3.3.3 Grammar
In order to use the target language to communicate, the
learner needs not only the words themselves but also the grammar
to put them together to construct meanings. As in the case of
vocabulary, the national curriculum lays down the strategy to
be used to provide the learner with the necessary grammatical
knowledge.
There is a preliminary problem to be dealt with here, in
view of the different senses in which the term grammar is used.
When learners manage to put words together to form phrases
and sentences, for example to say my name is <name>, they are
making use of grammatical rules, and this is for linguists the normal
understanding of grammar. At this stage, children are developing

procedural knowledge of grammar.
However, the term grammar is also used to refer to the
traditional formal teaching of grammar, sometimes known as school
grammar, which seeks to provide the learner with declarative
knowledge. Students develop procedural knowledge of English
grammar and teachers help them to acquire it beginning in
preschool, but the teaching of grammar in the sense of declarative
knowledge begins in Year 3. The grammar that children learn
naturally tells them how to use words to communicate; but the
grammar they are taught from Year 3 according to the curriculum
involves the direct teaching of form.
In view of the different meanings, the teaching of grammar is
often misunderstood. Teaching learners the grammar they need
to say things is not the same as teaching grammatical theory. For
example, learners need to know how to select the correct form of
the verb be, and to use the ing ending in order to say I am learning
English; but they do not need a theoretical account of the English
continuous forms and their different uses.
The grammar of spoken English

Very young children start learning their first language through
exposure to it, possibly without any explicit explanation or teaching
at all. Soon after they learn their first words, they begin to put
words together to form phrases and sentences. This is when they

begin to learn grammar. They develop procedural knowledge of
the grammar, even though they are most unlikely to be able to
describe what they are learning.
Young children of school age are also able to learn a second
language intuitively, and since this innate ability declines as
children advance towards puberty, some of the more difficult
areas of grammar are paradoxically best learned in the early years.
For example, it is difficult to explain the meaning of words such
as the and of, but young children nevertheless manage to acquire
their use. Children who learn English early use definite articles
appropriately, even if they do not know what definite articles are;
and conversely, people who are taught formally about definite
articles later on in life may know what definite articles are, and
develop the declarative knowledge to explain them, but notoriously
find it difficult to use them appropriately.
The teaching of English grammar to young children especially
those too young to understand declarative categories has to
take the form of facilitating learning, and exploiting the childrens
innate capacity for language learning. This is best accomplished
by providing children with authentic materials specially designed
to enable them to learn. However, if children are to learn from
materials, it is absolutely essential for those materials to present
authentic models of the target language. This because beginning
107

language learners are in no position to evaluate the materials they

are given, and will learn ill formed language structures with the
same efficiency as well formed structures. As learners continue
to practise structures they become more fluent, and this is true
whether the structures are well formed or not.
In this context it is important to draw attention to the large
number of elementary grammatical mistakes readily to be found in
learning materials currently made available in Malaysia for beginning
learners of English. A recent informal study of materials currently
in use in Malaysian preschools revealed an abundance of mistakes
likely to provide the learner with at best an idiosyncratic model
of English. Indeed, the perusal in any bookshop of early English
learning materials published locally (i.e. in Malaysia or Singapore)
yields a rich harvest of elementary grammatical mistakes.
The Cambridge Baseline (p. 116) refers to the problem
of inauthentic language, including the use and modelling of
inauthentic language at primary level, and the inauthentic nature
of the texts and dialogues in a lot of the material which lends the
discourse a stilted feel. Inauthentic language includes not only
grammatical mistakes but also the inappropriate use of grammar
and vocabulary, and the use of structures which are grammatically
well formed but not naturally used in the context. For example, a
customer asking for the bill might say How much is that? but not (to
cite an actual example) How much do I pay you?
108
If our young children are exposed to learning materials

containing elementary learner errors and inauthentic English, then
it is not surprising that this is the kind of English they learn. The long
term outcome is the high frequency of well-rehearsed ill-formed
grammatical structures and other inappropriate phenomena in
the speech and writing of Malaysian undergraduates and adults.
Before taking positive steps to improve the teaching of grammar,
it is essential to put a stop to the use of inauthentic materials and
materials containing elementary learner errors. There must be a
policy of zero tolerance towards the use of low quality materials
in the classroom.
Metalanguage
As children develop their literacy skills, they begin to become
consciously aware of the forms of the language they are learning,
and at this stage they need a metalanguage, or a special set of
technical terms for talking about language itself. By learning
metalinguistic terms, children begin to develop declarative
linguistic knowledge. It is essential for metalinguistic terms to be
used correctly and consistently, especially in textbooks and official
documents. This is alas not always the case. For example, in the
text of the national curriculum, the term alphabet is to be found
used in the sense letter, and the term letter is to be found used in
the sense phoneme.
Much of school grammar consists of metalinguistic terms. For

example, in Year 3, students are expected to use different word
classes correctly and appropriately. These word classes are in
fact the conventional parts of speech, namely noun, pronoun,
adjective, verb, conjunction, preposition and article, which they
have been using in practice since they first started English. Although
the word list for Year 3 includes adverbs, and students will be
presumably be expected to use words such as now, then and quickly,
adverbs are not included in the formal grammar list until Year 4. The
theoretical understanding of the parts of speech is too difficult for
most undergraduates studying Linguistics, and so far beyond primary
schoolchildren. What children can do in primary school is to learn the
metalanguage, and label words according to their parts of speech.
The status of some of the grammar included in the primary
curriculum is unclear. Year 3 students are also expected to be able
to construct declarative sentences correctly, even though they
are expected to produce and respond to questions and commands
from preschool onwards. The baseline study similarly observes
that in the Level 2 grammar module, children are expected
to construct imperative sentences correctly, and use present
continuous verbs correctly and appropriately, yet the Preschool
and Level 1 curricula are based around activity contexts in which
the use of such structures is implicit (p. 112).
Metalanguage includes not only parts of speech but also

grammatical categories of many different kinds. The teacher
who introduces metalinguistic terms needs to understand the
complexity of the grammatical categories they refer to. There is
a long tradition within school grammar of introducing children to
grammatical categories by means of grammatical prototypes, but
these can be misleading6. For example, verbs are sometimes loosely
described as doing words, and while sleep is a good example of a
verb, it is hardly a doing word; and similarly integrity and happiness
do not fit the popular definition of nouns as the names of persons,
places or things. I am giving a lecture this afternoon provides a good
illustration of the present continuous tense; but it is neither
present nor continuous in meaning. Someone who says over
lunch in Bangsar I am working at KLCC at the moment is at that
moment neither working nor at KLCC. The teacher who teaches
metalinguistic terms has to understand the value and limitations
of the prototypes used for illustration, and of the relationship
between grammatical theory as presented in textbooks and the
way grammar is naturally and normally used to convey and access
meaning.
Grammar and written language
When children become literate in their first language, they
already have an accumulated knowledge of basic grammatical
rules, and so learning to write involves to some extent applying
The more complete modern understanding of grammar categories is largely due to linguistic
research undertaken as recently as the second half of the last century.
109

what they already know. However, whereas they are born with the
ability to learn spoken language, and so learn without being able
to describe what they are learning, they have no corresponding
innate ability to learn to write.
This means that they have to learn by being made consciously
aware of the properties of the written language, beginning with
the letters of the alphabet. They have to learn the written forms
that correspond to the forms of the spoken language, including
the spellings that correspond to the pronunciations of words, and
the written phrases and sentences that correspond to the spoken
utterances that they have long been able to produce.
Because of the need to learn the written language by conscious
effort, grammar tends to be associated with the written language,
even though the spoken language is also organised by parts of
speech, grammatical categories and grammatical rules. The child
learning to write has to pay attention not only to grammar but also
to spelling and punctuation; and so popular discussions of grammar
tend to mix grammar proper with spelling, punctuation and even
letters of the alphabet.
Since this is how the child perceives the problem, it may be
sound pedagogical practice to teach these things together; but in
order to guide the childs learning, the teacher needs to understand
the difference between grammar and orthography, which includes
spelling and punctuation, and the alphabet.
110
Whereas children have the innate ability to use grammatical

knowledge to understand what people say to them, and to formulate
utterances that other people can understand, it is not at all obvious
that they have the corresponding ability to do these same things in
writing. This is why students are given comprehension exercises
and tests. The teaching of writing has therefore to include from
the beginning the transfer of the skill of extracting meaning from
written texts in reading to the expression of meaning in written
texts in writing.
As in the case of phonics, the learning experience is quite
different for children learning to write a new language. Children
who are given high quality exposure to the spoken language may
be able, at least to a limited extent, to simulate the experience
of children writing their first language. But many children have
to tackle the written language first, and even use it to learn the
spoken language.
Some teachers may be tempted to draw on their knowledge
of grammar to teach grammar directly; but the information they
give the children is likely to be far above their understanding, and
possibly inaccurate in any case. Directly taught grammar provides
the learner with declarative knowledge about the target language,
and does not in itself help with the development of language skills.
The outcome for more able students, especially if formal grammar
is taught inexpertly to the exclusion of communicative skills, may

be that they know all about the language but cannot use it, while
less able students unable to grasp the grammatical theory may
learn nothing at all.
Direct grammar teaching is most effectively used as a
supplement rather than as a substitute for a more practical
approach to grammar teaching. The task for the teacher is to
enable the children to develop procedural knowledge of the
written language, and the task for teacher educators is to show
teachers how to do this.
In short, the English teacher needs an appropriate grounding
in English grammar, but the teachers essential role is not to teach
grammar but to facilitate the learning of grammar. The goal for
students is to use the language to communicate, and in order to do
that they need to know the relevant grammar and how to use it for
communicative purposes. It must constantly be borne in mind that
for the language learner the purpose of learning grammar is not to
rejoice in grammatical forms for their own sake, but to use them to
extract and convey meaning.
Learning to handle meaning does not necessarily correspond to
the different boxes or compartments into which language teaching
is conventionally divided. The teacher who explains the meaning
of an authentic text cannot but deal with the grammar, and
thereby assist with comprehension and help the student develop

literacy skills. Grammar, comprehension and literacy do not
belong in separate boxes, but represent different aspects of the
same learning experience. The teachers job is not to fill empty
vessels with grammatical knowledge, but to facilitate learning in
the classroom, and in this case enable children to learn English
grammar and use it in communication.
The three lacunae discussed here phonics, spoken language
and grammar might superficially appear to be unconnected, but
in fact the integrated knowledge of the three areas constitute the
indispensable foundation which English teachers need in order to
teach English. Without a knowledge of English phonemes, the
teacher cannot teach phonics, and children are left to their own
devices to learn what they can about spoken English.
The teacher needs some basic knowledge of grammar in order
to talk about the written language, and to bring beginning readers
beyond the stage of word recognition, and enable them to begin
to extract meaning from grammatically organised text. If we are
to reform English language education in Malaysia, we cannot
continue to ignore the central areas of knowledge which English
teachers need in order to perform effectively in the classroom.
Education for English teachers must include a sufficient grounding
in the relevant areas of language form.
111

This section has brought together the main lacunae and other
general critical issues that will require attention as the reforms are
implemented. The chapters of Section B deal at a more specific
level with issues arising at the different stages of education and in
teacher education.
112

Preschool
113

Chapter 4:
Preschool
his chapter is concerned with the learning of English in National

and National-type preschools, excluding other providers of
preschool education. The aim is to identify major issues in
English language education at this level, and to suggest improvements
to bring it up to international standards. Suggestions involving the
curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment will be linked to
and guided by the CEFR wherever relevant and appropriate. The
review will also ascertain the extent to which existing conditions are
likely to facilitate or hamper the attainment of the aspirations set out
in the MEB.
It was found that trying to match the preschool curriculum to
CEFR levels (basic, independent, and proficient users) on a one-to-one
basis was both difficult and not altogether meaningful (see Appendix
A for the mapping between the National Preschool Standards-based
Curriculum (henceforth NPSC) and the CEFR). Nevertheless, the
CEFR enables a kind of validation for preschool as far as its principles,
ethos and approaches are concerned.
For example, its emphasis on action-oriented, learner-centred,
culturally responsive and self-regulated approaches are consistent
with the constructivist learning theories and the developmentally
appropriate practice (henceforth DAP) principles on which the
national preschool curriculum is based (see Figure 4.1). In addition,
the description of competencies in the form of can do statements
can be adopted when learning outcomes or learning standards in the
national curriculum are revised.
114
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
Holistic Development
Meaningful learning
Fun learning
Basic skills for lifelong learning
Pupil centred
Learning Through Play
Integrated
Thematic
APPROACHES
Discovery and Inquiry

Constructivism
Project-Based-Learning
INTEGRATED DOMAINS
Communication
Spiritual, Attitude and Moral
Science and Technology
Humanities
Physical Development and Aesthetics
Socio-emotional Development
OUTCOMES - PUPILS WILL ATTAIN
FIGURE 4.1
Basic skills of literacy and numeracy

Basic skills of reasoning and problem-solving
Confidence and a positive self-concept
Good habits for healthy and safe living
Ability to interact with others
Creativity and the appreciation of the arts, crafts and music
Curiosity, inquisitiveness and expressiveness
Preparation for primary school
Conceptual Framework of the NPSC
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
PRINCIPLES
115

The ultimate goal of preschool English language learning is to

give preschool children confidence in using English in and outside the
classroom, and to facilitate the smooth transition to English in primary
school. It is more important for them to develop a positive attitude
to English and make a good start in spoken English and literacy in
English than to achieve a specific level of proficiency. This is because
the majority will be coming to school with zero or minimal previous
exposure to English, and it is vital to make their early experiences with
the language enjoyable and free of stress. Young learners need a safe
and secure environment in order to thrive, and so the approach taken
to teaching and learning, and especially to assessment, should not
make them feel anxious or threatened in any way.
Children feel safe and secure when they are fully engaged in
activities which they find enjoyable, and which stimulate their innate
curiosity. Play has for this reason been recognised as an important part
of early education. In this context, play does not mean free for all
goal-free activity, but essentially involves purposeful, well-thought
out and structured activity with specified learning outcomes.
Play is an important vehicle for developing selfregulation as well as for promoting language, cognition
and social competence.
(NAEYC, 2009, p. 14 )
An action-oriented and learner-centred approach should be at the

core of preschool English, and in the spirit of the CEFR, the emphasis
116
should be on learning rather than teaching. This chapter reviews

present practices with a view to suggesting affirmative actions to
make students confident and comfortable using English in and outside
the classroom, without fear of ridicule or alienation, and so make the
transition to primary school as smooth as possible.
The chapter is divided into five sections: 4.1 provides a brief
background to preschool education, including its history, and the
national preschool curriculum and current initiatives that contribute
to the present situation; 4.2 identifies problems and gaps that could
affect the childrens sense of security and well being or otherwise
frustrate the achievement of the goals for preschool education; 4.3
discusses actions that need to be taken; 4.4 lists the implications
and recommendations to be considered; and 4.5 summarises and
concludes the chapter.
4.1 Background
4.1.1 A brief history
Early Childhood Care and Education (henceforth ECCE) was
begun in Malaysia before the 1960s, the main providers being religious
bodies or non-governmental organisations. In 1971, the Department
of Community Development in the Ministry of Rural and Regional
Development established the first of many preschools known as Tabika
KEMAS, which catered mainly for low-income families in suburban,
The Department of National

Unity and Integration
(DNUI) under the purview
of the Prime Ministers
Department setup
kindergartens called Tabika
Perpaduan in urban and
suburban areas covered by
the Skim Rukun Tetangga,
the neighbourhood watch
programme.
rural and remote areas, and in indigenous villages. In 1972, the Ministry
of Education (henceforth MoE) issued its first registration guidelines
in Kaedah-Kaedah Guru/ Kaedah-Kaedah Kindergarten dan Sekolah
Asuhan (Pendaftaran) 1972 Warta Kerajaan P.U. (A) 414, which laid
down laws for the registration of kindergartens, teachers and boards of
governors. In 1976, the Department of National Unity and Integration
(DNUI) under the purview of the Prime Ministers Department set
up kindergartens called Tabika Perpaduan in urban and suburban
areas covered by the Skim Rukun Tetangga, the neighbourhood watch
programme. Both KEMAS and Perpaduan preschools make use of
community halls (rented or provided free), housing estates, private
properties, and shop houses rented or built by the Ministry. MoE
preschools, annexed to existing national primary school buildings and
funded by the MoE, were also set up to cater for low income families
in suburban, rural and remote areas, some 80% in rural areas.
In the 1980s, preschools in Malaysia were built and managed by

these and other government agencies such as FELDA, RISDA, DNUI,
religious bodies, the police and the army (Cawangan Pendidikan/
Angkatan Bersenjata dan Polis). The lack of standardisation and
regulation in preschools led to the formulation of the 1986 Preschool
Guidebook (Buku Panduan Prasekolah Malaysia, 1986), the first formal
curriculum document for early childhood education in Malaysia. The
aim was to provide guidance and facilitate coordination between
preschool providers, and to bring Malaysian preschool education up to
the standards set by current global developments. These guidelines
were revised in 1993 and renamed Garis Panduan Kurikulum Pendidikan
Prasekolah Malaysia.
The Malaysian preschool situation is indeed complex, provision
being made through several government agencies, non-governmental
117

agencies and the private sector, and involving three Ministries,

namely the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Rural and Regional
Development, and the Department of National Unity and Integration.
These are of course in addition to private preschool providers. Since
2003, it has been compulsory for all preschools, both public and
private, to follow the NPSC. Although there are several committees
overseeing preschool education, it is a challenge to coordinate the
contributions of so many different providers. An important milestone
was the establishment of the National ECCE Council (henceforth
ECCECM) in November 2010, a non-profit professional body with
responsibility for ECCE under the National Key Economic Areas
(henceforth NKEA) for education, and acting as a link between
the Government and private sector ECCE providers. The council
has played a key role in the professionalisation of private childcare
providers and preschool educators, and in quality assurance.
One of the elements of Shift 1 in the MEB (2013, p. 7-5) is to
Raise quality of all preschools and encourage universal enrolment by
2020. It aims to ensure that, every child aged 5+ will be enrolled in a
registered preschool, be it public or private. Low-income families that
would otherwise not be able to afford preschool will receive needsbased financial support from MoE. All preschools will follow a set of
national quality standards, and preschool teachers will be required to
have at least a diploma. These schools will also be inspected regularly by
MoE or the ECCECM to ensure that they meet minimum standards.
118
4.1.2 English Language in the National Preschool StandardsBased Curriculum (NPSC)

The stated aim of preschool education as found in the NPSC is to
develop the potential of children aged four to six physically, emotionally,
spiritually, intellectually and socially in order to enhance their skills,
instil confidence and form a positive self-concept to prepare them to
take on the challenges and responsibilities in primary school (NPSC,
2010, p. 1). It is important to note at the outset that the NPSC is based
on developmental milestones or stages, and the National Philosophy
of Education (henceforth NPE).
The curriculum focuses on six strands, one of which is
communication in Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil. The teaching
of English includes Listening and Speaking, Pre-reading, Reading
and Writing skills. The main focus of the Communication Strand is
for pupils to use language in order to communicate in their daily lives.
Since this is where English language education begins, this part of the
curriculum needs to be examined with particular care.
Children are taught to listen to and identify environmental sounds.
However, since many animals have to recognise environmental sounds
in order to survive in the wild, and since children on entering preschool
can already identify the minute phonetic detail that distinguishes the
phonemes of at least their first language, it is not at all clear in what
way students stand to benefit from this kind of teaching.
In related
activities,
students listen
to rhymes, songs
and stories, and
make appropriate
responses.
Students listen to greetings, repeating after the teacher and

greeting one another and the people around them. The value of this
exercise depends on the ability of the teacher to pronounce English
words correctly, and to produce authentically worded greetings.
Children whose teachers lack the necessary level of proficiency in
English are likely to start off with a bad model of spoken English, which
will make it difficult for them to improve their spoken English later on.
not clearly stipulated. Other learning standards focus on identifying

the initial sounds of words, reading words, phrases and sentences
with understanding. In order to do this correctly, the teacher has to
understand that while phonics rules may be sufficient for the reading
of words, the reading of phrases and sentences with understanding
requires quite different and more advanced skills that have nothing to
do with phonics.
In related activities, students listen to rhymes, songs and stories,

and make appropriate responses. Pre-reading skills include handling
books with care. Reading focuses on recognising the letters of the
alphabet and articulating the corresponding sounds. Even this simple
exercise requires the teacher to possess sufficient phonemic awareness
to understand the relationship between letters and sounds. There is
a learning standard that focuses on the learning of phonics, but it is
Writing focuses on pre-writing and writing, and begins with handeye coordination activities, and drawing strokes, lines and patterns.
Learning standards for writing emphasise the correct formation of
letters and copy writing. Details for the four skills are listed in the
following table:
119

Listening and speaking skills
Listen to and discriminate sounds.

Listen to and understand the meaning of simple words.
Acquire and use simple phrases and statements.
Listen to and follow simple instructions.
Listen to and enjoy nursery rhymes, action songs, poems and stories.
Sing songs and recite rhymes and poems.
Tell simple stories.
Dramatise familiar situations and stories.
Perform a variety of language forms and functions in a social context.
Ask simple questions.
Pre-reading Skills
Understand that printed materials contain meaning.

Acquire knowledge of print and ethics in reading.
Reading Skills
Identify letters of the alphabet.

Read simple words with understanding.
Read phrases with understanding.
Read simple sentences with understanding.
Develop interest in reading.
Writing skills
Acquire pre-writing skills.

Acquire writing skills.
Table 4.1
120
English Language Skills Table
The perusal of this table gives rise to several causes for concern.
First, the activities are not based on any theoretical framework
relevant to early language learning or beginning literacy. Phonics, for
example, has an important place, but does not fit into the table at all.
The interactive use of English is mixed up with the language arts. The
extraction of meaning from written texts has an uncertain relationship
to the alphabet. These things will not be put right by aligning the
preschool curriculum to the CEFR, because the CEFR is not primarily
concerned with how students develop the ability to do things in the
target language.
The teaching of English to complete beginners will remain a
problem until this whole area is thought through in the light of what is
known about English and early literacy, and the skills to be developed
by students are related to each other in a systematic manner. Secondly,
providing students with a basic foundation in spoken English requires
teachers to possess those very skills that the Cambridge Malaysia
Baseline Project Report 2013 points out many teachers lack. This will
remain a problem until teachers are provided with the skills that they
need.
An important aspect of the preschool curriculum is that it is based
on DAP principles which focus on the child as a whole, integrating
the childs needs, interests, and abilities. Cognitive, social, emotional
and physical development are all to be included when planning lessons.
Lessons are planned taking a thematic approach, selecting themes
according to the childrens interests in order to provide intrinsic
motivation. The focus is also on providing meaningful experiences

that are more easily comprehended and remembered. The table
below shows the selected themes which are of interest to children
and areas which stimulate their curiosity and interest. The themes are
used to supplement the time-tabled teaching of the four skills which
make up the English Basic Module, and English is used as the medium
of instruction during the Thematic Sessions, Reflection and Morning
Routines.
Week(s)
Themes
Orientation Week
2 11
Myself
12 - 16
Matter
17 - 18
Living Things
19
Environment
20
Physical World
21 - 23
Technology
24 27
My Country
Table 4.2
THEMES
121

Teachers tend to keep to the

curriculum, and seldom go beyond
it, so preschool students may not
get much exposure to higher level
language learning. If the curriculum
is holding them back, it is difficult to
bring students up to the standard of
their inernational counterparts as
envisaged by the MEB.
4.2 Issues, Gaps, and

Challenges
This section draws attention
to issues and gaps concerning the
curriculum, teaching & learning,
and assessment (see Figure 4.2)
that may affect the achievement of
the goals stated in the introduction
to this chapter, namely to give
preschool children confidence
in using English in and outside
the classroom and to facilitate
a smooth transition to primary
school.
122
CURRICULUM
Learning standards
to meet 21st
century needs
Transitioning from
one instructional
language to
another
Figure 4.2
TEACHING & LEARNING
Teachers as
role models
Clear and renewed
emphasis on
developmentally
appropriate
practice
principles in
English language
iInstruction
ASSESSMENT
Impact of teacher
proficiency on
assessment
Inadequate
constructs
Inadequate
assessments
rubrics
Inadequate valid
assessment tools
Issues at Preschool Level
4.2.1 Learning standards to meet 21st century needs

The analysis of the English language component in the
Communication Strand of the NPSC brings to light a number of
curricular issues. According to the NPE, that guides all curricula,
education in Malaysia is intended to develop an individuals potential in
a holistic and integrated manner. The aim is to ensure that Malaysians
are knowledgeable and competent, responsible and capable of
achieving a high level of personal well-being to contribute to the
betterment of the nation, family and society. The curriculum is also
guided by the national need to prepare the nations children for the
coming decades (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025, 2013).
Poor English proficiency is often cited as the cause for the failure
of students to perform well in the Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study (henceforth TIMSS) and the Programme for
International Student Assessment (henceforth PISA) examinations,
or to obtain suitable employment in the private sector when they
graduate. But poor proficiency also has a cause, and to find it we
have to make a critical evaluation of English language education at the
very beginning. Two areas of particular importance in this respect are
higher order thinking skills and the critical period hypothesis.
develop HOTs. Among the responses reported by Rohaty Mohd

Majzub (2013) from 30 participants including teachers, lecturers,
academics and officials from early childcare and preschool
education were the following comments pertaining to the NPSC:
The curriculum should inculcate higher order thinking
skills to prepare children for the future.
Children should be able to reason and do problem solving.
I think most urban preschools over stress academic
achievement in Maths and English.
Preschool children should master cognitive skills, problem
solving, creative thinking skills. Yes we need young thinkers.
Curriculum should address global skills such as ICT
skills and higher order thinking skills including conflict
resolutions.
4.2.1.1 Higher order thinking skills (HOTs)
Preschool teachers are expected to teach HOTs in English during

the time allocated for the Thematic Module. However important
HOTs undoubtedly are, and however important it may be to develop
them from the beginning of education, what children are expected to
understand and learn must still be linked to their level of maturity.
One of the general goals often suggested for education and

especially crucial for the 21st century, is to enable children to
It is not at all obvious that developing HOTs can be effectively

combined with preschool English. The Basic English Module of
123

NPSC stresses simple skills such as greeting, identifying objects,

and following simple instructions (as presented in Table 4.1).
The development of such basic language skills is incompatible
with the inculcation of HOTs and Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) skills. In any case, teaching HOTs in English is
an impossible task for teachers who are already having problems
with their own English. The likely outcome is that they use a
language more familiar to themselves and their students, so that
the students do not benefit from the policy allocating equal time
to the languages used in preschools. Students are unlikely to be
able to demonstrate these HOTs in English.
4.2.1.2 The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH)
In addressing the needs of the 21st century, it is pertinent for
curriculum developers to be cognizant of relevant theories of
language acquisition. According to the CPH, there is a critical period
for language learning which peaks between the ages of 3 and 5, which
is also when many children start learning English as a new language.
Early proponents of the hypothesis, including Penfield and
Roberts (1959, cited in Pallier, 2007) and Lenneberg, Chomsky and
Marx (1967), claimed that language develops readily during the first
few years of life, but later on language acquisition becomes much
more difficult and ultimately less successful (Snow & HoefnagelHhle, 1978).
124
Similarly Newport (2003) reported that several lines of

research, both behavioural and neural, suggest that there is a
critical or sensitive period for language acquisition, so that feral
or abused children who have been isolated from exposure to their
first language until after puberty have shown extreme deficits in
phonology, morphology, and syntax. The extension of the theory to
second language acquisition (SLA) has stimulated both supporting
and opposing research. Singleton (1992) claims that there are
many exceptions in second language learning, and that five percent
of adults who begin to learn a new language manage to master it.
Snow and Hoefnagel-Hhle (1978) did not find support for
the CPH in SLA in their longitudinal study of the naturalistic
acquisition of Dutch by English speakers of different ages: 12 to
15 year-olds and adults made the fastest progress during the first
few months, but by the end of the first year the 8 to 10 and 12 to
15-year-olds had progressed the most, while the 3 to 5-year-olds
scored lowest on all the tests employed.
An important refinement of the hypothesis is that it does not
apply to language as a whole, and that the optimal learning age
differs from one language system to another. According to Ruben
(1999, p. 85) the critical/sensitive period of phonology is from the
sixth month of fetal life through the 12th month of infancy.
Data indicates that the critical/sensitive periods for syntax
run through the fourth year of life, and for semantics through the
15th or 16th year of life. Newport (2003) also takes the view
that vocabulary and semantic processing can develop relatively
normally in late learners.
A related issue discussed by Hunt (1961) is that a high level of
intellectual capacity during adulthood depends on a high-quality
educational experience during the early years. It is therefore important
for the language input during the early years to be appropriate and of
quality so that the child develops a high level of intellectual capacity
in communication. Besides curriculum content, the language input
quality includes how the teaching and learning of the language is
carried out as well as the teachers qualifications and proficiency.
Although research on the critical period remains inconclusive,
it is reasonable to take the view that language learning must be
matched to the maturity of the learner. There are certain language
systems which must be mastered early if the learner is ultimately
to develop a command of the language. These areas include
phonology, morphology and basic syntax such as the use of articles.
According to Gestwicki (1999), childrens language development
depends on the quality of the input they are given, and these are
also areas which young children are able to learn intuitively from
good models. It is extremely difficult to give an adequate theoretical
account of these areas using traditional teaching methods, and
even if the teacher were able to provide such an account, it would
be far beyond the understanding of the children.
Herein is the crux of a fundamental problem not only for preschool

English education, but for English education as a whole. If we expect
our graduates to operate effectively in English, then they have to get
a good start in English in preschool. This means providing preschool
children with good models of spoken English from which they can
acquire the indispensable foundations on which their later language
learning will be based, and which they will find increasingly difficult to
acquire as they get older. Young learners cannot be expected to acquire
the foundations if their teachers lack either the English proficiency to
provide suitable models, or the basic knowledge of language systems
that they need in order to guide the learning of their students.
4.2.2 Switching language

Tables 4.3 to 4.6 present the suggested timetables included
in the curriculum for National Preschools and National-Type
Preschools, which lay down when to teach in Malay, English, or
Mandarin or Tamil. The white cells indicate lessons to be carried
out in the first language, blue indicates English, and green indicates
Malay as the medium of instruction in National-Type Preschools.
The differences between the Tables are that firstly for National
Preschools they have to use two languages, while National-Type
Preschools use three languages. For each type of preschool two
suggestions (A and B) are given for scheduling the allocation for
the use of different languages.
125

8.008.10
(10min)
8.108.30
(20min)
8.30-9.10
(40min)
9.10-9.30
(20min)
10.00-10.30
(30min)
10.30-10.50
(20min)
10.50-11.20
(30min)
11.20-11.50
(30min)
11.50-12.00
(10min)
M Morning
routine
Perbualan
pagi
Aktiviti
Luar
Thematic
module
English basic Recess

module
Thematic
module
Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Reflection
Islam /Moral Islam /Moral
Education
Education
Perbualan
pagi
Matematik
Modul
bertema
English basic Recess

module
Thematic
module
Modul asas
BM
Modul
bertema
Reflection
W Morning
routine
Morning
circle
Outdoor
activity
Modul
bertema
Modul asas
BM
Rehat
Thematic
module
Modul
bertema
Modul
bertema
Reflection
Morning
routine
Morning
circle
Modul
bertema
Modul
bertema
Modul asas
BM
Recess
Thematic
module
Thematic
module
English basic Refleksi

module
Rutin Pagi
Morning
circle
Thematic
module
Thematic
module
Thematic
module
Recess
Modul
bertema
Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Refleksi
Islam /Moral Islam /Moral
Education
Education
Morning
routine
Table 4.3 Suggested

8.00 8.10
(10min)
Morning
routine
8.00 8.10
(10min)
Rutin
8.00 8.10
(10min)
8.10 8.30
(20 min)
Perbualan
pagi
8.10 8.30
(20 min)
Perbualan
pagi
8.10 8.30
(20 min)
8.30-9.10
(40min)
Timetable A for National Preschools
9.10-9.40
(30 min)
9.40-10.10
(30 min)
Aktiviti Luar Pendidikan

Islam
Pendidikan
Islam
8.30-9.10
(40min)
Matematik
8.30-9.10
(40min)
9.10-9.30
(20 min)
Modul
bertema
9.30-10.00
(30 min)
Modul
bertema
9.10-9.30
(20 min)
9.30-10.00
(30 min)
10.10-10.40
(30 min)
Recess
10.00-10.30
(30 min)
Modul asas
BM
10.00-10.30
(30 min)
10.40-11.00
(20 min)
Thematic
module
10.30-11.00
(30 min)
Recess
10.30-10.50
(20 min)
11.00-11.30
(30min)
Thematic
module
11.00-11.30
(30min)
11.30-11.50
(20min)
English basic Reflection

module
11.30-11.50
(20min)
English basic Thematic

module
module
10.50-11.20
(30min)
11.50-12.00
(10 min)
11.20-11.50
(30min)
11.50-12.00
(10 min)
Reflection
11.50-12.00
(10 min)
Morning
routine
Morning
circle
Outdoor
activity
Thematic
Module
Modul asas
BM
Rehat
Modul
bertema
Modul
bertema
Modul
bertema
Morning
routine
Morning
circle
Thematic
module
Thematic
module
Thematic
module
Recess
Thematic
module
Thematic
module
English basic Reflection

module
Morning
routine
Morning
circle
Modul
bertema
Modul
bertema
Modul asas
BM
Recess
Modul
bertema
Pendidikan
Islam
Pendidikan
Islam
Table 4.4 Suggested
126
9.30-10.00
(30min)
Timetable B for National Preschools
Refleksi
Refleksi
8.008.10
(10min)
8.108.30
(20min)
8.30-9.10
(40min)
M Routine
Perbualan
pagi
Aktiviti
Luar
Morning
circle
/
Rutin pagi
dalam BT
W /
Rutin pagi
dalam BT
Morning
circle
9.10-9.30
(20min)
10.00-10.30 10.30-10.50
(30min)
(20min)
10.50-11.20
(30min)
11.20-11.50
(30min)
/
Modul bertema
dalam BT /
Pendidikan
Islam
English
basic
module
Recess
Thematic
modules
/
Modul bertema
dalam BT /
Pendidikan
Islam
/ Modul
Modul asas
bertema
Matematik
dalam BT
Modul asas
BM
Recess
Thematic
modules
Modul asas BM
Modul
bertema
Modul asas
BM
Thematic
module
9.30-10.00
(30min)
11.50-12.00
(10min)
/
Refleksi
dalam
Bahasa
Tamil (BT)
/
Refleksi
dalam BT
/Modul asas BT
Rehat
Thematic
modules
Reflection
/Modul asas BT /Modul asas BT

T
/
Rutin pagi
dalam BT
/
Perbualan
pagi dalam
BT
Modul bertema
Modul
bertema
Modul asas
BM
Modul
bertema
Thematic
module
English basic
module
Rutin pagi
/
Perbualan
pagi dalam
BT
Modul bertema
Modul
bertema
/
Modul
bertema
dalam BT
Recess
Modul
bertema
/
Modul bertema
dalam BT /
Pendidikan
Islam
/
Refleksi
Modul bertema
dalam BT /
Pendidikan
Islam
Table 4.5 Suggested
Reflection
Timetable A for National-Type Preschools

127

8.00 8.10
8.10 8.30
(20 min)
8.30-9.10
(40min)
M /
Rutin pagi
dalam BT
/
Perbualan
pagi dalam
BT
/
Modul bertema
dalam BT /
Pendidikan
Islam
8.00 8.10
8.10 8.30
(20 min)
8.30-9.10
(40min)
Rutin pagi
Perbualan
pagi
Modul bertema Modul bertema Modul

bertema
Morning
circle
/ Thematic
Module
(10min)
(10min)
W Routine
9.10-9.30
(20 min)
9.30-10.00
(30 min)
/
English
Modul bertema basic
dalam BT /
module
Pendidikan
Islam
9.10-9.30
(20 min)
9.30-9.50
(20 min)
Thematic
Module
10.00-10.30 10.30-11.00
(30 min)
(30 min)
Recess
9.50-10.20
(30 min)
Thematic
module
11.00-11.20
(20min)
Thematic
module
11.20-11.50
(30min)
Thematic
module
11.20-11.50
(30min)
11.50-12.00
(10 min)
Reflection
10.20-10.50
(30 min)
10.50-11.20
(30min)
11.50-12.00
(10 min)
Rehat
Modul asas
BM
/
Modul bertema
dalam BT /
Pendidikan
Islam
/
/
Modul bertema Refleksi
dalam BT /
dalam BT
Pendidikan
Islam
Recess
English
basic
module
/
Refleksi
dalam BT
/Modul asas BT /Modul asas BT

T
/
Rutin pagi
dalam BT
/
Perbualan
pagi dalam
BT
/Modul asas
Matematik
dalam BT
8.00 8.10
8.10 8.30
(20 min)
8.30-9.10
(40min)
Morning
circle
Morning
circle
(10min)
Aktiviti Luar
Table 4.6
128
Rehat
Modul
bertema
Modul bertema Thematic

module
Reflection
/Modul asas BT
9.10-9.30
(20 min)
9.30-10.00
(30 min)
Modul bertema Modul asas

BM
10.00-10.30 10.30-11.00
(30 min)
(30 min)
Modul asas
BM
Recess
11.00-11.30
(30min)
English basic
module
Suggested Timetable B for National-Type Preschools
11.30-11.50
(20min)
11.50-12.00
(10 min)
Modul bertema Refleksi
Young learners cannot

be expected to acquire
the foundations if their
teachers lack either the
English proficiency to
provide suitable models,
or the basic knowledge of
language systems that they
need in order to guide the
learning of their students.
Although these timetables are suggestions, teachers are likely

to follow them because they have been designed to comply with
the policy of equal time for Malay, English, and Mandarin or Tamil.
However, this arrangement does not provide continuity for a child
learning English, because English is used alternately with Malay, or
with Mandarin or Tamil, for the same kind of class.
For instance, Morning Circle is carried out in Malay on
Mondays and Tuesdays but in English on Wednesdays, Thursdays
and Fridays. Since both languages are taught by the same teacher,
students may be confused. This problem is compounded in
National-Type Preschools, where the teacher has to juggle three
languages: Malay, Mandarin or Tamil, and English.
To implement these timetables, teachers have to switch from

one language to another in order to keep to the curriculum. In
the daily teaching and interaction with the preschoolers, the
transition is rather awkward from one language to another on a
lesson-to-lesson basis. The time for each lesson is also not fixed,
and as shown in the suggested timetables, it varies from 10 to 40
minutes. Constant shifts in languages and duration do not provide
for continuity in the thinking process for the children.
The problem here is twofold: children at this age need
a structured environment that provides them stability and
security. They are comfortable with routines and take comfort
in predictability and continuity in their activities. Abrupt changes
in the language of instruction does not fulfil this need. Secondly,
129

teachers who are aware of this problem and who find alternating
between languages difficult might just not bother too much about
fulfilling the required time allocation for English. They are likely to
resort to the language that is most comfortable for both teacher
and pupils, which in most cases will be the first language and not
the target language.
4.2.3 Role Models

The preschool teaching and learning environment is particularly
demanding on teachers in view of the high level of care, attention
and guidance that young children need. Teachers teaching English
literacy for preschoolers need not only expertise in pedagogical
approaches for young children learning English as a second
language, but English proficiency for themselves. However, there
is a growing body of evidence that a substantial proportion of
preschool teachers do not have these qualifications.
In 2010, a study was conducted by the MoE of the status of
English in 102 public and private preschools, and the teachers
interviewed agreed that while the English policy was beneficial in
exposing preschool children to English and preparing them for Year
One, they were themselves apprehensive as they did not have
sufficient command of the language to converse in English.
130
In 2013, the Cambridge Malaysia Baseline Project 2013, (as

described in chapter 1) confirmed that a substantial proportion of
English teachers have not reached a sufficient level of proficiency.
The lack of proficiency among English teachers has to be taken
objectively into account in planning to provide them with support
and to meet their training needs.
Low levels of English proficiency among teachers reduce
their effectiveness as language teachers. Rohaty Mohd Majzub
(2013) draws attention to the low level of English proficiency and
confidence in using English among preschool teachers. This lack
of confidence contributes to a preschool environment that does
not in general support the use of English, and in most instances
teachers and students prefer to use their mother tongue.
The resulting minimal exposure to the target language
undermines the use of the immersion approach best suited for
young learners of a second or foreign language (Kite & Sakui,
2001; Met, 2004; Ojima, Nakamura, Matsuba-Kurita, Hoshino, &
Hagiwara, 2011; Tedick, Christian & Fortune, 2011).
Children do not have the opportunity to learn the language
in meaningful social interactions with a more knowledgeable
other (Vygotsky, 1978). Moreover teachers who are themselves
learning the target language do not make good models for their
young students.
For students to
enjoy using English,
teachers need
to plan learning
activities that match
their interests and
stimulate their
curiosity.
Teachers who cannot speak English well and lack language

learning skills should not be the first persons to introduce young
learners to English. Teachers inadequacies which may take the
form of ungrammatical constructions and mispronunciations are
likely to be picked up by the young learners, causing them great
difficulty to unlearn and relearn in later stages of the education
system. This point is returned to below.
4.2.4 Developmentally Appropriate Practice Principles

Nunan (2015) emphasises the importance of training for
teachers who are going to teach a language to young learners. This
training must be based on developmentally appropriate practice
(Gestwicki, 1999). While such principles may be given widespread
support, they are not translated into everyday practice. Ng (2010)

found that some teachers did not understand the curriculum for
English, and there was a lack of activities teaching English through
play, music and movement; classes tended to be teacher-centred,
with little attention to creativity and problem solving skills. As
observed by Kioko (2015) studying early education in rural Kenya,
such practices are not uncommon when teacher and learner are
struggling with English in an unnatural environment. For students
to enjoy using English, teachers need to plan learning activities that
match their interests and stimulate their curiosity. Children learn
best through play, and child-directed play that is carefully planned
and carried out in a literacy enriched environment facilitates the
development of childrens oral and writing literacy (Anderson,
Spainhower & Sharp, 2015; Waite-Stupiansky, 2014).
131

Resources such as the

culturally relevant Big Books,
graded phonetic readers,
charts, CDs and other
materials supplied by the
Curriculum Development
Division (CDD) of the MoE are
considered supplementary
and underused.
132
Another DAP and constructivist-embedded approach

prescribed in the NPSC is project-based learning. However,
teachers are found to lack the skills and knowledge they need to
take this approach in their lessons (Ng & Anna Christina Abdullah,
2011; Noor Miza Abdul Rahman, 2015). Learning through play is
another approach prescribed in the NPSC as play comes naturally
to children and makes learning fun.
Our preschool teachers lack the language ability, professional

skills and initiative to translate curricular goals into teaching
modules, materials and activities that are developmentally
appropriate as advocated by Gestwicki (1999). Preschool teachers
are expected to use teaching materials and design activities that
follow the development of children as well as match their abilities
and interests in a familiar and meaningful culture.
Thus besides producing more effective learning (Axelrod,

2014; Jarrett, Sutterby, DeMarie & Stenhouse, 2015), it enables
students to develop positive attitudes towards using English,
with similar results to the use of techniques such as drama and
storytelling (Grace, 2015; McNair, 2015).
However, it appears that what teachers are really looking for

is a highly structured daily schedule complete with prescribed
teaching materials ready for immediate use, and perhaps a core
textbook. Resources such as the culturally relevant Big Books,
graded phonetic readers, charts, CDs and other materials supplied
by the Curriculum Development Division (CDD) of the MoE are

considered supplementary and underused.
While prescribed documents and materials might enable
teachers in the short run to focus on effective classroom
management, it does not develop them in the long run to become
versatile educators sensitive to the diverse needs of young learners
(Ball & Tyson, 2011, Williams-Kennedy, 2013). It is therefore
important to equip preschool teachers with professional skills
focusing on DAP methodology and the use in English language
instruction of culturally sensitive materials. Localised and culturally
meaningful materials such as stories, songs, and rhymes that both
teachers and pupils can identify with are likely to motivate them to
embrace the language.
Hence there might even be a need to teach teachers how to
develop their own localised and culturally appropriate learning
materials as local contexts (not just considering the visible aspects
like food and clothes, but also values and behavioural norms), can
differ in subtle, yet significant ways that make it quite difficult for
even the CDD to develop materials to cater to all these differences.
4.2.5 Assessment Constructs
The existing National Preschool Assessment Tool (NPAT)
assesses the students mastery of specific constructs. Those in
groups 4+ and 5+ are assessed on the same eight constructs despite
their differences in knowledge and skills skills (see Figure 4.7). These
eight constructs cover 19 content standards focusing on (BI 1.0)
listening and speaking skills, (BI 2.0) pre-reading skills, (BI 3.0)
reading skills, and (BI 4.0) writing skills, none of which contains
any element of HOTs or phonics assessment (for 5+).
A 43-page module on the developmental assessment of children
in preschool (KPM, 2010) has been distributed to all preschools as a
guide for preschool teachers, outlining the objectives of the module
with substantial explanation of concepts and terminologies relating
to assessment. However, there are still grey areas in the assessment
of English proficiency and communicative skills, and there are a
number of inconsistencies despite the fair representation of the
constructs according to their weighting in preschool assessment.
Firstly, whereas the performance standards document for
English assessment at Level One (Primary Years 1, 2 and 3)
focuses on performance in achieving the learning standards, the
preschool assessment focuses instead on testing the content
standards. The table below contrasts the skills taught and the skills
assessed at preschool level. Learning outcomes as specified in the
content standards as well as the learning standards are spelled out
respectively in Appendix A which shows the mapping between the
NPSC and the CEFR.
In addition, the four content standards (BI1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8)
assessed under construct (BI 4) measure speaking skills language
133

Skills Taught (as per NPSC)

Focus
Skills
Content
Standard
(BI 1.0)
Listening
&
Speaking
10
Learning Standards
4+ age
group
5+ age
group
17
25
(BI 1.1
1.10)
Constructs measured
Construct:
(BI 1) Listening & Speaking Skills responding to
instructions
Content standards:
(BI 1.1) Listen to and discriminate sounds.
(BI 1.2) Listen to and understand meaning of simple
words.
(BI 1.3) Acquire and use simple phrases and
statements.
Construct:
*(BI 4) Speaking Skills language arts
Content standards:
(BI 1.5) Listen to and enjoy nursery rhymes,
action songs, poems and stories.
(BI 1.6) Sing songs and recite rhymes and poems.
(BI 1.7) Tell simple stories.
(BI 1.8) Dramatise familiar situations and stories.
Speaking
NIL
NIL
NIL
*(BI 2.0)
Prereading
2
(BI 2.1
2.2)
(BI 3.0)
Reading
5 (BI 3.1
3.5)
11
17
Construct:
(BI 5) Read simple words
Content standards:
(BI 3.1) Identify letters of the alphabet.
(BI 3.2) Read simple words with understanding.
(BI 4.0)
Writing
Construct:
(BI 8) Writing skills
Content standards:
(BI 4.1) Pre-writing skills
(BI 4.2) Writing skills
Table 4.7
134
Skills Assessed (as per NPAT)
Construct:
Construct:
(BI 3) Listening & Speaking
(BI 2) Listening & Speaking
Skills talking about
Skills simple conversation
experiences
Content standards:
Content standards:
(BI 1.9) Perform a variety of
language forms and functions in a (BI 1.2) Listen to and understand
meaning of simple words.
social context.
(BI 1.3) Acquire and use simple
(BI 1.10) Ask simple questions.
phrases and statements.
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
Construct:
(BI 6) Read simple sentences
Content standards:
(BI 3.3) Read simple phrases
with understanding.
(BI 3.4) Acquire knowledge of
print and ethics in reading
NIL
Construct:
(BI 7) Develop interest in
reading
Content standards:
(BI 2.1) Understand that printed
materials contain meaning.
(BI 2.2) Acquire and use simple
phrases and statements.
(BI 3.5) Develop interest in
reading.
NIL
Comparison between skills taught and assessed for English Language in preschools
arts. In actuality, language arts involve the development of

the childs listening and speaking skills as well as creativity. The
assessment of language arts needs to be re-examined to make it
congruent with the primary Year One assessment for and/or of
language arts based on learning standards: (4.1.1) Able to enjoy
nursery rhymes, jazz chants and action songs through non-verbal
response, (4.1.2) Able to enjoy nursery rhymes, jazz chants and sing
action songs with correct pronunciation and rhythm, (4.2.1) Able
to demonstrate skills in handling books appropriately, (4.2.2) Able
to respond to (a) book covers, (b) pictures in books with guidance,
(4.3.1) Able to produce simple creative works with guidance based
on: (a) nursery rhymes, (b) action songs, (c) jazz chants, (d) stories,
as well as (4.3.2) Able to take part with guidance in a performance
based on: (a) nursery rhymes, (b) action songs, (c) jazz chants, (d)
stories (KPM, 2012, pp. 24-25).
Although pre-reading skills is considered a separate focus
area, and is assessed separately in language teaching, pre-reading
naturally comes under reading. Moreover, in the assessment
of reading skills, phonological and phonemic awareness are not
covered. Although these terms are often used interchangeably
(Eldredge, 1995; International Reading Association, 1998),
phonological awareness refers to a general appreciation of sounds
of speech whereas phonemic awareness includes this insight of
the general appreciation of sounds as well as the sensitivity and
understanding that words can be divided into sequence of sounds.
These are important in early literacy as they are strong,

reliable predictors of reading and spelling success in later years
(Blevins, 1997; Bryant & Bradley, 1985; Eldredge, 1995; Gillon,
2004 in Andreassen & Andreassen, 2013; International Reading
Association, 1998; Rathvon, 2004). Lapp, Flood, Brock and
Fisher (2007, p. 137) claim that children in preschool and early
kindergarten typically lack a general knowledge of letter-sound
relationships during what they call the pre-alphabetic phase.
As the focus of teaching and assessment for Level One in
primary education is on the development of phonemic awareness
as specified in, for example, national primary Year One content
standard (2.1) By the end of the 6-year primary schooling, pupils
will be able to apply knowledge of sounds of letters to recognise
words in linear and non-linear texts, as well as learning standards
(2.1.1) Able to identify and distinguish the shapes of the letters in
the alphabet, and (2.1.2) Able to recognise and articulate initial,
medial and the final sounds in single syllable words within given
context (KPM, 2011), it is recommended that preschoolers aged
5+ be assessed on their learning of phonics to prepare them for the
transition to Year One.
Incidentally, the Year One learning standard (2.1.1) Able to
identify and distinguish the shapes of the letters in the alphabet
corresponds to two preschool learning standards set for children
in the 4+ age group, namely (BI 3.1.1) Recognise letters of the
135

alphabet by their shapes, and (BI 3.1.5) Name letters of the

alphabet with guidance. This learning standard 2.1.1 is also similar
to the preschool learning standard set for children in the 5+ age
group, that is, (BI 3.1.6) Name letters of the alphabet.
Thus, since the preschoolers are exposed to basic phonics
where they learn to sound out letters of the alphabet (learning
standard BI 3.1.7), hear and sound vowel sounds (learning standard
BI 3.1.8), as well as hear and sound consonant sounds (learning
standard BI 3.1.9) (KPM, 2010, p. 49), assessment covering the
area of phonological awareness could be included as one of the
constructs in the NPAT.
The focus aspect in the NPSC refers to the learning area
targeted for child development. The development of constructs
for assessment is based on this learning focus or domain. There are
four areas of focus in the NPSC and develop interest in reading
is a content standard (BI3.5) listed under reading skills, which is
not a focus area. In the NPAT, develop interest in reading is
considered a construct [BI7] which is subjective and difficult to
measure.
136
4.2.6 Assessment Rubrics

The NPAT is designed to measure pupils progress against
broad criterion referenced learning standards. Performance is
assessed for listening and speaking, reading at word and sentence
level, and writing. Achievement is assessed on a three-point scale
from Has Not Mastered (Belum Menguasai) to Is Mastering
(Sedang Maju) and Has Mastered (Telah Menguasai).
The preschool assessment constructs and performance
standards need to describe precisely what students can do with
the language they are learning and, most importantly, it must be
measurable. Taking construct BI3 Listening and speaking skills
talking about experiences (BI1.2, BI1.3) as an example, it would be
difficult for a teacher to objectively discriminate between a pupil
who is able to talk about familiar experiences with prompting
(considered as Has Mastered) and another who is able to
talk about familiar experiences with guidance (considered as Is
Mastering ) (see Table 4.7).
Standards that have the added clause of with prompting and
with guidance can easily be taken to mean the same thing though
in practice, they are associated with very different levels of support
for the student. In another example, being able to read simple
words or sentences with understanding for constructs BI5 and
BI6 is not clear as to how the understanding is to be measured.
Moreover, the descriptors used on the performance standards

are too general, especially when they apply to the assessment of
several sub-skills under a particular construct to the extent that
the descriptors become inappropriate or irrelevant. For instance,
construct BI1 covers listening and speaking skills BI1.1, BI1.2 and
BI1.4 with skill BI1.1 assessing pupils on discriminating sounds whilst
the descriptor for Has Mastered of the performance indicates that
the pupil is able to respond to simple instructions(see Table 4.7).
Certain constructs such as (BI7) Develop interest in reading
are difficult to measure. A pupil is considered to have achieved the
standard by the descriptor able to indicate interest in reading,
which is ambiguous. The descriptors for the three performance
standards or scales of measurements are vague.
Just how should one display a personal trait such as interest
to indicate interest in reading is questionable and is open to
different interpretations. Similarly, write simple phrases can
be interpreted in different ways; it does not indicate independent
writing nor copying or whether correct spelling be insisted upon
the child being assessed.
Although the mastery of the preschool learning standards helps
ease the transition process from the informal preschool setting
where assessment is done through non-intrusive observations
to the more formal primary school environment where schoolbased assessments for (and of) learning of English take a variety
of forms that are purposeful and apparent in assessing pupil

performance apart from mere teacher observation, the three
scales of measurement used are subjective and open to different
interpretations of mastery by teachers who differ in their
expectations of their pupils.
There is likely to be considerable variation in judgements by
different teachers, and what counts as Has Mastered may vary
widely from one preschool to another.
Several of the CEFR level A1, and in some instances, level
A2 can do statements can be used as a guide to teachers when
formulating the assessment criteria for productive outcomes for
speaking and writing abilities as well as for receptive outcomes
involving listening (aural reception) and reading (visual reception).
However, the CEFR illustrative scales that can be used in the
re-alignment are rather limited, and generally it is the lowest level
A1 that applies. In the aspect of writing skills, it appears that the
CEFR level A1 Can write simple isolated phrases and sentences is
the only can do statement that could be adopted for an overall
written production (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 61).
In respect of speaking skills, three criteria could apply to an
overall spoken production and/or a sustained monologue such
as describing ones experiences. The can do statements may
plausibly be used to match the NPAT construct (BI 3) Listening
137

and speaking skills talking about experiences, applicable to

content standards (CS) and learning standards (LS) such as (CS:
BI 1.2) Listen to and understand meaning of simple words, (LS: BI
1.3.1) Talk about familiar things and experiences, (LS: BI 1.3.2) Talk
about familiar experiences, favourite things and activities around
them). The relevant CEFR can do statements are as follows:
(a) Speaking skills: for overall spoken production

(A1) Can produce simple mainly isolated phrases about

people and places,
(A2) Can give a simple description or presentation of

people, living or working conditions, daily routines,
likes/dislikes, etc as a short series of simple phrases
and sentences linked into a list (Council of Europe,
2001, p. 58).
(b) Speaking skills: for sustained monologue: describing
experiencece

(A1) Can describe him/herself, what he/she does and where
he/she lives (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 59).
As far as listening skills are concerned, the following CEFR can
do statements may be preferred over the descriptors in the NPAT:
(a) Listening skills: for overall listening comprehension

138
(A1) Can follow speech which is very slow and carefully

articulated, with long pauses for him/her to assimilate
meaning.
(b) Listening skills: for listening to announcements and
instructions
(A1) Can understand instruction addressed carefully and
slowly to him/her and follow short, simple directions
(Council of Europe, 2001, pp. 66-67).
As for reading skills, the CEFR illustrative scales that can be
considered as pertinent are as follows:
(a)
Reading skills: for overall reading comprehension
Can understand very short, simple texts a single

(A1)
phrase at a time, picking up familiar names, words and
basic phrases and rereading as required.
(b)

(c)
Reading skills: for reading correspondence

(A1) Can understand short, simple messages on postcards.
Reading skills: as in reading for orientation
(A1)
Can recognise familiar names, words and very basic
phrases on simple notices in the most common everyday
situations (Council of Europe, 2001, pp. 69-70).
4.2.7 Assessment Tools

Assessment requires preschool teachers to produce tangible,
documented proof in the form of worksheets, checklists, questions,
stimuli (e.g. poems, rhymes, song lyrics) etc. Since there are no
standardised forms of evidence available to teachers, assessment
is on-going and subject to time constraints, many teachers tend to
collapse two or more constructs and assess them together.
More often than not, it is the lack of adequate and valid
assessment tools that forces teachers to resort to commercially
produced workbooks for materials to be used as evidence, even
though they are not valid tools to assess the childs abilities, skills,
and knowledge of the constructs.
and expectation of what students intend to say in connection with

the constructs assessed. They may overestimate or underestimate
the performance of students during assessment.
In general, teachers are likely to make a somewhat lenient
assessment of the pupils responses, and claim that the child Has
Mastered the construct concerned. Although this may boost the
childrens confidence, and motivate and prepare them mentally for
primary education, if they start off without a solid foundation in
English, they will later on face the problem of having to un-learn
and re-learn. Without proper guidance, preschool children may
not be able to reach the assessment targets.
4.2.8 Teacher Proficiency
4.3 The Way Forward: The Roadmap For Preschool Education
The low level of language proficiency among preschool

teachers and their lack of self-confidence in communicating
in English (Rohaty, 2013) affect their competence as language
assessors. Teachers whose own English is inadequate are unlikely
to provide an appropriate model of English for their students to
copy. Assessments may as a result be conducted in a mixture of
the mother tongue and the target language.
This section describes and explains the conditions (see Figure

4.3) required to meet the stated goals for preschool English. The
hope is that at the end of preschool, students will be confident in
using English in and outside the classroom and develop positive
attitudes that will ease their transition to primary school. These
conditions relate to the three areas of curriculum, teaching and
learning (T&L), and assessment. For a visual representation of the
Roadmap, please refer to Section C.
The inadequacy on the part of the assessor could influence

how well their very young students respond (Morrison, 2007).
Besides, teachers may have a different perception, interpretation
139

4.3.1 Conditions for Attaining

Curriculum goals
The MEB plans to bring
the primary curriculum up to
international standards so that
Malaysian students are at the same
level as their global peers. Raising
the bar has to begin at preschool
level to bring about a smooth
transition and higher standards at
primary and secondary levels. It is
therefore important to look at the
preschool curriculum.
The NPSC is based on DAP
as a whole, so there is a need
to ensure that the skills in the
English language component of
the Communication Strand reflect
its principles, and that teachers
can impart the skills easily in the
English Basic Module. The content
and learning standards for English
need to be aligned to the CEFR. It
would be useful to set CEFR staged
140
CURRICULUM
TEACHING & LEARNING
ASSESSMENT
Alignment of
learning standards
DAP-informed
pedagogy
CEFR- informed
assessment
Transition from
one instructional
language to
another
Minimum English
requirement for
preschool teachers
Institutional
support for
development of
assessment tools
English language
rich environment
in preschools
Parental and
community
engagement
Figure 4.3
Teacher
competency
in preschool
English language
assessment
Conditions for Reform
learning outcomes based on the Cambridge Baseline Report as a

guide for preschool.
number of hours of learning and exposure to the target language

for the young learners.
The alignment with DAP principles and the CEFR will ensure
the integration of the childs needs, interest, and abilities while
providing meaningful experiences to facilitate comprehension and
memory. The alignment to the CEFR will ensure that the content
and learning standards are specific and easily taught. In addition,
the CEFR provides the necessary international benchmark at the
outset of the childs education.
There is a need to facilitate and motivate the transition from one

language to another without too much trouble for the teacher as
well as to reduce confusion among students. The transition should
ensure some form of structure and predictability for the students.
DAP principles advocate the use of predictable daily schedule
(Gestwicki, 1999). The curriculum review should therefore look
into providing sample schedules that provide preschoolers with
structure, continuity and predictability. The structure would also
reduce anxiety and promote teaching and learning.
Preschool teachers have the mammoth task of implementing

the six strands of the NPSC in classroom instruction using two
languages (National Preschools) or three languages (National-Type
Preschools). Teachers have to constantly switch languages during
classroom instruction to keep to the number of hours stipulated
under the NPSC. Preschool teachers are generally unable to rigidly
follow the time stipulation for a number of reasons including the
preschoolers family and language backgrounds, English proficiency
and preference for the mother tongue.
In a context where the preschoolers mother tongue is not
English, it is not unusual or wrong for the teacher to use the mother
tongue in instruction of the target language and other learning
topics. The literature shows many advocates of this practice (e.g.
Cambridge University Press, 2015; TESOL, 2010). However, it
is feared that all this might affect the fulfilment of the required
The above two conditions are complemented by the need to

provide an English language-rich environment to facilitate students
acquisition of the target language. Such an environment would
reduce the unfamiliar and fear factors attached to learning
a new language, as well as promote positive feelings towards
learning English.
The aim of such an environment is to simulate an immersive
approach that also includes the use of English outside the classroom.
Other possible contributions to an EL-rich environment include
providing materials such as English stories and picture books,
having labels and signages in English, and events such as speak
English day.
141

Over and above the three conditions described so far is the

need to ensure continuity and congruence between school and
home. For positive English language learning attitudes to be
reinforced in students, the home environment has to be equally
positive. To this end, it is necessary for parental and community
engagement programmes to be put in place in which parents have
to play a more active role as champions of the target language.
The school with the support of the district and state education
offices have to take the lead in designing these programmes in
order eventually to see parents and community members taking
on more dominant roles and responsibilities in organising activities
to support students learning. Parents are crucial to the success of
the learners.
The support for the teaching and learning of English can take
many forms depending on the imagination and resourcefulness of
the parents. Parents, for example, can volunteer to conduct reading
or story telling sessions. The Parent-Teacher Association (PTA)
should focus on such joint efforts for preschool. The effectiveness
of the partnership between the school on the one hand and the
home and the community on the other should also be monitored
and sustained. With systemic institutional support, the home
and school partnership will become part of the school culture.
Ultimately such activities will have the end result of increased EL
engagement time for students and even parents.
142
4.3.2 Conditions for Attaining Teaching & Learning Goals

Teaching and learning at preschool level includes two important
requirements of significance to the Roadmap. The first is to ensure
that teachers practices are consistent with the principles of DAP,
which privilege the individual young learner on a unique learning
pathway. Pre-service courses, in-service continuous professional
development courses, and the monitoring and evaluation of
pedagogy should be concerned with raising teachers awareness
of DAP and its importance for the teaching of English to young
learners. In this regard there should be a body under the Schools
Inspectorate and Quality Assurance (henceforth SIQA) to
evaluate and support the practices of preschool teachers.
To be effective in the task, officers monitoring and evaluating
practices at preschool level should themselves be trained in
both English and early childhood or preschool education or have
undergone some training in DAP principles. The Teaching Assistant
(henceforth TA) who is currently provided by the system should
also be involved in more active and effective ways to support
teaching.
The second aspect concerns the qualifications of preschool
teachers. To teach English to preschoolers, teachers must not only
be equipped with the appropriate pedagogical approaches but also
be skilled in the language and model its use. The present diploma
level qualification (with no emphasis on the need for English)
should be raised to a higher standard. Candidates for teaching

need at least a bachelors degree in Early Childhood Education,
Preschool Education and English Education (e.g. Teaching English
as a Second Language (henceforth TESL), Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages (henceforth TESOL), Teaching
English to Young Learners (henceforth TEYL).
to incorporate assessment on phonics particularly phonological

awareness for the 5+ age group, and HOTs guided by the CEFR.
This is complemented with a glossary of terminologies related to
the constructs, descriptors and concepts used. Such a glossary will
help teachers to interpret, understand better and implement the
revised assessment tool more effectively.
An alternative human resource is the group of retired local

English teachers who are not only experienced in teaching but also
highly proficient in English. Retired English teachers can fill the
gap while plans are put in place to train preschool teachers with
the appropriate qualifications for the workforce. It is believed that
teachers with a combined competence in language and pedagogy
will be able to use the language confidently and be excellent models
for the young learners. A natural English-rich environment as
described in the section above will make the young learners more
receptive to the language and eventually use it with confidence.
The existing eight constructs in the present NPAT need to be

revised before the descriptors can be re-aligned to CEFR-informed
assessment. Revision of the descriptors involves the use of the
CEFR scales of illustrative descriptors of language proficiency.
These holistic scales can appropriately be used to specify the
descriptors of aspects of English language proficiency related to
particular competences for the preschool level.
4.3.3 Conditions for Attaining Assesment Goals

There are three conditions for reform for preschool assessment.
The first condition for reform in Phase 1 (2015-2018) is the
adoption of the CEFR-informed assessment to which the current
NPAT is re-aligned. The re-alignment involves a revision of the
existing constructs and descriptors for the performance standards
Three different common reference levels of proficiency of

the CEFR pertinent to preschool education are: level A1 (Basic
user: Breakthrough), level A2 (Basic user: Waystage) and level B1
(Independent user: Threshold). The scales describe what pupils
can do and how well they do it. While the user-oriented scales
describe what communicative tasks pupils can do, and the assessororiented scales which guide the rating process specify how well
the pupils perform the tasks. The can do descriptors specify
the learning targets, and based on the can do statements, the
preschool teachers can select and/or develop learning materials
and activities as well as design assessment tools or tasks.
143

In tandem with the re-alignment process, assessment practices

should be developmentally appropriate, linguistically appropriate, and
age appropriate (Morrison, 2007). Assessment tools developed to
support the childrens learning should include measurement of phonics
particularly phonological awareness for preschoolers aged 5+.
They should be designed to measure pupils sensitivity to
the sound structure of English, that is, to ensure that preschool
pupils are not only aware of words within sentences but also can
recognise, detect and identify rhymes within words, beginning
sounds (alliteration) and ending sounds (assonance) within words,
syllables, onsets and rimes (Eldredge, 1995; International Reading
Association, 1998; Rathvon, 2004).
Besides these, exemplars of developmentally appropriate and
linguistically appropriate assessment tools should be provided for
standardisation in the form, format and procedures of assessment
across National Preschools and National-Type Preschools.
Armed with exemplars, teachers will be properly guided in the
administration of assessment besides being more confident,
objective and fair in their assessment of pupils.
The second condition for reform is institutional support which
is important for standardisation efforts to be successful. Each State
Education Department (SED) will work towards the development of
standardised assessment tools to be used as evidences in formative
assessment albeit it is generally done through observation.
144
The respective District Offices (DEO) will mobilise teachers

to develop the standardised assessment tools collaboratively. At
the initial phase, priority is given to the development of assessment
tools to test listening and speaking skills. This is because hitherto
there has not been any attempt to produce such standardised tools
for assessment. Moreover, current key trainers for preschools
have pointed out the inadequacy of assessment tools especially in
assessing listening and speaking skills.
The third condition for reform concerns teachers and pupils.
As the prerequisite for recruitment of preschool teachers in Phase
1 is a minor in English, the Day School Management Division
(henceforth DSMD) will ensure that the administration of
assessment for the learning of English is shouldered by English
language option teachers and/or teachers who are competent
users of English. Assessment of pupils will be more streamlined as
teachers will be guided by exemplars and the use of the standardised
assessment tools. Pupils will be more confident in the use of the
language if we achieve the expected jump to CEFR A1 on exit for
preschoolers in 2018 for the present cohort of beginners.
In Phase 2 (2019-2022), monitoring and evaluation of the CEFRinformed assessment will be conducted by the SIQA to ensure that
it is used effectively. Evaluation reports by the Inspectorate will
be given to SED and DEO focus on teacher quality improvement
(as assessors) and pupil performance improvement (as testees).
Information on pupil performance can also be obtained from pupil

progress quarterly reports which will reflect indirectly on the
effectiveness and viability of the revised NPAT.
Preschool teachers will be trained to develop standardised
assessment tools for all four language skills (listening and speaking,
reading, writing). Professional upskilling courses will need to be
conducted by the English Language Teaching Centre (henceforth
ELTC). The focus is on (a) English language assessment, and
(b) adapting and developing standardised assessment tools. At all
levels, advisory support on troubleshooting matters related to the
adaptation and development of standardised assessment tools is
to be provided.
Supervision, monitoring and evaluation of teachers
competency in assessment will be conducted by DEOs. Monitoring
reports furnished by DEOs are to be compiled by SED and given
to DSMD. In their assessment of pupils, teachers should be guided
by the exemplars as well as those adaptations made from valid
assessment tools.
In Phase 3 (2023-2025), a review of the NPAT guided by the
CEFR will be necessary to produce a more robust NPAT as well
as to cater to national needs and to the challenges of changing
times based on CEFR-informed assessment. It will be necessary
to continue the training of teachers to develop developmentally
appropriate and linguistically appropriate assessment tools
individually for their own use and/or collaboratively for shared use.
Individually developed, non-standardised assessment tools as well
as collaboratively developed, standardised assessment tools are
expected. SIQA will evaluate teacher competency in assessment.
The Inspectorates evaluation report will be given to SED
and DEO. The use of student portfolios based on appropriate
and authentic assessment will be enforced with pupils involved in
project-based learning.
4.3.4 Action Plans

Phase 1 (2015-2016)
Curriculum

Adopt CEFR as the reference for the development of the

content and learning standards for English
Reinforce DAP as the reference for including pedagogical

aspect into the content and learning standards for English
Provide the NPSC in Malay and English to encourage the use

of English for the Thematic Module
Adopt DAP as the reference for planning daily schedules

focusing on instructional language use
145

Encourage immersive-EL learning environment in preschools
Phase 2 (2017-2020)
Design programmes to engage parents and community in

supporting preschool students EL learning (e.g. teachers aide)
Curriculum

Evaluate and monitor teachers comprehension of the EL

content and learning standards in the revised document.
Teaching & Learning

Conduct courses on understanding and using DAP (including

culturally appropriate) principles to inform practice
Evaluate and monitor the implementation of the schedules

focusing on instructional language use
Appoint competent users of English to teach preschoolers

(focusing on retired local English teachers)
Implement and monitor school-based initiatives for EL-rich

environment
Launch parent and community engagement programmes and

monitor
Assessment

146
Revise constructs and descriptors for performance standards to

incorporate assessment on phonics and HOTs complemented
by a glossary of terminologies relating to constructs, descriptors
and concepts used, guided by the CEFR.
Provide exemplars of developmentally appropriate and
linguistically appropriate assessment tools for standardisation
across National Preschools and National-Type Preschools.
Mobilise teachers to develop collaboratively standardised

assessment tools for testing listening and speaking skills
Recruit EL optionists and/or competent users of English to

(teach and) conduct assessment
Assess pupils according to the exemplars
Teaching & Learning

Provide continuous professional development courses for

the Inspectorate to enable them to effectively monitor and
evaluate effectiveness of pedagogy using DAP principles
Implement the Bachelors degree as minimum qualification for

preschool teachers:
a. Major English, minor Early Childhood Education or Preschool

Education
b. Major Early Childhood Education or Preschool Education,
minor English
c. Double degree consisting of English and Early Childhood

Education or Preschool Education
Teaching & Learning

Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of pedagogy using DAP

principles
Review preschool teachers English language quality
Assessment

Monitor and evaluate CEFR-informed assessment
Train teachers to adapt from valid assessment tools to develop

developmentally appropriate and linguistically appropriate
assessment tools for all language skills (L, S, R, W)
Supervise, monitor and evaluate teachers competency in

assessment
Assessment

Review the NPAT guided by the CEFR
Train teachers to develop developmentally appropriate and

linguistically appropriate assessment tools individually (or
collaboratively) for own (or shared) use
Evaluate teacher competency in assessment
Develop portfolio assessment
Assess pupils guided by the exemplars and adaptations from

valid assessment tools.
Phase 3 (2021-2025)
Curriculum

Review the English language content and learning standards in

the revised document based on the evaluation report
Review the schedules based on the evaluation report
Review and improve EL-rich environment initiatives
Review engagement programmes
4.3.5 Milestones
The roadmap for preschool (see Section C) presents
expectations of what could be achieved in the form of milestones.
These milestones are to be delivered in three phases, Phase 1
(2015-2016), Phase 2 (2017-2020) and Phase 3 (2021-2025). The
milestones are listed according to the phases and the three areas
of curriculum, teaching & learning and assessment.
a. Milestones for the end of Phase 1 (2015-2016) are as follows:
147

CEFR has been used as the reference for the development of

the content and learning standards for English language
Exemplars of developmentally appropriate and linguistically

appropriate assessment tools have been produced
DAP has been reinforced as the reference for including pedagogical

aspect into the content and learning standards for English language
Standardised assessment tools for listening and speaking skills

have been developed
Assessment by English language optionists and/or competent

users of English has been conducted
Curriculum

Teachers have been provided with the NPSC in both Bahasa

Malaysia and English.
Appropriate sample schedules focusing on instructional

language use have been developed
Emerging immersive EL environment
Programmes for parental and community engagement designed
Teaching & Learning

Raised awareness and understanding of DAP among preservice

and in-service teachers
Retired local English teachers have been considered and

recruited for the post of preschool teacher
Assessment

148
NPAT has been revised according to CEFR-informed assessment
b. Milestones for the end of Phase 2 (2017-2020) are as follows:
Curriculum

A comprehensive report has been completed evaluating

teachers comprehension of the English language content and
learning standards in the revised document
A comprehensive report has been completed evaluating the

implementation of the schedules focusing on instructional
language use
An EL-rich environment emerging in schools
Engagement programmes launched and monitoring reports

submitted
Broader opportunities to use EL in and outside school
Teaching & Learning

The Inspectorate has been trained in DAP-informed pedagogy
Implementation of appointment requirements for preschool

teachers (Bachelors degree with major/minor or double major
in Early Childhood Education or Preschool Education and
English Education has been enforced
A set of improved daily schedules in the curriculum document

has been developed
An English-rich environment in all schools
Increased time for effective engagement with English
Teaching & Learning

Assessment
DAP-informed pedagogy used effectively
Evaluation reports on the effective use of the CEFR-informed

assessment by SIQA
Preschool teachers English language quality achieved
Professional upskilling courses for teachers have been conducted

with advisory support on (a) English language assessment, and (b)
adapting and developing standardised assessment tools by ELTC
Assessment
Evaluation reports on teachers efficacy in using the CEFRinformed assessment by DEO to SED, DSMD
c. Milestones for the end of Phase 3 (2021-2025) are as follows:
Curriculum

A robust NPAT based on CEFR-informed assessment
Developmentally appropriate and linguistically appropriate

non-standardised and standardised assessment tools
Evaluation report on teachers efficacy in conducting CEFRinformed assessment by SIQA to SED, DEO.
Student portfolio assessment enforced
An improved curriculum document has been developed with

regard to English language content and learning standards
149

4.4 Implications and Recommendations

This section lists implications and makes recommendations
to ensure that the goals of preschool English education are met.
Although some might involve policy recommendations, most
are more operational in nature, requiring consistent monitoring
and support for the high fidelity implementation of DAP and
constructivist Teaching & Learning approaches in preschool.
be reviewed to incorporate the feedback from teachers to optimise

instruction in English.
The Thematic Module integrates all the strands in NPSC. The
content and the learning standards of all the strands should be
written in both Malay and English to help teachers use English as a
medium of instruction when using the Thematic Module.
4.4.2 Teaching & Learning implications and recommendations

4.4.1 Curriculum implications and recommendations
Reviewing the curriculum according to the CEFR and DAP
principles will ensure that pedagogical concerns are included in the
development of the content and learning standards for English,
and that prevailing international standards are met to make our
students internationally competitive. Samples of daily schedules
in the NPSC should also be based on DAP principles to facilitate
classroom instruction.
The reviewed content and learning standards for English and
the sample daily schedules need be explained to the teachers
before they can be used in classroom instruction. A subsequent
evaluation will be necessary to check that teachers understand
the English language content and learning standards in the revised
document. Finally, the standards and the daily schedules need to
150
To achieve quality Teaching & Learning appropriate at the

preschool level, it is recommended that preschool teachers
practices be monitored, evaluated and supported to ensure best
practices in English education for young learners. Both in-service
and pre-service teachers should be trained to apply DAP and
constructivist principles in the preparation and use of teachinglearning materials. Learning through play, music and movement,
problem-based learning, drama and storytelling will be some of
the activities that mark the preschool class. It follows that the
Inspectorate monitoring and evaluating teachers performance
needs to share the same principles. The Inspectorate should
accordingly be regularly trained in DAP and constructivist
approaches to enable them to effectively perform their task of
evaluating and supporting preschool teachers. A repository of
teaching materials and approaches should be created as teachers
resources. This should also include videos showcasing best

practices in a variety of preschool settings.
Among the key success factors are the qualifications of
preschool teachers, especially their English proficiency. The
minimum qualification for preschool English teachers should
therefore be a first degree including English and early education
in some appropriate combination. Possible combinations include
Early Childhood or Preschool Education with a minor in English
Education (such as TESL, TESOL, TEYL); or a Bachelors degree
in English Education with a minor in Early Childhood Education or
Preschool Education; or a double degree in these two fields. Once
teachers are in post, their English proficiency needs to be assessed
at appropriate intervals.
The third recommendation involves setting up partnerships
between home and school to enable parents to support school
efforts to help the children learn and use English. This could involve
an extension of the PTA already in place in primary schools, or a
special taskforce made up predominantly of parents could be set
up to encourage English-related activities beyond the school and
to help make homes more receptive to English.
The final recommendation is to carry out research in order to
inform practice. Two studies are essential and they are (1) preschool
teachers practices with the end goal of applying DAP principles in
teaching English and (2) English proficiency level of both preschool
teachers and learners. Data, analysis and findings from these two
studies will provide further insights and suggestions of specific
steps for improving English education at the preschool level.
4.4.3 Assessment implications and recommendations

The existing constructs in the NPAT need to be revised before
the descriptors are aligned to CEFR-informed assessment. To
address the problem of teachers whose English proficiency is
insufficient to assess their students, only English option preschool
teachers should be assigned to (teach and) assess the English
Language component, on the grounds that they will be more
objective and prove more reliable in their judgment of student
performance.
Graduates with a major or minor in English from local institutes
of teacher education ought to be sufficiently equipped with the
knowledge and skills in testing or indeed in integrating assessment
into teaching, given the amount of exposure and input they have
received during their five-and-a-half years (for intakes before June
2014) or five years (for intakes starting from June 2014) of training in
English teaching methodology, English phonology, lesson planning,
language testing and assessment apart from the three-phase, 24week teaching practicum assignments and a further topping-up of
a one-month school internship programme just before graduation.
151

It is also recommended that key concepts relating to assessment

such as content standard, learning standard, construct, focus area etc.
should be integrated with those used at the primary level to address
the issue of inadequate constructs. This will ensure uniformity, clarity,
continuity and fairness in assessment, and may also help to prepare
the children to take on the challenges ahead in primary education
assessment, giving them the confidence and the ability to respond
appropriately and independently. At least 10% of pupils are targeted
to exit preschool education with a CEFR level A2 proficiency.
It is further recommended that the descriptors used to express
the mastery of a construct covering several skills be more elaborate
and specific in order to address the issue of inadequate assessment
rubrics. If possible, tasks should encourage the development
of the childs reasoning power and thinking skills, requiring
preschoolers to think critically and creatively just as pupils in Year
One are expected to. They should start to use language, form
and style for a range of purposes (KPM, 2012, p. 22) and use a
range of strategies to construct meaning (KPM, 2012, p. 19).
The development of the childs phonological awareness should
be encouraged and be included in the assessment to prepare the
5+year-olds to progress to Year One. Developmentally appropriate
and linguistically appropriate exemplars should be integrated into
the assessment document for standardisation purposes as overgeneralised and ambiguous performance standards tend to be
interpreted in different ways by different assessors.
152
This helps to ensure that teachers are clear about the levels
of complexity expected and can thus apply similar attainment
indicators. A glossary of common terminology and key concepts of
assessment as used in the descriptors would be useful to teachers
in discerning expected student outputs. This would help the
teacher-assessors to be more accurate in their interpretation and/
or judgment of student performance.
If the existing NPAT is to be successfully aligned to CEFRinformed assessment linking student performance and learning
outcomes to meaningful, reliable international criteria such as the
CEFR (Keaney, 2014), then the assessment methodology should be
designed to measure what students can do with the language not
only when fulfilling tasks and through interaction with others but also
with guidance provided by the teacher who continuously observes
(Gober, 2002). In line with current trends in assessment, McMillan
(2014) stressed that pupils should be assessed on their application
and use of their combined knowledge acquired and skills learned. For
example, the assessment of listening and speaking skills is covered
under constructs [BI1]: listening and speaking skills responding to
instructions, [BI2]: listening and speaking skills simple conversation,
[BI3] listening and speaking skills talking about experiences, and
[BI4] speaking skills language arts. These can be replaced with the
CEFR level A1 descriptor Can make an introduction and use basic
greeting and leave-taking expressions with specific measures added
to distinguish and suit the respective construct and communicative
task to be fulfilled. This will also help teachers to report results easily
in terms of the level of proficiency attained by the pupil.
Finally, in addressing the issue of inadequate valid assessment
tools, it is recommended that preschool teachers need professional
upskilling and training to develop their own developmentally
appropriate assessment tools or at least to work collaboratively
in developing assessment tools for shared use. It is important
for teachers to be skilled in integrating assessment tasks into
their lessons and in ensuring those tasks in the assessment tools
are closely aligned to the learning outcomes to take advantage of
tangible instructional payoffs (Popham, 2003, p. 1).
Teachers also need to understand the principles behind
assessment for learning and that their assessment tools are valid in
measuring the performance progress of all students including those
who fall below or above the performance standards. In essence,
teachers should make sure that assessments benefit the children
they assess. As Popham (2003, p. vii) observes, teachers who do
not possess at least rudimentary knowledge about testing are less
likely to do a solid job of teaching.
4.5 Summary and Conclusion

This preschool chapter has focused on the learning of English in
Malaysian government preschools, aiming to identify major issues
in English learning at preschool level, and to suggest improvements

to raise the quality to international standards. These suggestions
involved the three interrelated components of curriculum, teaching
& learning and assessment.
Main Findings

The need to align the National Preschool Standards-Based

Curriculum (NPSC) to the CEFR
The NPSC is already to some extent aligned to the CEFR

in terms of its emphasis on action-oriented, learner-centred,
culturally responsive and self-regulated approaches. Hence the
alignment that is needed is not an extensive one, merely one that
involves the re-writing of learning and performance standards in a
manner similar to the CEFRs can do statements.

The need to align learning standards to international standards
The contemporary skills relevant for preschool children in

relation to the curriculum and learning standards are proficiency
in English, higher order thinking skills (HOTs) and Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) skills. The development of
HOTs and ICT skills may not take place since the English learning
standards have no explicit mention of such skills. Teachers who
follow the curriculum to the letter might fail to incorporate such
skills in the teaching of English.
153

The need to ease the transition from one Instructional language to

another
An analysis of the scheduling for the use of English in both

National Preschools and National-Type Preschools sees the teacher
having to juggle between the different languages in a rather rigid
and disjointed fashion. It is not only difficult for the teacher who
is a generalist to handle two or three languages, but also confusing
for the children who find their teacher using different languages
with them in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. It would therefore be
advisable to consider a more flexible system of timetabling and
even the provision of a dedicated English teacher.

The need for clear and renewed emphasis on constructivist

and Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) Principles in
English instruction
For preschoolers to be confident in using English, learning

activities have to match their interests and their natural ways
of learning, free of stressful experiences. These would require
teachers to be mindful of both constructivist and DAP principles
when planning and implementing learning activities.
This would also include the use of culturally appropriate
materials in T&L. However research and feedback from practising
teachers reveal that teachers are not doing as much as they would
like to in incorporating such principles in their lessons. Reasons
154
given include their lack of competence and confidence stemming

from their low English language proficiency.

The need for suitable role models
Shortcomings in teacher competency and proficiency lead

to problems in teaching and learning and also in assessment. For
preschool children to achieve the learning standards and develop
appropriate attitudes to learning English, teachers need to be good
role models. For students from non-English speaking backgrounds,
teachers may be the only role model available. While some children
might have some exposure to English on television or in the popular
media, it is the teacher who has the most impact on the childrens
learning, so that their level of attainment is limited by the teachers
lack of proficiency.

The need for reliable and valid assessment tools
Teachers have not found the existing assessment instruments

user-friendly. The three scales of measurement used are subjective
and open to different interpretations of mastery by teachers who
differ in their expectations. Abstract constructs such as those
relating to affective outcomes are also difficult to measure. In
addition, some teachers have sought to assess their childrens
development using commercially produced materials.
Some of these, whether they are foreign or local, or whether they
use printed or digital media, contain learner errors and inauthentic
English. Teachers resort to such materials because they have to

provide evidence that childrens performance has been assessed.
Recommendations
Improve descriptors in assessment rubrics by removing

ambiguity and operationalising the assessment of abstract
constructs; and provide exemplars of standardised assessment
for National Preschools and National-Type Preschools
Revise constructs and descriptors for performance standards

including phonics (for 5+ age group) and HOTs guided by the
CEFR
The following recommendations are based on the gaps and

problems reported above.

Align the English language NPSC with the CEFR by rephrasing

the learning standards in the form of can do statements
Train teachers in the preparation of valid and authentic

assessment tools
Add on and make explicit learning standards that incorporate

fostering of positive attitudes towards the learning of English,
and the development of HOTs and ICT skills
Set up groups in all preschools, spearheaded by champion

parents, to strengthen home-school partnerships to support
positive attitudes towards the learning of English
Improve the pre-service and in-service training of teachers

in implementing learning activities that incorporate
developmentally appropriate practice and constructivist
principles such as learning through play, music & movement,
project-based learning, drama and storytelling. Recordings of
how such approaches are used in authentic preschool settings
can be developed and disseminated to all preschools
In conclusion, there are three main aspects to consider in

planning the way forward for preschool English language education:
Establish a first degree including some appropriate combination of

Early Childhood Education or Preschool Education with English
proficiency equivalent to that of a TESL/TESOL/TEYL graduate
as the minimum qualification for preschool English teachers
1. The alignment of the NPSC to the CEFR, and this is mainly in

the phrasing of content, learning and performance standards;
2. Teacher training and improved teacher qualifications to
prepare teachers to implement DAP and constructivist learning
activities; and
3. Collaboration between home and school to ensure continuity
and harmony between childrens school and home experiences
in fostering positive attitudes towards the learning of English.
155

It is difficult not to overestimate the key role of the teacher,

especially at preschool level. Whether we are concerned with the
curriculum, with T & L or with assessment, success or failure depends
on the competency and proficiency of the teacher. If we expect our
children to obtain a good grounding in English in preschool, then
preschool English has to be taught by teachers of high calibre.
What happens in preschool has consequences for the childrens
later education. To take the analogy of learning to play the piano, we
expect the piano teacher herself to be a skilled player if she is to teach
her pupils to develop the correct techniques, finger movements, and
posture which the learner needs in order to play the piano properly.
This brings together a number of skills and abilities, including listening
and sensory-motor skills, and general musical ability.
Language learning similarly involves skills and abilities which
the teacher needs to possess in order to enable learners to get
things right at the very beginning. This includes not only the
generation of correct sentence patterns in communication, but
also the motor skills involved in correct pronunciation.
The popular image of preschool is of a playschool which can be
handled by a teacher without proper qualifications. What we actually
need in the twenty first century is a system of beginning education
which is based on what is now known about how young childen learn
and how their minds develop; and in the case of English, this includes
the knowledge of how young children learn languages.
156
The reality of todays preschool is far removed from what

is now needed. If our young children attempt to learn English
from teachers who themselves lack the necessary proficiency, it
is no surprise at all that many of them do not acquire even the
rudimentary use of the language, and perhaps acquire incorrect
language forms and pronunciations that become harder to unlearn
as time goes on.
The longer term outcome of a poor start in English is that many of
our graduates leave university with insufficient English proficiency
to obtain suitable employment, particularly in the private sector.
If we wish to tackle the problem of graduate unemployment, we
have to trace the problem to where the problem itself starts, that
is, to their early learning experiences.
Only teachers with the necessary English proficiency and
qualifications in early education should be authorised to teach English
to young learners in our preschools. If we do not address the problem
at its source, then all other reforms relating to curriculum, T&L and
assessment at educational levels beyond the preschool, no matter how
well designed they may be, will inevitably come to nothing.

5
Primary
157

Chapter 5:
Primary
his chapter focuses on English language education

(henceforth ELE) at primary level, the aim of which is to
provide pupils with a strong foundation in English so that
they can develop into proficient, articulate and confident users
of the language. Chapter 5 examines the current situation with
respect to the curriculum, initiatives that have been carried out,
and current learner performance.
The chapter then discusses issues and gaps that need to be
addressed and presents the way forward for primary ELE within the
broader framework of the English Language Roadmap which seeks,
among other things, to align curriculum, teaching and learning,
and assessment to the CEFR, and to align ELE at primary level to
ELE at secondary and tertiary levels. The chapter concludes with
recommendations and implications for policy.
5.1 Background
One of the aims in educating Malaysian children is to enable
them to develop into knowledgeable individuals who are able to
function with confidence in a competitive world. To achieve that
aim, they have to be equipped with the languages that they will
need to communicate in social and economic situations and other
challenging environments. Primary education is a fundamental
stage for these efforts to be galvanised.
158
An aspiration expressed in the MEB is for students to be

proficient in at least two languages, including English. The MEB
emphasises the importance of English proficiency in the competitive
global environment even as it exhorts students to master the
national language, Bahasa Melayu. ELE in primary schools is framed
and guided by the Standards-Based Primary School Curriculum
or Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (henceforth KSSR). It
is supported by a range of initiatives directly related to literacy in
English in line with the MBMMBI policy.
iv. appreciate and demonstrate understanding of English literary

or creative works for enjoyment; and
v. use correct and appropriate rules of grammar in speech and
writing.
(KPM, DSK English, p. 4)
The underlying principles of the KSSR English syllabus are:

i. It is essential to begin with basic literacy skills in order to build
language skills on strong foundations;
5.1.1 KSSR - The Current Primary School Curriculum
ii. Learning should be fun, meaningful and purposeful;
The English syllabus, which forms part of the KSSR introduced

in 2011 to replace the KBSR (Integrated Curriculum for Primary
Schools), aims to provide pupils with basic language skills to enable
them to communicate effectively in different contexts appropriate
to their level of development. The objectives of KSSR English are for
pupils to be able by Year 6 to:
iii. Teaching should be learner-centred;
i. communicate in English with peers and adults confidently and

appropriately in formal and informal situations;
ii. read and comprehend a range of English texts for information
and enjoyment;
iii. write a range of texts using appropriate language, style and
form through a variety of media;
iv. Important new technologies should be integrated into teaching

and learning;
v. Assessment should be integrated and contribute to learning;
vi. Character-building should be included in the lessons.
The KSSR English content and learning standards describe
the knowledge, skills and understandings that pupils need to
demonstrate as they progress through the different stages of
schooling. The inclusion of a module on grammar emphasises the
importance of having pupils develop a sound grasp of the language
structures and the grammar of Standard English. The teaching of
159

grammar is more overt and linked directly to the relevant and

appropriate tasks and situations identified in the learning of
the four language skills. The grammar module is introduced
only from Year 3 onwards. Teachers are expected to identify
relevant grammar items to teach according to the learning
situations and materials used in lessons.
The approach taken in the syllabus stresses the need
for pupils to develop all four language skills: listening and
speaking, reading, and writing. Apart from the four skills,
the curriculum incorporates standards for the language arts
and grammar. Pupils are expected to learn how to interact
with peers, listen attentively, express themselves orally or
in writing with confidence, read with comprehension and
write with minimal grammatical errors. In the language
arts module, pupils are trained to show appreciation and
demonstrate understanding of texts, read, sing songs,
recite rhymes and poems, as well as to produce creative
works for enjoyment. Pupils are also encouraged to plan,
prepare and take part in performances based on stories,
poems and novels.
The KSSR English syllabus is modular in design, and
includes four modules for Years 1 and 2, and five for other
years (with the addition of grammar), as shown in Figure 5.1.
160
READING
LISTENING
aND
sPEAKING
KSSR
CURRICULUM
AND
MODULES
GRAMMAR
Figure 5.1
WRITING
LANGUAGE
ARTS
The KSSR English

Syllabus Modules
The grammar module is introduced only in Year 3 on the grounds

that pupils need good foundations in the grammar of their first language
to support learning the grammar of a second or third language. The
modular structure employed in KSSR English is to enable pupils to
focus on the development of basic language skills or sub-skills under
each module by means of purposeful activities in meaningful contexts.
The modular arrangement is strictly one of focus and purpose
to guide the learning and teaching of the language. During lessons,
teachers are expected to aim to develop the skills that are at the
focus of the module. However, other language skills are included
in the lesson to make learning more meaningful and effective.
This approach is intended to ensure that teachers treat the four
language skills equally without neglecting any one skill.
In view of the need to prepare Malaysian children for the
globalised world and to lay down strong foundations in the early
years, a more internationally oriented view of ELE needs to
be taken, even at primary level. This is reflected in the decision
taken by the Ministry of Education to adopt the CEFR as the
framework of reference for ELE (MEB, p. 4-9). The existing KSSR
will consequently need to be reviewed and aligned to the CEFR.
It is perhaps fortunate that the KSSR is itself a standards-based
curriculum which specifies the knowledge and skills that pupils
need to demonstrate as they listen, speak, read and write in English
at various stages of schooling.
5.1.2 Current English language performance in primary schools

In 2013, two years after the introduction of the KSSR, a baseline
study on the current state of English proficiency in schools was
commissioned by the Ministry and undertaken by Cambridge English.
The study used the CEFR proficiency scale A1 to C2. Table 5.1 shows
data obtained from the Cambridge Baseline (2013, pp. 16-18) on the
percentages of Primary Year 6 students at different CEFR levels.
CEFR Proficiency Level
% of Year 6 pupils
C2
C1
TABLE 5.1
B2
B1
12
A2
22
A1
34
Below A1
32
Percentages of Year 6 students

at different CEFR levels in 2013
161

Only one in three of the students gets beyond A1 (Basic

User level) by Year 6. Another one in three does not even get as
far as A1. Although the mean scores for Writing correspond to
a low A2, the corresponding figures for Listening, Reading and
Speaking are in A1, making the four skills generally comparable in
development (p. 18).
Despite six years of English, a large proportion of the students
cannot get beyond the most rudimentary command of the language.
These results for the Year 6 sample are, of course, indicative of
the outcome of the previous KSBR English Language curriculum.
The current KSSR curriculum, even before its alignment with
international standards, requires its learners to be able to perform
a range of language tasks with confidence and flexibility at the end
of Year 6. Clearly, if learners are ever to achieve the objectives of
the CEFR-aligned KSSR, substantially greater efforts amounting
to reform have to be made to help them move beyond basic user
proficiency at primary level. In addition, if the learners are to reach
a target level of B2 (Independent User) on exit from secondary
education five years later, standards of English achieved by Year 6
must be raised considerably.
The range in the CEFR levels for Year 6 points to another
concern. The gap between high and low achievers signals
a variation in learning gains at the end of primary school, and
this gap is likely to widen further in secondary school (p.18). In
considering school location, a three-way distinction between
162
urban, rural and remote schools (pp. 46-54) indicates that rural
children generally lag behind those in urban areas. There is thus
a need to address this divide between the high and low achievers
through effective remedial or intervention efforts.
One such initiative that was implemented even before the study
was conducted is the LINUS 2.0 literacy programme. LINUS 2.0 is
one of a range of initiatives carried out by the Ministry of Education,
with varying degrees of success. The following section looks at some
initiatives that specifically address ELE in Primary schools.
5.1.3 Literacy and assessment initiatives in primary schools

The Ministry of Education has carried out a range of initiatives
concerning English literacy, the incorporation of learning
standards, remedial support, professional development, the
revamping of examinations and assessments, teacher support and
strengthening of English language policy, as well as the up-skilling
of teachers. Although some success has been achieved through
these initiatives, not all initiatives have brought about the desired
results. This section focuses on initiatives that relate specifically to
remedial literacy support and assessment in primary schools.
Year
English
Language
Literacy
Screening 1
Screening 2
Target
Achievement
Target
Achievement
Year 1 (2013)
Baseline
50.1%
67%
63.3%
Year 2 (2014)
83%
65.5%
83%
78.3%
Year 1 (2014)
Baseline
53.8%
67%
70.2%
TABLE 5.2
English literacy results for LINUS 2.0
LINUS 2.0
LINUS 1.0 was an early remedial literacy programme introduced
in 2010 to help learners who were falling behind. Building on
improvements in Malay literacy and numeracy achieved on the
pilot run in 2012, LINUS 2.0 was introduced in 2013 to extend
the programme to English. Students in Years 1 to 3 are screened
twice a year to check that they are making the expected progress
in English literacy, and those falling behind are brought together
for ten English classes per week and given remedial coaching until
they are able to return to the mainstream.
The ultimate goal of LINUS 2.0 for English is to achieve
100% basic English literacy by the end of three years of primary
schooling. Table 5.2 presents the results obtained after screenings
conducted in 2013 and 2014. The results show that achievement is
slightly below the national target for the first cohort of pupils and
above the target for the second.
While these results seem to indicate a degree of success, the

findings of a 2013 report on the programme pointed out a number
of weaknesses in the modules that need to be addressed. Some of
the concerns raised are elementary. There does not appear to be
a clear theoretical framework underlying the preparation of the
materials. A phonics-based approach is employed, but its emphasis
on the recognition of associations between letters and sounds is
incompatible with the goal of learning to read to extract meaning
from texts. The attempt to reconcile the two incompatible goals
results in inane stories and sentences. There is also a lack of clear
alignment between the objectives of each module and those of
the LINUS programme and the national curriculum. In addition,
the programme does not use innovative strategies and materials
to teach learners to apply the skills they have already developed in
order to become independent learners of English. Finally, there is
no clear statement of what students are expected to be able to do
on the successful completion of a module. Other problems lie in
163

the content itself, ranging from erroneous use of phonetic symbols

to confusing illustrations to inappropriate sequencing of learning
material.
Problems were also identified in an evaluation exercise carried
out in 2014 on the implementation of the programme by the
Schools Division in Pahang, Kelantan, Sabah and Sarawak. A total
of 25 districts which had the largest number of hot spot schools
were selected for the exercise, the main aim being to ensure that
the officers at the District Education Office were responsible in
carrying out intervention programmes in schools that did not meet
the target, and to find out whether the exercise had an impact on
pupils.
Six aspects were studied: management, facilitation, teachers,
teaching and learning, pupils and parents. The findings showed
that in terms of management, there were still some school heads
who were not committed to running this programme in schools,
due in part to the lack of trained English teachers. Support was
provided by FasiLINUS Bahasa Inggeris (facilitators for Literacy
and Numeracy Screening) coaches and mentors appointed by the
Performance and Delivery Unit (PADU) to assist teachers.
While most of the FasiLINUS were found to have carried out
their duties well, some did not, attributing the slack to insufficient
allocations for travel and carrying out activities, and to the burden
of other extraneous duties at the district office level. Problems
164
related to teachers in these five districts included the inability to

teach phonics, inability to carry out skill-focused teaching and
learning activities, the assignment of non-English option teachers
to teach English, and the inability to carry out remedial teaching.
In terms of teaching and learning, teachers were unable to
carry out differentiated teaching to address the specific needs
of individual pupils. They were also unable to organise learning
activities to interest and motivate learners. This shortcoming
might explain the high absenteeism rate amongst the remedial
learners, who lacked the motivation to attend school because
school was not fun for them. The findings also showed a lack of
support from parents.
If the gap in achievement between high-performing and
low-performing students is to be addressed, a remedial literacy
programme like LINUS 2.0 is exactly the kind of initiative that is
needed. However, LINUS 2.0 needs to be improved and reworked
according to some well-defined principles, with clear and realistic
objectives and content.
School-Based Assessment
Along with the KSSR, school-based assessment (henceforth
SBA) has also been implemented as the way forward for
assessing learning. SBA enables teachers to conduct assessment
that contributes to learning in a formative manner, rather than

merely a summative manner. In addition, the national examinations
and school-based assessments have been revamped to gradually
increase the percentage of questions that test higher-order thinking
skills. In 2016, there will be a change in assessment for the Primary
6 (UPSR) examinations, so that school-based assessment and
centralised exam marks will be considered for grading. The change
will include higher-order thinking questions in the centralised
examinations making up 40% of questions for the UPSR. This
change in examination design means that teachers will focus less on
teaching to the test and focus instead on teaching learners to think
critically and to apply their knowledge in order to solve problems.
The direction that SBA is taking should also bring about a change
in EL assessment. Instead of focusing on providing correct answers
to examination questions, EL learners should be assessed on what
they can do and achieve in English. This kind of focus calls for an
alignment between curriculum and assessment based on a framework
that spells out what students should be able to do in English at
each stage of their primary education, and acts as a guideline for
formative school-based assessment. Teachers will have to be trained
to understand the concept and implement relevant SBA.
A change in assessment should also see a greater balance in the
development and assessment of the four language skills. Hitherto,
Reading and Writing have received much more attention because
of the nature of tests and examinations that typically test only
or mainly those two skills. The integration of skills seems to be

addressed in the current KSSR, which combines a skills-based
modular approach with thematic focus. The need now is to align
the assessment of the skills to international standards.
Support for teachers

A number of other initiatives have been implemented to
provide professional support for EL teachers albeit with varying
degrees of success.
In the English Native Speaker Mentoring Programme, the
Ministry has employed native speakers as experts or mentors
to assist in capacity building of primary school English teachers
and lecturers at teacher-training institutions in this country. The
programme was implemented from 2011 to 2013 and further
extended to September 2015.
At present, it involves 360 mentors placed in 1800 schools
nationwide. The mentors have been involved in planning and
carrying out professional development programmes, activities and
workshops, as well as assisting in teaching and learning. They
have 75 hours of contact time with teachers in one academic year
as well as during training sessions held within a cluster or intercluster. They have also been instrumental in conducting action
research as well as co-curriculum activities within their cluster.
165

In order to study the impact of the programme, teachers

proficiency levels were assessed through observations and instruments
in February and October 2014. A total of 4,369 teachers were involved
in this exercise covering 1,800 schools in the programme. Six levels
of proficiency were used expressed as CEFR can do statements, as
shown in Table 5.3:
LEVEL
CAN DO STATEMENT
C2
Can express herself spontaneously, very fluently and

precisely
C1
Can use language flexibly and effectively for

academic and professional purposes
B2
Can interact with a degree of fluency and

spontaneity. Can understand the main ideas of
complex text
B1
Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst

travelling
A2
Can communicate in simple and routine tasks
A1
Can interact in a simple way
TABLE 5.3
166
CEFR CAN DO STATEMENTS FOR

SIX LEVELS OF PROFICIENCY
The results showed an increase in the proficiency levels of the

teachers in this programme. A pertinent question here is whether
the current programme of deploying native speaker mentors at
what must certainly be a high cost is sustainable. An urgent need
is to phase out the use of people from abroad and instead employ
suitably qualified local people with the necessary skills. In addition,
positive steps need to be taken to develop future English-speaking
Malaysians who are comfortable and confident enough with the
language to act as mentors. This effort will have to start with
young learners.
Advantage is taken of the expertise of teachers who can
become resources for their colleagues in another initiative, namely
SISC+ (School Improvement Subject Specialist Coaches) at the
District Education Offices. The SISC+ are assigned the task of
further improving the teaching and learning of English in line with
the transformation of the system as stipulated in MEB Shift Four.
Expert teachers are deployed to Bands 5, 6 and 7 schools to coach
teachers and support them so that the curriculum is implemented
as intended. There are currently 800 English Language SISC+
coaches operating throughout the country.
The MoE has initiated a number of in-service training courses
for English Language Teachers through the Teacher Education
Division and English Language Teaching Centre (henceforth
ELTC). These courses are developed specially to improve teachers
proficiency and pedagogical skills. As there is a considerable number
Teachers need
to be given
continuous
professional
development
and training.
of non-optionists teaching English in schools, courses are formulated

to meet their needs to help them in teaching and learning as well
as to boost their confidence in using the language. ELTC has been
instrumental in developing courses and have disseminated these
courses on a face-to-face basis over the years.
In 2012, all English language teachers, both in-service and preservice as well as lecturers in institutes of teacher education took the
Cambridge Placement Test (CPT). The results showed that 70,000
of the English Language Teachers assessed were not competent
users of English. The ELTC was given the task of upskilling these
teachers and has worked with the British Council to conduct Teacher
Proficiency Up-skilling courses (Pro-ELT) throughout the country.
The Pedagogy Standards for English Language Teaching (PSELT)
developed by the ELTC was an initiative to help English teachers
to monitor their own professional development and identify their
own professional training needs. In addition, it can also be used as

a guide by the Ministry when planning, designing and managing the
professional development of English teachers.
The MoE has also rolled out additional teaching resources
to help teachers to implement the KSSR more effectively in the
classroom. These include supporting materials such as video
libraries of exemplary teaching. Since 10 April 2013, English
teachers have been able to access MoEs e-Guru Portal which is
a virtual library of classroom practices 1. Infrastructural and ICT
support, however, has not always been of the necessary standard.
For example, the Auditor Generals Report for 2013 drew
attention to the ineffectiveness of the 1BestariNet project which
was responsible for providing high-speed 4G broadband and a
virtual learning environment (VLE) to 10,000 schools throughout
the country from December 2011. 89% of the schools surveyed
1
Available on line at pnp.moe.gov.my/eguru.
167

Curriculum
KBSR
Schools
Sekolah Kebangsaan
Sekolah Jenis
Kebangsaan
Sekolah Kebangsaan
Sekolah Jenis
Kebangsaan
Level 1 (Years 1 - 3)
240 mins
60 mins
300 mins
150 mins
Level 2 (Years 4 - 6)
210 mins
90 mins
300 mins
180 mins
TABLE 5.4
A comparison of time allocated for English in the KBSR and KSSR
reported limited access even within the school compound. Much

improvement needs to be made to ensure a smooth and effective
support system.
While the efforts made through the initiatives are commendable,
the Ministry needs to make a serious evaluation of the impact of its
EL initiatives. A single entity should be tasked with coordinating
and overseeing the implementation of the initiatives and assessing
their outcomes so that resources and labour are appropriately
targeted, distributed and monitored.
5.1.4 Teachers and Learners Engagement with English

In order to develop a good command of English, learners need
sufficient engagement with it. At primary level, especially in rural
areas, very few learners if any are exposed to the language outside
school. Learners are in practice exposed to English mainly through
structured instruction in the classroom.
168
KSSR
English teachers are thus the most important, and sometimes

the only models for these students, and classroom activities provide
the only opportunities to use the language for a purpose. The
challenge is to provide enough engagement time with English for
the students to develop familiarity with and fluency in the language.
More time for English was allocated in the KSSR than in the
former KBSR, as shown in Table 5.4. The time currently available
for English constitutes 21.7% of total class time for Years 1 to 3,
and 23% for Years 4 to 6. However, the 2013 Cambridge Baseline
study reports that too much instruction in the classroom may
be taking place in the learners first language (p. 22). According
to Cambridge English (p. 23), the limited use of English in the
classroom is due to several factors:

teachers lack of proficiency and confidence
teachers perception that learners cannot understand lessons

conducted fully in English
the nature of activities such as drilling and reading aloud,

which do not give learners opportunities to use English
communicatively.
Teacher proficiency, or lack of it, is a real concern. In order for

English teachers to be appropriate models and a language source for
learners, they should in principle be proficient users themselves to
begin with, and following the usual rule of thumb, they need to be
at least one level ahead of their students. The Results Report shows
that 29% of primary teachers fall below CEFR B2, which is the level
of an Independent user. If the proficiency level of Primary students is
to be raised, so must that of teachers. The teachers who presented
themselves for the baseline study assessment do not appear to
constitute a representative sample of the whole population of
teachers, and the results are likely to present a somewhat optimistic
impression of the overall situation, which makes the actual situation
even more difficult. For example, about 31.7% of teachers currently
teaching English in schools are not English optionists.
The report also noted a tendency for lessons to be teacherdominated, resulting in the reduction of time for learners to
produce the language. Teacher-dominated classes are not a new
phenomenon and are inconsistent with the principle of learnercentredness expounded in the KSSR. If ELE is to be effective,
teachers need to be better trained to (a) make teaching learnercentred and (b) use differentiated instruction in the classroom for
learners at different levels of proficiency so that learning activities
are meaningful for them.

In addition to the lack of a rich English language environment
within the classroom, the report also noted the lack of a supportive
English environment outside the classroom. Serious efforts need
to be made to gain support from parents and the community so
that they work hand in hand with school authorities in developing
programmes and activities that increase childrens engagement
with English. The possibility of obtaining assistance from retired
EL teachers and lecturers, English-speaking professionals and
volunteers has largely been unexplored and unexploited.
There is already in existence a small number of schools such as
SK Taman Megah in Kuala Lumpur, SJK(T) Durian Tunggal in Melaka
and SK Tan Sri Ghazali Jawi in Grik that have been successfully
implementing programmes with the active involvement of parents
and members of the community. A concerted effort could be made
to study the strategies they employ as a guide to other schools.
In spite of the KSSR curriculum, which is an improvement over
the KBSR, and the various initiatives carried out, ELE in Primary
schools is beset with issues relating to curriculum, teaching and
learning, and assessment, as discussed in the following section.
169

CURRICULUM
Current curriculum
and learning standards
not aligned with
international standards
Teachers not
sufficiently equipped
to interpret and deliver
curriculum document
Need for effective
remedial programmes
Insufficient English
engagement time
Lack of Englishrich environment
with opportunities
for purposeful and
contextualised
use of English
TEACHING & LEARNING

Low teacher
proficiency levels
Lack of clarity on
teacher competencies
required for various
stages and levels
of learning
Lack of skills in
conducting effective
remediation for
learning difficulties
and disabilities
ASSESSMENT
Lack of knowledge
regarding assessment
principles and methods
Lack of balanced and
discrete testing of all
four language skills
Limited ability in using
formative assessment
to support learning
Need for alignment to
Under-developed
aesthetic/creative
language use
Need for parental and

community involvement
FIGURE 5.2
170
Issues in Primary English Language Education
5.2 Issues and Gaps

This section looks at current
issues and gaps (Figure 5.2) in
primary English language education
which need to be addressed.
5.2.1 CURRICULUM
The need to align the current
curriculum and learning to
In view of the need to prepare
Malaysian children for the
competitive global environment,
the existing KSSR needs to
be reviewed and aligned to an
internationally recognised set
of standards for EL learners. A
curriculum based on international
standards, with the support of
a quality delivery teaching and
learning system, will give learners
a stronger foundation in English in
the primary years.
The need for improvement in the interpretation and delivery of the

curriculum
The quality of classroom instruction is contingent upon the
skills and subject matter knowledge of the teachers entrusted
with the delivery of the curriculum. To optimise the impact of a
language curriculum, teachers need to be not only model users of
the target language themselves but also familiar with the underlying
principles and approaches advocated by the curriculum. They have
to be confident, competent and creative in their interpretation of
the curriculum to develop suitable, well-planned and engaging
classroom activities to optimise their pupils learning of the
language.
The preferred method of dissemination of a centrally
developed curriculum is by cascading it down the different
levels of the Ministry, from the Federal agency responsible for
curriculum development down to the schools via the state and
district education offices. However, the cascade method of
curriculum dissemination and induction is beset with challenges
such as dilution, misrepresentation and misinterpretation as the
training unfolds down the different levels of the system before it
reaches the teachers. Sometimes the essence and aspirations of
the curriculum are lost in the transmission to the classroom.
The need for effective remedial programmes

In 2014, the LINUS programme was expanded to include the
development of basic literacy and numeracy in English (referred
to as LINUS 2.0). While this noteworthy and timely programme
provides support to all pupils in the mainstream, it has shortcomings.
It lacks a strong theoretical foundation and clear objectives, and
its content needs to be closely re-examined. In addition, it does
not have specific components for helping pupils with learning
difficulties such as dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD). With the implementation of ELE reform and
the setting of CEFR targets for Primary schools, there will also be
a need to develop other remedial programmes for students who
are not yet able to achieve the targets for Years 4-6.
Insufficient English Language engagement time

Learners currently do not have sufficient engagement time
with English in order to gain familiarity with the language and
confidence in using it. Engagement time needs to be increased,
particularly for students in national-type schools (SRJK), where
the medium of instruction is Mandarin or Tamil, for whom English
class time is less than that in national schools (SK).
171

Opportunities for
active language
engagement have
to be created for
young learners.
The lack of an English-rich environment providing purposeful
and contextualised use of English
Related to the issue of insufficient engagement with English
is the need for more purposeful and contextualised use of the
language. At present, Malaysian students study English only as an
academic subject in the EL classroom. According to the literature
on second language learning, however, effective and enhanced
learning takes place best in immersion situations (Lightbown
& Spada, 2013) where the second language is also used for
communicative purposes outside the academic setting. Since an
immersion programme is not possible in the current social and
education situation in Malaysia, we need to create opportunities
for learners to use the language for communicative purposes
beyond the EL classroom. For optimal and sustained learning,
172
engagement with English is needed in both formal, structured

contexts and informal, less structured contexts.
Parental and Community Engagement

All over the world, it has been seen that school programmes
are most successful when parents and the community support and
engage in school activities and events. This is a resource which
is currently insufficiently exploited by Malaysian schools, partly
because most schools do not have well-planned programmes and
partly because parents and community members themselves are
not fully cognizant of the impact their involvement can make.
There is thus a need to design programmes, such as teacher-aide
programmes, EL immersion camps and EL club activities, which
clearly define and explain the roles that parents and members of the
community can play in supporting EL learning in primary school.
The involvement of parents and communities will in this way assist
in the creation and sustainment of English-rich environments.
5.2.2 Teaching and Learning

Low teacher proficiency levels
The translation of the English language curriculum into
suitable, meaningful and purposeful classroom learning activities
requires teachers to be acquainted with effective pedagogies as
well as to have a sound command of the target language. Unless
both of these aspects are addressed in the EL teachers initial
training and continuous professional development, the quality of
the delivery of the English curriculum in schools will most likely
be compromised. Statistics published by the Ministry indicate
that in 2012 according to the Cambridge Placement Test, 70,000
teachers required further support in the target language. A total of
15,012 (Cohort 2012-2015) of these teachers have since taken the
EL Teachers Proficiency Up-skilling course (PRO-ELT) run by the
English Language Training Centre, which focuses specifically on
teachers English proficiency. These efforts need to be continued.
The lack of clarity on teacher competencies required for the

primary EL programme
The current KSSR makes specific demands of teachers. For
instance, in Stage 1 (i.e. Years 1-3), phonics is included as a focus
area under reading. Teachers handling this early but crucial stage
of learning need to have a grounding in phonics so that their pupils
will benefit optimally from phonemic awareness development as
a first step towards independent reading. A critical question to
ask to ensure curricular fidelity among teachers is whether English
teachers are sufficiently acquainted with phonics and thus able to
independently develop phonics support for their students.
The Ministry needs to identify the critical teacher competencies
that are required for the effective delivery of the English curriculum
in primary and secondary schools. This important step in
enhancing curriculum compliance requires collaboration between
teacher education, curriculum development and other related
agencies in the Ministry. In recent years, the Ministry has rolled
out initiatives to address teacher competencies such as the Native
Speaker Programme (from 2011-2015), the Pro-ELT programme
(2012 onwards), and the introduction of English language School
Improvement Specialist Coaches (SISC+), which was piloted and
implemented in 2013-2014.
These initiatives attempted to focus on improving teachers
English proficiency and pedagogical skill sets. However, there is
173

a notable lack in teachers classroom practice with regard to the

handling of mixed-ability classrooms. Differentiated instruction
to cater to specific individual needs is an area of professional
development that the Ministry must address in the pre-service and
in-service development of English language teachers.
The lack of skills in implementing effective remedial intervention

Related to the lack of effective remedial programmes is the lack
of requisite skills among English teachers to identify, manage and
support children with learning difficulties. Many of these learning
difficulties need to be addressed early in a childs development and
it is imperative that our primary teachers have the necessary skills
to provide the support these children need.
5.2.3 Assessment
The lack of knowledge regarding assessment principles and
methods
Assessment in KSSR emphasises the holistic achievement
of an individual in the learning process. The KSSR emphasises
continuous formative assessment as an integral part of learning
which enables teachers to assess the extent to which pupils have
fulfilled the learning standards targeted. However, teachers still
need to be given adequate training in assessment principles,
methods and techniques to enable them to carry out the relevant
assessment as well as in the analysis, interpretation and use of the
assessment data to plan remediation and follow-up activities that
contribute to the holistic development of the learner.
The lack of balanced and discrete testing of all four language skills
Under-development of creative language use
As one of the five language learning modules in the KSSR,
the Language Arts component provides a means for teachers to
introduce fun learning and expose children to creative language
use in the classroom. Unfortunately, teachers are not always
adequately trained to exploit the opportunity effectively. Teachers
need to be equipped with skills to help learners appreciate quality
language models found in childrens literature as well as to develop
creative language use in a variety of contexts and modes.
174
In language teaching and learning, the need to undertake a

balanced and discrete testing of all four language skills cannot be
overemphasised. It is often observed that teachers do not place as
much importance on assessing listening and speaking skills in our
primary schools.
Limited ability in using formative assessment to support learning

Current trends in assessment stress the value of assessment for
formative learning in the classroom. While this does not suggest that
the assessment of summative learning has no relevance, it implies
the need for teachers to possess the required skill sets to carry out
accurate and valid school-based assessment (SBA) to support their
pupils learning. To this end, English teachers language proficiency
needs to be sufficiently sound to carry out the tests and use the
test data to inform their teaching in the classroom.
The need for alignment to international standards

To obtain a picture of student performance that has more
validity beyond the school, end-of-year and exit assessments
need to be aligned to international standards. The adoption
of the CEFR in the development of the English curriculum and
assessment standards is an important next step in aligning our
English curriculum to international standards.
5.3
THE WAY FORWARD
5.3.1 The English Language Education Roadmap: Structure

and Components
The issues and gaps in the three key areas that have been
identified point to the need for reform in English language
education at primary level. For the reform to be effective, certain
conditions must be in place, and corresponding action plans must
be implemented to achieve the intended outcomes. The direction
of reform and the implementation plan proposed for ELE in primary
schools is laid out in an English Language Roadmap for English
language learning at different education levels.
The English Language Roadmap specifies the actions to be
taken in three key areas: curriculum, teaching and learning, and
assessment. Each area addresses a set of concerns, as follows:

Action plans for the curriculum address issues relating to the

primary English syllabus as the central curriculum document
that frames the structure and texture of the delivery of English
language education in our schools. The curriculum document
has to meet not only the needs of English learners in primary
schools, but the standards that it sets should also match
internationally accepted language education standards. The
proposals offered in connection with the curriculum will also
consider how greater engagement with English can be made
175

possible in primary schools. The CEFR is used to align the

existing curriculum to international standards.

Action plans for Teaching and Learning consider changes to

improve the efficacy of EL teachers, teaching, and related
resources, including what is needed to implement CEFRoriented pedagogy.
Assessment strategies focus on actions needed to improve
assessment in general, and to reform assessment so that it is
aligned to CEFR-based assessment in particular.
It is imperative, however, that elements in the Roadmap are

viewed as components of an integrated whole. An action or
initiative suggested in each key area may be interconnected with
others within the same area or in a different areas. The success
of actions taken in one area is dependent on the successful
implementation of those in other areas. The up-skilling of teachers,
for example, must be accompanied by the availability of quality
teaching-learning resources and the presence of a set of consistent,
coherent and effective assessment tools.
The Roadmap is to be implemented as follows over three
phases corresponding to the three MEB waves:
Phase 1 (2015 2016)
The first phase of the Roadmap is the time for the conditions
necessary for reform to be identified. Action plans are initiated
176
in response to the conditions and the foundation laid for the

implementation of those plans. In view of the fact that the end of
Phase 1 is not too distant, the outcomes proposed for this phase
take into account what is logistically and practically achievable.
Phase 2: (2017 2020)
Phase 2 focuses on the implementation of the plans initiated
in Phase 1. The actions to be taken in the second phase follow
and leverage on the outcomes of developments in Phase 1. In this
phase, there will be an emphasis on monitoring and making inprogress improvements where necessary.
Phase 3: (2021 2025)
The final phase of the Roadmap will focus on reviewing the
implementation and outcomes of the action plans from preceding
waves, and making appropriate improvements with a view to
consolidating those plans. An impact study on the reformed system
will also be carried out at this stage.
The hope is for all primary students to achieve CEFR A1
by Year 3, and leave primary school at the end of Year 6 with at
least A2, the higher end of Basic User proficiency. This target, if
reached, will prepare primary school leavers more effectively for
education or communication in English in secondary school.
The following sections explain the conditions for reform, actions
relating to Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, and Assessment
that need to be undertaken in each phase of the Roadmap, and the

outcomes which can be expected to have been achieved by the end
of each phase. The lead agency or agencies responsible for each set
of action plans is also identified. A comprehensive summary of these
plans and expected outcomes is laid out in Section C of this document.
For this purpose it is proposed that the MoE engage experts on

the CEFR to work with the Curriculum Development Division
(henceforth BPK) to align the KSSR with the CEFR, including
the development of can do statements as learning targets
appropriate for Malaysian learners. The review and alignment
exercise should be completed by the end of Phase 1.
In Phase 1 of the Roadmap, the primary English education

curriculum, KSSR, should be reviewed and aligned to international
standards to produce pupils with the skills required to compete
at an international level. The alignment cannot be just a matter
of matching learning standards in the national curriculum with
those in the CEFR. In the first place, the CEFR serves only as a
framework of reference that does not claim to offer ready-made
solutions but must always be adapted to the requirements of
particular contexts (www.coe.int/lang-CEFR). It is a framework
that has to be adapted to meet the specific needs of learners of
English in Malaysian primary schools.
Concurrently in Phase 1, a familiarisation programme needs

to be initiated for relevant stakeholders. The MoE and Institut
Aminuddin Baki (IAB) will play a major role in promoting the
understanding of the CEFR-aligned EL curriculum among teachers,
learners, school leaders and parents, so that they appreciate the
significance of the reform and its importance in preparing learners
for the global arena. This appreciation is a necessary precursor to
their support for the implementation of the curriculum. In this first
phase, Master Trainers must be identified to act as key deliverers
of the curriculum. Training and capacity building for these Master
Trainers will need to be carried out by the Institutes of Teacher
Education, Malaysia (henceforth IPGM) and Teacher Training
Division (henceforth BPG) of the Ministry in collaboration
with BPK. It will be imperative for the trainers to fully grasp the
philosophy behind the CEFR principles and approach.
In the review exercise, it is also important to ensure that the

exit targets at the end of the 6-year primary English programme
match international standards appropriate for Malaysian learners.
The CEFR-aligned curriculum will be rolled out in Phase 2 of

the Roadmap. The BPK will need to carefully put in place a plan
for the gradual implementation of the curriculum at all stages of
5.3.2 Curriculum
Developing and delivering internationally aligned curriculum and
learning standards
177

learning. During the roll-out, the MoE will need to ensure that all
English teachers are adequately inducted into the CEFR-oriented
approach, methods and techniques. We need to ensure that the
teachers are competent and confident in interpreting and translating
the curriculum contents into meaningful and effective classroom
learning activities. The curriculum should be accompanied by a
supporting tool-kit containing exemplars of lessons, work sheets,
teaching-learning aids and assessment tools. The implementation
of the curriculum as well as the training of teachers will need to be
monitored and evaluated so that improvements can be made.
In Phase 2, the first cohort of Year 3 learners who will have
gone through three years of CEFR-aligned ELE should undergo
school-based assessment to ascertain whether they have achieved
a proficiency level of A1, as planned.
In Phase 3, this cohort of pupils will have completed the first
full 6-year cycle of the CEFR-aligned curriculum. Assessment at
the end of Year 6, whether it is national-level or school-based, will
indicate the extent to which the learners have successfully achieved
the CEFR A2 target. The reformed curriculum should at this
stage undergo review and revision with the aim of strengthening
it for future cohorts of learners. For the sustainability of the
reform, lead agencies and schools must continue capacity building
among teachers and also reinforce partnerships among relevant
stakeholders so that there is a strong network of stakeholders
178
continuing to support the implementation of the internationally

aligned curriculum.
It is proposed that the ELTC play a key role in the overseeing
and monitoring of developments under this initiative. As the
agency tasked with enhancing the quality of ELE, the ELTC is best
placed to coordinate, supervise and monitor the implementation of
the various initiatives including the exercise to align the English
curriculum to the CEFR.
In the review of the curriculum for primary English, it is imperative
for the reviewers to examine the coherence and cohesiveness
between primary and secondary English curricula. The two curricula
need to dovetail so that as pupils enter secondary school, they are
provided with appropriate and continuous support building on what
they have learnt in primary school. This approach will give learners
more confidence in learning new things at a higher level.
Developing effective remedial programmes
To narrow or close the wide achievement gaps between high
and low proficiency learners, it is necessary to develop and run effective
remedial programmes. In Phase 1, remedial programmes for students
yet to achieve the targets set for years 4 to 6 should be developed for
use in Phase 2. These initiatives should be rolled out in Phase 2 and
their implementation monitored. In Phase 3, these programmes will
need to be reviewed and improved on for future use.
In addition to new initiatives, the existing LINUS 2.0 intended

for Year 1 to 3 students needs to be reviewed and revised in Phase
1, based on a careful reading of the critique submitted in 2013.
Among the improvements that need to be made are the inclusion
of a stronger theoretical framework in its design, a review of its
overall objectives, and a revision of its content. In addition, the
teachers managing the programme will need to be given a sound
knowledge of letter-sound relationships in English and how these
letters and sounds merge to form meaningful words.
The role played by the FasiLINUS should be reviewed with the
aim of giving them a more leading role in designing, implementing
and managing remedial programmes in schools. These FasiLINUS,
who are based in PPD, can help to revise the existing LINUS
2.0 modules based on their experience in helping teachers in the
literacy programme.
The revised version should be used in Phase 2 and an impact
study conducted before the end of the second phase. The impact
study should be able to provide answers to the following questions:
Do the skills acquired in the literacy programme support the
learning of skills identified in the Primary English curriculum?

How can English teachers build on the basic skills that learners
have acquired in their English lessons?
What changes need to be made in the literacy programme or

the mainstream English curriculum to ensure they complement
each other?
The findings of the impact study will contribute to further

refinement of the programme by Phase 3.
Increasing English engagement time in the classroom

The aims and aspirations of the English Language Roadmap
cannot be achieved solely through reform in the curriculum. In
addition to changes in learning content and standards, students
also need increased engagement with the language, that is, they
need more time and more opportunities to use the language. The
Roadmap proposes two strategies for bringing about this increase
in engagement within the classroom: (a) increasing the number of
hours for English in national-type schools, and (b) teaching other
school subjects in English.
Class time for English in national-type Tamil and Chinese
schools is currently less than in national schools. This difference
should be addressed so that EL learning time is similar in all
primary schools. In Phase 1, BPK and the schools involved have
to determine the adjustments that need to be made for Malay and
Mandarin/Tamil language classes, or other subjects, if a change is
brought into effect. The increase in EL learning time should be
179

implemented in Phase 2, and the implementation monitored. The

effectiveness of the strategy should then be reviewed in Phase 3.
The increase in EL learning time can be expected to bring benefits
to SRJK students by then, and so justify the increased time
allocation.
In view of the current worrying proficiency levels, radical but
necessary action needs to be taken to give learners a purpose and
context for using English other than in the EL classroom. The
Roadmap therefore includes a proposal for the teaching of other
subjects in English. If students are taught content subjects in
English, they employ the language to gain knowledge and express
ideas; in other words, they are given an authentic communicative
purpose for using English.
This contextualised use of the language in activities outside
the EL classroom can result in incidental learning, where in
an unintentional and unplanned way, students acquire English
vocabulary and grammar (Marsick, Watkins, Callahan & Volpe,
2006; Ortega, 2009). The learning of other subjects in English will
allow students to interact with samples of the target L2 which
exemplify a wide range of structures (Hawkins, 2005, p. 17) and
to practise the language with the aim of achieving fluency rather
than accuracy in the L2, thus complementing the formal learning
of grammatical forms and structures in the EL classroom.
180
The selection of appropriate subjects, as well as the percentage

of total learning time involved, needs to be carefully considered in
Phase 1, taking into account school and teacher readiness as well
as the capacity of IPGM and BPG to train the subject teachers
involved, so that they can deliver content and guide learners in
English. It must be remembered that the aim of this plan is not for
these teachers to teach students English grammar or language skills,
but to develop learners knowledge of particular subjects while
providing a purpose and context for learners to communicate ideas
and interact in English. In-service training will need to be provided
for teachers currently teaching the subjects involved, while preservice training will need to be planned for future teachers.
In phase 2, the focus of the plan will be on implementing
the teaching of subjects in English. This initiative will also have
to be monitored closely to identify areas of need and to provide
assistance. The training of teachers will continue to be carried
out in this second phase. The effectiveness of this strategy
and the training programmes will be evaluated in Phase 3 and
recommendations made for improvement.
Increasing engagement with English outside the classroom

In Phase 1 of the Roadmap, the ELTC and the BKK need to
encourage schools to create English-rich environments, so that
students are immersed in English language activities as much as
Members of the
community can
help by conducting
interactive
beyond-classroom
activities in
English.
possible. Possible strategies include using English in making and

displaying announcements, and conducting school assemblies and
co-curricular activities. The emergence of such environments in
some schools should be seen towards the end of Phase 1, with
more emerging and developing in Phase 2. By Phase 3, the ELTC
should monitor and review these school-based initiatives, and
assist every school to set up similar environments.
Engagement with English can also be increased by involving
an under-utilised pool of resources, namely, parents and the
community, in developing English programmes. Best practices
from schools that have implemented successful programmes with
the help of their PIBG should be studied, compiled and used as
models or guidelines for other schools.
Taking lessons from language programmes in other countries

such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, parents
can be trained to support their children in the early stages of learning
English. In England, parents are encouraged to help their children
master phonics, and similar programmes can be implemented in our
primary schools so that Year One pupils can be given more support
and exposure to English at home. Phase 2 should see the launch of
programmes managed or assisted by parents and members of the
community. These programmes should be monitored in Phase 2,
and their effectiveness reviewed in Phase 3, so that improvements
can be made.
181

It must be noted that there may not be a clear distinction

between the different initiatives to increase EL engagement. With
astute planning and management, and collaboration between
school leaders, teachers, parents and the community, it is possible to
create immersion-style EL-rich environments involving a coherent
and cohesive integration of related programmes or activities within
and outside the classroom. Again, successful programmes already
in existence could be a reference point. For instance, the approach
adopted by SK Ulu Lubai, Sarawak, could provide valuable lessons
on how to optimise the support of the community for ELE in and
out of school.
The CEFR is not merely a set of standards and can do
statements, for its adoption also represents, among other things,
a commitment to developing learners into self-directed language
users capable of demonstrating those performance standards.
The alignment of the KSSR with the CEFR is thus not limited
to establishing new learning standards, and it calls for attendant
changes in teaching and learning that are integral to the successful
implementation of the reformed curriculum. It is envisaged that with
the revised English curriculum, learners will be more motivated and
better supported in the classroom by teachers who have clearer
targets to meet in a more cohesive and coherent curriculum.
182
Implementing CEFR-informed pedagogy

In Phase 1 of the Roadmap, the Master Trainers or SISC+
identified as key deliverers of the curriculum need to be trained
in CEFR-compatible learning and teaching principles so that they
become key personnel and reference points in CEFR-informed
pedagogy for primary school teachers. The training and capacity
building of Master Trainers, which will fall under the purview
of BPK and which will utilise the CEFR expertise employed in
aligning the curriculum, should be completed by the end of Phase 1.
In Phase 2, these Master Trainers will be responsible for training
teachers in all schools to become capable and confident users of
CEFR-oriented pedagogy.
Teachers will need to move away from teaching to the test
and helping students to provide correct answers to exam questions,
to an emphasis on helping learners to do things with English. The
Master trainers will need to monitor the implementation of the
pedagogy, with the BPK, BPG and IPGM overseeing the training
and monitoring exercise. Capacity building of teachers should
continue and expand in Phase 3, the outcome of which should be
improvements in the delivery of the CEFR-aligned curriculum.
Using internationally aligned teaching and learning materials

The reform in curriculum and pedagogy has to be supported by
the use of internationally aligned and CEFR-compatible teaching
and learning materials. The selection of materials is therefore of the
utmost importance. Phase 1 of the Roadmap should see the selection
of CEFR-aligned textbooks and support materials for Years 1 to 6
using selection criteria determined with the help and advice of the
CEFR experts employed in the development of the curriculum. This
task will be undertaken by the Textbook Division (BBT) and BPK.
The books and materials selected should be procured in Phase 2.
In view of the lack of experience of working with the CEFR on the
part of Malaysian materials developers, it would be most prudent
for the Ministry of Education to purchase books and materials
which have either already been produced for use with a CEFR
curriculum, or which can be written specifically for the Malaysian
CEFR-aligned curriculum. This option gives the MoE the best
chance of ensuring that the learning and teaching materials are in
line with the aims of the curriculum.
The selection of materials needs to be reviewed in Phase 3
when at least one cohort of pupils has completed 6 years of CEFRaligned EL learning.
According to the outcome of the evaluation, revisions can be
made to the list of materials as well as the selection criteria with
the aim of procuring even better learning and teaching materials

for future cohorts of learners. It is also hoped that by that time,
Malaysian EL educators will have gained enough experience to
write locally developed materials for use with the curriculum.
Coordinating and consolidating teaching and learning resources

A number of teaching and learning resources, both in print and
on line, have been developed over the years by divisions of the
Ministry to support the implementation of the English curriculum.
In addition, there will be new resources procured to support the
implementation of the reformed curriculum. It is essential for
these resources to be consolidated and coordinated to ensure their
optimal use among English teachers for the maximum benefit of
the learners.
A repository of all English-related teaching and learning
resources procured or developed to support the English curriculum
needs to be set up in Phase 1 of the Roadmap, and a directory
drawn up. The resources can consist of new and existing materials.
However, the existing resources need to be assessed in terms of
their alignment with the CEFR and their potential role in CEFRaligned teaching and learning. This initiative can be undertaken
by the BBT, BPK and Educational Technology Division (BTP),
with one agency identified as the clearing house in charge of
coordinating the distribution of these resources.
183

Since all too often, a repository of resources remains underutilised, Phase 2 of this action plan should focus on addressing
the problem of utilisation. First, teachers should be encouraged
to use the resources for the purpose of improving the delivery
of the CEFR-aligned English curriculum. However, teachers do
not always know how best to use such materials, and so suitable
training will have to be provided. The utilisation of resources needs
to be monitored in the second phase, perhaps by the ELTC, and
then evaluated in Phase 3. The outcome of the evaluation should
lead to recommendations for improving the use of resources and
the repository.
At the present time, the search for information or ideas
frequently takes users to the Internet or to an online database.
Benefits from the use of ICT in supporting teaching and learning
in the classroom need to be further exploited if our aspiration is
for the integration of technology in teachers pedagogy. In Phase 2
of the Roadmap, the BTP should look into adopting or developing
online resources that can be made accessible to teachers in various
geographical locations. The resources should cover all language
skills and themes to ensure a more balanced learning of the target
language. These resources should be made available to teachers in
an online database in Phase 3.
When resources are put online, the Ministry needs to plan
a comprehensive programme to familiarise teachers with these
184
resources so that they can effectively, purposefully and seamlessly

integrate them into teaching and learning activities. For that
purpose, a Web portal or a user-friendly Learning Management
System (henceforth LMS) should be set up to serve as a
gateway for teachers with language needs, and provide them with
assistance from the database.
Since an LMS is as good as its content, it needs to be populated
with attractive and exciting resources, and provide tools to help
teachers and pupils share resources and communicate with each
other. Teachers are currently offered the use of the Frog VLE
(Virtual Learning Environment) under the 1Bestari project. It is
imperative for the Ministry to assess the impact of the project
and take away lessons from its implementation to further improve
on it or develop new platforms, and optimise its use in enhancing
learning, including the learning of English. At the same time,
infrastructural support will have to be upgraded to provide stable
and speedy online access. In this way, there will be a greater chance
for online resources to be integrated regularly into EL lessons.
Enabling teachers to work with learners with differing levels of

ability
One of the most important aspirations of the MEB is to provide
Malaysian children with an equitable education system. In order to
make this possible, primary English teachers have to be trained to

work with learners with differing levels of ability.
Integration of ongoing and meaningful assessments with

instruction
First, teachers need training in remedial instruction for learners

with learning difficulties and disabilities. A greater command of
theoretical and practical knowledge in this area would enable
teachers to implement remedial programmes such as LINUS more
effectively and help close the achievement gap between betterand poorer-performing students.
Continual assessment, reflection, and adjustment of content,

process, and product to meet student needs
Secondly, teachers have to be competent in the use of

differentiated learning techniques for the range of English
proficiency levels in their classes. Differentiated learning is a
framework or philosophy for effective teaching that involves
providing learners of different ability levels different avenues to
learning, often in the same classroom.
Some guiding principles suggested to support differentiated
learning (Huebner, 2010) are:

A focus on essential ideas and skills, eliminating ancillary tasks

and activities
Responses that accommodate individual student differences

(such as learning style, prior knowledge, interests, and level of
engagement).
Flexible grouping of students by shared interest, topic, or ability
Finally, teachers must be trained to develop the aesthetic and

creative use of English among learners as an enjoyable enrichment
activity for learners from all ability levels. Creativity in the use
of language is aligned with the Ministrys emphasis on developing
pupils higher order thinking skills. It is important that in the pursuit
of excellent academic outcomes, pupils are given opportunities
to develop laterally and creatively as part of a more holistic
development process. Doing this in the English lesson, just as in
the other lessons, is neither misplaced nor wasteful.
Training in remedial instruction, differentiated learning and
creative language use must be put in place without delay in Phase 1 of
the Roadmap through in-service sessions by ELTC and BPK, with as
many teachers as possible trained by the end of Phase 1. These kinds of
instruction should be implemented in Phase 2 and their implementation
closely monitored and evaluated by the agencies involved. Based on
the evaluation, recommendations can be made for improvements in
teachers use of the approaches. In Phase 3, these training programmes
will be reviewed and improved on so that eventually, every teacher
should be sufficiently competent to manage teaching and learning for
learners with different levels of proficiency.
185

5.3.4 Assessment
Aligning curriculum and pedagogy to the CEFR means that
assessment must be similarly aligned and teachers properly trained
to implement it.
Developing CEFR-aligned EL assessment

In Phase 1 of the Roadmap, school-based assessment (SBA)
of EL learning and SBA tools used for Years 1 to 6 need to be
reviewed and brought into alignment with the learning standards
outlined in the new curriculum aligned to the CEFR. The nature of
the assessment, such as its content, the form it takes and whether
it is formative or summative, must also be looked into to ensure
that the assessment is consistent with the underlying philosophy
of the CEFR. The alignment exercise has to be led and facilitated
by the Examination Syndicate (LP). However, it would be crucial
for that agency to obtain advice and input from the CEFR experts
employed for the alignment of curriculum standards. CEFRaligned SBA will be implemented in Phase 2 and closely monitored
to ensure that it is done effectively. This SBA will be reviewed in
Phase 3 and necessary revisions made. It is hoped that nine years
of CEFR-informed EL learning and assessment will lead to valid
and reliable CEFR-aligned SBA for Years 1 to 6.
186
Also in Phase 1 of the Roadmap, plans need to be initiated for

developing a new CEFR-aligned national EL examination for Year 6.
The draft of this new exam should be ready by the end of Phase 1
and piloted early in Phase 2. Based on the response to the pilot,
improvements will need to be made so that a valid and reliable
CEFR-aligned Year 6 national exam can be implemented. In Phase 3,
it will be timely to review this first version of the national exam
and re-calibrate it against international standards so that the LPM
can be further assured of an internationally aligned national exam
for primary school.
Upskilling EL teachers in the administration of school-based

assessment
The outcome of the exercise to align SBA to the CEFR has
to be shared with teachers through well-planned comprehensive
dissemination or induction programmes. Teachers need to be
informed early about changes to the content, form and frequency of
assessment. It will also require teachers to have a sound command
of English as well as commensurate competency to appreciate
these re-aligned SBA assessments. It is therefore strongly proposed
that all English teachers be upskilled in the development, use and
management of these assessments, with BPG, IPGM and ELTC as
the lead agencies responsible for the upskilling.
In Phase 1 of the Roadmap, the EL Master Trainers identified

as key delivers of the curriculum will themselves need training so
that they are well informed in the implementation of CEFR-aligned
SBA. They will then go on to train other teachers in Phase 2 in
the hope of improving SBA at primary level. Teacher management
and administration of CEFR-aligned SBA will be monitored and
evaluated in Phase 3, the outcome of which will be used in the
improvement of those assessments.
Monitoring Progress
Throughout the three phases of the Roadmap, the ELE reform
efforts in primary schools will have to be monitored in order to
assess the progress being made towards creating a quality English
language education system. The monitoring will be done by the
ELSQC with the ELTC as the facilitating agency.
In Phase 1 of the Roadmap, the ELSQC and MoE will need
to select an independent body with expertise in the CEFR to
be commissioned to carry out benchmarking and impact studies
from the beginning of the Roadmap to its projected end in 2025.
This body will need to review the existing curriculum as well as
related materials and practices as a baseline from which to start
the alignment exercise. The experts will have to remain available
as resources and reference points.
In Phase 2, the commissioned body will need to conduct a

benchmark study on Year 3 and Year 6 pupils to establish the
impact of the initiatives on the English proficiency of primary
pupils. The results of the study will indicate at that point
whether the target levels of A1 for Year 3 pupils and A2 for Year 6
pupils can be reached. The results with the most significance will
be those from the cohort of learners going through the CEFRaligned curriculum from Year 1. This cohort is expected to be in
Year 1 in 2017 and Year 3 in 2020, the end of Phase 2. A benchmark
study report will be produced at that point as a checkpoint for the
entire initiative.
In the final phase of implementing the Roadmap, student
performance in English will be benchmarked against international
standards. Again, it is the results of the 2017 Year 1 cohort that will
be of most significance; these pupils will be in Year 6 in 2023, when
they will take the CEFR-aligned Year 6 national examination. The
expected proficiency level to be achieved is A2. These results
will be part of the impact study on the reformed Primary EL
education system to be conducted by the commissioned body. It
is hoped that by the end of the EL reform programme in 2025,
primary school pupils will be achieving A2, and that the primary
EL education system will have been transformed into one that
effectively prepares learners for the greater challenges that await
them in secondary school.
187

5.5
Recommendations and Implications
For the successful transformation of ELE in Primary

schools, changes and new developments are recommended in
administration, teaching and learning, assessment, and linkages
between school and community. The proposed changes and
developments include but are not limited to the following:
188
The adoption of the CEFR as a framework of reference for the

primary school EL curriculum, learning targets, teaching and
learning, and assessment;
The commissioning of an independent body of CEFR experts

to review and align the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment
to CEFR standards, and to conduct benchmarking and impact
studies;
The dovetailing of the primary English syllabus with the

secondary syllabus;
The purchase of CEFR-based EL books and materials;
The rigorous review, revision and coordination of current EL

initiatives and resources;
An increase in learning hours for English in school;
The teaching and learning of other subjects in English;
Optimal institutional, parental and community support for EL

programmes and initiatives;
Intensive and expedient training and upskilling for teachers

to meet the requirements of curriculum reform and related
processes.

Secondary
189

Chapter 6:
Secondary
he major goal of this chapter is to lend support to the

formulation of an English language roadmap for secondary
school education in Malaysia. The narrative in this chapter is
anchored on the premise that students will exit secondary schools as
confident, independent users of the language who then possess the
option to enter either the workforce or higher education institutions.
With the specific focus on secondary school education, this
chapter highlights the present status of English Language Education
(henceforth ELE) in Malaysia, identifies issues and gaps that
exist in the educational system at secondary level in relation to
contemporary language teaching research and approaches, and
proposes measures to improve the system by addressing the issues
and overcoming concerns that can be found. At relevant points
in the chapter, reference is made to the CEFR (see Chapter 3 for
a detailed description of the CEFR) which is used to benchmark
English language proficiency as prescribed in the MEB.
There are four sections in this chapter. Section 6.1 provides a
brief overview of ELE at the secondary school level in Malaysia
and focuses on recent policies and initiatives that have shaped ELE
in Malaysian secondary schools. Against this backdrop, section 6.2
narrows the focus of this chapter to three major areas of concern
that must be considered in formulating the English language
roadmap for secondary school education in Malaysia. They are:
(i) curriculum design, (ii) teaching and learning practices, and (iii)
assessment.
190
The discussion centres around how existing gaps in these areas

challenge contemporary initiatives and thrusts in ELE, especially
the use of the CEFR as a benchmark for proficiency. The discussion
leads to section 6.3 on proposals and recommendations on how to
address challenges in the aforementioned area of concern. This
section of the chapter proposes steps to be taken in chronological
order, according to the three waves prescribed in the Malaysian
Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (henceforth MEB). Finally,
section 6.4 summarises and concludes the chapter.
6.1 Background
The secondary school level represents a critical stage in the
Malaysian education system. From one perspective, this level is the
final stage before students either enter the workforce or further
their studies at tertiary level. The national examination that they
encounter during the third year of secondary school often determines
the kind of subjects they will learn in the remaining two years.
Subsequently, performance on the national standardised
examination at the end of the fifth year of secondary education
will impact the students work options as well as opportunities for
higher education.
From another perspective, the secondary years are important years
when the students English language learning habits can be consolidated
and refined. Towards the latter years of secondary education, students

become cognitively and affectively more mature to make decisions
regarding how and what they wish to learn. Individual differences and
preferences also begin to emerge as important factors to be given due
consideration in teaching and learning. In this way, secondary school
education plays a vital role in the future of the students, both for them
to become a contributing member of society as well as for their own
personal future well-being.
In line with the development of the secondary school student
as human capital and an asset to the nation, the English language is
recognised as an important international language of communication.
The language is taught as a compulsory subject for 200 minutes a
week in secondary schools at each of the five levels for a total of 580
hours for the entire secondary school education period.
The present English language proficiency level of students in
Malaysian secondary schools, however, is worrying. The general trend
has been that a large number of candidates fail English at the Lower
Secondary level with 21% and 23.4% obtaining a Fail grade in the
English paper in the Lower Secondary examination (or PMR) in 2011
and 2013 respectively. The Cambridge Baseline Study, conducted in
2013 to determine the baseline proficiency levels of students according
to the CEFR, provides a snapshot view of students English language
proficiency. A test was given to 31,000 students from preschool up to
secondary school levels in all states in Malaysia.
191

The results revealed that the English language proficiency level

achieved by secondary school students at the lower level (Forms
1 to 3) was A2, while those in the upper secondary school level
achieved B1 (p. 16). These results are disappointing as Malaysians
have traditionally been considered proficient in English, even by their
international counterparts and the relatively low proficiency levels
confirm a deteriorating mastery of the language among students.
The Malaysian Ministry of Education is cognizant of the generally
declining standards of the English language among secondary school
students. In the MEB (2013, p. 4-11), the Ministry has declared its
intention of seeking to ensure that 70% of SPM candidates achieve a
minimum Credit in the English Language paper by 2025.
The importance of doing well in the English Language paper is
reflected in the proposal to make it a compulsory pass to earn the SPM
certificate. To address the need to raise the proficiency level among
secondary school students, various initiatives related to the teaching
and learning of the English language have been implemented.
The major initiatives at the secondary school level in recent years
are:
(1) Benchmarking student proficiency through the Cambridge Baseline
study conducted in 2013 in order to determine proficiency levels of
secondary school students according to internationally recognised
standards.
192
(2) Implementing school-based assessment in the lower secondary

school level as an attempt, not only to reduce the examinationoriented nature of the education system, but also to ensure
that learning takes place more effectively.
(3) Introducing the English language set system that enables
teachers to group students according to various ability bands
to address differentiated abilities of students. The set system
is also intended to motivate students to learn the language by
catering to their actual learning needs.
(4) Conducting the Oral Proficiency and Speaking (OPS) English
programme in selected schools to promote aural-oral proficiency
as a means to motivate students to use the language.
(5) Implementing the Peningkatan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran
Bahasa Inggeris Sekolah Menengah (PPPBISM) Programme
in schools with passing grades in English below the national
average. This programme is intended to raise the English
Language proficiency of Secondary School students through a
specialised school support plan.
The aforementioned initiatives, as well as current teaching
and learning practices in place at the secondary school level have
implications for English language education at other levels. They
also present both opportunities and challenges for the formulation
of a comprehensive English Language Roadmap that involves all
levels of education in Malaysia.
6.2 Issues and Gaps

In this section, issues and gaps in the present secondary school
education system will be discussed in order to elucidate attainable
goals to be set in the Roadmap. The discussion will be divided into
three broad interrelated areas of English language education at the
secondary school level, namely curriculum design, teaching and
learning practices, and assessment.
6.2.1. Curriculum
The English language secondary school curriculum has gone
through several revisions and a new curriculum is expected to be
implemented nationwide in 2017. The implementation of this new
curriculum is timely as it provides the opportunity for the incorporation
of the CEFR. However, curriculum related issues that need to be
addressed in order for the Roadmap to be successfully implemented
are discussed in the section below.
6.2.1.1
Differences in Emphasis between the National
Curriculum and the CEFR.
At the secondary education level, a national curriculum already
exists for the teaching and learning of English and is referred to as the
Integrated Secondary School Curriculum (KBSM) for English. This

will be replaced by the KSSM in 2017. The implementation of the
Roadmap takes place at a time of transition from the KBSM to the
KSSM.
In order to accommodate relevant outcomes prescribed by the
CEFR into the new KSSM, curriculum planners must be aware
of the differences and similarities between the current secondary
school curriculum and the CEFR, especially in terms of emphasis,
presentation as well as content.
From a broad perspective, a major difference between the
CEFR and the Malaysian National Curriculum (KBSM) is the way
in which they are presented. Two features of the CEFR distinguish
it from the KBSM.
The first is the use of a global scale that describes student language
skills at different levels of the scale. Each level from A1 to C2 provides
clear and comprehensible descriptions that represent goals for
language learners to achieve (see CEFR Global Scale in Chapter 3).
The descriptions also include contexts and the desired performance of
specific language related tasks. For example, the B1 scale is described
as the ability to
understand the main points of clear standard input on
familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school,
leisure, etc. ... to deal with most situations likely to arise
whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken.
193

... to produce simple connected text on topics which are

familiar or of personal interest. ... to describe experiences
and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give
reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.
(MEB, p. 4-10).
The KBSM, in contrast, provides the following four objectives

that are used for the entire five years of the secondary school which
are stated as follows:
The English language curriculum enables learners to
i. form and maintain relationships through conversation and
correspondence; take part in social interactions; and obtain
goods and services;
ii. obtain, process and use information from various audio-visual
and print sources; and present the information in spoken and
written form;
iii. listen to, view, read and respond to different texts, and express
ideas, opinions, thoughts and feelings imaginatively and
creatively in spoken and written form; and
iv. show an awareness and appreciation of moral values and love
towards the nation.
194
In contrast to the KBSM which describes general goals in

communication for a period of five years, the CEFR descriptors
specify language abilities with levels of performance in a progressive
manner from one level to another. In addition, the CEFR global
scale descriptors are carefully explicated and supported through
related elaboration found in the CEFR manual.
A major benefit of the CEFR global scale consisting of six
levels is that teachers can easily understand the expected overall
language learning progression of the students from one level to
another.
The second distinct feature of the CEFR in relation to the
KBSM is its use of can do statements. This is also apparent in
the global scale described earlier. The description of the C1 level,
for example, states that at that level, learners can produce clear,
well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing
controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive
devices (CEFR, p. 15).
This description emphasises mastery of ability as well as
conditions that specify how the ability is demonstrated. In
contrast, the KBSM specifications are comparatively broad and
less explicit such as Take part in social interactions by discussing
plans and arrangements, solving problems, and making decisions
(Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2003, p. 8).
Although a further comparison does reveal some degree of

alignment between the curriculum specifications for English in
Malaysian secondary schools and the CEFR, there are significant
differences between the two.
While most can do statements in the CEFR can be matched
to items in the KBSM curriculum, not all matches are exact. Some
are approximations, and some cannot be matched at all. This is
primarily because of the difference in emphasis between the
Malaysian school curriculum and the CEFR framework.
Among the notable differences that pose a challenge for the
alignment of the Malaysian secondary school curriculum to the
CEFR are:
i. Emphasis on language use.
The Malaysian secondary school curriculum consists of
specifications that are organised according to the various uses of
language, i.e. Interpersonal, Informational and Aesthetic; however,
the CEFR descriptors are divided largely according to skills, strategies
and competence, i.e. Aural Reception (Listening); Oral Production
(Speaking), with its interactive section (Spoken Interaction);
Visual Reception (Reading); Written Production (Writing), with
its activities and strategies (Writing Interaction); Audio-Visual;
Reception Strategies; Linguistic Competences; Productive/
Interactive Strategies; Writing in Response to Texts (spoken or
written) and Sociolinguistic Competence/Appropriateness.
Hence, while the specifications in the Malaysian secondary

school curriculum are organised around broad areas of language
competence, the CEFR is more specific in terms of learner
competencies, focusing on actual abilities and are stated as can
do statements which complement its more detailed description
of language competence.
ii. Emphasis on Process as opposed to Outcome.
In contrast to the Malaysian secondary school curriculum, the
CEFR does not spell out how proficiency is to be acquired. Instead,
it emphasises the outcomes that should be achieved at the end of a
programme which are stated in terms of can do statements.
For example, in the KBSM lower secondary school curriculum
for Forms 1 and 2, steps in writing a simple report and the
processes in writing such a report are given - writing an outline,
revising, proofreading, etc. The corresponding CEFR descriptors,
on the other hand, simply state: Can write very brief reports to
a standard conventionalised format, which pass on routine factual
information and state reasons for actions (B1.4.3). and Can
describe how to do something, giving detailed instructions (B1.2.h).
Similarly, in pronunciation, while the curriculum specifications
of both lower and upper secondary schools include learning
basic phonetics for correct pronunciation, CEFR simply states:
Pronunciation is clearly intelligible even if a foreign accent is
sometimes evident and occasional mispronunciations occur (B1.7.5).
195

The emphasis on outcomes as given by the CEFR allows teachers

to focus on the goals to be attained and the skills that students need
to master rather than on only conducting activities specified by the
curriculum that may or may not lead to desired outcomes.
iii. KBSM curriculum-specific content.
The KBSM curriculum specifications include content that
is not present in the CEFR descriptors. An examination of the
Malaysian KBSM secondary school curriculum and the CEFR
descriptors reveal that there are some curriculum specifications
that are not found in the CEFR B1 descriptors. For example, the
KBSM curriculum contains the following items: interpreting and
presenting information in non-linear texts; answering a variety
of questions on texts listened to; and identifying different points
of view in a text; making inferences from texts that are read.
In contrast, the CEFR only mentions the use of inference in
identifying unfamiliar words from the context (B1.6.1).
There are also academic and thinking skills that relate to
language ability that go beyond simple proficiency emphasised
by the KBSM that are not given as much emphasis by the CEFR
descriptors. Clearly, the KBSM is a national curriculum and it is
understandable that it must address some general needs within
the context of the nation. The national education philosophy also
provides a general guideline that cuts across all subjects in the
Malaysian school curriculum.
196
Similarly, the CEFR contains content not present in the KBSM.

It is important to especially pay attention to the CEFR descriptors
that are not in the curriculum specifications. Many of these are
in the areas of Speaking and Spoken Interaction, areas that school
teachers say are often neglected in class because they are not
heavily evaluated in the examinations.
Hence performance through discussions and interviews as
well as the use of Productive/Interactive Strategies are not given
due attention. These are the skills and abilities that are important
in performing well in interviews for scholarships or jobs and enable
students to function confidently in the wider world.
6.2.1.2. Emphasis on a Standardised Curriculum
One of the major drawbacks of the Malaysian, standardised
curriculum is its regimented and stepwise progression from one
level to another as well as its inherent limitation in effectively
dealing with students who may require specialised attention,
whether in the form of remediation or enrichment.
The KBSM curriculum does make references to remediation and
enrichment in the form of different levels of learning outcomes but
it is unclear how teachers should implement the activities as either
remediation or enrichment activities. The following example from the
Form 4 Curriculum Specifications demonstrates this lack of clarity in
these different activities.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
2.2 Process information by:
a. skimming and scanning for specific
information and ideas;
b. extracting main ideas and details;
c. discerning sequence of ideas;
d. getting the explicit and implicit meaning
of the text;
SPECIFICATIONS
A. Processing texts listened to
by:
EXAMPLES / ACTIVITIES / NOTES

Level 1
To hone students listening skills, teachers

can set pre-listening, while listening and
post-listening tasks.
- Pre-listening tasks include
guessing the answers to several
questions.
i. Stating what the text is

about.
ii. Noting important details
(e.g. place, time, date).
- While-listening tasks include

completing the information,
detecting errors, sequencing.
e. predicting outcomes;
iii. Asking and answering

questions.
f. drawing conclusions;
Level 2
g. identifying different points of view;
iv. Identifying main ideas and

jotting down key words and
phrases.
To guide weaker students by giving them

an outline in which they underline key
words and main ideas.
Level 3
To teach higher-order skills, texts must

be chosen at a level that is manageable.
Teachers must strike a balance between
the need for students to be stretched
and the need that the task given is
manageable. Use simple texts to teach
higher-order listening skills.
h. using print and electronic dictionaries;

i. interpreting non-linear texts such as
maps, charts, diagrams, tables, graphs;
and
j. making short notes and mapping out ideas
Figure 6.1
v. Taking notes of the text

heard
- Post-listening tasks include

checking True/False statements,
sequencing, filling in details.
Differing Levels of proficiency in the Form 4 Curriculum SpecificationS
The standardised nature of the curriculum makes it difficult

to cater to the needs of students with varying abilities. Measures
must therefore be taken to meet this challenge.
i. Encouraging student independent learning.

The CEFR supports an individualised learning approach as
the performancebased descriptors provide learners with the
opportunity to reflect on their progression in language learning.
The CEFR promotes a more student-centred approach with
students taking more responsibility for their own learning.
197

This is done by making the proficiency descriptors in the

CEFR available to students and thereby allowing them to reflect
on these descriptors and assess their own abilities based on these
descriptors. Related CEFR initiatives like the Language Portfolio,
which has the development of the capacity for independent
language learning as a major goal (Schneider & Lenz, 2001, p. 3),
have also been developed to strengthen student ability to assess
themselves.
The Language Portfolio and the CEFR are referred to by
Trim (2007) as not separate projects, but aspects of a coherent,
integrated programme (p. 43). Elements of such self-assessment
and independent learning should therefore be built into the KSSM
curriculum in order to address individualised needs in learning the
language.
In relation to the issue of individualised needs, the introduction
of the KSSM and the call to align the curriculum to the CEFR
is also an opportune time to address the question of how a new
performance-based curriculum can accommodate pupils with
special needs. A CEFR-informed curriculum can be carefully
structured to give due consideration to the language performance
that is attainable by special needs pupils.
198
ii. Using English Language Electives/Subjects to meet

individualised needs
A second strategy that can be used to address the challenge
of meeting individualised needs through a standardised curriculum
is by effective use of English language electives. In the KBSM,
two subjects English Literature and English for Science and
Technology are currently offered in the English language as
electives at the upper secondary level.
Both these subjects are related to CEFR benchmarks and
descriptors to varying degrees. As upper levels of the CEFR (B2,
C1 and C2) are more academically oriented, English for Science
and Technology can be fairly well suited for students to meet some
of the descriptors at those levels.
At the same time, while the curriculum specifications of the
English Literature course may not be directly related to CEFR
descriptors, it does allow for greater exposure to the language,
and may even help enhance and refine language ability attained
through general English.
English Literature requires a good command of the English
language and is therefore taken by students who are proficient in the
language and have a keen interest in literature. It should however be
noted that compulsory general English includes a literature component
with the aim of allowing students to
engage in wider reading of

good works for enjoyment and
for self-development. They will
also develop an understanding
of other societies, cultures,
values and traditions that will
contribute to their emotional
and spiritual growth.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
871
764
703
564
535
Distinctions (%)
37.0
37.0
42.1
40.1
44.7
Pass & Credit (%)
60.6
55.8
52.5
54.4
50.8
2.4
7.2
5.4
5.5
4.5
41,547
12,738
5,707
3,090
2,097
14
25.3
27.3
22.6
26.9
84.7
74.0
72.2
75.7
71.4
1.3
0.7
0.5
1.7
1.7
English Literature
No. of candidates
(Introduction to Sukatan Pelajaran

KBSM, 2000)
On the other hand, English for

Science and Technology (EST) was
introduced in 2001 and is described in
the KBSM Curriculum as designed
to help students develop an ability
to grasp basic concepts and ideas in
science and to understand methods
of scientific thought and enquiry
in English common to all kinds of
scientific and technical discourse (pp.
1-2). This is therefore a subject taken
by students who are in the Science
stream at the upper secondary level.
Failures (%)
English for Science and
Technology
No. of candidates
Distinctions (%)
Pass & Credit (%)
Failures (%)
PERFORMANCE OF CANDIDATES IN
ENGLISH LITERATURE AND ENGLISH FOR
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2009-2013)
Table 6.1
199

In recent years, the number of students who have opted to

take these subjects has decreased. The number of candidates in
the SPM and their performance rates for both subjects since 2005
are reported in Table 6.1. The declining number of candidates
in both these elective subjects calls to question the role these
subjects play, especially in relation to the compulsory general
English Language subject.
However, both subjects allow for greater exposure to the
language and may even help enhance and refine performance in the
language. The issue then is how these subjects are to be positioned
in relation to compulsory English. A possible solution would be to
set higher CEFR levels for both these subjects than for compulsory
English (CEFR level B1). In this respect, the suggested target band
level for students taking either elective is B2.
While the needs of higher proficiency students may be met
through these two subjects, it is also important to address the
needs of the less proficient students as well. This may be done
by offering new English language elective subjects catered to the
level of less proficient students. Some subjects that are currently
being offered, such as Art or Physical Education, can be taught in
English in order to provide students with more exposure to English
and greater opportunities to use it.
200
6.2.2. Teaching and Learning

Teaching English in Malaysian secondary schools can be a
challenge if one is faced with students who have yet to gain a
functional grasp of the language. The main reason for this is that
the curriculum provides for a teaching approach that is grounded in
the assumption that students have a satisfactory foundation in the
language after learning English for six years in the primary school.
However, in reality, secondary school English language
teachers find themselves facing students who do not possess the
proficiency level necessary to handle the content of the secondary
school curriculum. Many students have not yet mastered basic
grammatical structures even after having gone through ten years
of learning English (Saadiyah Darus & Kaladevi, 2009).
Several studies have also shown that many teachers have
resorted to using Bahasa Malaysia when teaching writing to limited
proficiency students as it helps them produce better quality essays
(see e.g. Siti Hanim Stapa & Abd Hameed Abd Majid, 2006;
Mohd. Sofi Ali, 2008).
Students are also reported to resort to their first language
when explaining an incomprehensible or difficult English passage
(Razianna Abd Rahman, 2005). At the other extreme, there are
also students in secondary schools who have the potential to move
beyond the skills and specifications prescribed in the curriculum.
In all instances, teachers need to draw upon the appropriate

teaching and learning approaches to ensure that students are able
to realise their potential in using the English language for social
interaction, personal expression and functional goals. Several
important issues on the teaching and learning of the English
language relate to classroom practices that have strayed from
the main intent of learning a language for communication in the
first place. Our students are unable to operate autonomously
(Koo, 2008), and instead play the role of empty vessels relying on
teachers to fill them with knowledge (see Naginder, 2006).
This automatically discourages and inhibits independent learning.
The strong tendency to depend on teachers for their own learning is
further worsened by the practice of evaluating students based on their
performance and ability to obtain good grades in the examination or
display good writing skills (ibid).
Current issues and common discourses with regards to the
teaching and learning of English language in Malaysian secondary
schools is indicative of a need to reassess the approaches used
to teach and learn the English language, and more importantly,
conceptualise English language learning as a social activity and not
just learnt through practice and schooling.
In order for a major language education initiative such as the
Roadmap to succeed at the secondary school level, the following
issues in teaching and learning need to be addressed.
6.2.2.1. Difficulty in teaching Students of Differing Language

Abilities, Backgrounds and Inclinations
Teaching a single national General English curriculum to a
large population made up of students with different abilities,
backgrounds and inclinations in a generally stepwise fashion may
lead to a significant number of students not attaining the goals
of the curriculum. Students in Malaysian secondary schools range
from the very proficient to those who do not possess the basic
foundation to develop the skills prescribed in the secondary school
curriculum.
In fact, the Cambridge Baseline (p. 13) draws attention to the
wide range of achievement at different stages of school education;
that although on average Form 3 is described as at A2, this accounts
for only about 28% of the students while about 41% are below
this level and about 31% above it. According to the Cambridge
Baseline, this means effective teaching to a group as disparate as
the Form 3 group could only happen with differentiated instruction
using differentiation strategies (p. 13) providing support for the
weaker students and suitable activities for the more advanced ones.
Although the KBSM curriculum provides clear directions, goals
and objectives, the diversity in the student population presents
teachers with a clear challenge. The Ministry of Education is
aware of the disparity in student proficiency levels and has taken
steps to equip teachers with the ability to teach classes with
201

diverse abilities. It has also included the introduction of the set

system for English language which assigns students into groups of
similar proficiency levels predetermined by a diagnostic test at the
beginning of the academic year in Form One.
In this instance, the teachers task is more focused towards
tailoring her pedagogical style to the level of skill and learning
requirements of her students (PPPM, pp. 4-1). The set system
which allows differentiated instruction for students of varying
levels of proficiency has been successfully implemented in more
than half of all secondary schools at Form One, and to a lesser
extent at Form Two.
While the structural change afforded by the set system can be a
catalyst for many other related remedial or enhancement activities,
such as the preparation of instructional manuals, writing of work/
textbooks, as well as selection of supplementary readers or reading
materials, several concerns related to the widespread adoption of
the set system must also be given due consideration. These could
be addressed at the school, state and even national level.
The question of enhancing secondary school teachers ability
to handle differentiated instruction within the set system would
also be clearer, more focused and organised. Care must be taken
to ensure that students do not feel segregated and made to feel
abandoned with the other less proficient students.
202
Regardless of which set they are assigned to, students must

also be allowed to interact with other students who are more
proficient through alternative methodologies such as collaborative
and cooperative learning as well as team based learning that
draw upon social-psychological learning theories of Bandura
and Vygotsky. These theories specify that language learning is
most effective when learning is socially constructed and there is
interaction with more proficient individuals.
6.2.2.2. Teaching to the Test

The practice of teaching to the test is prevalent in Malaysian
schools. The MEB (pp. 4-2 4-4) addresses this issue with specific
reference to both the KBSR and KBSM; that historically, the full
potential of both curricula has not been brought to life in the
classroom and examinations do not currently test the full range
of skills that the education system aspires to produce.
Also, skills and content that teachers perceive will go untested
in the National Exams are often dropped from the lesson plan in
favour of content that is more frequently tested. The Cambridge
Baseline Study in its executive summary (p. 15) also identifies a
similar problem in Malaysian schools.
A corollary to teaching to the test is the tendency for students
to become dependent on the teachers for their learning as
preparation for the examinations instead of independently seeking

opportunities to learn.
The prevailing strand in Malaysian schools is the discourse
of privileging examination (Koo, 2008, p. 56). Due to the high
importance placed on national examinations, teachers tend to
concentrate on teaching aspects of the language they believe
will appear in the examination and neglect the communicative
aspects of language learning. A consequence of this situation is
the emergence of a new class of students who can pass exams
and continue to the tertiary level without actually being able to
use the English language productively in a communicative event
(Ambigapathy, 2002).
No matter how idealistic educational policy-makers may be
on insisting that teachers should teach to the curriculum and
not teach to the test, teachers remain focused on examination
results when they teach due to a number of factors. Among
others, schools are assessed according to their performance in
public examinations. Apart from that, principals are also assessed
according to the performance of their schools in these public
examinations in the New Deals system or Baiah.
Valid examinations that reflect actual language use are vital in

order to promote positive washback in the classroom, including
the use of a more interactive language teaching approach.
6.2.2.3
Implementation of Teaching and Learning Initiatives
Various departments of the Ministry of Education have carried

out a number of teaching and learning initiatives with the goal of
raising student language performance. Some of the initiatives that
have been conducted in schools are the OPS-English programme,
the Set System and the introduction of the Teachers Resource Book
for the Literature Component.
These initiatives are important as they address concerns and
deficiencies and allow authorities to ascertain their effectiveness
before they can be introduced nationwide. The issue then pertains
to the execution of these initiatives that are sometimes carried out
without teachers being made fully aware of the rationale for their
introduction.
Given the direct impact of public examinations on teaching

and learning practices, the issue of inauthentic language use
in examination papers and the lack of focus on certain skills in
assessments such as listening and speaking need to be addressed.
203

The emphasis on
outcomes as given by the
CEFR allows teachers to
focus on the goals to be
attained and the skills
that students need to
master rather than on
only conducting activities
specified by the curriculum
level.
The manner in which some of these teaching initiatives are

implemented is also of concern. It is important that initiatives are
carried out systematically without overly burdening the teachers.
If teachers feel burdened and if they do not see the benefit of
an initiative, it will not be well received, regardless of how wellconceived the initiative is.
Teaching initiatives should be well managed and coordinated.
This is not only to avoid redundancy and having too many
initiatives being carried out in a school but also to ensure that an
initiative is systematically implemented and assessed before it is
widely adopted or becomes policy.
204
The management and coordination of teaching initiatives should

involve determining how a teaching initiative is conceptualised,
trialled, adopted and disseminated. Clear duration for each process
should be specified and a clearly stated decision be made regarding
the initiative.
6.2.2.4 Teacher-Student Classroom Interaction

The estimated number of hours to master a language at the
CEFR B1 level for secondary school students is possibly between
550 to 600 hours, based on a Pearson recommendation that adults
require between 350-400 hours to achieve the same level. The
number of hours available for formal English language classes during
No
Subject
SPM/STPM
Diploma
Bachelor
Masters
PHD
Total
Teachers trained in teaching

English and currently teaching
English*
419
51
11,975
1,496
22
13,963
Teachers trained in teaching

English and currently not teaching
English
16
169
35
222
Teachers trained in teaching other

subjects currently teaching English
(at Least 1 class)
191
47
4,059
508
10
4,815
ELT AND EL TEACHERS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

AND THEIR HIGHEST QUALIFICATION
Table 6.2
ELT AND EL TEACHERS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND
THEIR HIGHEST QUALIFICATION
Table 6.2
Note:

*The figure in row 1 = Masters & PhD include teachers with a first degree in teaching but with a post graduate degree in areas other than English as well.
The figure above is as of 30 April 2015
205

the entire secondary school level as described in the introduction

of this section is 580.
Therefore, it is imperative that English language teacherstudent contact time be strictly maintained. Consequently,
teacher participation in training, courses and meetings that take
them away from their classrooms should be minimised. Teachers
should also not be required to attend courses or implement new
initiatives without taking their workload into consideration as
teaching must remain the core and central duty of teachers. Hence
the Melindungi Masa Instructional (MMI) policy that is intended to
ensure that instructional time stipulated for the teaching of English
is met should be strictly adhered to.
Furthermore, optimal teacher student interaction can only be
achieved if the teacher has enough time for each student in the
classroom. It is reported in the MEB that the student teacher ratio
for secondary schools is now 13.1: 1, the average class size is 29.8
(pp. 2-3) and the average hours taught per day is between 2.7 and
2.9 depending on the number of students in the school (pp. 5-6).
These figures are encouraging as language classes require more
student-teacher interaction than other content related subjects.
It is critical that conditions conducive to such an interaction be
maintained and perhaps even improved on.
206
Another point of concern is the quality of teaching and learning

that takes place in the classroom. This requires teachers to have the
pedagogical content knowledge to effectively utilise the time given
for teaching and learning. This knowledge will ensure that effective
techniques will be employed in the language classroom.
However, teaching in Malaysian classrooms is highly
characterised by teacher-centred approaches and the chalkand-talk drill method (Ministry of Education, 2003). The most
popular teaching method is also reported to be drilling using pastyear examination questions, work sheets and exercise books
(Ambigapathy, 2002). In fact, language classrooms require greater
individual pupil talk time (West, 1968) as opposed to teacherfronted classrooms.
Similarly, task-based and performance oriented activities
should also be emphasised. The teaching and learning of English
should not neglect the socio-cultural elements of language learning,
nor be seen as learning a subject, focusing on the mechanics of the
language without making connections to how it is used in the real
communicative situation (Razianna Abdul Rahman, 2005).
6.2.2.5 Qualification of English Language Teachers
Teaching English in Malaysian secondary schools is an enormous
challenge for various reasons highlighted in previous sections. Teachers
must obviously be well-trained to meet the demands of a challenging
curriculum given the diverse background of the students. Although

the majority of English language teachers possess the right training
and qualifications, there are still a significant number of teachers
who do not (see Table 6.2).
There are valid concerns that English language teachers in
secondary school who have not been trained to teach the subject
are contributing to falling standards in the quality of English
language teaching and learning in the country. At the same time,
there is also a need to determine whether schools face a shortage
of trained English language teachers, especially in rural and remote
secondary schools. In addition to ensuring that only qualified
teachers teach English, there is also the concern that qualified
English language teachers have to teach other subjects in addition
to English. This is a problem because time that should be dedicated
to developing effective lesson plans and materials is spent working
on the needs of other subjects.
6.2.3 Assessment
Assessment is an important component in the education
process and it is carried out for a variety of reasons. Assessments
allow teachers to determine how much students have learnt, and
they also help teachers provide students with further guidance and
support. However, an education system that over-emphasises
summative assessments is an exam-oriented system that creates
an unhealthy teaching-learning environment.
A major characteristic of secondary school education in

the Malaysian education scenario is the national standardised
examinations which all students in the school system have to take.
Two such examinations are conducted the first, the PT3, is taken
by Form 3 (15-year old) students, while the second, the SPM, is a
school leaving examination that is taken by Form 5 (17-year old)
students.
The English language subject is offered in both these
examinations together with a host of other subjects which are
generally pre-determined by the school system. All students sit
for the same English language paper regardless of their language
proficiency.
When examinations are foremost in the minds of teachers,
students become highly-dependent on their teachers in order to
perform well in examinations. Such a situation does not support
learners taking charge of their own learning. A Report (ASLI-CPPS,
PROHAM, & KITA_UKM, 2012) commented that assessments
in Malaysia over-emphasised the importance of getting an A, i.e.
the Malaysian education system practices assessment for learning
rather than assessment of learning.
This means the education system focuses on year-end
assessment, or summative assessment that emphasises the
comparison of students achievements with those of others
(Stiggins, 2005).
207

As the Ministry of Education refines and revises its secondary

school English language curriculum to incorporate knowledge and
skills of the 21st century, it also ensures that the written, taught
and assessed components of the curriculum are fully integrated
and benchmarked to prevailing international standards of practice.
Apart from upgrading assessment frameworks to increase items
that test higher order thinking skills, a more inclusive approach to
assessing students learning of the English language is introduced in
the form of school-based assessment (henceforth SBA). The MEB
lays the plan for ending this exam-oriented culture in teaching and
learning in Malaysian schools by introducing formative assessments
alongside summative ones.
The new form of assessment will be conducted while the
teaching and learning process takes place rather than at the end
of it. The Ministry empowers secondary schools with standardsreferenced school-based formative assessments which emphasises
assessment for learning over assessment of learning. The following
is a discussion of gaps and issues concerning assessments at the
secondary school level.
6.2.3.1. Lack of Readiness for School-Based Assessment

The implementation of SBA in 2012 and the consequent
move away from a focus on summative examination is very much
208
in line with the goals and educational approach espoused by the

CEFR. However, SBA has not been favourably received by many
Malaysians.
Parents, in particular, continue to view the old system of
summative examinations as the only way to determine if learning
has taken place. Dissatisfaction over various aspects of the
implementation of SBA was expressed by teachers and parents
alike which led to a review of the manner in which SBA was
administered in early 2014.
School-based assessment is not a new concept and throughout
the history of its implementation, several concerns have been
raised. Black and William (1998), for example, caution that if not
well implemented, SBA can lead to (i) an over-reliance on testing
rather than teaching and learning during class time, as well as
(ii) an over-emphasis on the managerial aspects of this form of
assessment. The implementation of SBA in Malaysian schools,
therefore, requires a thorough and careful preparation of all
relevant parties, most notably the teachers themselves.
Although the Ministry of Education has assured teachers that
they would not be overwhelmed by the managerial aspect of SBA
by having to provide continual evidence and online reports, a more
critical concern must first be addressed. It has become apparent
that a major issue to be first resolved before SBA can be successful
was one of perception and beliefs about SBA. Many including
the teachers involved in the new assessment mode had minimal

knowledge of SBA practices and how they benefit the teaching
and learning process.
Implementing SBA requires teachers to follow steps that
include preparing, administering and grading of an assessment as
well as the recording and reporting of assessment results. It is not
surprising that teachers find SBA an added burden to their already
long list of responsibilities.
There are however several procedures or steps that many
teachers are just not competent in (Mertle, 2005), for example
preparing a test and developing valid grading procedures. Cizek
and Fitzgerald (1996) discovered that teachers had the tendency
to ignore the importance of test preparation by doing what they
think is right rather than what is actually right.
This is echoed by what was found to be prevalent among
Malaysian lower secondary teachers, where a majority of the teachers
tend to practise what they think is right as they had no proper guideline
to rely on as reference (Looi-Chin & Rathinasamy, 2013). Malone
(2013), on the other hand, highlighted the need to increase teachers
assessment literacy in order to monitor students progress.
For SBA to succeed in a language learning environment with
a long tradition of summative assessment, teachers need to be
assessment literate. It is apparent that teachers still lack theoretical
understanding of what constitutes good assessment practices.
Their professional development is thus crucial in ensuring

that teachers are well-equipped with related knowledge that
would assist them in conducting assessment. In addition, a more
comprehensive guideline covering assessments for both progressand achievement- based purposes is urgently needed.
Looi-Chin and Rathinasamy (2013) indicated in their research
that the Ministry of Education could devise an assessment
framework in line with the curriculum framework that aims at
promoting teaching and student learning, beyond the confines of
just pointing out what are covered in the public examinations.
Most Malaysians are familiar with a heavily exam-oriented
school system as national standardised examinations have been
the norm for many decades. Consequently, the switch to SBA has
been received with much resistance and scepticism. There has
been a lot of pressure from parents and even school administrators
not to lose sight of summative examinations such as the SPM and
the recently introduced PT3.
As a result, many schools have opted to maintain the term
and year-end examinations, in addition to carrying out SBA. This
means English teachers are still expected to help students master
the techniques of performing well in examinations in addition to
preparing, administering and grading SBA as well as recording and
reporting assessment results.
209

Formative assessments carried

out through SBA and guided by
CEFR can do statements are
sufficient in assessing the teaching
and learning of the English
Language. It may be argued that
school-based assessment appears
to be more time-consuming
and subjective than traditional
summative examinations, as it is
conducted throughout the school
year and requires close observation
of the students by the teachers.
Nevertheless, the benefits in
terms of the more valid reporting
of a students actual ability in the
language and the motivation it
provides in learning far outweigh
these difficulties. The challenges
in implementing SBA are large
but must be overcome if language
education is to progress from the
assessment of mere language
knowledge to the assessment of
actual language ability.
CURRICULUM
TEACHING & LEARNING
Differences in
emphasis between
the national
curriculum and
the CEFR
Students
of differing
language abilities,
backgrounds and
inclinations
Meeting
individualised
student needs
through a
standardised
curriculum
Teaching to
the test
Teacher student
classroom
interaction
Lack of readiness
for school-based
assessment
Lack of emphasis
on specific
language skills
Lack of readiness
for performancebased assessment
Lack of
readiness for self
directedness
Qualification of
English language
teachers
Figure 6.2
210
Coordinating of
teaching learning
initiatives
ASSESSMENT
Issues and Challenges in Curriculum,

Teaching & Learning, and Assessment.
6.2.3.2. Lack of Emphasis on Specific Language Skills
6.2.3.3. Lack of Readiness for Performance-based Assessment
Classroom practices in many secondary classrooms are mainly

characterised by students answering reading comprehension
questions and writing essays, with very little time given to listening
and speaking exercises (Naginder, 2006). It is therefore not
surprising that according to the Cambridge Baseline (pp. 18-29),
speaking is the weakest of the four skills and that spoken English is
an area of difficulty not only for students but also teachers.
Performance based learning (PBL) and assessment (PBA)

represent a set of strategies for the acquisition and application
of knowledge, skills and work habits through the performance of
tasks that are meaningful and engaging to the students. PBA is
well reflected in the CEFR, with can do statements describing
language performance.
Malaysian examinations at the secondary school level assess

the four language skills to varying degrees and do not provide equal
emphasis on the four skills. They largely assess the skills of reading
and writing, and for this reason, teachers tend to prioritise these
skills over listening and speaking in the classroom.
The CEFR, however, is based on performance in a language
and therefore places emphasis on all four skills. The call to align
the Malaysian English Language curriculum to the CEFR poses a
challenge to the way proficiency in English is assessed in secondary
schools. Based on the CEFR descriptors, the performance of
students in all the four language skills should be assessed.
This will undoubtedly require that Speaking and Listening be
given greater emphasis in school-based and national assessment.
Increased emphasis on both these skills is expected to lead to
increased time given to the development of speaking and listening
skills in the classroom.
As far back as the mid-90s, Stiggins (1995) described

performance-based assessment as an essential ingredient in a
school assessment program (p. 239). He, however, cautioned
that this form of assessment requires exercise and judgment by
teachers who are well-trained and reliable. A further challenge
would be to have PBA accepted by stakeholders.
The concept of performance based assessment is not new in
the Malaysian secondary school context. The learning outcomes
and specifications described in the Malaysian Secondary School
Curriculum are expressed in ways similar to the can do statements
of the CEFR. These learning outcomes and specifications are then
interpreted and rewritten by teachers as behavioural objectives in
their daily lesson plans.
However, there appears to be little effort in assessing whether
these behavioural objectives truly translate into actual language
performance in classrooms. Numerous references on current
211

teaching methodology that is more performance-based which

describe teaching through the use of tasks can be explored to
improve the quality of classroom teaching as well as assessment (see
e.g. Ellis, 2008, Fotos & Nasajji, 2007; Lewis, 1998; Nation, 2008).
6.2.3.4. Lack of Readiness for Self-Directedness

Learner autonomy and self-directedness feature prominently in
the CEFR. The various levels that constitute the CEFR framework
allow individual learners to assess and monitor their own language
learning abilities. Although these learner characteristics are also
espoused by the Malaysian Education System in the secondary
school curriculum, the MEB notes that the element of selfdirectedness is still lacking in the average Malaysian secondary
school student.
The teacher as facilitator mantra is often put aside in favour
of more teacher-centred lessons in order to prepare students for
examinations. The situation is sometimes exacerbated by the need
to focus on performance in examinations, and this does not lend
itself to promoting ownership of learning among secondary school
students.
The CEFR was developed simultaneously with the European
Language Portfolio (henceforth ELP) which shares the use
of language proficiency reference levels as a core element;
212
consequently, both frameworks inform each other (Lenz &

Schneider, 2002). The ELP is generally a self-assessment tool
which according to Lenz (2004), aims to promote learner
autonomy, and supports developing learning skills by providing
suitable guidance and instruments for the learners themselves
(p. 23). The challenge faced by Malaysian secondary schools is
to infuse self-assessment and other forms of related assessment
such as peer-assessment and portfolio assessment in the language
classroom.
In terms of language assessment in Malaysian schools, greater
feedback to the students from public examinations must be
provided in terms of score reports in order to encourage selfdirectedness amongst the students. Students should therefore
be made aware of their performance in specific skills and abilities
as well as comparative information in relation to criteria and
performance of their peers rather than provided with only a single
letter grade.
6.3.
The Way Forward
The implementation of the Roadmap incorporating the CEFR

at secondary school level requires a comprehensive approach.
The way forward must be guided by the three major thrusts
represented as Waves 1, 2 and 3 in the MEB. The approach
proposed in this section centres on the incorporation of the CEFR

and takes into cognizance, structural preparation, implementation
and monitoring of change, and also, assessment of the impact
of the change. The Roadmap has been planned in three phases
which are linked to the MEB waves as illustrated in the secondary
education portion of Section C of this document.
6.3.1. Phase 1: Preparing for Structural Change (2015-2016)
The Malaysian education system at secondary school level
involves a large and sometimes unwieldy network that consists
of many sections, divisions and departments. The call for change
in the approach taken for English language education in Malaysia
must ensure careful planning and preparation by all relevant bodies.
The MEB emphasises the importance of attaining internationally
recognised proficiency levels by benchmarking them to the CEFR.
As a public document, the MEB has laid the groundwork for
national awareness and dialogue regarding English proficiency
levels. In the first wave, it is the various entities within the Ministry
of Education that need to provide the platform for engagement,
discussion and dissemination of information with specific regard
to the anchoring of the English language curriculum to the CEFR.
Awareness and a general understanding among the general
public and all relevant stakeholders, especially secondary school
teachers, regarding the aspirations and targets of a CEFR-aligned
Roadmap are critical to its successful implementation.
With this in mind, the first wave needs to be a phase during

which initial structural changes in the areas of curriculum, teaching
and learning and assessment are put into place so that significant
improvements are realised in the following phase.
6.3.1.1. Curriculum
The Malaysian secondary school curriculum is the cornerstone
of any effort to align the educational system to the CEFR bands and
descriptors. The necessary groundwork related to the curriculum
must therefore be laid in order for a CEFR-aligned curriculum to
take shape as well as provide direction to the entire Roadmap effort.
i. Setting Appropriate CEFR-Based Targets

Language proficiency according to the CEFR is based on six
achievement bands that move from the lower A1 band right up to
the highest C2 band. Each band consists of a set of descriptors that
specify outcomes in the four language skills for language learners.
There is a need for the Malaysian secondary school English
language curriculum to be closely aligned to the CEFR bands and
integrate the relevant band descriptors into the curriculum.
213

Form 1
Form 2
Form 3
Form 4
Form 5
Phase 1
-------------- preparation for structural change --------------
Phase 2
A2 ----------------------------------------------> B1-80%*
Phase 3
B1 ----------------------------------------------> B1-100%
Note: 80% is an estimate and indicates the percentage that should have attained B1 at the end of the Phase.
FIGURE 6.3
PROPOSED MINIMUM TARGETS FOR CEFR LEVELS AT

SECONDARY SCHOOLs
The curriculum should specify the minimum band that students

need to achieve at the end of the lower secondary and upper
secondary levels. At the same time, the curriculum should also
maintain a reasonable degree of flexibility that can allow students
to move beyond the desired bands.
The proposed minimum targets for the attainment of CEFR
levels at lower and upper secondary school in Phases 1 to 3 of the
Roadmap are presented in Figure 6.3.
214
As can be seen in Figure 6.3, Phase 1 from 2015 to 2016 is

dedicated to preparation for structural change. During this stage,
CEFR A2 and B1 are set for lower and upper secondary school
students respectively based on the analysis of available documents
and findings such as the Cambridge Baseline study and SPM English
results. This target is then communicated to other relevant agencies
within the Ministry of Education so related action can be taken.
In the second phase, from 2017 to 2020, the target CEFR level
of A2 is to be achieved at the end of the first year of the secondary
school. This target is set based on the assumption that a large
portion of the A2 level has already been reached at the primary
school level. English language education at secondary level should
then ensure that eighty percent of the students have attained a B1
level at the end of Form 5.
Finally, in the third phase, the focus of ELE at all levels of
secondary education is on the B1 level, ensuring all students
a minimum B1 at the end of Form 5.
It should be noted that
by 2025, the Ministry of Education aspires to have 70% of the
students attain a credit level in the English Language at the end of
their secondary education. Based on current student achievement
levels it should be possible to achieve this goal by then.
The minimum target level set for students to achieve during
their secondary school education is B1, which takes a learner over
the threshold from the category basic user to independent user.
Level B1 is an appropriate level for all secondary school leavers as it
corresponds to a population of school leavers who are functional in
English should they choose to either pursue pre-university studies
or enter the job market. Some students will of course go on to B2
or to higher levels required for performance in academic and work
contexts (personal communication, David Little, 2012).
The attainment targets for the second and third phases also
take into consideration the performance of secondary school
students based on the CELA study on benchmarking Malaysian
secondary school students to the CEFR. In their 2013 study, 69%
of Form 3 students were found to be at A2 or below. Similarly,
55% of Form 5 students were found to be at A2 or below. The
average level for both Form 3 and Form 5 was A2. It is therefore
considered appropriate for A2 to be identified as the target for
early lower secondary students during the second phase. This
target will subsequently affect the attainment target for the upper
secondary level as it was felt that only a portion (80%) of the B1
level can be attained at the end of the secondary school.
As stated earlier in this chapter, an estimated 550 to 600 hours
are required to get to B1, which translates to five years of teacherstudent contact in the secondary school English classroom. In
the third phase, however, the A2 attainment target is set for the
end of the primary school and, therefore, the required amount of
teacher-student contact hours can be provided at the secondary
school for the students to progress from A2 to B1.
An advantage of A2 straddling the primary and secondary school
years at Phase 2 is that there can be a better transition for students
moving from the primary to the secondary school system. Teachers
from both levels of education will be expected to cooperate in order
to ensure the progression of their students in English.
215

It should be stressed that

the CEFR was initiated
as a self-assessment
document and, because of
this, is more likely to be
effective when students
are themselves selfdirected and willing to
perform self-assessments.
Among the key findings of a study by Evangelou et al. (2008)

was that bridging materials from the primary used in the
secondary school was a useful practice that could help in successful
transitions.
It must be stressed here that these targets should be flexible
enough to incorporate the English Language needs of special
learner groups such as talented and gifted students as well as
special needs pupils. Careful thought must be given to the way
targets are set for these groups of students and this should be
benchmarked against international standards.
A B2 target, for example, can be set for more proficient
students who can be encouraged to take elective English
subjects such as Literature in English and English for Science and
216
Technology to achieve these targets. Similarly, slightly different

targets can be set for special needs students. This may require
having to determine the extent to which the language curriculum
for these specific groups of students can be aligned to the CEFR
and whether alternative frameworks that specifically cater to the
needs of these students can be referred to as well.
ii. Incorporating flexibility in curriculum goals

The present KBSM curriculum for secondary schools is due to
make way for the KSSM. This presents an ideal opportunity for
curriculum planners to not only align the new curriculum to the
CEFR descriptors, but also to address specific issues that have been
raised earlier in this chapter including the need to accommodate

students of diverse proficiency levels and with different language
learning goals. Changes to the curriculum in the first phase should
consider the needs of Malaysian students with varying levels of
proficiency.
Many initiatives carried out at schools are intended to address
specific concerns. For example, the set system is an initiative that
groups students according to language proficiency and is intended
to allow teachers to deal with a more homogenous group of
students in terms of language proficiency.
However, the set system prevents weaker students from
interacting with more proficient ones a key requirement
in language progression according to approaches such as the
Vygotskian Zone of Proximal Development and Interaction based
theories of language learning. The set system appears to be in
place to address problems that should be resolved through the
curriculum itself.
Therefore, the introduction of the KSSM that is being
developed in Phase 1 needs to properly address concerns that have
been identified through the implementation of recent initiatives
such as student diversity and lack of opportunity to speak in the
English language.
In order for the secondary school curriculum to address these
concerns, the resources available to curriculum planners should be
fully utilised. At the upper secondary school level, three subjects

are offered in English. English is offered as a compulsory subject
for students from Forms 1 to 5. In addition to general English,
English for Science and Technology (EST) and Literature in English
are currently offered as subjects in upper secondary and assessed
separately in the SPM examination.
Both these subjects are offered as electives in the Malaysian
secondary school curriculum. The goals and objectives of the
three subjects differ in their emphasis on various aspects of
the language. In the English language subject, for example, the
focus is on communicative ability while in the EST and English
Literature subjects, academic and literary genres of the language
are emphasised respectively. The different focus of these subjects
suggests that they need to be aligned separately to the CEFR. As
secondary school students may consist of those who have already
progressed beyond B1, the curriculum must therefore make
provisions for these more proficient students.
It is possible that English, such as the EST and Literature in
English, be redesigned to cater for the specific needs of students
who demonstrate a level of proficiency beyond B1. B2 can be set
as the target for students who take these subjects at the upper
secondary level.
New elective subjects such as Critical Thinking and Academic
English may also be introduced and taught in English for more
217

proficient students, and provide them with a head start for further
studies. Similarly, remedial subjects can be offered to secondary
school students who have not attained A2 when they enter
secondary education. A Gap Year can be implemented for this
remedial programme.
6.3.1.2. Teaching and Learning
The first phase should see long term plans in place to support
the professional development of English teachers. In addition to
being able to apply novel teaching and learning techniques, teachers
must also be assessment-literate in order to ensure that the CEFR
is appropriately applied in the English language classrooms.
Central to the success of plans proposed in this Roadmap is

the role of teachers in the language classroom. The CEFR requires
a different approach to the teaching and learning of English in
secondary schools. Proficiency in English is determined based on
performance, as reflected by the can do statements.
The teachers should become assessment-literate in order to

ensure that their students are able to effectively perform language
related tasks as specified by the CEFR descriptors for each level.
Assessment literacy is especially important in the school-based
assessment contexts as student performance is assessed directly
by teachers in their classrooms.
The first phase should involve putting in place building blocks so

that teachers, students and even parents are receptive to this new
approach to developing English language proficiency. The ELTC
should be given a central role in training teachers and ensuring that
they are able to meet the demands of CEFR-informed teaching.
Additionally, teachers should be encouraged to reflect on their

teaching in order to improve quality and effectiveness as well as
build a culture of continuous self-improvement. Towards this end,
a network of support needs to be in place.
i. Preparing Teachers and Students

Initial initiatives in the first wave of the MEB such as the Pro-ELT
programme for teachers and OPS-English programme for secondary
school students already signals the shift in emphasis to performance
218
in English. Central to effective teaching and learning is the need for

competent and professional English teachers.
Since language learning is a highly personal matter, the students

motivation is a key driving force for language acquisition. The first
phase should see the development of a plan that promotes greater
student self-directedness and autonomy. For this, there needs to
be greater transparency that avails to students, access to details of
their assessment scores.
Also, there is a need for appropriate questioning techniques in

the classroom which encourage self-reflection and student input.
Furthermore, students should be educated about the proficiency
levels and CEFR can do statements so that they understand
the goals of their language lessons. It should be stressed that the
CEFR was initiated as a self-assessment document and, because
of this, is more likely to be effective when students are themselves
self-directed and willing to perform self-assessments.
The Language Portfolio utilised in many European nations in
line with the CEFR is intended to encourage self assessment and
more independent and autonomous learners. Several descriptions
of this initiative are available and can be used as a model for the
development of a localised version for secondary school students.
Students can be introduced to and encouraged to use this
self-assessment tool as a means to develop individualised learning
capabilities. Teachers can also encourage student self-directed and
independent learning by sharing the goals of their lessons with the
students.
ii. Providing a language-rich environment

Some schools lack the opportunity to use English in real and
meaningful contexts. In many rural areas, for example, students
may only get exposure to English during English lessons without
much opportunity at all to use it. Effective language learning

requires interactive situations where learners use the language to
communicate meanings and ideas.
Language immersion programmes can provide valuable contexts
where students can use the language in such a way. Programmes that
involve the community can also be designed to provide languagerich contexts where language can be used meaningfully. It is also
important to use authentic materials, including on-line materials,
which enable independent learning beyond the classroom. These
materials can complement the use of CEFR-aligned English
language textbooks. The integrated use of these materials can
make a strong positive impact on language learning.
6.3.1.3 Assessment
Assessment is an important component in the educational process
that verifies the abilities of students and the effectiveness of the
teaching and learning process. Traditionally, summative assessments
have featured prominently in the Malaysian Education system.
However, the first wave of the MEB has seen formative assessments
being featured prominently in secondary schools through the Schoolbased Assessment system. In addition to this emphasis on formative
assessments, the first phase also has to be a time for the following
plans to be put in place.
219

i. Aligning Secondary School Assessment to the CEFR

In the secondary school years, English language proficiency is
assessed through the School-Based Assessment (SBA), the PT3
and the SPM examinations. In a CEFR-inspired roadmap, all
these three forms of assessment should be aligned to the CEFR
in order to ensure that students are able to show evidence of this
proficiency in the English language.
In this first phase, there is a need to examine each of the abovementioned assessments and determine how effectively they assess
the desired outcomes prescribed by the CEFR. There is also a need to
justify the need for an English Language paper in the PT3 summative
assessment in addition to formative assessments that are already in
place at Forms 1, 2 and 3. When both school-based assessment and
summative standardised examinations are used at the same time, the
weightage provided to each must be clearly indicated.
Similarly, the tasks that are used for each type of assessment must
be determined and should reflect the tasks that are described in the
CEFR. School-based assessment, for example, can focus on tasks such
as discussion skills and interviews which may not be as easily assessed
through standardised and summative national level examinations.
Similarly, the format of the English language PT3 examination needs
to be aligned to the CEFR, especially in terms of the test tasks used in
order to ensure that the grade awarded to students represents their
mastery of all skills, namely listening, speaking, reading and writing.
220
Test tasks for the upper secondary school should also reflect
the types of performance associated with B1 of the CEFR.
Although formative school-based assessment is still applicable,
especially in encouraging learning, summative examination at the
end of secondary school is more relevant in order to determine
whether targets have been achieved. It is therefore critical for this
examination, in particular, to be able to accurately assess student
language proficiency.
ii. Establishing continuous validation processes

Realigning the various assessments to the CEFR requires
the collective effort of various entities within the Ministry of
Education. Of particular importance is the role of the Curriculum
Development Centre and the Examination Syndicate. Both have
to collaborate to ensure that the assessments in general, and all
test items in particular, accurately measure the learning that has
taken place and the ability of the students to perform as prescribed
by the CEFR.
A loose collaboration between the major agencies involved in
the assessment process would render the assessment inaccurate
and misleading. Curriculum goals should be comprehensively
assessed in order to establish content validity of the assessment.
A continuous validation process should also be established

during the first phase of the Roadmap in order to maintain the
quality of assessments conducted at the secondary school level.
To this end, it is highly recommended that an independent
assessment validation body be set up consisting of academics and
civil servants.
iii. Upskilling English Language teachers in relation to

school-based assessment
Formative assessment which is largely school-based is an
integral part of the overall assessment of student learning. As
teachers will play a central role in school-based assessment, inservice training programmes must be conducted in order to raise
teacher awareness and develop skills regarding assessment.
Teachers must be trained to administer and accurately assess
students and how information obtained through assessment
should be used to determine students level of performance as
well as to inform decision making. All teachers must attain a level
of assessment literacy that can allow them to accurately assess
their students as well as for stakeholders to be confident with their
assessment in school-based assessment.
iv. Assessment to encourage independent and autonomous

learning
Teachers must also be skilled in the concept of assessment
for learning and how assessment can be used to encourage
independent and autonomous learning among students. Practices
such as greater and more detailed disclosure of test performance
allow students to assess their own abilities and hence encourage
independent and self-directed learning.
At the same time that teachers develop their assessment
literacy, formal standardised assessment must build in features that
encourage greater student self-directedness. Some of these features
include a more detailed score reporting on test tasks as well as making
normative performance measures available to all test candidates.
6.3.2. Phase 2: Implementing and Monitoring Structural

Change (2017-2021)
At the onset of this phase, an English language curriculum that
is aligned to the CEFR should be fully implemented in Malaysian
secondary schools. This curriculum would inform the teaching
and learning practices, as well as assessment practices. Once
fully implemented, it is important that the structural changes are
closely monitored.
221

6.3.2.1. Curriculum
During this second phase, there will be a need to assess how
teachers are coping with the new curriculum. By doing so, the
necessary support can be extended to teachers to ensure that the
aims of the curriculum are achieved. This support is also applicable
for English language teachers teaching English for Science and
Technology (EST) and Literature in English. Any decisions to
make significant changes to the CEFR-informed curriculum should
only be made at the end of this phase and must be justified by data.
Therefore, there is a need in this phase for a research-driven
monitoring process carried out by independent bodies such as
universities and appropriate research agencies. There is the
likelihood that changes may need to be made to the curriculum
before the end of the second phase. In such a case, justification
must be provided for any amendments.
In this phase, there will be a need to pay attention to the
development of remedial and enhancement programmes. These
programmes should be in place to support the needs of students of
varying ability levels, including those with special needs.
The ability of students to demonstrate performance of cando statements at the B1 level would reflect the effectiveness of
such programmes. However, again, there will be a need to carry
out independent studies to ascertain how these remedial and
222
enhancement programmes are supporting iindividualised needs.

Data from these studies should then help improve delivery of these
programmes.
6.3.2.2.
Teaching and Learning
The successful implementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum

is dependent on the teaching and learning process. Therefore,
English language classrooms practices must be closely monitored
during phase 2. Classroom observations should be carried out
with the aim of documenting best practices and where necessary,
helping teachers overcome the various challenges they face.
Towards this aim, experienced English language teachers,
teacher trainers and academics, who are well-versed with the
challenges of teaching English to students in Malaysia, should be
included in all initiatives that are designed to improve the teaching
and learning process. The effectiveness of support networks
for English teachers to assist them in the transition to the new
curriculum must also be assessed at this phase.
In addition to the impact on teachers, attention should also
be given to whether the new CEFR-aligned curriculum has had
positive effects on the students in terms of teaching and learning.
During phase 2, there should be greater evidence of students
demonstrating independent and autonomous learning. For example,
there should be greater student understanding of the importance

of and willingness to use the Language Portfolio which is meant
to encourage independent learning. Other indicators of student
independent learning include taking initiative to use the language,
greater participation in language related activities both in and
outside the classroom, as well as willingness to communicate in the
classroom without being cued.
6.3.2.3.
Assessment
In the area of assessment, the second phase should also see

the continuous validation of the alignment between secondary
school assessments and the CEFR. Evidence must be collected to
determine how well the secondary school assessments are aligned
to the CEFR. Such evidence is necessary in order to ensure that
the bands achieved by secondary school students are recognised
by international agencies. The onus for collecting this evidence
falls on the shoulders of the Ministry of Education and as such, an
appropriate entity must be responsible for this important task.
The Roadmap has included the suggestion made in the
Cambridge Baseline to develop new national examinations at key
stages (Executive Summary, p. 24). While the entire Cambridge
Baseline proposal may not be feasible, especially in terms of costs
in developing new examinations, the importance of continuous
assessment should be stressed and be reflected in the emphasis

given to SBA. The introduction of an English Language paper
in the PT3 appears to take emphasis away from the SBA and
refocuses attention on summative assessments.
The SBA should be anchored to the CEFR and teachers should
be able to determine the students CEFR band based on their
performance in SBA. There is therefore a need in Phase 2 to further
consolidate the SBA system to ensure that this formative system
becomes the primary source to ascertain the ability of students
in English at the lower secondary level. The SBA promotes an
assessment for learning approach which is appropriate at the lower
secondary level. However, an English Language paper in the SPM
examination at the end of the upper secondary education level
should be maintained as a final exit level summative examination.
The process of continuous validation of the alignment between
secondary school assessment and the CEFR must be consolidated
at phase 2 of the Roadmap. The independent validation body
created during the first phase of the Roadmap can coordinate and
monitor the validation process.
Among others, this body should commission studies that
examine the validity of formative and summative assessments
in Malaysian secondary schools. The Cambridge Baseline study
provided a useful starting point in examining the performance of
Malaysian students in English in relation to the CEFR levels.
223

It is important that this study is followed up by a similar

study at the end of Phase 2 to determine to what extent the new
curriculum and accompanying structural changes have supported
improvements in student performance in CEFR-informed
assessments.
6.3.3 Phase 3: Scaling Up Structural Change (2022-2025)

The final stage of implementing structural change involves
assessing the impact of the structural change itself and consolidating
instructional efforts related to this structural change. The various
studies that have been carried out in Phase 2 should now inform
decision makers about the possible need to shift targets upwards
or even downwards, depending on data collected from Phase 2
studies on curriculum implementation, teaching and learning
practices, and assessments. The studies will reveal areas that need
improvement, and Phase 3 should be a time to examine these areas
and take action to address them.
Sources of strength and successes should similarly be noted
and consolidated where possible. Major sources of data to assess
the impact of the Roadmap will be the SPM examination, the
results of the replicated Cambridge Baseline Study, the results of
the proposed assessment for non-examination classes during the
2015-2020 period, and SBA reports from schools.
224
Reports from all relevant agencies such as the ELTC, ELSQC

and the independent assessment validation body should also
provide valuable information regarding the effectiveness of all
activities. Administrator comments and teacher response to the
Roadmap will also be examined.
By the end of phase 3 and at the end of the secondary school
level, the secondary school English curriculum should be aligned
to the CEFR levels and reflect the general aspirations of the CEFR
within the context of the MEB. Language assessments at the
secondary school should reflect the CEFR levels and alignment
with these levels be continually validated.
Students should demonstrate learning habits with a propensity
for independent and autonomous learning and exit the secondary
school with the target minimum B1 level with more proficient
students achieving at least a B2 level.
The implementation of school-based assessment should be
enhanced with teachers given adequate training to raise their
assessment literacy and ability to accurately assess their students
and provide appropriate remediation and enrichment. Increased
opportunity for language interaction should occur during the
English language lesson as well as through community engagement
and support.
Agencies within the Ministry of Education should be working

in a co-ordinated and concerted manner to provide conducive
conditions for the teaching and learning of the English language as
well as for students to meet the targeted levels.
6.4. Conclusion
This chapter has identified some of the major gaps and issues
that impact the successful implementation of the Roadmap ranging
from more basic needs and considerations to more elaborate
concerns that involve structural change and change in mindset.
These issues and gaps have been described according to three
areas, namely, curriculum, teaching and learning practices as well
as assessment.
Suggestions and recommendations on overcoming these
challenges are also presented as a means to ensure the success
of the roadmap and are reflected in a process that involves three
phases of implementation from 2015 to 2025. The Way Forward
section in this chapter has outlined various actions that need to be
taken and proposes outcomes that may be used as milestones and
measures of success. It is for all relevant agencies in the Ministry of
Education to act upon these recommendations in order to realise
the intended goal of secondary school English education
level, and as described in the CEFR, this independent user should

be someone who is able to effectively express views and hold
ones own in social discourse.
At the same time, the MEB emphasises student ability in
international communication (MEB, p. 4-10). Secondary school
leavers are expected to be able to use the language in seeking
employment as well as performing in academic contexts. Achieving
B1 on exit from secondary school is an appropriate target, as it is a
proficiency level that allows students to venture confidently into
an English speaking workplace or higher education environment.
The Roadmap for secondary school also acknowledges that
some students are already proficient and can achieve B2, which
indicates greater ability to deal with more complex languagerelated tasks.
The goal of learning the English Language at Malaysian

secondary schools is to attain a B1 independent user proficiency
225

226

Post-secondary
227

Chapter 7:
Post-secondary
his chapter presents a roadmap for post-secondary English

in accordance with the MEB Waves. Post-secondary
education refers to schooling after Form 5, when the Sijil
Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) has been taken, and before tertiary
education at college or university. Options for students include
a two-year Sixth Form programme leading to the Sijil Tinggi
Pelajaran Malaysia (STPM), a one- or two-year Matriculation
programme or a foundation programme for a university degree, or
a Polytechnic vocational programme.
This chapter is divided into five sections: 7.1 provides a historical

overview of English education at post-secondary level, and draws
attention to implications for decision making; 7.2 highlights issues
relating to teacher competence and student performance, and
draws on four key sources: the MEB, the Cambridge Baseline1,
recent Malaysian University English Test (MUET) results, and
the Cambridge English evaluation of MUET 20152; 7.3 presents
a roadmap to facilitate effective English learning and improved
teacher performance; 7.4 focuses on the implications and
recommendations to be considered, and 7.5 summarises and
concludes the chapter.
Robinson M, Galaczi E D, Docherty C, King , A & Khalifa H. (2014). Supporting national

education reform: The Cambridge Malaysia Baseline Project. Cambridge English: Research Notes,
58, 50-44. See also the full report available at Cambridge Baseline 2013 Technical Report.pdf
1
2
Cambridge English Evaluation of MUET 2015, Ministry of Education, Malaysia & Cambridge
English Language Assessment, University of Cambridge.
228
7.1 Background
Before 1980, English was the medium of instruction in most
public schools, and Malay was a compulsory subject. Proficiency
in English at post-secondary level was assessed by the Form 5
Cambridge English Language 121 paper, and in Forms 5 and 6 by
the optional English Literature paper. The selection of English
teachers, and recruitment for employment requiring English, often
relied on performance in these two subjects. To a lesser extent,
a pass in the compulsory Form 6 General Paper was used as an
indicator of English proficiency for Sixth Formers.
Between 1977 and 1980, English was replaced by Malay as
the medium of instruction in all public schools. The Malaysian
Certificate of Education (MCE) was replaced by the SPM, and
the Higher School Certificate (HSC) was replaced by the STPM,
and a new national syllabus was introduced for English. Although
English Language 1119 was still available, SPM English became the
national standard of English proficiency for both career decisions
and post-secondary education.
The transition from English-medium to Malay-medium
education led to a sharp decrease in the number of students taking
the optional Literature in English paper in Form 6. As alternative
Laporan Tahunan 2013: Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia, Indeepreneur. Available: https://books.
google.co.uk/books
3
4
Chai Hon Chan, 1977, Education and Nation-building in Plural Societies: The West Malaysian
Experience, Canberra: The Australian National University.
routes to university such as the post-SPM Matriculation programme

and university degree-foundation programmes in private colleges
became available, the number of students entering Form 6 also
declined considerably, resulting in a further decrease in the number
of students taking Literature in English. In 2013, for example, only
51 out of a total of 46,241 candidates took the STPM Literature in
English (1) paper 3. There was clearly a need for a reliable means
to assess the English proficiency of the many students who did not
take the literature paper.
Concerns about the English proficiency of Malaysian students
led to calls for improvement 4. Since most learning resources
were available only in English, academics were concerned about
the ability of post-secondary students to cope with the demands
of tertiary education. Students needed to be taught to retrieve,
interpret and apply information from English texts. Intensive
English programmes were accordingly designed by all universities
and colleges, while privately-run English language centres sprang up
throughout the country to support post-secondary programmes 5.
However, these measures proved insufficient to raise standards of
English among post-secondary students.
In 1999, the Malaysian Examinations Council introduced the
MUET for post-secondary students 6. As a criterion-referenced
Hala Tuju Penajian Komunikasi dan Media di Malaysia, 2010, Majlis Ketua-ketua Pengajian
Komunikasi (COHECS), Jabatan Pengajian Tinggi Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi http://www.
mohe.gov.my/portal/images/penerbitan/JPT/Pengurusan_ Pembangunan_ Akademik/BukuBuku_ Kajian Accessed January 2014.
5
6
For details refer to Malaysian Examinations Council 2006. Available http://www.mpm.edu.
my/documents/ Accessed August 2014
229

proficiency test, the MUET was designed to measure the English

language ability of students intending to take first degrees in
Malaysian institutions of higher learning.
The test covers the four language skills: listening, speaking,
reading and writing. Performance in the four skills is aggregated
and rated on a six-point scale, Band 6 indicating high proficiency in
English and Band 1 indicating low ability. Candidates also receive
a statement of results for each of the four skills.
The implementation of the MUET was swift, and soon all
students intending to take first degrees were required to take the test.
These included Form 6 students from government and state-owned
schools, private school students, private-individual candidates,
undergraduates as well as matriculation and diploma students.
Preparation for the test came in the form of in-class instruction
for those in formal post-secondary programmes (e.g. STPM, Diploma
or Certificate) as well as optional private tuition. It is important to
note that while the MUET is required for entry and/or exit from
tertiary education, there is no curriculum available from either the
Malaysian Examinations Council or the Curriculum Development
Centre of the Ministry of Education. The MUET remains just a test,
and classroom instruction prepares students for it.
The introduction of the MUET was intended to provide a
measure of English proficiency, and lead to the provision of the
intensive language instruction needed by pre-university students for
230
tertiary education. It was thus hoped that the MUET would serve
as the Malaysian standard for post-secondary or pre-university
English proficiency, and provide higher education institutions with
a singular measure of English proficiency for programmes of study.
In practice, as post-secondary English education takes a variety of
forms, individual institutions choose how they wish to use the MUET,
and decide on the minimum MUET band for their own programmes of
study. As the MUET is the only Form 6 English language examination
administered by the Malaysian Examinations Council, it has become
the essential requirement for post-secondary English qualifications in
Malaysia. The discussion in the next section presents a rationale for a
reliable set of national English proficiency standards.
7.2
Issues and Gaps
Changes in language policy and new routes to tertiary

education have created a number of problems in post-secondary
English language education. This section is concerned with
the implications for post-secondary English. The discussion of
teaching and learning draws on three significant studies, namely
MUET results from 2010 to 2013; the Cambridge Baseline; and
the Cambridge evaluation of the MUET which appeared in 2015.
The findings of the baseline study that are relevant here are test
results and questionnaire responses from the 86 Form 6 teachers
and 1,913 Form 6 students who took part.
7.2.1 Curriculum
Two significant curricular issues involving the MUET are the
absence of a teaching-learning curriculum and the absence of clearly
defined standards for interpreting MUET results. The consequence
of having no teaching-learning curriculum is that instruction is
often reduced to preparation for the examination. Although the
recommendation of the Malaysian Examinations Council is for
students to be given at least 240 hours of instruction in English to
prepare for the MUET, many schools and tertiary institutions do not
keep to the guidelines. In the absence of a syllabus, post-secondary
English learners may also not benefit from best practice in teaching
and learning, or in the use of resources.
In addition, MUET test specifications do not include language
requirements for post-secondary or higher education. There is no
instructional guide for language components such as linguistic range,
vocabulary range, grammatical accuracy, phonological control,
orthographic control and sociolinguistic appropriateness.
There are also insufficient teaching and learning resources,
possibly due to the absence of a post-secondary English curriculum
to inform the design of appropriate teaching and learning materials.
The over-reliance on the part of students and teachers on model
MUET tests and commercialised test-preparation materials is not
only an indication of poor instructional practice but also a reflection of
a neglected component in post-secondary English education.
The absence of a reliable set of curricular standards for the MUET

has led to varied interpretations of the MUET result. Some higher
education institutions regard the MUET as a mere formality, and
admit students into their programmes of study irrespective of their
grade. Other institutions admit candidates who are classified as
Modest Users of English (Band 3) into TESL programmes, or to teach
English in schools or tertiary institutions.
In some institutions, the MUET result is used as an entry
requirement while in others it is used as an exit requirement. Still
others use the MUET results for placement, i.e. to stream students
for English. In the absence of a reliable curricular standard, the allimportant question remains unanswered whether students with
Band 2 (Limited User) or Band 1 (Very Limited User) are able to fully
participate in post-secondary and university studies.
It follows that the role of the MUET has become indeterminate.
There is now a need for reliable and internationally benchmarked
English language curricular and proficiency standards to support
progression from secondary to post-secondary education.

The baseline study findings regarding the performance of Form
6 students, together with the MUET results, indicate a worrying
trend in post-secondary teaching and learning. The baseline study
231

examined
teachers
pedagogical
knowledge, their use of concept,
terminology and resources for lesson
planning, and their management of
the teaching and learning process.
The study found that a number of
teachers had poor knowledge of
instructional content, only 65%
demonstrating
comprehensive
knowledge. Classroom observations
showed that instructional practice
was generally poor, and that lessons
tended to be teacher-centred, giving
learners few opportunities to be
involved in meaningful and engaging
communication.
Form 6
On average at CEFR level A2/B1

41% at A1/A2 and below; 53% at B1/B2; 6% at C1/C2
Form 5
On average at CEFR level A2

55% at A1/A2 and below; 43% at B1/B2; 2% at C1/C2
Form 3

12% below A1, 57% at A1/A2, 30% at B1/B2; 1% at C1/C2
Year 6

32% below A1, 56% at A1/A2, 13% at B1/B2
Pre-school
Table 7.1
Results of Cambridge Baseline Study 2013 (n=1,913)
According to the baseline study, the English proficiency of

teachers is insufficient to provide learners with a good model. The
teachers averaged B2 on the CEFR scale, which just makes them
independent users with upper-intermediate proficiency. Only 52%
could be described proficient users of English. Speaking also emerged
as the weakest skill among English teachers.
This lack of English proficiency highlights the urgent need to build
capacity among post-secondary English teachers. It also confirms
the suggestion that the Malaysian education system may not be
232

78% below A1, 22% at A1/A2
allocating funds towards the factors that have the highest impact on
student outcomes, such as the training and continuous upskilling of
teachers. (MEB, p. E-8.)
Secondly, the baseline study identifies weak performance by Form
6 students, only 10% achieving CEFR B2. As shown in Table 7.1, a
significant 41% obtained A1 or A2 or below. More than 70% of the
Form 6 students were performing below B2, (see Figure 7.2), which
is the expected standard for English. Listening emerged as one of the
weakest skills, 17% being still at A1 or below. For speaking, 31% were
at A1 or below, and another 24% at A2.
Form 6
Below A1
Form 5
A1
A2
Form 3
B1
Year 6
B2
C1
Preschool
C2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
% learners achieving CEFR level
Figure 7.1
Student Performance at different levels of

Education in Cambridge Baseline Study 2013 (n=1,913)
The study also found that while students recognised the importance
of English for employment and educational opportunities, they lacked
the motivation to learn English. Feedback from their teachers showed
that students do not in general put much effort into learning English,
and that some have negative attitudes and low motivation.
The monitoring of instructional quality in Form 6 classrooms
has done little to contribute to teachers professional development.
Monitoring and observation were found to be done often for

administrative and documentation purposes required by education
departments, rather than to improve classroom practice. Teachers
also pointed out that teaching quality and effectiveness is often
measured through student performance in MUET examinations, which
could lead to an overemphasis on examination preparation instead
of language learning. Although the time recommended for MUET is
233

... some postsecondary students

are proficient users
of English, others
are still operating
at a very basic or
beginner level ...
320 minutes a week for eighteen months, few schools implement this
recommendation or keep to this aspect of instructional policy.
These results from the Cambridge Baseline Study are
confirmed by MUET results over a four year period. The analysis
of the MUET results from 2010 to 2013 indicates that most postsecondary students fall below the expected levels of performance
for tertiary education. Less than half of the students taking the
MUET reach Band 3, which is set by most universities as the
minimum requirement for entry or exit.
Of the 81,743 candidates taking the test in mid-2010, only
33.89% reached Band 3 or higher, and of these only four reached
Band 6. The results for each skill were equally discouraging: only
28.31% reached at least Band 3 for Writing, 41.1% for Speaking, and
234
54.6% for Reading. Just 17% reached at least Band 3 for Listening.
In the year-end results for 2010, 46% of 91,154 candidates obtained
at least Band 3, and of these only twelve reached Band 6.
Less than half (45.54%) obtained at least Band 3 for Listening,
47% for Speaking and 55.46% for Reading. However, for Writing,
only 33.23% obtained Band 3 or higher. Similarly, in 2011 the midyear MUET results showed that only 41.86% of 85,490 candidates
obtained at least a Band 3, and of these only nine reached Band 6.
The English performance of post-secondary students has not
improved with time. As shown in Table 7.2, performance in the
November 2013 MUET was rather dismal, with two-thirds of all
candidates (66.86%) remaining in Bands 1 or 2, and more than half
(50.94%) in Band 2. This calls for immediate steps to improve
support for students in English at pre-university level.
Listening
%
Speaking
%
Reading
%
Writing
%
Total
%
6 - Highly Proficient User
0.20
0.16
0.13
0.02
0.00
5 - Proficient User
2.01
1.21
2.45
0.66
0.41
4 - Satisfactory User
7.57
9.09
12.78
4.43
5.22
3 - Modest User
11.73
33.79
35.75
21.27
27.52
2 - Limited User
33.20
40.19
39.77
50.87
50.94
1 - Very Limited User
45.29
15.57
9.12
22.75
15.92
Band
Table 7.2
Performance of candidates in November 2013 MUET(n=72,101)
S o u r c e :
M a l ay s i a n E x a m i n at i o n s C o u n c i l , 2 0 1 3 A n n u a l R e p o r t
A possible explanation for these results is that students have not

learnt or have not been taught the language and thinking skills
required for higher education. A close analysis of the November
2013 MUET results shows that the majority of the candidates
failed to demonstrate competence in tests of a number of language
and higher order thinking skills.
For example, many were unable to distinguish relevant from

irrelevant information, make inferences, and paraphrase or
summarise information. Candidates were reportedly hesitant in
speaking English, and they lacked the vocabulary to express their
thoughts and elaborate their ideas. Ideas were often confined to
home, school or daily experience, and candidates revealed a lack
235

of general knowledge and awareness of current affairs. Many

candidates were unable to use accurate sentence structures or
appropriate registers in writing.
They were also unable to draw links between two or more
texts, give commentaries or develop or support their opinions. The
analysis underlines the need to teach post-secondary students to
be able to reason, to extrapolate, and to creatively apply their
knowledge in novel, unfamiliar settings (MEB, p. E-11).
These figures raise concerns about educational equity, in
view of the large differences in achievement according to locality
(urban-rural schools), socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity
and discipline of study. In both the MUET and the baseline study,
students from urban areas perform significantly better than those
from remote and rural schools, and those in science perform
significantly better than those in other fields.
This highlights the need to raise standards for teaching and
learning English at post-secondary level. If we aspire to make
every post-secondary student proficient in English by 2025, as
proposed in the MEB, English programmes must develop student
capacity in the language to equip them to work in the globalized
economy (MEB, p. 108).
The first issue is the range of performance: students in the
same year are performing at vastly different levels; while some post-
236
secondary students are proficient users of English, others are still

operating at a very basic or beginner level. If we do not identify and
address the English language needs of learners from a young age, we
will continue to face this enormous disparity among post-secondary
students. Even the best teachers are unable to plan appropriate
lessons to cater for such disparity in the same classroom.
It has also been highlighted in the MEB that low English
proficiency among teachers results in low student performance.
Compounding the problem is the mismatch between subjects in
which teachers are trained, and the subjects that they are assigned
to teach: 30% of English teachers have reportedly not been trained
to teach English. The MEB also reports (p. 110) that a significant
number of English teachers (n=7,500) who took the Cambridge
Placement Test (CPT) did not reach the minimum standard
required to teach English.
Teaching and learning issues warrant immediate attention,
particularly because teacher quality influences the quality of the
language used in English lessons, and directly impacts learning
effectiveness. Despite several decades of instructional problems at the
post-secondary level, we have disregarded the need to enable teachers
to meet the demands of post-secondary English education.
It should also be pointed out that current teacher education
programmes in IPGs and universities do less for post-secondary
teaching than for pre-school, primary and secondary teaching. We
need high impact programmes for postsecondary English language education

to give direct support to teachers and
students.
7.2.3 Assessment
Figure 7.2 Cambridge
English evaluation of MUET 2015 against

Cambridge Certificate in Advanced English test
The call to revamp national

examinations
and
school-based
assessments, and to benchmark student
outcomes and learning practices to
international standards (MEB, p.
E-11) has led to a number of studies at
the national level. The evaluation of
the MUET by Cambridge English in
2015 is relevant here, since it aimed
to make a comprehensive evaluation
of the MUET against international
standards of performance at the postsecondary level. The study compared
the results of 500 candidates in the
MUET and the Cambridge Certificate in
Advanced English (CAE) test in order to
recommend changes for improvement.
237

Group discussions
and presentations
provide students
with the platform
to express and
elaborate on
their ideas
The main finding of the evaluation was that the MUET
overemphasises grammatical structures, and gives little emphasis to
communication. It also overemphasises Reading at the expense of
Listening, Speaking and Writing. More importantly, the study found
that the MUET is an appropriate measure only for Bands 3 and 4;
the same cannot be said for Bands 1, 2, 5 and 6 (see Figure 7.2).
It was also found that there were some possible measurement
errors in the MUET examination. For both Speaking and Writing,
task and topic requirements reflect varying levels of difficulty, too
much emphasis being placed on spelling and grammatical accuracy.
For Speaking, the wording of questions gives candidates insufficient
scope to produce suitable language at the required level.
The Speaking test also offers a narrow range of topics, so that
familiarity with the topic could possibly advantage some candidates
238
over others. The range of Listening aspects is narrow, 85% of all

items requiring expeditious listening. In addition, several issues
reduce the validity of the listening test: items have been found to
have unclear keys, to be guessable, to assume knowledge, and to
be based on incoherent test or personal opinion.
There is a greater variety of items in the Reading component,
including items testing inferencing, establishing propositional
meaning, building a mental model, and involving word recognition
and lexical access. However, the Reading component is also
problematic as it contains items that are guessable, based on
personal opinion, as well as unclear keys and incoherent text.
Cambridge English has recommended that the design of the
MUET be updated with reference to the CEFR and that steps be taken
towards quality assurance in the design of test items and tasks used. It
is also important to note that student performance in the MUET may

not be an accurate measure of their proficiency, in view of the many
design problems highlighted in the evaluation by Cambridge English.
For instance, testing irregularities in the Listening component may
have caused poor performance in this component (see 7.2.2 above).
The failure to assess performance accurately in the higher bands
(5 and 6) could cause problems for institutions that attach a great deal
of significance to the MUET. This highlights the need for reliability
and validity in tests used in English education, especially those used for
entrance requirements to tertiary education.
A related issue is the absence of ongoing formative assessment
for post-secondary students. The MUET is a summative criterionreferenced proficiency test with no emphasis on coursework
or formative assessment. Coursework requirements such as
portfolios, analysis of readings and classroom presentations serve
as a means to help students identify their strengths and limitations,
and provide a guide to develop skills needing improvement.
Finally, the role of the teacher in formative and summative
assessment has to be addressed. The baseline study found that
while teachers understand the role of assessment, they often face
challenges in terms of time, resources and confidence in their own
assessment practices.
The study also found that teachers expressed their lack of
knowledge of assessment with regard to the validity, reliability
and fairness of tests. These underlying conditions leading to poor
performance in English, poor assessment practices and a lack of

teacher confidence or knowledge of assessment must be addressed
in order to bring about effective educational practices.
7.3
The Way Forward
This section is concerned with conditions for the reform of

post-secondary English education, together with details of actions
and outcomes at each phase of the implementation plan.
The following are the conditions for the reform of English
language education at the post-secondary level.
(1) Curriculum: the design and development of an internationallyaligned teaching and learning curriculum for post-secondary
English education, and its effective implementation and delivery.
(2) Teaching and Learning: the implementation of CEFR-informed
pedagogy; the availability of CEFR-trained English language
teachers in every post-secondary classroom; and the availability
of internationally-aligned teaching and learning materials and
resources for every post-secondary English teacher and learner.
(3) Assessment: the availability of internationally benchmarked
English language tests for assessing the proficiency of
candidates at post-secondary level; and the inclusion of ongoing, formative assessment formats to support learning.
239

7.3.1
The Roadmap
The Roadmap for post-secondary English education is organised in

accordance with the three MEB Waves. Plans are presented in detail
for each phase for curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment.
Phase 1: Preparing For Structural Change 2015 to 2016
Curriculum
The key action is to develop a CEFR-informed curriculum for
post-secondary English language education, with staged target
proficiency levels based on the outcomes of the baseline study
and the evaluation of the MUET. With this curriculum in place,
classroom instruction will benefit from best practices in the field,
and appropriate instructional guides can be developed for teachers.
In addition, academic and technical language requirements for
tertiary education and differentiated teaching can be included in
post-secondary English education. This could be accompanied
by the setting up of an independent body responsible (a) for the
implementation and monitoring of the reform process at the postsecondary level, (b) for enforcing compliance with the stipulated
language engagement time in the classroom, and (c) for strategising
methods to encourage an immersive English language learning
environment in post-secondary schools and institutions.
240

In phase 1, efforts to build capacity among key deliverers will be
scaled up. This means that all post-secondary teachers, coaches,
MoE officers and administrators will be trained to implement the
CEFR-aligned curricula, and for formal teaching and assessment.
The requirement for teachers and trainers to achieve at least CEFR
C1 will be enforced. There will also be a need to build capacity
for Master Trainers to use CEFR-informed pedagogy in training
and in the development of post-secondary teacher education
programmes.
In view of the immense variation in the performance of
post-secondary students, teachers will have to be trained in the
methodology of differentiated teaching. This will be accompanied
by large-scale efforts to adopt online learning materials and a
concrete ICT platform to support learning for all practitioners.
Assessment
The first stage is to develop a standardised CEFR-informed
assessment system for post-secondary English. This will involve the
use of coursework and formative assessment to provide feedback
to teachers and learners about areas of weakness or areas requiring
intensive learning or remedial support. At this point it will also be
important to establish the extent of teacher knowledge in terms of
content and assessment practices with reference to the CEFR.
Phase 2: Implementing and Monitoring Structural

Change 2017 to 2020
Curriculum
In the second phase of the Roadmap, the focus will be on
implementing and monitoring the CEFR-informed curriculum for postsecondary education. Post-secondary teachers will need training to
understand, implement and use the CEFR-aligned English curriculum,
and the training sessions must be monitored. Teachers have to be
made aware of the need to give equal emphasis to all four language
skills, and to use language to develop higher order thinking skills.
Finally, this phase will involve the development and
implementation of school and institution-based initiatives to
encourage the active use of English among students.
The focus of phase two for in-class instruction will be to build
capacity for teachers to use CEFR-informed pedagogy as they
engage with students. CEFR-informed pedagogy will also be used
by Master Trainers as they implement a standardised curriculum
for post-secondary English teacher education.
As part of the initiative to engage every learner, the focus will be
on monitoring and evaluating teacher use of differentiated learning
techniques, and on the development by teachers and trainers of

the content and pedagogical skills required for post-secondary
education. It will also be important to ensure that textbooks
and other learning materials are aligned with CEFR instructional
pedagogies, content coverage and the skills emphasised in postsecondary English.
Teachers will also be required to integrate online learning
materials into their daily lessons so that learners receive a broad
experience with the language. Special coaches and mentors will
monitor the ways in which in-class instruction integrates learning
materials and online resources with CEFR pedagogy while meeting
the requirements of the new CEFR-aligned curriculum.
Finally, the action plan will require a policy making at least C1
proficiency obligatory for all post-secondary teachers, and improving
the language and teaching skills of teachers where necessary.
Assessment
Efforts to raise the standard of assessment in post-secondary
English education will include the implementation of a standardised
CEFR-informed assessment framework. This will be monitored
closely to examine the nature of questions, and to ensure that
higher-order thinking skills are tested in the target language, and
that a more varied form of testing is utilised. In this case, it will be
necessary to upskill teacher knowledge of content and assessment
241

practices in accordance with the post-secondary CEFR-aligned

curriculum, instruction and assessment practices.
Phase 3: Scaling Up Structural Change 2021 to 2025
Phase 3 will continue the emphasis on capacity building for

teachers based on the evaluation of the effectiveness of postsecondary teacher education programmes.This will involve
monitoring and evaluating the standardised curricula for English
teacher education, and evaluating the English proficiency of
teachers and trainers. The use of teaching and learning materials
and ICT facilities will be reviewed to check the implementation of
appropriate pedagogy including differentiated learning.
Curriculum
Assessment
In the final phase of the Roadmap, the effectiveness of the

CEFR-informed curriculum will be evaluated with a view to
revising target levels for post-secondary education. This will
involve reviewing and revising CEFR descriptors, continuing
capacity building for all post-secondary teachers, as well as
monitoring, reviewing and improving school and institution-based
initiatives relating to post-secondary English education.
The final phase of the Roadmap will require an evaluation of the

standardised CEFR-informed assessment of post-secondary English.
The resulting understanding of the assessment framework will provide
an insight into ways of benchmarking student performance in English
against international standards, and how the framework itself has
impacted student performance in English at the post-secondary level.
The action plan will focus on evaluating and revising

CEFR-aligned teacher training by Master Trainers, the CEFRaligned English curriculum, teaching and learning practices, and
assessment. All of this will provide an insight into the effectiveness
of the reform in post-secondary education.
To complete the exercise, the monitoring of assessment practices

will benefit from research into the impact of CEFR-aligned curricula
and pedagogy on learner proficiency, and to determine whether
variation in performance outcomes is reduced over time.
242
This section draws attention to some of the implications of

the Roadmap outlined above, and makes recommendations for the
improvement of our post-secondary English education.
A variety of
activities such
as jigsaw reading
and gallery walks
cater for different
learning styles.
i. Develop a core CEFR-informed curriculum to meet the demands
of post-secondary education. This requires a change of policy
from a test curriculum to a teaching curriculum, and calls
for close collaboration between the Curriculum Development
Division and the Malaysian Examinations Council.
ii. Enforce CEFR C1 as the minimum proficiency level for all postsecondary English teachers. To make this possible, teacher
proficiency has to be improved by means of appropriate inservice training, remedial support and the provision of teaching
and learning resources.
iv. Ensure that the agency responsible for monitoring practices

within the learning space is empowered to monitor and evaluate
curricular goals through the assessment of instructional practice,
student achievement and the assertive use of performance data.
v. Enlarge the pool of post-secondary English language experts
by building pedagogical capacity among present secondary
teachers and by attracting English proficient pre-service
teachers. In addition, plan for ways to allow for greater
flexibility in private-public mobility for seasoned educationists
and to offer more prestigious career opportunities for teachers.
iii. Establish a minimum proficiency level for post-secondary

students using a single internationally-recognised test. Individual
higher education institutions will retain the right to decide on
their own entry requirements for English.
243

Language games
and enrichment
activities keep
lessons interesting
and motivate
students to
learn English.
7.5 Conclusion
as well as the need for monitoring and reviewing current and future
practices concerning curricula, instruction and assessment.
This chapter has made a detailed description of post-secondary

English education in Malaysia. The first two sections highlighted a
number of issues relating to recent developments in the field, teacher
competence, student performance and the assessment of postsecondary students. The third section has drawn on the findings of
recent studies and on the issues raised to provide a Roadmap for the
future of English education at the post-secondary level.
This Roadmap also promotes bilingual and intercultural education

through curricular action7 aiming to raise competencies for students
as they enter an important phase in their education. It is hoped that
this chapter will support the teaching and learning process in order
to encourage learners to think more about the components of their
[linguistic] repertoire, their intercultural competencies, the ways in
which languages and cultures work, and the best ways of profiting from
their personal or collective experience of using and learning English8.
The chapter has raised significant areas for development, such

as the need to develop a teaching curriculum, the need to establish
minimum levels of proficiency for teachers, trainers and students,
244
7
Beacco JC, Byram M, Cavalli M, Coste D, Cuenat M E, Goullier F and Panthier J, (Language
Policy Division), 2010, Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for
plurilingual and intercultural education. Document prepared for the Policy Forum The right of
learners to quality and equity in education The role of linguistic and intercultural competences
Geneva, Switzerland, 2-4 November 2010, page 20.
8
Ibid.
All in all, it is envisaged that the CEFR will provide the means to
bring together all such competencies that are required for teaching
and working not only in Malaysia but also internationally.

University
245

Chapter 8:
University
his chapter is concerned with English Language learning and

teaching in public universities, and focuses on the production
of graduates equipped with sufficient proficiency in English
to meet the needs of a developed and globalised Malaysia in 2020.
It deals with undergraduate degree programmes other than degree
programmes in the Teaching of English, leaving the teaching
of English, along with other aspects of teacher training, to be
treated separately in Chapter 9. The Roadmap covers only public
universities at tertiary level, and so the contents of this chapter do
not necessarily apply to other institutes of higher learning such as
colleges and private universities.
8.1 BACKGROUND
This section considers the national problem of the poor English
communication skills of graduates from the point of view first of
universities themselves, secondly of employers, and thirdly of the
national agenda.
8.1.1 University English Language Learning and Employment

The essence of the problem at university level is that less than
half of the graduates produced each year by our public universities
achieve the level of communicative ability in English that is
246
required by potential employers. A national study, namely The

Graduate Employability Blueprint 2012-2017 (henceforth GE
Blueprint), commissioned by the Ministry of Higher Education,
found that more than half (54%) of undergraduate students from
six Malaysian universities had only a limited command of English.
English education at university level has in the past been
designed largely to enable students to handle academic content
and activities in English, and for the students own personal
development. In the present century, in the wake of globalisation
and the emergence of English as the global language, the purpose
of English language education has to include making the students
employable. The kind of graduate we now want to produce in our
public universities is one who is employable in a globalised economy
in which English is the most important language of communication.
While there is evidence that poor English competency
hampers the ability of graduates to communicate effectively in
the workplace, studies by Bennet (2014), Metcalfe (2011) and
others have consistently demonstrated that those who have a
good command of English are much more likely to advance in their
careers, and enjoy the advantages of more highly paid jobs, more
social mobility, and greater social success. It is in the interests
of the students themselves to achieve the standard of English
required for immediate employment on graduation commensurate
with their academic qualifications, longer-term international
marketability, and life-long learning.
The pressure to raise standards of English has been brought

about not only by changes in the world outside, but also by
developments within the university sector itself. Universities in
Malaysia are undergoing the twin processes of internationalisation
and globalisation as universities across the globe form networks of
links in what is rapidly becoming a global higher education system.
They are under increasing pressure to produce graduates capable
of using English not only for local purposes within Malaysia, but
also for a variety of purposes at an international level.
The increase in the number of overseas students brings
globalisation on to the campus and into the lecture room.
Universities now have to respond to the needs of a broad range
of stakeholders and take on additional responsibilities, including
the development of communication skills and other soft skills.
Although communication skills and other language-based skills are
not linked specifically to English in principle, the practical reality
in the modern world is that at an international level these skills do
have to be exercised in English.
There is a need to develop effective learning, language
and communication skills for reasons of employability, career
development and life-long learning. This means that high standards
of English have to be complemented by a set of soft skills which
are increasingly highly valued in universities worldwide.
247

8.1.2 The Expectations of Employers

There is a comprehensive body of literature dealing with the
attributes required of graduates on graduation and moving directly
into employment or on to postgraduate studies (Bridgstock, 2009;
Gedye, Fender & Chalkley, 2004; Kaur & Kaur, 2008; Omar, M.K.
et al., 2012; Rasul & A.P. Puvanasvaran, 2009; Trigwell & DunbarGoddet, 2005). These studies list attributes gathered through surveys
of former students in employment or through initiatives and research
conducted by universities driven by the employability agenda.
In the Malaysian context, industry players and employers are
specific about the need for proficiency in English. A study by Kahirol
Mohd Salleh et al. (2010) found that communication skills in English
are necessary for effective communication and information sharing,
and are essential in international business circles. Several other
studies involving engineering and the service industry cite proficiency
in English as an important skill for candidates for higher positions
in a company. Rozila Ahmad and Noor Azimin Zainol (2011) found
work experience and proficiency in English to be requirements for
managerial posts in Malaysian five-star hotels. In order to achieve
international employability, Malaysian graduates need a level of
proficiency in English that will enable them to interact effectively with
other speakers of English.
Given the importance of English in the workplace, it is not
surprising to find that employers complaints about graduates inabilities
248
are related to the lack of English skills. According to the 2011 report
by Ainol Madziah Zubairi et al., English Language Competency for
Entry Level Employment: A Market Research on Industrial Needs,
Malaysian employers have expressed their dissatisfaction with the
general level of preparedness of graduates as prospective entry-level
employees. They have considerable reservations regarding graduates
nontechnical abilities or employability skills, particularly English
language proficiency.These concerns have been the subject of earlier
studies (Isarji et al., 2008, Stapa et al., 2008; Suan, 2004).
8.1.3 The National Agenda

The definitive document on graduate employability is the GE
Blueprint, which clearly states that universities have always been
considered the cornerstone of a countrys supply of quality and
talented human resources (p. 4). The GE Blueprint analyses this
role of universities in the context of the demands of todays complex
global employment market, and identifies urgent issues and challenges
for graduate employability arising from these changes, in particular
problems encountered by employers taking on fresh graduates. The
most common problem for employers, reported by 55.8% of the
companies surveyed, is a poor command of English. In view of the
crucial role played by universities in not only providing graduates with
qualifications but also making them employable, it is imperative for
the universities to acknowledge and address the issue of poor English
language proficiency among their graduates. Universities should, as far

as possible within the constraints of time and resources, ensure that
the English language proficiency of their graduates on exit meets the
demands of the current employment market. In fact, the GE Blueprint
emphasises the need for universities to take the lead and initiate a
review of current university curricula.
the existing English language programmes and courses offered

at university, and existing initiatives to improve student language
proficiency in higher education.
The role of universities in producing employable graduates requires

a system that encourages students to become more competent,
knowledgeable and creative, and to develop the necessary social and
personal attributes. Students have to acquire these attributes as they
progress through university. It is important that universities incorporate
the development of these core attributes into their curricula, to ensure
that graduates are equipped with the required fundamentals before
leaving their universities. The onus is on universities to develop the
Employability Attributes Framework (EAF), a holistic and integrated
curriculum based on GE core skills and on Graduate Employability
Competencies (GEC) aligned with the needs of industry, and to bear
this responsibility in mind in the development of the English language
curriculum (GE Blueprint, 2012).
English language education in universities can generally be divided

into three categories: English Language proficiency courses, English
Language degree programmes, and Teaching of English as a Second
Language (TESL) degree programmes. The concern in this chapter
is with proficiency courses. Traditionally, English language courses
were offered in most universities to equip students with the necessary
language skills for general, social, academic and occupational purposes;
but nowadays they tend to include more precisely targeted proficiency
courses designed to prepare undergraduates for employment. These
courses are offered at different proficiency levels, and may be general,
specific or academic in nature.
8.2 A REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY ENGLISH LANGUAGE

PROGRAMMES
Before identifying the issues related to English language teaching
and learning at tertiary level, there is a need to examine critically
8.2.1 English Language Curricula
Although these language courses usually come under the category

of university-required courses, they differ in content and contact
hours from university to university, and as such there is no common
curriculum for English language learning across public universities.
The report on English Language Teaching and Learning at University
Level (2013) highlights the wide range in English language curricula
offered by public universities. Some universities offer only general
English courses, some skills-based courses, and others a mixture of
249

the two. The minimum number of credit hours allocated for English
language learning ranges from two to eight, generally to be completed
within three to four years of undergraduate study.
Given the realities of the English language learning situation
in public universities, it would be difficult to design and establish a
common curriculum. What is possible, however, is to specify clear
guidelines which would be regarded as desirable for any university
language curriculum, and which if met will ensure that students
graduating from our public universities are more employable.
The above-mentioned 2013 report also highlights the findings of
a needs analysis carried out by UM, UiTM, UKM and UPM, which
confirms the findings of earlier studies that, in general, employers feel
university-level English language courses do not adequately prepare
undergraduate students for the workplace, and that their English
grades are not a true reflection of their English language ability in the real
world. This concern was also part of the reason for the GE Blueprints
recommendation that universities review their existing curricula.

In response to the intiative by the Ministry of Higher Education in
encouraging universities to move towards Outcome-Based Education
(henceforth OBE) in order to ensure quality, the focus on teaching and
learning needs to be on learner autonomy. Learner autonomy produces
independent graduates with the soft skills that most employers have
250
described as essential for entry-level employment. Recognising that a

learners active participation ensures greater success, universities have
made considerable efforts to encourage learner autonomy in many
language programmes with the introduction of learner-centred, selfdirected and blended learning. However, Thang (2001, 2003 & 2005)
found that undergraduates from three public universities in Malaysia
were very much teacher-centred, which seemed to be the result
of a school system in which language teaching is itself still teachercentered and students have been nurtured in a culture of exams
through formulaic learning.
A paradigm shift is therefore required for undergraduates to move
away from being spoon-fed and embrace self-directed learning and full
learner autonomy. In line with such autonomy, students will be able,
at the end of their studies, to build their own language portfolios along
the lines of the European Language Portfolio (henceforth ELP)
suggested by the Council of Europe. At this juncture, the Common
European Framework of Reference (henceforth CEFR) descriptive
scheme offers a useful starting point for revised English curricula at
universities (see Chapter 3 for a detailed description of the CEFR).
In this framework, a task-based approach to teaching and learning in
which use of the target language plays a central role is emphasised,
while its understanding of the learners role suggests that the
development of learner autonomy (learning how to learn, assuming
proactive responsibility for the learning process) should be a priority
(Little, 2009, p. 4).
The proposed language portfolio fosters learner autonomy and

contains a scaled checklist of I can descriptors. Following Littles
seminal paper at the ALTE Conference in November 2009, other
studies have been conducted on the use of the CEFR for curriculum,
pedagogy, and assessment (see e.g. Papageorgiou, 2014; Santiago, 2012;
Faez et al., 2011; Turnbull, 2011; Westhoff, 2007; Wu & Wu, 2007).
In many universities, English language courses are taught by
language teachers, language instructors and lecturers. Many but
not all of these have some kind of teaching certification, and each
university has its own criteria for employing language teaching staff,
with the result that there are no common, specific, language teaching
qualifications or minimum English proficiency level required of
teaching staff across universities. Language teachers are assumed to
be the language role model for students, and so in order to achieve
the aspirational target for graduates English language on exit, it is
necessary for those teaching university English language courses to
have a higher level of proficiency. In addition to a minimum level of
proficiency as a criterion for initial employment, the English language
proficiency of teachers in service needs to be evaluated at appropriate
intervals. However, this evaluaton is not known to be carried out by
any university. There is an assumption that language proficiencies do
not change, and this is the possible reason for a lack of institutional
emphasis on continuous professional development (henceforth
CPD) specifically for language teaching staff. It is also important to
note that CPD for language teachers in universities has to be different
from that for language teachers in schools; it has to address the specific
challenges confronting them as their students are young adults and
require different approaches to learning and forms of assessment.
Materials used for teaching and learning also differ from one
university to another. Some produce their own teaching materials,
while others adopt or adapt materials that are available commercially.
However, it is not known whether or not materials in current use draw
on the resources of the CEFR, and this highlights the need for clear
guidelines to help universities review and align their teaching materials
in accordance with a CEFR-aligned curriculum.
To improve their English, university students need continuous
engagement with the language. In the absence of a situation in
which students can be immersed in the language, universities
must create language engagement through an increase in learning
hours combined with a programme offering incidental learning
in addition to planned instruction. At the present time, English
language education in most universities mainly takes the form
of structured, credited courses that constitute part of a formal
curriculum. Teaching and learning are carried out in formal classes,
guided by carefully structured learning objectives and content
outlines that have to meet MQA requirements.
While there is a need for such formal, structured learning,
students would also benefit from additional incidental learning
(i.e. learning a language while engaging in another primary
251

Informal, stress-free
English language
activities outside the
classroom encourage
incidental learning while
increasing engagement
time with the language.
activity). Structured language courses should be complemented

by language activities beyond the classroom focused on the
communication of content rather than on specific aspects of the
language. One currently available example of an approach that
combines structured courses with more project-oriented courses
as well as activities beyond the classroom is the English Language
Experience (ELEx) package being implemented in Universiti Putra
Malaysia. The three components of ELEx are designed to provide
formal, structured learning, and to encourage incidental learning.
Introduced in September 2013, it needs three years before the first
cohort of ELEx learners can be adequately assessed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the approach (Mardziah H. Abdullah et al.,
2015). Initiatives of this kind require institutional commitment to
an increase in learning hours focused on English language learning;
252
however, not every university is currently prepared to make the

same kind of commitment.
In addition to an increase in learning hours and activities
beyond the classroom, there is also a need to create an Englishrich environment in every university. Students would have greater
engagement with the language if English could be used as the
medium of communication for more content courses, co-curricular
activities, university bulletins and other informational materials.
English teaching and learning are currently the sole responsibility
of a language centre or unit assigned with the task, but creating an
English-rich environment requires collaboration between a language
centre or unit and other entities in a university. To make such efforts
possible and successful, institution-wide support is essential.
8.2.3 Assessment
Since there is no common curriculum used by universities
in Malaysia, there is also no common form of English language
assessment for graduates. In view of the variety of English language
courses offered by different universities, assessment tends to be
based on the learning outcomes for particular courses, and these do
not necessarily reflect the language proficiency or the communicative
competence of the graduate. Graduates who obtain As in their English
language courses may nevertheless not have the ability to use English
proficiently in real-life situations. Currently, universities use a variety
of methods to assess the English language abilities of undergraduates.
What is needed is a common framework of reference for assessing
English language proficiency across all universities, so that all
stakeholders, including students and employers, know what their
grades and qualifications actually mean. For graduates seeking to
enter the international job market, it is absolutely essential to use
instruments of assessment and qualifications benchmarked against
appropriate internationally accepted standards, in this case the CEFR,
which will not only help to define language proficiency but also to
interpret students language qualifications.
The intended outcome of English language programmes in general
is to provide students with the necessary skills to make themselves
employable. The general proficiency of students should be assessed
at the exit point, and a profile description made available to potential
employers. At present, however, there is no common exit test to

provide employers with the English language profile of prospective
recruits. It would be useful, therefore, to have the results of an exit
test as a record of the students proficiency in English to accompany
their degree. It must be noted that there is no intention to make a
certain level of proficiency a condition for the award of a degree.
This means that a good student with poor English could graduate
with, for example, a CGPA of 3.1 in Engineering and a CEFR Level
of A2 in English. The design and content of such a profile will require
close liaising with employers to ensure that the language skills being
developed and assessed correspond to the requirements of employers.
Such liaisons will also provide useful feedback to universities on the
effectiveness of their English language programmes with respect to
the employability of their graduates.
Ultimately, the target is to produce graduates whose English
language performance is benchmarked against international standards.
To achieve this target, the responsibiilty for monitoring progress
towards a quality English language education system must lie with
the universities themselves and with lead agencies such as Majlis
Peperiksaan Malaysia or the Malaysian Examinations Council to have
a standardised internationally benchmarked exit test of English.
The CEFR has an important role to play in assessment at this
level. The proposal for a test before graduation should focus on
the alignment of skills required for employment with the CEFR
descriptors in order to frame and develop appropriate assessment
253

criteria. Central to the CEFR concept, and more important

than reliability, is the accuracy of decisions made in relation to a
standard, which in turn depends on the validity of the particular
standard, the criteria used to reach the decision, and the validity
of the procedures used to develop those criteria.
Thus, what is assessed, and how performance is interpreted are key
concerns for the Framework. There are three main ways in which
the CEFR can be used in assessment (Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Council of
Europe, p. 178):
1.
2.
3.
Specifying the content of tests and

examinations:
Stating the criteria to determine
the attainment of a learning
objective:
Describing the levels of proficiency
in existing tests and examinations
thus enabling comparisons to be
made across different systems of
qualifications:
what is assessed
how performance is
interpreted
how comparisons
can be made
Even though assessments may take many forms in different parts

of the world, having a set of common standards such as the CEFR
gives an advantage as it makes it possible to relate different forms
of assessment and their results to one another using these common
standards.
254
8.2.4 An existing initiative for University English Language

Programmes
Universities differ from schools in that whereas all schools are
required to follow a common curriculum laid down by the Ministry of
Education (MoE), the curriculum to be followed in universities is the
prerogative of the individual university. Each university has the right to
decide what kind of English language programme to offer, if any, and
what assessment tools are to be used to measure the English language
proficiency of its students.
This situation has resulted in problems addressed in the report
entitled English Language Teaching and Learning at University Level
(MoE, 2012), which highlights the need for some general framework
to promote and facilitate cooperation in the organisation of English
language education across public universities in Malaysia. To facilitate
this cooperation, the MoHE proposed a general structure for English
language education, presented in the report and summarised in Figure 8.1.
This guide enables universities to decide according to their own
particular circumstances how best to plan, construct and evaluate
courses geared to the characteristics and needs of their students
and targeted at a sufficient level of communication skills in English to
satisfy language requirements for employability.
Intensive English
(Bands 1 & 2)
General English
(Bands 3 & 4)
English for
Employability
(Bands 5 & 6)
English for Specific
Disciplines (On
request)
BEYOND CLASSROOM LEARNING
FORMAL LEARNING
STUDENT INTAKE
MUET
BANDS
4-6 CREDIT
HOURS
Immersion in
English (Bands
1 & 2)
Extra-curricular
activities
Self-Access
Learning
Industrial
Placements
Icon Programme
and Peer Support
Programme
GRADUATE
EMPLOYABILITY
Native Speaker
Support
Programme
AWARENESS-RAISING PROGRAMMES
Figure 8.1
English
Language
PROFILING FOR
EMPLOYABILITY
(OPTIONAL)
PUBLICITY
NEW MEDIA
The Proposed Structure for English Language Education at University
255

Immersive activities
focusing on
communication provide
the experience of
learning English in
a non-threatening
environment.
The bands referred to in the diagram are those used in

connection with the MUET, which measures English proficiency,
and which provides entrance requirements for all Malaysian public
universities (for a detailed description of the MUET, see Chapter
7). The MUET has been and will continue to be the examination
for entry into public universities.
The decision on the appropriate band(s) to be used as entrance
requirements for particular university degree programmes is the
prerogative of the individual universities themselves. Often,
students MUET bands are used for placement purposes, in order
to start them off at the appropriate level of language learning.
The general structure for this initiative has employability as its
target, using English as the means to achieve it. It can be adopted by
256
any university and includes the four components designed for students
at different levels of proficiency as measured by the MUET Bands:
1. Immersion in English is offered to students in Bands 1 and 2.
The aim is to provide the experience of learning English in a
non-threatening environment. The focus is on communication
rather than formal details of the language.
2. Intensive English provides support for students in MUET
Bands 1 and 2 before they go on to general proficiency. It is
designed to help incoming students who have problems with
their English, and enable those not yet proficient in English to
improve their basic language abilities. The focus is on developing
accuracy and fluency in speaking, writing and understanding,
with the necessary support in basic grammar and vocabulary.
3. General English is designed for students in MUET Band 3, and

for those who have completed the Intensive English Course.
The aim is to help students improve their overall command
of English in terms of general proficiency. The emphasis is on
the kind of English that they need in order to communicate
either in speech or writing. The contents of these courses will
focus on general topics so that students will become more
interested in the lessons, leading in turn to an increased sense
of motivation in their studies.
4. English for Specific Disciplines (ESD) is designed to improve
and refine students knowledge of English, and their ability to
function in an academic environment and other professional
settings, and in specific subject-matter areas such as business,
medicine, law, science and technology, built environment,
engineering etc. The notion of formality in language use
is to be explored at this level, and it is hoped that students
will become better equipped to use English appropriately and
professionally.
5. English for Employability (EfE) is designed to develop further
the English language and communication skills that students
need in order to communicate effectively in their social lives
and in their professional careers.
Underlying the structure is a consistent philosophy. The overall
purpose of learning English is to enable students to communicate
and interact as members of a particular social-cultural group, for

example, as university students when they are at university, as
members of a working community when they are employed, and as
members of the international community when they communicate
with people from other countries, either locally or overseas.
The task of raising standards has been made clearer by the
CEFR. To ensure that the levels of proficiency attained by
Malaysian graduates are consistent with international standards,
the CEFR will be used as a framework of reference for English
language learning and teaching in public universities in Malaysia.
An important matter that needs attention is the common
national exam, MUET, used presently by all universities as
an entrance or exit requirement for a programme of study.
Different programmes specify different MUET Band levels as the
English language entrance requirement. Although the MUET is
conceptually close to the spirit of the CEFR in that it is concerned
about language proficiency in real situations, it was developed
with greater emphasis on reading skills, as reading was perceived
as the skill most required by undergraduates.
However, as universities align their language courses and
programmes to the CEFR standards, it is clear that necessary
modifications or changes are required to align the MUET with
the CEFR as well, and to ensure that the MUET bands match
closely with corresponding CEFR levels. With these changes and
257

alignment of the MUET, it will be

possible for universities to use MUET
results for placement in CEFRaligned courses and the MUET as an
exit test for graduates.
8.3 ISSUES AND GAPS

Malaysian universities are largely
autonomous with regard to the
academic programmes they offer,
and since this autonomy extends
to the range and types of English
language courses that are offered to
undergraduates within each university,
issues relating to English language
learning and teaching in the university
are equally varied. However, as in
schools, there are common issues that
plague English language curricula,
teaching and learning and assessment
(Figure 8.2).
CURRICULUM
No common
curriculum across
all universities
Teacher-centred
pedagogy in most
universities
Programmes
and courses not
informed by a
common standard
or reference
Teacher
Competence: no
common minimum
proficiency level
and competencies
for teachers
Course Credits range

from 2-8 (80-320
notional hours)
- insufficient for
mastery of higher
levels of proficiency
Minimum MUET
Band entrance
requirement not
implemented for
all programmes
Instructional
Materials: original,
adapted materials
or textbooks based
on individual
syllabi and course
outcomes
ASSESSMENT
Discrepancy
between graduates
English competency
based on their
English language
scores in university
language courses
and their actual
performance during
job interviews
No common
denominator
for comparison
or reference
No alignment
with international
standards
Lack of systemic
institutional support
for English language
development
Figure 8.2
258
TEACHING & LEARNING
Issues at University Level
8.3.1 The Need for Reform: Common Issues

In reviewing English language education at university level, a
number of common issues and needs have been identified in the
three key areas of language curriculum, teaching and learning, and
assessment.
At present, there is no common English Language curriculum
across the universities, and having a common one may not be
viable as public universities have different programmes and are
largely independent of one another. In addition, existing English
Language curricula or programmes have not been internationally
benchmarked by any public university, suggesting the need
for a common international framework of reference which all
universities can use to inform their curriculum.
Another concern is the extremely limited number of credit and
contact hours that universities are willing to allocate for language
learning. Research has shown that it takes between 600 and 800
contact hours for a student to reach the higher levels of language
proficiency, but the number of credit hours available ranges
from two to a maximum of eight contact hours per week for 2-4
semesters over the entire three or four years of study, translating
only into 80 to 320 notional hours of learning.
The MUET is the required English examination for university
entrance, and individual universities have the prerogative to
decide on minimum MUET Band entry requirements for specific
programmes. However, these minimum requirements are not

always adhered to, resulting in the admission of students whose
English proficiency is inadequate for the demands of the academic
programmes in which they are enrolled. This situation presents
a great challenge to the curriculum, teaching staff and students
themselves, as such students will require more contact hours
and more help in order to achieve proficiency levels expected by
employers on leaving university.
Although language teachers in universities are seasoned
practitioners familiar with different types of curriculum and teaching
pedagogy, classroom pedagogy tends to be teacher-centred as
students are more comfortable with teacher-directed learning.
With the introduction of OBE in most universities, there have been
attempts to move towards learner autonomy. However, as seen in
studies cited, this has not been the case in language classrooms.
With the continued use of teacher-centred pedagogy, the
teacher or instructor as the role model for proficiency and
competency becomes more important. Yet minimum levels of
teacher proficiency and competencies required by universities
vary greatly, and no common minimum level of proficiency or
teaching certification stipulated for instructors teaching English
courses across all universities has been established.
Significantly, there are few continuous professional
development programmes specifically meant for language teachers
259

in universities. University English

instructors are also responsible for all
materials used in their courses, and
these range from adopted textbooks,
adapted and original materials
which help achieve specific learning
outcomes of courses; but it will be
necessary for them to ensure such
materials are aligned to international
standards.
There is also a lack of systemic
institutional support for English
proficiency development in most
universities, reflected in minimum
credits for English courses, few
activities conducted in English
beyond the classroom, and minimal
opportunities for students in certain
programmes to engage with the
language in other courses. Institutional
support needs to be established in order
to create English-rich environments in
in universities and for students to truly
comprehend the international, global
nature of the language.
CURRICULUM
A common
international
framework of
reference for
curriculum across
universities
Increased credit
hours for English
proficiency
Implementation
of minimum
English entrance
requirement
Systemic
institutional
support for the
development of
English proficiency
Figure 8.3
260
TEACHING & LEARNING
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
Teacher
Competence:
- A common
minimum entry
requirement for
teachers across
universities
- Continuous
Professional
Development for
language teachers
ASSESSMENT
A common
international
framework of
reference for
interpreting
performance across
universities
Benchmarking of
student performance
against international
standards
Alignment of
student performance
indicated by
grades with actual
performance in
job situations
A standardised exit
test to measure
language proficiency
Necessary Conditions for Reform
Employers have drawn attention to language grades that do not

reflect the performance of graduates at interviews. There is a great
discrepancy between interviewees English competency and scores
obtained for university language courses. Given the limited credits for
language learning, most universities offer courses with specific learning
outcomes, and the grades reflect internal assessment of courses taken
by students rather than proficiency in real social situations.
Currently, there is also no common framework to interpret
students language scores or performance across universities.
Using a common international framework of reference will allow
employers to interpret students language performance across
universities and against international standards. Some form of exit
test based on the framework would also meet these needs.
8.4
THE WAY FORWARD
In view of the issues and needs identified in the three key areas,
certain necessary conditions must be in place for the effective
reform of English learning at university level. The most important
of these is the need for a common international framework of
reference, which is the specific function of the CEFR.
Figure 8.3 presents the necessary conditions for reform guided
by the CEFR and inspired by the national agenda of graduate
employability.
8.4.1 The Proposed CEFR-aligned Curriculum

It is clear that a CEFR-aligned curriculum is better able to
inform language teachers, administrators and everyone involved
in language teaching in universities about the levels of proficiency
and competency that their students can attain. According to the
CEFR, the reference levels can be presented and exploited in a
number of different formats and in varying degrees of detail. A
variety of language courses and programmes can be aligned to the
CEFR.
The existence of fixed points of common reference (A1, A2,
B1, B2, C1 and C2) offers transparency and coherence, a tool
for future planning, and a basis for the further development of
curricula. Each CEFR level corresponds to particular language
tasks that students should be able to perform.
For example, according to the CEFR global scale, a graduate who
has achieved C1 can understand a wide range of demanding, longer
texts, and recognise implicit meaning, can express him/herself fluently
and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions,
can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and
professional purposes, can produce clear, well-structured, detailed
text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational
patterns, connectors and cohesive devices (CEFR, p. 24). Aligning
current language programmes to the CEFR will enable universities
to have a common international framework of reference.
261

Student-centred
and studentled learning is
encouraged in a
CEFR-oriented
classroom.
8.4.2 CEFR-oriented Teaching and Learning
The introduction of the CEFR for language learning would
require in-depth training and continuous professional development
of teachers in order to achieve effective pedagogy. The CEFR
adopts learner-centredness in line with its action-oriented
approach, which describes language use in terms of the individual
learner-users communicative capacity.
Autonomous learning is promoted and regarded as an integral
part of language learning, so that learners become increasingly aware
of the way they learn, the options open to them and the options that
best suit them. Students can be brought increasingly to make choices
in respect of objectives, materials and working methods in the light
of their own needs, motivations, characteristics and resources.
262
Thus, a CEFR-oriented pedagogy encourages the learner

to be autonomous and proactively involved in a task-based
curriculum, which in turn enhances life-long learning towards
employability. This motivates the need and demand for an
internationally benchmarked minimum level of teacher proficiency
and competency in order to achieve the aspirational target for
graduates at the exit point.
8.4.3 CEFR Targets

In view of the aspirational targets, universities will need to
ensure that students have every opportunity to attain a high B2
or C1 as required for employability. On its website, Cambridge
English states that a qualification of CEFR level B2 shows that

one has the language skills to start work in an English-speaking
environment.
Although the aspirational target for achievement and
employability at the end of Phase 3 or 2025 is a CEFR level high
B2 or C1, and entrance requirement is a low B2, universities
may continue to have different entrance requirements for their
programmes.
To ensure improved language proficiency for graduates, the
MoHE has stated that all undergraduates, regardless of their entry
MUET levels, must exit the university at one level higher than that
with which they entered the university. This requirement is to be
implemented in 2016 with the 2016 intake of students who are
expected to graduate in 2019/2020.
It is recommended that this requirement be applied to students
with MUET Entry Level Bands 1 to 3. Those with Bands 4 to 6
should not need to be re-assessed on the MUET but they should
show improvement.
As the MUET will be used as a guide for student placement
in CEFR-aligned programmes, the test needs to be aligned to the
CEFR. An alignment exercise has already been undertaken, with
Cambridge English as an independent evaluator. Initial findings
show that Bands 3 and 4 results based on the MUET are closely
aligned to Levels B1 and B2 results on the CEFR, indicating that

people who achieve these levels are independent users. As these
are the levels of proficiency generally considered adequate for
entry into universities, these findings indicate that the MUET is
appropriate as an entrance test.
However, the findings show that the test does not discriminate
as well at the lowest levels of Bands 1 and 2 and the highest levels of
Bands 5 and 6. This means that in order for the MUET to be used to
determine whether students in Bands 1 and 2 have attained a higher
proficiency and performed better on the test, the MUET needs to be
refined or changed in order for it to be a valid and reliable test.
Given the need to review the MUET so that it can be used
as an appropriate exit test, an alignment exercise is already
underway. Universities could in the interim employ alternative
internationally standardised tests to indicate improvement in the
students proficiency levels. In addition, universities are free to
carry out complementary forms of assessment for the English
courses offered.
8.4.4 The Roadmap

This section explains the general direction proposed for the
university-level English Language Roadmap, the strategic plans
and actions for each successive phase of the journey, and the
263

Entry
Point
English Language Education in Universities
low
B2
Exit
Point
HIGH
B2/C1
CEFR-INFORMED CURRICULUM + TEACHING & LEARNING + ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.4
Eventual target level of English Language Education in Universities
milestones which can be expected to have been achieved at the

end of each phase.
meantime, it is expected that students will enter and exit university

at levels below these targets.
The hope is for all students to enter university with at least a

low B2 on the CEFR scale. During their studies, they should be
given an English language learning experience informed by the
CEFR. Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment should all be based
on can do statements appropriate for this university group.
The target level of achievement for the first phase of the

Roadmap (2015 - 2016) is a low B2, which corresponds to the ability
of an Independent User. As defined by the CEFR, independent
user proficiency indicates the ability to hold ones own in social
discourse. The target for the second phase (2017 - 2020) is a high
B2, which relates to a highly independent user. At this level,
students are able to handle discourse that is more demanding; they
have the ability to be flexible, and have control of the language
elements for social, academic and professional purposes. In the
third phase (2021 - 2025) the target is a high B2 or low C1, at
least for students who enter university with CEFR B2. At the
end of their university careers, students are expected to exit the
university as independent, proficient users of English.
The achievement hoped for at the end of their journey is for nonTESL and non-English majors to graduate with levels of proficiency
ranging from B2 to C1 (see Figure 8.4) and for TESL and English
majors to graduate with levels ranging from C1 to C2. The concern in
this chapter is, however, only with non-TESL and non-English majors.
These aims are not immediately achievable, and it may be
at least 10 years before we can realistically expect students to
enter and exit university with the aspirational target levels. In the
264
8.4.5 Action Plans

The university-level English Language Roadmap is to be
implemented with effect from 2015, and will be carried out in
four phases ending in 2028. The proposed phases are guided by
the MEB (2013 2025) and the GE Blueprint (2012 2017). The
timetabled actions of the university level Roadmap are presented
in Section C of this document.
Phase 1: Preparing For Structural Change (2015 2016)

The first phase is intended to establish the CEFR as a common
framework for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment across all
universities. The focus will be on reviewing existing curricula,
aligning them with the CEFR and GE competencies, and adapting
the CEFR for the Malaysian context.
Adopting the CEFR as a common framework does not
necessarily translate into developing one common curriculum for
all universities. Each university will still have the autonomy to
determine its own course content, sequence of courses and learning
outcomes, but the CEFR provides a frame of reference for setting
or calibrating course outcomes to meet target proficiency levels.
In developing or re-engineering learning outcomes, it would be
useful to incorporate input from employers about what language-
related tasks employees should be able to perform. Materials need

to be reviewed in the light of the curriculum review. In order to
achieve the targets, it will be necessary to increase the credit
hours for English language learning,
As a rule of thumb, some 200 hours of guided learning hours are
required for an adult language learner to master one CEFR level.
Slightly less hours are required for the lower levels of proficiency.
The minimum total number of hours required by an adult learner
to attain a CEFR level C1 proficiency would be at least 800-1000
guided learning hours.
A student entering university with a high MUET Band 4 or 5
should be able to attain a low C1 proficiency with a minimum of
6 credit hours (240 hours of student learning time). However, as
many universities entrance requirements for English are below
these bands, an increase in credit hours for English language
learning would be required to enable students to meet the B2/C1
exit requirement.
It is important, then, that universities observe the minimum
English language entrance requirement and encourage incidental
learning through exposure to English beyond the classroom.
Institutional-level commitment will be needed to support
collaboration between the language proficiency unit and other
entities in the university.
265

Discussion and agreement are needed to specify the courses or

parts of courses, co-curricular activities, and other learning activities
that can be conducted in English. Interaction-rich activities such
as problem-based learning sessions, group investigative projects
and practical course components lend themselves well to the use
of English as the medium of communication to allow for greater
engagement with and incidental learning of the language. During
this period, universities should also be developing and reviewing
English language teaching and learning, and assessment tools.
The review of curriculum and materials will be accompanied
by the alignment of teaching and learning with the CEFR, so that
learning objectives are aligned with the CEFR targets. The spirit of
the CEFR will necessitate the promotion of autonomous learning
among students, as they will need to learn how to monitor their
own progress in the form of can do statements.
These changes should bring about a systemic transformation
of English language learning accompanied by the creation of the
English-rich environment mentioned above. Existing English
Language teachers will be key agents in the process of change,
and thus, they will need to have a qualification in education and an
adequate level of proficiency. The current language qualification
for teachers therefore needs to be reviewed at this stage, followed
by the introduction of C1 as the minimum proficiency level.
266
During this phase, the CEFR will also be adopted as the

framework for assessment. Existing assessment methods and
standards will be reviewed and aligned according to specific CEFR
entry and exit targets. As there is no existing exit data on the English
proficiency of students at graduation, a CEFR-benchmarked test
needs to be established to ascertain baseline proficiency levels for
the roadmap. As this phase represents the beginning of the whole
national CEFR-informed journey, the expected proficiency level
for students exiting tertiary education during this first phase will
be a low CEFR level B2.
Phase 2: Implementing and Monitoring Structural Change

(2017 2020)
The second phase will focus on implementing, developing
further, and/or monitoring efforts initiated in Phase 1.
The curriculum, having been reviewed and aligned to the
CEFR in the first phase, will be implemented in the second. During
this period, the curriculum will be improved to reach more CEFR
targets. Following the review of materials in Phase 1, this phase
should see the development and adoption of course materials
aligned to CEFR standards and appropriate for the Malaysian
context. The minimum English language proficiency requirement
implemented in Phase 1 will now be reviewed.
In line with the implementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum,

CEFR-driven teaching and learning will be developed and
implemented. Improvements in the quality of teachers and teaching
initiated in Phase 1 need to be complemented by CPD for teachers.
Recertification of teachers English proficiency based on a CEFRreferenced test has also to be made a criterion for promotion.
During this phase, there needs to be monitoring of efforts initiated
in Phase 1 to promote learner autonomy and systemic efforts to
sustain the English-rich environments created in the first phase.
Appropriate assessment practices for the CEFR will be
developed and implemented. CEFR assessment targets established
in Phase 1 need to be enforced now. At this point, it will be time
to develop and pilot a standardised CEFR-benchmarked test
for universities. An established CEFR-benchmarked test will
be conducted on a sample of university students to monitor the
effectiveness of efforts so far undertaken. At the end of this phase,
it is hoped that graduates will be able to achieve a proficiency level
corresponding to a high B2 on the CEFR scale.
Phase 3: Scaling Up Structural Change (2021 2025)

The focus during the third phase will be on reviewing strategies
and efforts implemented in Phases 1 and 2, and monitoring graduate
attributes at the point of exit from university in line with the GE
Blueprint.
During this period, the CEFR-aligned curriculum will be

reviewed in the light of feedback first from parties such as
teachers, students and institutions who are directly involved in
the implementation process, and secondly from parties such as
employers who are expected to benefit as a result.
At this point, it will be appropriate to develop and conduct
an Employer Satisfaction Survey (ESS) to ascertain employer
satisfaction with graduates English language performance, data
from which will provide feedback on the effectiveness of the
CEFR-aligned curriculum.
Feedback from Alumni on the curriculum would also be
very useful; appropriate questions could be easily incorporated
into alumni tracer studies that are already being conducted by
most universities. Problematic aspects of the curriculum will be
identified and addressed in order to refine and strengthen it.
The effectiveness of CEFR-driven teaching and learning
will also be reviewed during this period, based on feedback from
teachers and students. The quality of language teachers will be
reviewed and appropriate upskilling efforts continued.
During this phase, an established CEFR-benchmarked test will
be conducted to monitor the language competence of the entire
university graduate population at the exit point. Data from this test
and the ESS will be used to study the extent of the match between
267

student performance indicated by grades and actual performance

in job situations.
3 will validate the CEFR-informed efforts to develop the desired

graduate attributes for employment in line with the GE Blueprint.
At this point, the standardised CEFR-benchmarked test for

universities should be reviewed and validated. A CEFR level of
high B2 to C1, in line with employers expectations of graduate
English language proficiency, should be considered the minimum
English language requirement on exit from university.
At this final stage of the roadmap, universities should also be

validating the standardised CEFR-benchmarked test developed
during the third phase. At this point, universities should be able to
take in students with low B2 at entry level, and bring them up to
an exit proficiency level between a high B2 and C1 on graduation.
The Post-MEB Phase (2026 2028)
8.4.6 Expected outcomes
Based on data from the first three phases, the focus of the
fourth and final phase of CEFR implementation (2026 2028)
will be on validating the appropriateness of the Malaysian CEFRaligned curriculum, its attendant teaching and learning efforts, and
its assessment methods.
The roadmap for Universities identifies expected outcomes at

the end of each phase, and these will enable universities to assess
the progress made in each phase. The outcomes are categorised
under the three main areas of curriculum, teaching and learning
and assessment. The target exit proficiency level at the end of
each phase indicates the level at which it is hoped non-English
major graduates will exit the university.
During this final phase of the university roadmap, we should

be establishing the external validation of graduate competency
in English for the university students who have gone through the
CEFR-informed English Language education journey, by means of
an established CEFR-benchmarked test.
It is hoped that the results will lead to the validation of the CEFR
curriculum, CEFR-informed teaching and learning and assessment
methods in Malaysia. The data from the ESS conducted in Phase
268
In the first phase of the roadmap, graduates are expected to

exit the university at a low CEFR B2 level. At this stage, the
CEFR GE competencies-informed Malaysian university curricula
is developed, the CEFR adopted pedagogy and assessments across
universities are reviewed, and CEFR targets are established.
In the second phase, graduates are expected to exit university

at a high CEFR B2 level. At this stage, the CEFR-informed
curriculum and CEFR-driven pedagogy are implemented. CEFR
assessment targets and exit test are developed.
In the next phase graduates are expected to exit university at a
high CEFR B2-C1 level. This is the stage where the CEFR-aligned
curriculum and teaching quality and upskilling efforts are reviewed.
Graduate attributes are ascertained and a CEFR-benchmarked
test developed for universities in Malaysia.
In the Post-MEB phase, graduates are expected to exit
university at a high CEFR B2-C1 level. At this stage, the Malaysian
university CEFR-informed curriculum, pedagogy and assessment
are validated, efforts to develop graduate attributes for employment
are validated according to an Employers Satisfaction Survey, and
graduate competency in English Language is externally validated
based on exit tests.
8.5
Implications and Recommendations
Several implications can be drawn from the discussion within

the chapter thus far. In essence, it was emphasised that the three
key areas, namely language curriculum, teaching and learning, and
assessment, need a certain level of standardisation. Since there
is no common university curriculum, students language learning
experience is inconsistent, often teacher-centred. In the same

way, when requirements for teacher recruitment vary across
universities, language teaching differs too.
Furthermore, when there is no common denominator for
comparison as well as reference of the assessment systems at
universities, reliability of student achievements is compromised.
Thus, these key elements need to be coordinated and standardised
to a common framework, if we want to address the concern for
English language proficiency and ability among graduates.
Hence, to achieve the aspirational targets set for university,
it is recommended that English language education in public
universities include the implementation of:

the CEFR as a common framework of reference for the English

language curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment;
an increase in credit hours for English language learning;
a minimum teacher proficiency level corresponding to CEFR C1;
the recertification of English language competency for the

promotion of teachers;
an internationally benchmarked exit test for all graduates and
institutional support for the creation of an English-rich

environment.
269

In addition, it is recommended that English language reform in

universities be carried out in tandem with a move to educate the
public about the CEFR. Employers in particular will need to be
informed about what the various proficiency levels indicate, the
aspirations of the English Language Roadmap in implementing the
CEFR as a common framework, and its impact on employability.
to teach them is not going to work. The more realistic approach

proposed here is to provide a general framework which universities
can draw upon to design their own English language programmes,
and modify to suit their own circumstances. This approach is in
keeping with the spirit of the CEFR, which provides a framework
but carefully avoids telling individuals and institutions exactly what
they have to do.
8.6 Conclusion
Although the onus is on universities to provide their students

with suitable courses, this does not mean that students are
passive participants in their own education. Being employable also
includes taking responsibility for ones own personal development.
The emphasis on English teaching at university level therefore has
to be on enabling the students to become autonomous learners,
to assess for themselves what they have to do to improve their
English and attain the necessary skills, and to develop the study
skills required to learn independently during their university career
and later in the workplace.
In Malaysia, as in many other countries, the higher education

sector is set the task of producing a highly educated workforce
able to operate in an increasingly competitive and globalised
world. Since English is the language of the globalised world, this
means in practice that universities have to produce graduates able
to operate internationally in English.
The key ability involved here is to communicate effectively in
English both within Malaysia and internationally, and take part in
interactive situations in speech and in writing. Employability is no
longer seen as an incidental outcome of higher education, but as a
target that has to be reached by appropriate and realistic strategies.
In view of the different institutional cultures of our public
universities, and the relative independence they enjoy, a top-down
approach informing the universities what English courses they
have to provide for their students, and when and how they have
270
In line with such autonomy, students will be able, at the end of

their studies, to have their own language portfolio, which will be
the documentation of their university English language experience
and achievements.

Teacher Education
271

Chapter 9:
Teacher Education
his chapter focuses on English language education from

the perspective of teacher education, covering both the
pre-service and the in-service training of English language
teachers. Within the context of this roadmap, English language
teacher education (henceforth ELTE) is an important component
as it impacts directly on the quality of English language teachers,
and on the quality of English language teaching and learning taking
place across the school and higher education system.
To raise the level of English to international standards, the
entire process of English language education including ELTE
has to be aligned to international standards of English language
proficiency and competencies. In line with the MEB, the CEFR is
adopted as the framework of reference for ELTE, which includes
the initial process of selection for teacher education programmes,
the pre-service ELTE curriculum, in-service training programmes,
and the accreditation of English language teachers.
The discussion in this chapter is based on the premise that
quality English education needs a continuous supply of trained
English language teachers who undergo planned continuous
professional development throughout their careers. The intake
of student teachers must be based on a standardised minimum
CEFR proficiency level. The exit proficiency levels for all English
language teaching graduates must be set at a minimum C1. This
means that the ELTE curriculum, including assessment, must be
aligned to this level.
272
It is also recommended that the minimum English language

proficiency level of teacher educators be set at C2. All English
language professional development programmes must also be
benchmarked accordingly.
This chapter is divided into the following sections: 9.1 provides a
brief background sketch of the development of teacher education in
Malaysia; 9.2 highlights issues relating to ELTE from three perspectives:
curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment, while taking into
account both pre- and in-service ELTE; 9.3 discusses the actions that
need to be taken on the way forward with the roadmap; 9.4 discusses
the implications and recommendations that need consideration; and
9.5 summarises and concludes the chapter.
9.1 Background
The early years of teacher training saw the establishment of
teacher training colleges in Singapore, Melaka and Tanjong Malim.
After the Second World War, the increased need for teachers
brought about the establishment of more teaching colleges
(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1967). Teacher training was also
carried out in the United Kingdom, in Liverpool and Brinsford
Lodge in the 1950s and early 60s (Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid, 2004).
In general, teacher education in Malaysia has had a two-track

system with teaching colleges training non-graduate teachers for
primary and lower secondary schools, and universities producing
teachers with degree qualifications and a postgraduate diploma
in education (for those with a non-teaching specific degree) for
secondary schools (Lee, 2002). Subsequently, some of the colleges had
twinning programmes with local universities for degree programmes.
Now known as Institutes of Teacher Education Malaysia (ITEM),
they can award the degree of Bachelor of Teaching.
Following the conversion of English medium schools into
national Malay medium schools, English was taught as a compulsory
subject in both primary and secondary schools. Over the last four
decades there have been numerous initiatives (see Appendix 9.A)
to enhance English language teacher education at pre-service and
in-service levels.
These initiatives have taken place within the context of changes
in education policy and the curriculum as well as the liberalisation
of education in Malaysia. Four main approaches can be identified
in these initiatives (see Appendix 9.A):
(1) The use of expatriate English language teachers through
programmes such as the CfBT English teachers placement (19781984) and A Level (1984-1988) projects, and the Fulbright English
Teaching Assistants Programme (from 2012).
273

(2) The training of existing English language teachers and teacher

educators through programmes such as the English Language
Native Speaker Mentoring Programme (2011-2015), the Project
to Improve English in Rural Schools (PIERS) conducted by
CfBT (2006-2012), the Training of Trainers for English Language
Lecturers in Institutes of Teacher Education (ELITE-ToT), and
Professional Up-skilling of English Language Teachers (ProELT)
conducted by the British Council and subsequently several other
private training providers (from 2012).
(3) Pre-service English language teacher education both locally
and abroad, such as the six-year B.Ed. TESL (or equivalent)
programme in the UK (1984-1997), and the twinning
programmes between Institutes of Teacher Education Malaysia
and partner universities in the UK and New Zealand.
(4) The training of non-English language graduates through the
Kursus Perguruan Lepasan Ijazah (KPLI) and the Certificate in
the Practice of English Language Teaching (C-PELT) for nonoption English Language Teachers, and the Reinforcing English
Language Teaching for Non-Option English Language Teachers
(RELTNOTe) for non-option English Language teachers not
following C-PELT (Ministry of Education Malaysia, Frequently
Asked Questions).
274
Like past initiatives, recent ones have been geared towards:

(1) improving English language education in schools.
(2) enhancing teacher education both at pre-service and inservice levels.
(3) increasing the number of English language teachers.
However, the declining standards of English in schools, among
Malaysian graduates and among English language teachers suggest
that there are gaps and issues that need to be addressed with
respect to the entire national English language education system.
One of these issues pertains to ELTE, and the following section
identifies issues and gaps in this area.
9.2
Issues and Gaps
Despite the range of initiatives carried out over the years to

enhance ELTE, both at the pre-service and in-service levels, several
issues and gaps are apparent in the training and development of
English language teachers.
The following sections present these issues and gaps, which are
generally related to the three inter-related components curriculum,
teaching and learning, and assessment (see Figure 9.1).
9.2.1 The Absence of Curricular Standards for ELTE at the

Pre-service and In-service Levels
Figure 9.1
Issues
and Gaps
in ELTE
Curriculum
Absence of curricular
standards at the pre-service
and in-service levels
Absence of English language
proficiency standards in the
ELTE curriculum
Teaching & Learning

Inadequate use of English
as a medium of instruction
in ELTE
Inadequate teaching
knowledge and ineffective
classroom practices
Inadequate management of
in-service teacher training
and development
Assessment
Licensure assessment
Absence of a
standardised entry
and exit level
benchmarked English
language proficiency
test.
The ELTE landscape is marked by a range of providers and

programmes which come under the purview of different agencies,
such as the Institute of Teacher Education Malaysia (ITEM), MoE,
Teacher Training Division, MoE, Department of Higher Education,
(MoHE) and the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). With
different providers at both the pre-service level (e.g. Universities
and ITEM) and in-service level (e.g. Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB)
and the English Language Teaching Centre (ELTC)), there are
issues pertaining to the content and delivery of the different ELTE
curricula, and these are compounded by a lack of coordinated
communication structure between the various divisions within
the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education, and
among the ELTE programme providers.
At the pre-service level, ELTE is provided by 26 ITEMs (one
ITEM is purpose-built for Bahasa Malaysia only) and more than 20
public and private universities. These institutions offer both preservice and in-service programmes of different durations. In-service
English language education programmes are provided by ELTC.
Pre-service programmes are teacher preparation courses,
mostly at the certificate and diploma levels, offered to schoolleavers who have chosen to be teachers. These courses are usually
long-term courses ranging between one and a half to three years
275

Taught in
English
Taught in Bahasa
Malaysia
Component
Credit
Weightage %
Major
45
34
Professional studies **
27
20
Practicum ****
14
11
Compulsory subjects
23
17
Electives
24
18
TOTAL
133
100
** may be conducted in English if the lecturers from the Education Department are proficient in English
**** in both languages as trainees will teach the major and one or two other non-English subjects which will be taught in Malay
Table 9.1
276
The Bachelor of Teaching (TESL) Primary Education

Programme at Institutes of Teacher Education
for a diploma. ITEs conduct both diploma and degree level courses
for the teaching of English.
Apart from ITEs offering the Bachelor of Teaching (TESL),
local universities offer a range of TESL programmes under different
names such as B.Ed. with Education (Hons), B.Ed. TESOL, B.A.
(TESOL), B.Ed. (Hons.), B.Sc. with Education, B.A. Eng. Ed.
(Hons.), B.Ed. (Hons.) Primary Ed. and B.A. (Hons) English
Studies (see Appendix 9.B). Since there are numerous TESL
programme providers, the curriculum for ELTE varies from one
public university to another (e.g. Faculty of Education, University
of Malaya; Fakulti Bahasa dan Komunikasi, Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris; Kulliyyah of Education, International Islamic
University Malaysia) and with the Teaching Institutes. Table
9.1 shows the components in the Bachelor of Teaching (TESL)
Primary Education Programme.
Whereas the 26 ITEs follow a standard curriculum, universities
have autonomy in designing their curriculum within the guidelines
provided by universities themselves and by the Malaysian Qualifications
Agency (MQA). Like other Bachelors degree programmes, the
TESL programmes at universities generally cover university, core
faculty, core programme and elective courses. The MQA stipulated
in 2014 that by 2015 all Higher Education Providers (HEPs) offering
programmes in Education must adhere to the Education Programme
Standards (EPS) laid down by the Pekeliling MQA Bil. 3/2014.
It also makes reference to the Pedagogy Standards for English

Language Teaching (PSELT), which is built along six dimensions:
proficiency, English language curriculum, learners, methodology,
management, and assessment. However, there is no consistency in
the standards and type, depth and breadth of coverage for elements
of English language structure and proficiency, principles of language
learning, general and specific ELT pedagogy, and professional practice.
Since there are no clear programme standards for ELTE, including
language proficiency levels, subject knowledge (e.g. knowledge of
the language, how it is formed, used, taught and learnt), and no
internationally aligned language curriculum for ELTE, the quality of
the output of such programmes cannot be guaranteed.
This is likely to have a knock-on effect in turn on the language
proficiency of students and also on the quality of teaching and learning
practices as indicated by the Cambridge Baseline. In this study, more
than half of the Form 5 students sampled achieved a CEFR A2
and below, which categorises them as basic users of English. Low
achievements in English language were also reported in the MEB:
only 28% of students achieved a minimum credit in the 2011 SPM
English paper against Cambridge 1119 standards (MEB, p. E-13).
The Cambridge Baseline also found problems in teaching
and learning practices in the classroom. These may be due to a
variety of factors, including the focus on teaching knowledge
in the ELTE programmes. There are also problems regarding
277

BAND 4
Overall the teacher demonstrates a good range of procedures and techniques and is able
to plan and deliver a very effective lesson. The lesson provides for learner interaction,
and challenges and engages the learners.
BAND 3
Overall the teacher has good control of a range of procedures and techniques, and is
able to plan and manage a useful lesson. More variety and challenge would increase
effectiveness and provide for more learner engagement and participation in the learning
process.
BAND 2
Overall the teacher is aware of and can plan and implement a range of appropriate
teaching procedures and techniques, but needs to do so more consistently and
effectively to maximise learner engagement and participation in the learning process.
BAND 1
Overall the teacher displays awareness of some appropriate procedures and techniques
but is unable to plan for and implement them consistently, and there is little evidence
of learner engagement and participation in the learning process to achieve learning
outcomes.
Table 9.2
278
TKT Bands as cited in the Cambridge Baseline 2013
teaching knowledge; for instance, the average Band for the

Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT)(see Bands in Table 9.2) was
3, which included 65% of the teachers (p. 87). It was found (p.
88) that more secondary school teachers (75%) reached Band 3
than primary school teachers (49%), which is consistent with the
findings for proficiency levels.
The TKT focused on concepts and terminology for describing
language and language learning and teaching, lesson planning and
use of resources, and managing the teaching and learning process
(p. 87) and is scored on a four-band scale, on which Band 4 indicates
comprehensive and accurate knowledge of the focus areas, and
Band 1 restricted knowledge.
It is important to note that only 1% of the teachers reached a
Band 4, and 43% of primary teachers and 24% of secondary teachers
reached only Band 2. One of the reasons for the lower achievement
of primary school teachers in the TKT could be due to the type of
pre-service training they had received.
9.2.2 The Absence of English Language Proficiency Standards

in the ELTE Curriculum
The range of English language proficiency among student
teachers and practising teachers reflects the absence of English
proficiency standards on entry to and exit from ELTE and in the
ELTE curriculum. Although a Grade A in SPM English is now a

prerequisite for entry to TESL programmes, (Ministry of Education,
2015b) this is not an internationally benchmarked qualification.
Further, as shown in Appendix 9.B, while the different
institutions have similar general academic entry requirements,
depending on whether students enter at SPM or STPM level or
have prior working experience in the case of those taking postgraduate courses, English proficiency requirements vary, although
common minimum requirements include MUET Band 4, or
IELTS 6, or TOEFL 550. In comparison, the minimum set by most
European countries for language teacher education is CEFR B2 or
C1. At entry level, the only standard requirement is the Malaysian
Educators Selection Inventory (MEdSI) which is a psychometric
test for intending teachers. However, since there is no mandatory
standardised English language assessment at entry level, levels of
proficiency amongst trainees differ considerably.
The practice of accepting students with different English
language grades which are not benchmarked against a common
standard, and then offering them at best English language
proficiency courses which are again not aligned to common
standards, is likely to produce teachers without the necessary
proficiency in the language they are trained to teach. As already
mentioned, this can affect their teaching practices, and eventually
the English language achievements of their students.
279

In 2012 and 2013, all TESL trainees from the 26 ITEs sat for the
Cambridge Placement Test (CPT). The results indicated that 65%
failed to achieve the CEFR C1 required on graduation. Only a small
percentage attained C2: 6.4% in 2012, and just 3.7% in 2013. Since
2014, all TESL students have had to take the British Council APTIS
test, which showed that less than 50% of those in the Foundation
(PPISMP) and degree (PISMP) programmes were at C1 or C2.
In contrast, more than 70% of trainees on the twinning
programmes with overseas universities in the UK, Australia and
New Zealand scored C1 and above compared to less than 40% on
local training programmes. The difference in performance is most
likely due to the different entry level requirements for English. The
entry requirement for the twinning programmes is a distinction
in SPM English. The twinning programmes also give students the
additional advantage of taking all their courses in English.
The Cambridge Baseline shows that Malaysian teachers
achieved CEFR B2 on average, Speaking being the weakest of
the four language skills, a finding which matches the finding that
Speaking was also the weakest skill for students. The majority of
teachers (84%) achieved B2 to C2, 52% reaching C1 to C2, and
32% remaining in B2 (p. 78). This presents a rather positive picture
of teachers proficiency levels; but as indicated in the study, the
teachers that took the tests may not have been representative of
Malaysian teachers in general, 40% having a BA and 10% an MA
in Education (p. 79).
280
Further, 60% claimed to have more than 11 years of teaching

experience (p. 8). The findings may thus show a higher average
proficiency because more proficient teachers took the test.
Nevertheless, the findings do show that 63% of those teaching
in urban schools achieved CEFR levels C1 and C2 compared to only
42% of those teaching in rural and remote areas. Secondary school
teachers generally ranged from B2 compared to B1 for primary
teachers. It was rather alarming to find that 28% of teachers teaching
in primary schools and 18% in rural and remote areas had CEFR levels
of below B2. Even more disconcerting was the finding from the CPT
that 15.5% of English language lecturers in ITEs were at B1 or B2.
All these results point to the lack of any standardised provision
for English language proficiency in ELTEs and universities. What
is needed is for all trainees to take a standardised internationally
benchmarked English language proficiency programme to ensure
that on graduation they meet the minimum level expected of
English language teachers according to assessment criteria aligned
to international standards.
Without such standards, we are unlikely to achieve our
aspiration to improve the English language proficiency of students.
For example, research generally indicates that teachers use
teacher-fronted approaches because of their own inadequate
language proficiency (Butler, 2004; Nakata, 2010; Richards, 2011).
Teaching is generally
not seen as a profession
of choice where only
the best candidates are
selected to undergo
training and retained in
the teaching profession.
The Cambridge Baseline Study suggests that English language
teachers as a whole need to improve their own level of spoken English,
in terms of accuracy, fluency and pronunciation. This is corroborated
by reports from Heads of Departments and Schools that teachers
need to improve their language proficiency, and it is consistent with
the findings of the Ministrys study on the feasibility of making English
a compulsory pass (EPRD, 2012) in the Form Five examination.
The MoE study found that a substantial number of non-English
language option teachers are teaching English without the training
or the competency to teach the language with confidence. As
a consequence, opportunities to use English in the classroom are
likely to be reduced as these teachers, especially those teaching
in vernacular schools, resort to the use of the mother tongue and
teacher-fronted teaching.
9.2.3 The Inadequate Use of English as a Medium of

Instruction in ELTE
Apart from the programme specific courses, which comprise
about 50-60% of the course structure (see Table 9.1 for examples),
the medium of instruction is likely to be Bahasa Malaysia. This
reduces the amount of exposure and use of English during the
programme. This may be one of the reasons why trainees on the
twinning programme performed better in the APTIS test than
those on local ELTE programmes (see section 9.2.2).
Public universities also vary in the use of English in the training
curriculum. Some require students to submit assignments and tests
for non-English subjects in Bahasa Malaysia. Private universities
offering ELTE programmes, on the other hand, conduct the
281

whole programme in English. The teaching practice component or

Practicum also tends to be conducted in two languages as trainees
also have to teach another school subject, which is likely to be
presented in Bahasa Malaysia.
9.2.4 Inadequate Teaching

Classroom Practices
Knowledge
and
Ineffective
The Cambridge Baseline study raises an issue concerning

teaching knowledge (see 9.2.1) and classroom practices. Only about
half of the primary school teachers (49%) reached Band 3 in the
TKT, with as many more reaching only Band 2, which suggests
relatively shallow knowledge of the items tested (see 9.2.1). This
lack of knowledge becomes apparent during classroom observation
and interviews with teachers, where the predominant view
of learning in the lessons observed appeared to be that of a
transmissive input-output model.
Classroom observation was evaluated both qualitatively and
quantitatively, the latter being based on four items contributing
to effective teaching. The majority of the teachers were placed in
Bands 2 (42%) and 3 (35%), and only 18% reached Band 4 (p. 92).
The observation focused on five items evaluated on a fourband scale: learning atmosphere, language and systems, classroom
management, use of English, and monitoring, feedback and correction.
282
A total of 78 classrooms in 41 schools were observed, and the study

reported the following observations on in-service teachers:

Lessons were teacher-fronted.
The teaching model was transmissive.
Teachers did not correct or provide feedback on learners use

of English in class.
Teachers tended to avoid errors and students were encouraged

not to make errors.
Tasks were not challenging.
There was a lack of supportive teacher talk.
There was a lack of skill in materials design to address

communicative needs.
There was a lack of skill in developing differentiation activities.
The focus on teaching the skills of Reading and Writing will

not help students gain comprehensive mastery of the language
especially in Speaking, which was reported to be weak up to higher
secondary level and even among tertiary students. The study found
that teachers inability to provide feedback on language errors and
design appropriate learning tasks could be linked to their lack of
knowledge and competence in developing appropriate assessments.
Teachers teach to the test instead of structuring their teaching

to meet the language needs of students and improve their
language proficiency. There was no demonstration of assessment
literacy among teachers, and this inadequacy could affect the
implementation of School-Based Assessment and its impact on
student achievement.
In sum, classroom observations found that lessons were
teacher-dominated, and showed little understanding of the
concept of teacher and learner roles (p. 91). This observation
is consistent with the finding in the SEAMEO INNOTECH
Report about teaching competencies standards that encouraging
active and equitable student participation by varying roles in the
instructional process (facilitator, coach, or audience) in relation
to the content and purpose of instruction was a missing teacher
competency in Malaysia (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2010). Such
classroom practices means that there is a lack of differentiated
teaching and learning strategies to cater for students with different
proficiency levels in the same class.
Apart from practical teaching knowledge, theoretical
knowledge of English and of language learning and teaching are
important competencies for English language teachers. They must
also be trained to teach and assess a CEFR-aligned curriculum.
Some elements of this curriculum and assessment have already been
implemented. In 2014, assessment for the Pentaksiran Tingkatan
3 (PT3) included the assessment of listening and speaking skills

with reference to the CEFR. This was done to benchmark student
proficiency level to international standards.
9.2.5 Inadequate Management of In-Service Teacher Training

and Development
Numerous in-service training and development courses
concerning English language teaching are conducted throughout
the year at great costs. For example, the Ministry of Education
realigned RM300 million or 23% of its non-emolument budget
towards activities with greater impact on student outcomes. The
activities include improving English language acquisition in the
classroom through Native Speakers and English Teacher Assistants
programmes ... (Ministry of Education, 2015b). In 2014, ELTC
conducted a total of 31 types of courses in which 3,634 teachers
and other ELT practitioners were trained at various levels.
Among the recent short-term initiatives are the Professional Upskilling of English Language Teachers (Pro-ELT), the Native Speaker
Programme, Fulbright Teaching Assistants and School Improvement
Specialist Coaches (SISC+). Under the Pro-ELT initiative, more
than ten thousand primary and secondary English language teachers
have undergone training to improve their language proficiency.
283

Type of Training and Development
Reaction to curricular and

policy changes
Courses Supporting Curriculum

Change
(Information from ELTC)
284
Teaching of Phonics, Fun Learning through

Language Arts, Literature for Secondary School,
Reading Fluency, Digital Stories
Courses Supporting System

Change
Intensive Course in ELT (ICELT) Program

Intervensi Tambah Opsyen (PITO) certified,
School-based Assessment, Partners-in-Learning,
Project-based Learning in ELT
Specialist Certificate Courses
Specialist Certificate in Literacy Development for

Lower Primary Students, Specialist Certificate in
ELT Methodology for Primary School, Specialist
Certificate in Developing Oracy Skills for Lower
Secondary Students, Specialist Certificate in
Teaching of Literature for Secondary School,
Specialist Certificate in Project-based Learning
Subject Leadership Courses
Reinforcing ELT: Maximising Resources, Enhancing

Pedagogy (RELTmax), Mentoring & Coaching,
Contemporary Childrens Literature
Trainer Training Courses
Introduction to Basic Trainer Toolkit, English

language Lecturers in Institutes of Teacher
Education-Training of Trainers (ELITE-TOT)
Up-skilling Courses for

Teacher-Leaders
Table 9.3
Sample Courses
Types of In-Service Teacher Training and Development
MALAYSIA EDUCATION BLUEPRINT INITIATIVES

Wave 1 (2013-2015)
Turning around system by supporting teachers and focusing on core
skills
Concerns
Low
Proficiency
among
English
language
teachers
Actions/
Outcomes
Initiatives
Set a minimum
CEFR B2 for primary school teachers
standard required
CEFR C1 for secondary teachers
for English
language teachers
In 2014, a total of 10,502 teachers were
selected for the programme
Based on APTIS:
The Professional
Upskilling of
English Language
Teachers
87.8% (519/ 591) teachers have

successfully improved from Band B1 to B2.
(ProELT)
2,244 out of 4,579 teachers that

completed Pro-ELT and sat for the postAptis test, improved one proficiency level.
43.1% (1,716/3,979 improved from B2 to

C1).
Wave 2 (2016-2020)
Accelerate system improvement
Actions/
Initiatives
Review B2
as minimum
proficiency for
teachers
Monitor and
evaluate the
effectiveness of
the initiative
Benchmark
teacher
proficiency
levels against
international
standards
Outcomes
Minimum
proficiency level
for all teachers
raised to C1
A report
on teacher
proficiency
and impact of
initiatives
166 teachers improved two proficiency

levels
Table 9.4
Short-Term Initiatives in the Malaysia Education Blueprint Related to ELTE
285

MALAYSIA EDUCATION BLUEPRINT INITIATIVES

Wave 1 (2013-2015)
Turning around system by supporting teachers and focusing on core
skills
Wave 2 (2016-2020)
Accelerate system improvement
Actions/
Actions/
Outcomes
Initiatives
Initiatives
In 2014, 7,750 Year 3 English language
The quality FasiLINUS teachers and 327 FasiLINUS benefited from
facilitators for
of English
the training.
remedial English
language
teaching
language training
to English
language teachers
Concerns
Native-Speaker
programme
In 2014, 360 native speakers from Englishspeaking countries were placed as mentors
in 1,800 primary schools in remote areas.
Fulbright
Programme
English Teaching
Assistants (ETA)
Since 2012, a total of 225 ETAs, were

placed in 101 primary and secondary
schools
Expanded
Specialist Coach
(SISC+)
At the end of 2014, a total of 1,032 SISC+

were tasked to coach teachers on content
and pedagogy in Bahasa Malaysia, English
Language and Mathematics.
A study by the Ministry found this

programme has helped to increase
students interest and language learning,
especially in rural areas.
Monitor and
evaluate the
effectiveness of
the initiatives
Outcomes
A report on
the impact of
initiatives on EL
teaching quality
A total of 312 SIPartner+ were appointed

to support school leaders in improving
administration and management.
Table 9.4 (cont.)
Short-Term Initiatives in the Malaysia Education Blueprint Related to ELTE

(Information on Wave 1 from Ministry of Education, 2015)
286
This initiative was part of the MEB, and was based on

results of the Cambridge Placement Test (CPT) administered to
61,000 English language teachers, which was followed by a pretest (APTIS) to identify teachers at B1 or B2 to attend Pro-ELT
(Professional Up-skilling of English Language Teachers, n.d.). ProELT is conducted both face-to-face and online by external training
providers, and aims to increase teacher proficiency by at least one
Band (based on a post-test).
Other in-service training for ELTE offered to teachers can
generally be divided into two main types. The first is needs-based
training, and context-specific responses as a reaction to curricular
and policy changes (see Table 9.3), including MEB initiatives, which
are as follows:
(1) Professional Up-skilling of English Language Teachers (Pro-ELT)
(2) Oral Proficiency in English for Secondary School (OPS-English)
(3) Program Peningkatan Penguasaan Bahasa Inggeris Sekolah
Menengah (PPPBISM)
The second type of in-service training is for upskilling of teachers
(see Table 9.3).
However, as in the case of Pro-ELT, there appears to be a gap in

the management of in-service training from the selection process
to the monitoring of the effectiveness of the translation of the
training into practice. This is despite the fact that the PSELT (see
section 9.2.1) was developed to help English Language teachers
identify their professional training needs as well as ascertain their
continuous professional development.
In addition, it can also be a guide in planning, designing and
managing professional development of English Language teachers
(Ministry of Education Malaysia. Frequently Asked Questions).
However, to date, there does not appear to be a concerted and
systematic effort to create professional training development plans
and programmes.
Further, there appears to be no accountable, systematic and cyclical
processes to plan, implement, independently monitor and evaluate,
and review in-service programmes and initiatives. Considering
the amount of money and time spent on these programmes and
initiatives, and their importance in contributing to the implementation
of the goals of the MEB, measures of achievement of learning and
programme outcomes cannot be based on merely anecdotal evidence
or on numbers of teachers trained (see Table 9.4).
287

9.2.6 The Absence of a Licensure Assessment

To date, there has been no concrete attempt to professionalise
teaching. Teaching is generally not seen as a profession of choice
where only the best candidates are selected to undergo training and
retained in the teaching profession. Higher Education qualifications
are deemed sufficient to place teachers in schools. The current
practice even allows teachers who are not English language
specialists and who do not have a minimum CEFR B2 to teach
English in schools. Unlike many other countries (e.g. the United
States), and professions like law, accounting and engineering,
there is no professional body or council that accredits and licenses
teachers, in particular language teachers, as based on, for example,
licensure assessment which is the use of a language assessment
for determining that language teachers have sufficient proficiency
in a language to be able to teach it (Norris, 2013, p. 554).
There is also no move to accredit ELTE programme providers
according to their ability to provide a curriculum that includes
developing trainees proficiency levels to a recommended standard
of proficiency (Norris, 2013). Apart from the MEB initiative to
ascertain the level of English language proficiency among in-service
teachers, there was previously no concerted effort to officially
set the minimum standards of proficiency required of in-service
English language teachers, and to assess and accredit their levels
of proficiency periodically. There is no corresponding assessment
and accreditation for English language lecturers.
288
9.3 The Way Forward

The gaps and issues discussed in 9.2 point to the need to
establish a common standard for English proficiency at entry level,
in the ELTE curriculum, and throughout the ELT workforce across
all levels of education. They also show the need for internationally
benchmarked standards for curriculum content for ELTE which
will provide trainees with the knowledge of the structure of English,
and awareness of English as it is used in various communicative
contexts, as well as provide trainees with the competencies
required of teachers in the 21st Century.
Shift 2 of the MEB aims to ensure that every child is proficient
in Bahasa Malaysia and the English language, and one of the
initiatives is to ensure that every student will be taught by a
teacher who is proficient to international standards.
The MEB (Higher Education) extends student aspiration in
language proficiency to being operationally proficient in Bahasa
Malaysia and English from pre-school to post-secondary level to
being proficient in both languages at the level of higher education
(Ministry of Education, 2015a). The latter is of utmost importance
to graduate employability as the lack of communicative skills and
English language proficiency is often cited among the main reasons
for graduates inability to get a job.
In this way, the MUET, SPM English grades or

the grading systems used for English by universities
and teaching institutions are not going to be sufficient
measures of teacher proficiency. Instead, the MEB has
recommended the use of the CEFR as a framework
of reference to define operational proficiency.
It is
therefore necessary for all reforms aiming to support
the execution of the MEB to be aligned to this common
framework.
Further, to ensure that the quality of teaching and
learning is improved and maintained, the quality of
ELTE at the pre-service and in-service levels must be
internationally benchmarked and periodically monitored
and reviewed. Systematically planned in-service training
and development must be put in place and delivered
efficiently. Such training must be mapped to a set of
teaching competencies and aligned with the MTS and
PSELT.
The following sections discuss the conditions
required for enhancing ELTE in the country. These
conditions are tied to the three areas of curriculum,
teaching and learning, and assessment (see Figure 9.2).
Curriculum
Alignment of programme
standards for ELTE
Benchmarking of English
language proficiency standards
in the ELTE curriculum and in
in-service programmes
Periodic evaluation
Teaching & Learning
Assessment
Increased use of English as

a medium of instruction in
ELTE
Systematic CPD plan for
in-service teachers
Enhanced teacher
education qualification and
proficiency requirements
Stringent criteria at entry

level of ELTE
Standardised internationally
benchmarked exit
examinations for English
language requirements
for all teacher training
programmes
Licensure assessment
Figure 9.2
Conditions for Reform for English

Language Teacher Education
289

9.3.1 Conditions for Enhanced ELTE Curriculum

The existence of multiple ELTE programme providers has
resulted in an inconsistent curriculum for ELTE in terms of the
structure and content of the programmes, including a lack of
established standards for English language proficiency. This has
resulted in varying levels of proficiency and professional competencies
among English language teachers, and has had a knock-on effect
on student proficiency levels and affected public confidence in the
quality of English language education in the country.
To ensure consistency in the output of ELTE across different
programme providers, the English language component should
be standardised, and benchmarked to common international
standards. The benchmark for the language component in this case
is the CEFR as proposed in the MEB to define the level of language
proficiency required for professional and academic purposes.
This would require the development of CEFR descriptors
for English language teachers overseen by an independent body
responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the CEFR
across ELTE. The English language programme in ELTE must bring
trainees up to the required standards of English proficiency on exit.
The establishment of such a programme also implies that English
language teacher educators in universities and ITEs must be able to
deliver such a curriculum, and be trained to assess trainees according
to the CEFR. Their own proficiency levels should be set at CEFR C2.
290
Apart from CEFR standards, all providers of pre-service

ELTE have to comply with the review, design and delivery of their
programmes. Findings from the baseline study, including poor
proficiency levels on the part of students and teachers, and poor
teaching knowledge and practices, need to be addressed in the review
of the ELTE curriculum. The programmes must be benchmarked to
international standards, and should include elements of language
structure (e.g. phonemic and grammatical awareness) and use,
literature, pedagogy and professional practice including school
attachments and practicum. Elements of new technologies and
innovations in teaching and learning as well as High Impact Practices
(Kuh & ODonnell, 2013) should also be incorporated.
With these standards in place, ELTE programmes in Malaysia
will attain some degree of quality in ELTE and in the output. A
professional standards body such as the ELSQC should look into the
establishment of programme standards for pre-service ELTE to be
added to current standards for Education in general. With these
standards in place, ELTE programme providers can be required to
undergo accreditation of their programmes at appropriate intervals
to ensure that standards are maintained. External accreditation
should also ascertain that curricula are aligned to the CEFR, and
also to international standards.
There is also a need for a coordinated

communication structure between the various
divisions of the Ministry of Education and the
Ministry of Higher Education, the MQA, and
all the ELTE programme providers at ITEs
and universities in order for all these parties
to collaborate to produce an agreed and
standardised curriculum for ELTE meeting
MQA programme standards for Education
and consistent with the MTS and the PSELT.
The need for a more structured form of
collaboration between ITEs and universities
providing ELTE should be extended beyond
curriculum development to the sharing of
resources and knowledge as well as joint
research opportunities.
implementation
planning
monitoring
review
evaluation
9.3.2 Conditions for Improved Teaching

and Learning
To ensure that English language teachers
maintain high levels of teaching knowledge
and classroom practice and delivery, the
ELTC needs to operationalise its Pedagogical
Standards
(PSELT)
and
develop
a
Figure 9.3
Cyclical Process for

Short-Term ELTE Training
Programmes and Initiatives
291

competency matrix for the professional development of all English

language educators across the different levels of education. CPD
programmes should be planned and implemented using the schoolbased model.
In order for professional development programmes to be
meaningful and impactful, the selection of teachers or even teacher
educators for training cannot be based on an other-selected basis
or purely as a reaction to policy or curriculum changes. Instead,
professional development for teachers should be planned from
their first appointment, and periodically reviewed together with an
assigned mentor and with teaching coaches and instructional leaders.
A mentoring and coaching system should be put in place to help
new English language teachers chart their development and to observe
and adopt good classroom practices. An early mentoring system
should also be put in place so that trainee teachers and new teachers
can be mentored by excellent or master teachers. Such a CPD model
should be extended to language teachers in higher education.
There is a clear need to have a more systematic professional
development plan to meet teachers professional needs and
curricular needs in line with the PSELT. The present system of
reactive-oriented, other-selected in-service training is not the
best way to develop positive attitudes to professional development.
In order to move towards higher quality teaching and learning in
the classroom, there must be a concerted and systematic effort
292
to create a professional training development system to meet the

following conditions:
(1) Train teachers to map, reflect upon and monitor their own
professional development and achievements.
(2) Collaboratively identify teachers needs and competencies.
(3) Allow teachers to choose for themselves courses to attend to
fulfil their needs, instead of having them selected by the state,
the district or by the head of the school or the department.
(4) Plan courses at the central level according to identified needs
and gaps.
(5) Provide clear and accessible support systems to enable effective
classroom implementation of the knowledge and competencies
acquired during the courses.
(6) Independently monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the
courses in teaching and learning practices.
The programmes must be well-developed and appropriately
designed to produce high quality English language teachers able
to transfer the knowledge and competencies acquired through the
programme into classroom practice, thereby improving the English
proficiency and skills of their students. All in-service professional
development programmes should comply with established
standards (see 9.3.1), and should be aligned to specified CEFR

levels. Programmes offering certificate level qualifications should
also move towards accreditation.
There should be a conscious effort to develop specialisms
to meet the needs of students at different levels of education,
especially in the case of primary school teachers. These specialisms
could include early literacy skills, diagnostic skills, differentiated
learning and reading conducted in collaboration with international
providers and accredited internationally.
All programmes including short-term initiatives should undergo
scheduled independent evaluation and review, ideally carried out
by independent international bodies which should also benchmark
pre- and in-service programmes. There should be a planned cyclical
process of implementation, monitoring, independent evaluation
and review (see Figure 9.3 and Section C).
Data should be collected even at the planning stage of an
initiative or programme so that baseline data is available, and
comparisons can be made with control groups. Reliable and valid
measures of achievement for specified learning and programme
outcomes must be planned at the implementation stage, and not
towards the end of a programme or initiative.
External training providers in any training programme must
be carefully selected according to their qualifications, relevant
experience and proven track record in ELTE training and

development, and their understanding of local ELT conditions. The
success of programmes such as Pro-ELT cannot be determined just
by the pre- and post- tests, and should begin with and be followed
by an evaluation of teacher classroom practices and student
performance based on quantitative and qualitative measures.
At the in-service level, there must be adequate opportunities
for the use of English to provide trainees with maximum exposure
and experience of using English in a variety of contexts, and to
enable them to develop a deeper knowledge and higher competence
in the language. English should be the medium of instruction in the
teaching and learning of additional subjects such as the Education
component of the ELTE curriculum. Where possible, other
subjects can also be taught in English to provide trainees with a
stronger English environment.
ELTE at both the pre-service and in-service levels should
be based on outcome-based education and focus on studentcentred learning and communicative methodologies. There must
be diversity in the way the curriculum is delivered and assessed
in order to develop independent and reflective learning, as well
as creative and critical thinking among trainees. Further, teaching
and learning in ELTE must be conducted by trained educators.
Measures must be taken to ensure that teacher educators in ITE
have postgraduate qualifications, including PhDs.
293

A mentoring and
coaching system should
be put in place to help
new English language
teachers chart their
development and to
observe and adopt good
classroom practices.
This move will also avoid hierarchical relationships between

ITEs and universities offering ELTE programmes and avoid the
misperception that primary school education can be provided by
less qualified trainers. In addition, the capacity building of Master
CEFR trainers needs to be carried out to ensure the successful
implementation of CEFR-aligned curricula, teaching and learning,
and assessment. English language educators must have higher
proficiency levels than the trainees.
9.3.3 Conditions for Enhanced Assessment Systems for ELTE

One of the critical success factors in the English language
education landscape in Malaysia is the quality of teachers.
294
Notwithstanding the attributes and competencies that teachers

need to possess, language teachers should first and foremost be
proficient in the language that they are teaching.
In the case of ELTE, there can be no compromise with regard
to levels of English proficiency either at the entry level, or at the
output level. In addition to the Malaysian Educators Selection
Inventory (MEdSI), and the ITEs criterion that only the top 30%
of SPM holders should be admitted (Ministry of Education, 2015b),
there should be an added criterion in the form of a standardised
internationally aligned entrance test for ELTE programmes based
on a CEFR level rather than an A grade in SPM or a MUET Band.
Strict criteria for the selection of teacher trainees will ensure
teacher quality and lead to a rise in student .
There should subsequently be CEFR-compliant assessment

throughout the ELTE programme to ensure that English language
teacher trainees are being continuously assessed at international
standards, and preparing them to reach the minimum standard
for English language teachers, which should be moving towards a
minimum CEFR C1.
Having assessment of this kind in place would require teacher
educators to be trained to teach and assess according to CEFR
levels. ELT teacher educators should also be periodically accredited
as qualified trainers and undergo short stints of practical school
attachments at regular intervals to keep them in touch with
professional practice. ELT educators should work together with
those at universities as an ELTE community of practice to discuss
related issues and to share best practices.
In order to maintain standards, in-service teachers who do
not meet minimum CEFR levels should continue to be trained
such as is being done in the Pro-ELT programme. Having a onetime only post-test following the Pro-ELT programme, however,
is no guarantee of increased proficiency in English, nor can it be
assumed that teachers are able to transfer this into their teaching
and learning practices.
Again, instead of leaving each ELTE programme to devise

its own assessment methods, there should be a standardised
and benchmarked means of assessment such as the Teaching
Knowledge Test (TKT).
In order to maintain standards, a national level licensure
assessment (Norris, 2013, p. 554) should be put in place to license
and certify English language teachers at entry level followed by
re-certification at regular intervals to ensure that they not only
have the proficiency to teach English language at various levels of
education, but also have the professional competencies to do so.
The current practice of allowing teachers who are not English
specialists and who do not have the minimum CEFR B2 to teach
English language needs to be reconsidered. Initiatives should be
taken to certify non-English language option teachers with CEFR
C1 or C2 and at least ten years of experience of teaching English.
The minimum criteria for English teachers at all levels of education
from preschool to institutes of higher education must be a Bachelor
of Education or Teaching specialising in English. The licensing and
accreditation of English language teachers should be extended to
language teachers at public institutes of higher education.
295

9.3.4 The Roadmap
Phase 1 (2015-2016)
Curriculum
Pre-Service

Review and align ELTE Language curricula to the CEFR.
Align professional programmes to international standards.
Develop an ELTE curriculum to ensure delivery of all

professional and core courses in English.
Select an independent international body to carry out

benchmarking and measure the impact of pre-service ELTE on
teacher and student performance.
Put in place a coordinated communication structure between
divisions of the Ministry of Education and other parties
involved for English curricular updates.
In-Service

296
Set a degree in Education/Teaching specialising in English or

English with Education as the minimum qualification for all
English language teachers by 2025.
Identify and collaborate with international providers or
benchmarks for specialist courses.
Select an independent international body to carry out

benchmarking and measure the impact of in-service teacher
education on teacher and student performance.

Pre-Service

Use English as the medium of instruction for ELTE in additional

courses such as those in the Education component of the
curriculum.
Implement student-centred methodology.
Set a doctorate degree in Education as the minimum

qualification for all English language educators by 2025.
Set CEFR C2 as the minimum requirement for English language

teacher educators.
In-Service

Develop a professional development matrix for different levels

of teachers by operationalising PSELT.
Plan and implement CPD programmes using the school-based

training model.
Revamp the training approach cascade model to schoolbased training.
Design English language classroom observation methods for

formative purposes.
Put a mentoring system in place.
Phase 2 (2017-2020)
Re-certify non-English option teachers with C1 or C2 and 10

years of experience.
Assessment
Curriculum
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
Set a common proficiency exit requirement for all ELTE

programmes.
Implement the CEFR-aligned English language curriculum.
Adopt a common CEFR-aligned language proficiency exit test

for all institutions.
Monitor the implementation of the CEFR-aligned English

language curriculum.
Propose a policy for the licensing and certification of new

Use professional standards and benchmarking in programme

review, design and delivery.
Monitor and review the effectiveness of efforts to sustain

coordinated communication.
Benchmark teacher performance at the pre-service level
against international standards.
In- Service

Set CEFR C1 as the minimum proficiency requirement for all

teachers by 2025.
Assess teachers using CEFR-aligned proficiency tests and the

international Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) and the TKT
practical component.
In-Service
Propose a policy for the licensing and certification of new

English language teachers followed by re-certification for all
English language teachers every 5 years.
Continue post-graduate courses especially for pre-school and

primary teachers.
Benchmark teacher performance at the in-service level against

international standards.
297

Implement a degree in Education/Teaching specialising

in English or in English with Education as the minimum
qualification for all English language teachers by 2025.
Monitor the implementation of student-centred strategies in

in-service training programmes.
Implement and monitor English language classroom observation

methods for formative purposes.

Pre-Service
Assessment
Pre-Service
Monitor the use of English as the medium of instruction in

ELTE.
Monitor the implementation of student-centred strategies in

ELTE.
Implement a PhD in Education as the minimum qualification

for all English language educators by 2025.
Develop programmes to achieve C2 proficiency among English

language teacher educators.
Enforce C2 as the minimum requirement.
In-Service
298
Implement and monitor the PSELT support system.
Monitor and evaluate the CPD programmes that have been

conducted.
Implement the common proficiency exit test for all institutions.
Implement the policy on the licensing of English language

teachers.
In-Service

Monitor and evaluate teachers English proficiency and

pedagogical competences according to international standards.
Enforce C1 as the minimum requirement for English language

teachers.
Implement the policy on licensing and re-certification for

Continue the re-certification policy for non-English language

option teachers with C1 or C2 proficiency and 10 years of
experience.
Benchmark
standards.
teacher-performance
against
international
Phase 3 (2021-2025)
Continue the implementation of the minimum requirement

of a degree in Education/Teaching specialising in English or
in English with Education as the minimum qualification for all
English teachers by 2025.
Carry out an impact study on teacher performance.
Curriculum
Pre-Service

Revise the CEFR aligned English language curriculum based on

feedback and emerging technologies.
Monitor the implementation of standards.
Review the curriculum.
Monitor and review the effectiveness of efforts to sustain

coordinated communication.

Pre-Service

Review the effect of English as the medium of instruction on

the English proficiency of teacher trainees.
Review the impact of training.
Continue implementing the minimum requirement.
Review the impact of the minimum requirement on the

performance of English language teacher educators.
In-Service

School-based training run by specialist teachers.
English language teachers especially at primary level enrolled

in international specialist courses.
In-Service

Review and strengthen support the system for CPD.
Revise school-based CPD programmes.
Review and evaluate the impact of training.
Evaluate classroom observation methods.
Submit monitoring reports.
299

Assessment
A. Milestones for the end of Phase 1 (2015-2016) are as follows:
Pre-Service
Curriculum
Pre-Service
Review the validity and reliability of the CEFR-aligned

proficiency exit test.
A common CEFR- aligned English language curriculum adopted
Professional programme standards adopted
Continue the evaluation of teacher EL proficiency and

pedagogical competencies according to international standards.
An ELTE curriculum ensuring the delivery of all professional

and core courses in English
Effective communication and collaboration for curricular change
Continue the re-certification requirement for all teachers.
Continue the re-certification policy for non-English language

option teachers with C1 or C2 and 10 years of experience.
An independent international body selected to carry out

benchmarking and impact studies for pre-service ELTE
programmes until 2025
Monitor the reports submitted.
In-Service

In-Service
9.3.5 Milestones
According to the roadmap for ELTE, specific milestones are
to be reached over the three phases: Phase 1 (2015-2016), Phase 2
(2017-2020) and Phase 3 (2021-2025). The milestones are presented
according to the phases and the three components, namely the
curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment. These expected
milestones or deliverables are summarised in Table 9.5.
300
A degree in Education/Teaching specialising in English or in

English with Education accepted as the minimum qualification
English language teachers, especially at primary level, enrolled

in international specialist courses
An independent international body selected to carry out

benchmarking and impact studies for in-service training
programmes until 2025
Assessment
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
English used as the medium of instruction in additional courses
Increased exposure to English on ELTE programmes
A common CEFR-aligned exit proficiency test adopted for all

ELTE programmes
Student-centred and communicative methodologies used in

training
A common exit proficiency requirement enforced for all

institutions
A doctorate in Education accepted as the minimum qualification
The policy on licensing for English language teachers to teach

and certification of language proficiency for teachers is in place
Level C2 accepted as the minimum requirement
In-Service

A standards-based professional development support system

developed for teachers at different stages of their careers,
from beginning teacher and developing teacher to competent
teacher and specialist teacher
School-based CPD programmes conducted
Student-centred and communicative methodologies used in

training
English language classroom observation methods designed for

formative purposes
In-Service

CEFR level C1 accepted as the minimum requirement
A baseline is established for teacher EL proficiency and

pedagogical competences
The policy on licensing and recertification for all English

language teachers is in place
Proficient non-option English language teachers re-certified
301

B. Milestones for the end of Phase 2 (2017-2020) are as follows:
Curriculum
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
Monitoring reports submitted on the use of English as the

medium of instruction in ELTE
Extended exposure to the use of English and improved language

outcomes
Monitoring reports submitted with recommendations for

improved student-centred teacher training
Enforcement of the minimum qualification requirement of a

PhD in Education for all English language teacher educators by
2025
CEFR C2 enforced as the minimum requirement for English

language teacher educators
Up-skilling programmes developed and implemented
A CEFR-aligned English curriculum implemented
Reports with recommendations for improvement submitted
All ELTE programmes aligned to professional programme

standards across all providers
More proficient English language teacher trainees
Recommendations for sustaining collaboration for effective

curricular implementation
In-Service

Preschool and primary teachers with specialisms
Recommendations for advanced specialist courses
Enforcement of the required degree in Education or Teaching

specialising in English or in English with Education as the
minimum qualification for all English teachers by 2025
In-Service

A viable professional development support system in place
A report submitted on teacher

recommendations for improvement
Appropriate courses in place for teachers at different stages of

their careers
302
performance
and
Recommendations to improve CPD programmes
Active and engaged teaching and learning at all levels in place
English language classroom observation methods implemented

and monitored
Teachers English language proficiency and pedagogical

competencies monitored and evaluated
Monitoring reports submitted
Assessment
C. Milestones for the end of Phase 3 (2021-2025) are as follows:
Pre-Service
Curriculum
Pre-Service
A common standardised proficiency exit test implemented and

monitored
The quality of English language teachers assured by means of
licensing
In-Service

CEFR C1 enforced as the minimum requirement
Teacher English language proficiency

competencies monitored and evaluated
and
pedagogical
Recommendations for improvement for the ELTE curriculum
Updated English language Teacher Education curriculum
Recommendations for improved programme standards for ELTE
Proficient English language teacher trainees
Recommendations for sustaining collaboration
An impact report on teacher performance

A transformed English language pre-service teacher education
system
The quality of English language teachers assured by means of

licensing and re-certification
In-Service
Continuation of the certification policy for non-English language

option teachers with C1 or C2 and 10 years of experience
High-calibre teachers
303

A cadre of English language teachers at primary and pre-school

levels with specialisms
Make recommendations for improvement
A transformed English language in-service teacher education

system
Competent English language trainers and teachers
Effective classroom observation method for formative

purposes
Assessment
Pre-Service
Valid and reliable CEFR-aligned exit test for teacher proficiency
Pre-Service
The use of English as a medium of instruction enforced for
TESL programmes
In-Service

Proficient English language teachers with C1
Continued improvement of student-centred teacher training
High-calibre English language teachers
High-calibre teacher educators
Sustained high quality English language teachers
Up-skilling programmes to ensure that teacher educators have

a minimum CEFR C2
Report on the impact of the re-certification policy for nonEnglish language option teachers
In-Service
304
An improved support system
Comprehensive career pathways
Improved school-based CPD programmes
Phase 1 (2015-2016)
Phase 2 (2017-2020)
Phase 3 (2021-2025)
Curriculum
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
Review and align ELTE language

curricula to the CEFR.
A CEFR-aligned English curriculum

implemented
Recommendations for improvements in

the ELTE curriculum
Develop professional programme

standards aligned to international
standards.
Reports with recommendations for

improvement submitted
An updated English language Teacher

Education curriculum
Develop an ELTE curriculum to ensure

delivery of all professional and core
courses in English.
All ELTE programmes aligned to

professional programme standards across
all providers
Recommendations for improved

programme standards for ELTE
More proficient English language teacher

trainees
Proficient English language teacher

trainees
Recommendations for sustaining

collaboration for effective curricular
implementation
Recommendations to sustain
collaboration
An impact report on teacher

performance submitted
A transformed English language preservice teacher education system
Select an independent international

body to carry out benchmarking and
assess the impact of pre-service ELTE
on the performance of teachers and
students.
Put in place a coordinated
communication structure between
divisions of MoE for English language
curricular updates.
A report on teacher performance and

recommendations for improvement
submitted
In-Service
In-Service
In-Service
Pre-school and primary teachers with

specialisms
High-calibre teachers
Recommendations for advanced

specialist courses
A cadre of English language teachers

at primary and pre-school levels with
specialisms
Enforcement of the required degree

in Education/Teaching specialising in
English or in English with Education as
the minimum qualification for all English
language teachers by 2025
Recommendations made for

improvement
Set a degree in Education/Teaching

specialising in English or in English with
Education as the minimum qualification
for all English language teachers by
2025.
Identify and collaborate with
international providers or benchmarks
for specialist courses.
Select an independent international
body to carry out benchmarking and
assess the impact of in-service teacher
education on the performance teachers
and students.
Table 9.5
A transformed English language inservice teacher education system
Milestones and Deliverables for ELTE

305

Phase 1 (2015-2016)
Phase 2 (2017-2020)
Phase 3 (2021-2025)
Teaching & Learning

Pre-Service
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
English used as the medium of

instruction in additional courses
Increased exposure to English on TESL

programmes
Monitoring reports submitted on the use

of English as the medium of instruction
in ELTE
The use of English as the medium

of instruction enforced for TESL
programmes
Student-centred and communicative

methodologies used in training
Extended exposure to the use of English

and improved language outcomes
Continued improvement of studentcentred teacher training
Monitoring reports submitted with

recommendations to improve studentcentred teacher training
High-calibre teacher educators
Up-skilling programmes to ensure that

teacher educators have at least CEFR C2
level are retained and/or improved
A PhD in Education accepted as the

minimum qualification
C2 accepted as the minimum

requirement
Enforcement of a PhD ibn Education for

English language teacher educators by
2025
CEFR C2 enforced as the minimum

requirement for English language
teacher educators
Up-skilling programmes developed and

implemented
In-Service
In-Service
In-Service
A standards-based professional
development support system for
teachers at various stages of their
careers: beginning teacher and
developing teacher to competent
teacher and specialist teacher
An improved support system
Comprehensive career pathways
Recommendations to improve the CPD

programmes provided
Improved school-based CDP

programmes
School-based CPD programmes

conducted
Active and engaged teaching and

learning at all levels in place
Competent English language trainers

and teachers
Student-centred and communicative

methodologies used in training
EL classroom observation methods

implemented and monitored
Effective classroom observation

methods for formative purposes
EL classroom observation methods for

formative purposes designed
Table 9.5 (cont.)
306
Viable professional development support

system in place appropriate courses in
place for teachers at different stages of
their careers
Phase 1 (2015-2016)
Phase 2 (2017-2020)
Phase 3 (2021-2025)
Assessment
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
Pre-Service
A common CEFR-aligned exit proficiency

test adopted for all ELTE programmes
A common standardised proficiency exit

test implemented and monitored
A common exit proficiency requirement

enforced for all institutions
The quality of English language teachers

assured by means of licensing
The policy on licensing for English

language teachers to teach and the
certification of language proficiency for
teachers is in place.
A valid and reliable CEFR-aligned exit

test for teacher proficiency
In- Service
In-Service
In-Service
CEFR C1 accepted as the minimum

requirement
CEFR C1 enforced as minimum

requirement
Proficient EL teachers with C1
High-calibre English language teachers
The baseline for teacher English

language proficiency and pedagogical
competences is established
Teacher English language proficiency and

pedagogical competences are monitored
and evaluated
Sustained high quality English language

teachers
The policy on licensing and

recertification for English language
teachers is in place.
The quality of English language teachers

assured by means of licensing and recertification
A report submitted on the impact of the

re-certification policy for non-English
option teachers
Continuation of the-certification policy

for non-English option teachers with
C1 or C2 proficiency and 10 years of
experience
Teacher EL proficiency and pedagogical

competences are monitored and
evaluated
Proficient non-option English teachers

re-certified
Table 9.5 (cont.)

307

Strict criteria for the

selection of teacher
trainees will ensure
teacher quality and
lead to a rise in
student quality in
the long run.

This section discusses the implications and recommendations
for ELTE in relation to the three components of the programme,
namely curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment. The
consistent theme across these components is quality, constant
monitoring and evaluation, and the pre-service and in-service
review of people, programmes and policy.
308
9.4.1 Curriculum
It is essential to maintain quality in ELTE programmes at the
pre-service and in-service levels in order to train teachers highly
proficient in English and equipped with the linguistic, pedagogic
and professional knowledge and skills to produce a new generation
of Malaysians who are proficient in English.
At the pre-service level, ITEs and public universities as
providers of ELTE programmes must adopt the same benchmarked
standards if the quality of their programmes is to be maintained and
monitored. Specific professional programme standards for ELTE
should be developed collectively by the key stakeholders in ELTE,
namely the institutions involved, the English Language Standards

and Quality Council (ELSQC), MQA, international partners and
practising teachers.
In line with the rest of the English language education system,
the English language curriculum in ELTE must be reviewed and
revised, and aligned to the CEFR. Teachers must be trained to
teach and assess in accordance with the CEFR at different levels
of education. Similarly, in-service training must be carried out in
accordance with the CEFR, and benchmarked to international
standards.
Teacher educators and language instructors at universities
selected as Master Trainers for the CEFR need to be accredited as
training providers at pre-service and in-service levels.
The most pressing matter in ELTE at the pre-service and inservice levels is the proficiency of teachers and their level of
teaching knowledge and non-facilitating classroom practices.
Efforts to improve the proficiency of in-service teachers must
be increased and taken beyond pre- and post tests. The English
proficiency requirement should be B2 for primary teachers and C1
for secondary teachers in the short term, and C1 for all English
language teachers in the longer term.
At the pre-service level, a standardised exit test for English

must be administered to ensure that only teachers with the
required proficiency levels are allowed to teach English. This is
where the concept of licensing comes in where entry level teachers
are accredited to teach English language at particular levels, with a
requirement to apply for re-certification at regular intervals.
To improve the knowledge of English and teaching, the
minimum requirement for English language teachers should be a
Bachelors degree in English language teaching even at primary
level, as recommended in the MEB.
From the time they enter the profession, teachers need to
follow a continuous development plan which is systematic, selfdetermined and mentored, if they are to feel empowered to
improve their professional knowledge and skills, and bring good
teaching and learning practices into their classrooms.
In order to produce high quality teachers, teacher educators
and training providers must be highly qualified and proficient in
English. They must also be trained to deliver a CEFR-aligned
curriculum using student-centred methods.
309

9.4.3 Assessment
In order to maintain standards and quality among English
language teachers, strict selection criteria and standardised exit
examinations based on minimum CEFR levels must be introduced.
Such moves will create a sense of exclusivity among the English
language teaching profession.
The licensing and certification and re-certification of trainees
and teachers with the required proficiency levels who have taken
internationally benchmarked ELTE programmes and training
sessions will not only further monitor and maintain the quality of
English language teachers from preschool to higher education, but
also enable English language teachers to function as professionals.
9.5 Conclusion
Policy commitment is imperative for the realisation of this
Roadmap given the significance of its contributions to the
professionalisation and internationalisation of English Language
Teacher Education. The outcomes of this teacher training
roadmap will be internationally competent and proficient English
language teachers at all levels of schooling.
310
Following the requirement to comply with programme

standards, the setting of common entry and exit requirements
based on CEFR levels, as well as the licensing and the certification
and recertification of teachers, ELTE will be streamlined across
all programme and training providers. The periodic review of the
ELTE programmes and CPD by independent bodies will ensure
the quality and continuing relevance of these programmes.
A top performing English language education system requires
a high-calibre English language teaching force. The creation
of the latter has to start at the entry level by ensuring that the
right recruits are selected and admitted into pre-service ELTE
programmes. The ELTE curriculum for these recruits must be of
international standards and delivered by highly skilled and qualified
teacher educators.
The rigorous training including practical classroom experience
should lead to a standardised exit examination to assess whether
the recruits have met the minimum requirements to be certified
or licensed as English language teachers. Certified teachers should
ensure excellent classroom delivery which in turn should lead to
better student performance at every level of education including
higher education.
Students who are more proficient in English and who are able
to communicate in English will be more desirable employees, and
so help to increase graduate employability. In effect, the potential
of the Roadmap and its initiatives for ELTE extends to addressing
at least three of the outcomes the MEB aspires to achieve with
respect to quality, equity and efficiency:
(1) Increased quality in teacher education programmes and
CPD, English language teachers, English language teacher
educators, English language education, higher teacher
and student proficiency levels.
As depicted in Figure 9.4, ELTE has a major and general

impact on the national English language education system, and has
impact not only on student performance but on the future lives of
students beyond the classroom. For this reason, there is an urgent
need to address the gaps and issues relating to ELTE in order to
put in place the conditions and actions required to revamp ELTE
at the pre-service and in-service levels.
(2) Equity in English language education at all levels of

education from pre-school to higher education as a result
of increased quality, regardless of geographical location,
social status, gender and type of school.
(3) Access to quality English language education as a result
of (1) and (2), allowing students to develop their English
proficiency and skills, and empowering them with better
access to further knowledge at higher levels of education,
and to local and global employment and business
opportunities.
(4) Efficiency in the utilisation of resources to provide quality
ELTE at the pre- and in-service levels.
311

ENTRY TEACHER
TRAINEE SELECTION
Strict selection of English
language teacher trainees
GRADUATE
EMPLOYABILITY
- Increase in graduate
employability
- Increased ability to compete
in the regional and global job
market/business opportunities
FIGURE 9.4
312
PRE-SERVICE
ELTE CURRICULUM &
TEACHER EDUCATORS
EXIT
ASESSEMENT &
LICENSING
Rigorous internationally
benchmarked and CFERaligned curriculum delivered by
qualified and trained teacher
educators (CFER Level C2)
- Standardised exit
Examination (CFER Level C1)
- Licence to teach English
INCREASED STUDENT
PERFORMANCE
IN-SERVICE CPD & RECERTIFICATION
Higher student proficiency

levels and language skills across
all levels of education
- Systematic, structured and

benchmarked CPD training and
upskilling programmes
- Re-certification of teachers
IN-SERVICE
LICENSED TEACHERS
Certified and licensed English
language teachers
IN-SERVICE
TEACHING & LEARNING
Excellent classroom practices
at all levels of education
and regardless of location,
national/national type schools,
socio-economic status and
gender
Visual representation of the various components of ELTE

SEC T ION
C
313

314

C
The Roadmap
315

The Roadmap
ection C puts forward the detailed implementation plan or

Roadmap, which has been developed to deal with the
general problems described in Section A, and the more specific
problems described in Section B. The term roadmap as used here refers
more appropriately and more narrowly to the detailed implementation
plan presented in this section. The plan includes but goes beyond the
alignment of curricula, teaching and learning, and assessment to the
CEFR to other developments such as a highly immersive English-rich
environment, optimal language engagement time, and parental and
community engagement. The plan takes for granted that we know
where we are now, how we got here and where we want to go,
and outlines the route that we have to follow step by step if we
wish to turn the hopes expressed in the MEB into reality with
respect to the teaching and learning of English in Malaysia.
The development of this Roadmap has been systematic, and it
is a consequence of a systematic approach that items of the same
type are grouped together in the same category. The first four
sections of this introduction consequently deal with lists: the seven
shifts, the three waves, the four modules including the five stages of
the innovation cycle, and three priority areas for intervention. The last
section presents conclusions and recommendations.
The first section deals with the shifts outlined in the MEB,
identifies those which are of most relevance to English language
education, and explains their relevance. The second section deals
316
with the MEB Waves, and explains how they can be implemented
in the reform of English language education. These two sections
make explicit how the MEB has been taken into account in the
preparation of the Roadmap. The remaining three sections go on
to explain the structure of the roadmap presented in the tables, to
draw attention to priority areas that require intervention, and to
draw conclusions and make recommendations1.
1. The Seven MEB Shifts

The MEB identifies eleven shifts which need to be undertaken
in order to transform the education system. The shifts most
relevant to English teaching are shifts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10, and
these are dealt with in turn below.
Shift 1: Provide equal access to quality education of an

international standard
The first step towards quality education is to align the English
language programme and teacher education to the CEFR. A
logical approach would be to start with the curricula, including the
KSSR and the KSSM, and then to reorganise teacher training, preservice and in-service, so that teachers are trained or re-trained to
teach the curriculum according to the principles of communicative
language teaching taken for granted in the CEFR. Textbooks and

other learning materials need to be designed to support teachers
in classrooms reorganised to develop communicative competence
in English, including the use of appropriate grammar and
pronunciation. The examination system needs to be reformed to
ensure that students are tested on what they have been learning.
Equal access is to be attained partly by ensuring that all
children have high quality textbooks and other learning materials,
and partly by sending high-calibre teachers to the areas of greatest
need, including rural and remote locations. Teachers need the right
kind of education to enable them to take action to help children in
danger of falling behind before their lack of progress manifests itself
as a problem. They also need to be supported by a comprehensive
remedial programme to narrow the performance gap between
groups of students, including not only urban and rural, but also
rich and poor, and boys and girls. Particular attention needs to be
paid to preschool English, so that children from backgrounds with
little access to English are enabled to make a good start.
Shift 2: Ensure every child is proficient in bahasa Malaysia

and English language
Shift 2 echoes the MBMMBI policy to uphold bahasa Malaysia
and to strengthen the English language. Bringing this shift about
1
An earlier version of the text of the fourth and fifth sections
has already appeared in the Agenda for Reform.
317

will require the education system to accord Malay and English

appropriate and complementary roles. This Roadmap is concerned
according to its remit specifically with English, but it has been
prepared on the understanding that a complementary Roadmap
is in preparation for Malay. It is also assumed that much of this
Roadmap for English, from high level thinking to matters of detail,
will apply mutatis mutandis also to Malay.
This shift when brought about will create a bilingual education
system (perhaps better described as a dual education system)
which includes literacy in Malay and English, and also caters
where appropriate for other Malaysian languages, and which uses
Malay and English as media of instruction in suitable proportions,
taking into account the special position of Malay as the national
language and the language of unity. All trainee teachers should be
bilingual in Malay and English, although trainee English teachers
need to maximise their engagement time with English. Where
appropriate, some subject content to be determined by the
Ministry of Education should be taught in English.
Engagement time with English should be increased both within
the classroom by allocating more hours for English, and beyond the
classroom by means of cocurricular and out-of-school activities
involving English in the context of a highly immersive English-rich
environment. If children are to be proficient in English, then their
teachers must also be proficient in English, and this means that the
318
upskilling of English teachers needs to include English proficiency

and greater opportunities for exposure to English alongside
practical teaching competence. English teachers should also be
rewarded with internationally recognised qualifications for their
English proficiency and for their teaching knowledge and practice.
Upskilling programmes need to be monitored and evaluated to
ensure quality, transparency and accountability.
Shift 4: Transform teaching into the profession of choice

This shift follows the creation of a high-performing education
system, as already discussed above. The first step is to match
the number of trainees to the number of new English teachers
required. This will make it possible to select the best of the cohort,
and in principle those in the top third of the cohort. Restricting
the number of entrants to the profession will by definition make
the profession more exclusive, and therefore more desirable.
Recruiting trainees before they go on to tertiary education will
also cut out much of the waste involved in training those who fail,
drop out, or for some other reason do not become teachers.
Intending teachers should undergo a rigorous form of tertiary
education, and those who succeed should be given a national
professional licence authorising them to teach English in Malaysian
classrooms, together with internationally recognised certification
of teaching skills and English proficiency renewable every five

years. Teachers already in post should be given an opportunity
to upgrade their training and certification. Training providers
should be required to show that they can deliver a high quality
educational programme covering all aspects of training required by
the intending teachers. Teacher educators should be of comparable
academic standing to university academic staff.
If teaching is to be a prestigious profession, then all teachers
must have achieved an appropriate level of education. There is
no case for authorising unqualified people to teach, particularly
at preschool and early primary levels. It is in preschool that the
foundations are laid for later proficiency in English, and yet it is
known from the preparations for LINUS 2.0 that nearly half of all
Malaysian children are already falling behind in Year 1. Malaysian
preschool children deserve to be taught by teachers qualified in
early learning and in the teaching of English to beginning learners.
Teachers should also be allowed to focus on their core function
of teaching2. Like other professional people, they should make full
use of their special expertise, and do what only they can do. Many
teachers will have the same problem in adjusting to new textbooks
and new ways of teaching English, and much duplication of effort
can be saved by providing them with day-to-day support in the
form of resources or guides to enable them to find their way as
they take up the new approach to teaching and learning. The
appointment of teacher aides would relieve teachers of work that

could be done by less qualified people, and in the light of reports
that teachers are already overburdened with administrative work,
avoid some of the problems expected to follow the introduction of
school-based assessment.
Shift 5: Ensure high-performing leaders in every school

Quality English teachers need quality leadership. It is therefore
essential that those appointed to the position of head teacher
have the motivation and ability to coordinate the work of their
English teachers and others providing support for the teaching of
English, in order to optimise the performance of their schools in
the teaching and learning of English.
Shift 7: Leverage ICT to scale up quality learning across

Malaysia
It should be the responsibility of the head teacher to ensure that
ICT is given its appropriate place in language learning in general, and in
the teaching of English in particular. In order to make this shift possible,
teachers will need training in the use of ICT, and an understanding
of the relationship between computer-assisted language learning and
conventional language learning in the classroom.
This point is treated as Shift 5 on page 21 of the executive summary of the Cambridge
Baseline, which differs in this instance from the statement on page E-17 of the MEB.
319

Shift 9: Partner with parents, community and private sector

at scale
The teaching of English should not be seen as the sole responsibility
of the school, and an important role for the head teacher is to make
use of the resources available in the community to optimise the
learning of English. Parents, retired teachers, and local companies
and other relevant bodies should be encouraged to organise extracurricular activities to provide students with informal opportunities
to engage with English and interact in English. Those with
appropriate qualifications should be permitted and even encouraged
to provide support for the teacher in the classroom. Students who
are sufficiently proficient in English could also be found a role in the
English classroom and beyond as a kind of community service, while
they are waiting to begin their tertiary education.
Shift 10: Maximise student outcomes for every ringgit

Savings are to be made by linking initiatives and other costly
ventures to a common plan, so that ventures are associated with
explicitly stated expected outcomes within a time frame, and then
monitored and assessed for impact and value for money. In this
way, overlap between ventures can be avoided, because the same
expected outcomes cannot be assigned simultaneously to two or
more different ventures.
320
The area in which the greatest return on investment can

be expected is in the education of English teachers. The cost of
teacher education can be reduced by matching the number of
those selected to the number required to enter the profession,
and by selecting them before they enter tertiary education, thus
minimising the cost of training trainees who for one reason or
another do not enter the profession.
2. The Three MEB Waves

The MEB includes a timetable for developments to take place
by 2025 in the form of three Waves. In the case of English language
education, these Waves are interpreted as follows:
Wave 1 (2013-2015) is currently underway, and involves
strengthening the current system. In the case of the English
language programme, this amounts to rebuilding the infrastructure
on which the programme is based. This includes partly the various
initiatives already discussed, and partly preparations for Wave 2,
including the setting of staged targets, the development of CEFR
descriptors, and capacity building. These preparations began
with the setting up of the ELSQC in 2013, and the completion
of the Cambridge Baseline, also in 2013, and they have led to the
preparation of this Roadmap.
Wave 2 (2016-2020) is concerned with introducing structural

change, including CEFR-aligned curricula, teaching and learning,
and assessment. A second benchmarking operation will be carried
out in 2017, to monitor progress, and to measure the impact of the
initiatives, and any change since the baseline study in 2013.
Wave 3 (2021 2025) will be the time to scale up structural
change. This will also be the time to strive for excellence. A third
benchmarking operation will be carried out in 2021 to measure the
impact of the implementation of reforms undertaken in Wave 2.
The end of the implementation of the Roadmap will be marked
by a final benchmarking study in 2025 to measure the extent to
which the aims of the Roadmap have been achieved.
This Roadmap has been produced on schedule in the course
of Wave 1, and itself requires preparatory work which is similar in
kind to the work recommended in the MEB for Wave 1. However,
the Roadmap was completed in the course of 2015, and Wave 1
is due to end on 31 December 2015. It is in practice impossible to
complete the preparatory work for the Roadmap in the remaining
months of 2015. The solution to this problem is to modify the
timetable for work to be completed by the end of Wave 2 in 2020.
The preparatory work for the Roadmap is to be completed in what
is called Phase 1, which includes the remaining months of 2015 and
the whole of 2016. Phase 2 extends from 2017 to 2020, and Phase
3 corresponds exactly to Wave 3. The overlap between Phase
1 and Wave 2 does not constitute slippage, and on the contrary

brings work on the Roadmap into step with the Waves of the MEB
as soon as practicable.
3. The Four Modules

The problem addressed by this Roadmap is a highly complex
systemic problem. The solution to the problem is presented here
in the form of a comprehensive plan, covering the whole of the
English language programme from preschool to university, and also
including teacher education. If the solution is to be comprehensible,
it has to be broken down into separate modules. There are four
main modules:

General
The English language programme from preschool to postsecondary
The English language programme at university level
English language teacher education
321

3.1 The Structure of the Roadmap

Those aspects of the plan that apply throughout the
programme and to teacher education are brought together in
the general section. For the other modules, each of the three
components curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment
is considered in turn. Conditions for reform are identified and
lead to recommended actions for reform. These recommended
actions for reform are ordered according to the three MEB waves,
and each action is followed by the expected outcome.
A key stage in the development of the Roadmap was the
identification of conditions for reform. These are the conditions that
have to be satisfied if our English language education system is to be
justifiably considered to have been reformed. In order to satisfy a
condition, the corresponding recommended actions must be carried
out in such a way that the expected outcomes are achieved. Since
reform must be brought about if our system is to be transformed,
these are also the necessary conditions for transformation.
3.1.1. General
The main general consideration is to align the whole of the
English language programme and the education of English teachers
to international standards in the form of the CEFR. Alignment has
to be followed up by implementation in educational practices and
322
by monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation. The labels

used in the general table which is replicated and contextualised for
each level from preschool to teacher education in the Roadmap are
as follows:

Strong CEFR foundation to achieve international standards
CEFR alignment
CEFR Implementation and monitoring
3.1.2 Preschool to post-secondary

The implementation plan needs to be worked out in principle for
each of the components of the English language programme from
preschool to post-secondary education. At the present stage of
planning, recommendations are made collectively for the different
stages of education. As the plan is implemented, it will be necessary
to work out in more detail the consequences of the collective
recommendations at each level of education, e.g. what optimal
engagement time means at preschool level or at secondary level.
1. Curriculum

Internationally aligned curricula and learning standards
Quality implementation of preschool, primary, secondary

and post-secondary curricula
Optimal language engagement time
3.1.3 University
Effective primary, secondary and post-secondary remedial

programmes
Creating a highly immersive English-rich environment in

schools
Recommendations at university level take a different form

in view of the autonomy of universities, and in recognition of
the prerogative of universities to make their own provision for
education at university level. The recommendations are in this
case guidelines which it is anticipated universities would wish
to take into account in providing their students with the English
language skills that they will need on graduation.
2. Teaching and Learning

CEFR-informed
secondary
pedagogy
from
preschool
to
post-
Learning materials of International-standard for preschool

to post-secondary
Internationally aligned curricula
Optimal English engagement time
Integrated use of online learning materials
Teacher competence
Systemic institutional support for English proficiency

development
3. Assessment

National exams of international standard from primary to

post-secondary
1. Curriculum
2. Teaching and learning

CEFR-informed pedagogy
A minimum English requirement for English teachers

across universities
3. Assessment

A common international framework of reference for

interpreting English performance across universities
323

Student performance benchmarked against international

standards
3.1.4 Teacher Education
Criteria for the further professional development of in-service

teachers include
English language teacher education is divided into two parts,

pre-service and in-service. Pre-service education has to start
with strict criteria for the selection of intending teachers, who
like teacher educators also have to be provided with the expertise
to deal with the three components of the English language
programme:
1. Curriculum

An internationally aligned language curriculum for English

Teacher education (ELTE)
2. Teaching and learning

English as the medium of instruction
Outcomes-based education
English teacher education: qualification requirement
English proficiency requirement for teachers
3. Assessment
324
A common standardised internationally benchmarked

English exit exam requirement for all English language
teacher training programmes
3.2
Linguistically and pedagogically competent teachers
Licensing and certification requirements
Upgrading basic qualifications for English teachers
International standards of Malaysian English teacher

proficiency
The five stages of the innovation cycle
In view of the high cost of educational reform, it is essential

to measure the effectiveness and success of any innovation. It is
not enough to introduce an innovation in the hope that it will bring
about beneficial change, and then claim without sufficient objective
evidence that it has been a success. Claims that innovations are
successful and have positive impact must be treated with caution,
especially if they are not substantiated by compelling evidence.
This is because the literature on innovations in English language
teaching research worldwide is awash with claims for statistically
significant improvements brought about by initiatives of all kinds.
There needs to be an innovation procedure for the introduction

and evaluation of initiatives. The evaluation of success and impact
must be independent and based on measurable differences before
and after the implementation of the initiative, and progress must be
compared with that of control groups. This applies to initiatives that
have been introduced in connection with MEB Wave 1, and to any
changes made in the course of implementation of this Roadmap.
Planning
Review
Implementation
As the implementation of the plan gets underway, it will be

necessary to set up a monitoring and evaluation system to ensure that
we create an internationally competitive Malaysian English language
education system. Starting with initiatives that have already begun,
the introduction of different parts of the plan needs to be subjected
to a rigorous cyclical procedure as shown in Figure C.1:
1. Planning
2. Implementation
3. Monitoring
4. Independent evaluation
Independent
Evaluation
Figure C.1
Monitoring
5. Review
6. Repeat the cycle
A cyclical process for

short-term initiatives
325

For example, sets for English are now at stage 2, and are in the
process of being implemented. The implementation needs to be
monitored (stage 3), and evaluated (stage 4) to see whether or not
the introduction of sets is having the beneficial effects expected.
The evaluation is then followed by a review (stage 5).
Teachers need high quality textbooks to use in their teaching,

and in the case of teachers with insufficient English proficiency, high
quality textbooks have the additional role of supporting teachers with
materials from which they can themselves learn. The area in which
teachers need most support, and in which high quality textbooks can
provide the support needed, is differentiated instruction.
4. The Three Priority Areas for Intervention
In order to create a high quality English teaching force, priority

must be given to capacity building for English teachers, including
pre-service and in-service training, so that teachers embark on
their careers with a clear understanding of what is required of
them, and continue to develop their skills and abilities as they
progress in their careers.
This subsection is concerned with three matters that need to be

addressed as a matter of urgency and given priority in order to maintain
quality and equality of access, and to uphold the principle of equity.
4.1 Teacher quality
In the immediate term, it is essential to provide English teachers
who have not attained a sufficient level of proficiency in English
with classroom support in the form of English language assistants
and mentors, etc. However, the competence of assistants and
mentors must itself be assessed, in order to ensure that the support
provided is of sufficient quality.
All English teachers should have at least a first degree which
includes education and English Language in some appropriate
combination, and by 2025 the minimum English language proficiency
requirement should be CEFR C1. Newly qualified English teachers
should be given a licence to practise and renewable certification.
326
By 2025, English teachers should be required to reach Band 4

on the Teaching Knowledge Test within five years of appointment.
Teacher educators should be of the same academic standing as
university lecturers, and should have in addition to a high level of
proficiency in English at least a relevant MA on appointment, and
by 2025 those without a Phd should be registered for a PhD and
required to obtain the PhD within a maximum of five years.
Stage of Education
Total Class Hours available
CEFR Level
University (2-8 credit hours)
80-140
700-800
C1
Post-secondary
Unspecified
500-600
B2
Upper Secondary Forms 4-5 (KBSM)
253
500-600
B2
Lower Secondary Forms 1-3 (KBSM))
380
350-400
B1
SK(SJK) Stds 4-6 (KSSR)
342 (570)
180-200
A2
SK(SJK) Stds 1-3 (KSSR)
285 (570)
90-100
A1
Form 6
Table C.1
Hours allocated for English and

CEFR guided learning hours
4.2 The allocation of time for the learning of English

As a rule of thumb, some 200 hours of instruction are required
to bring a language learner up from one CEFR level to the next.
The number of hours currently available for English are presented
in Table C.1.
Column 1 lists the stages of education, and column 2 shows
the corresponding number of hours currently available for English.
3
Guided Learning Hours for

the next CEFR level
The first figure for primary schools relates to National Schools,

and the figure in brackets to National-Type Schools; the figures
for universities represent the range. Column 3 shows the range
of the cumulative total number of hours of instruction (or guided
learning hours) estimated to be necessary to reach the target
CEFR level presented in column 43.
The primary school figures may give the impression that
there is more than sufficient time to reach the target A1 and A2.
https://support.cambridgeenglish.org/hc/en-gb/articles/202838506-Guided-learning-hours
accessed 25 June 2015
327

However, the estimated figures in column 3 are for adult learners

in a learning environment in which they are exposed to English as
a means of communication outside the formal learning hours. It is
important to recognise that these young learners are at an early
stage of development, and that they are learning English in addition
to Malay (National Schools) and also to their mother tongue
(National-Type Schools). They are likely to need more hours of
instruction in order to reach CEFR levels in English. Children in
rural or remote schools will probably engage with English for only
30 to 60 minutes per day during English lessons in school, and have
no access to or need for the language beyond the classroom.
Taking into account the reducing allocation of time for English
in the more advanced stages of education, every effort must
be made to give English learners a good start with high quality
provision for learning in preschool and primary school. Although
the target can be achieved just by getting children in the middle of
the A2 range up to end target level of A2 by the end of primary
school, attention also needs to be paid to the needs of children
above and below the A2 range. The number of high fliers reaching
at least B1 must be maximised, and of those not reaching A2 must
be minimised.
Essential measures to minimise the number of children failing
to reach A2 by the end of primary school include the following:
328
1. The placement of high calibre English teachers to teach

beginning learners;
2. The creation of a highly immersive English-rich environment
in school from the very beginning;
3. A rapid-response remedial teaching service to support
less successful learners before their lack of progress becomes a
problem.
The placement of high calibre effective teachers is necessary
because without a good foundation in English in the early years,
children will find it more difficult to catch up later on, especially
those in rural and remote areas. A highly immersive Englishrich environment should include high quality spoken materials to
enable young learners to exploit their innate language learning
ability in an informal manner outside formal teaching times. This
is particularly important in order to take advantage of the natural
language learning ability which peaks in early childhood. Parents
should be involved and other local resources utilised to integrate
the use of English into everyday life.
Providing students with a good early foundation in English
also facilitates a strategy to cope with the reducing allocation of
hours in secondary and tertiary education. Students with a good
foundation in English will profit from instruction in English, and
the teaching of other subjects in English. From a linguistic point
of view, the most suitable subjects are Physical Education and the
Arts (including Visual Arts and Music). In both cases, students are
required to do things in response to spoken instructions, and will
have a chance to practise grammar and vocabulary and develop
their Listening and Speaking skills.
ICT can also be profitably taught in English, on the grounds that
English is the resident language of computer-based technologies.
For selected schools science and mathematics can also be taught in
English. Having subjects like these taught in English will gradually bring
about dual language instruction which will improve students learning
of both English and Malay. However, this recommendation for the
increase in the engagement hours for English must be compatible with
maintaining the position of Malay as the national language.
4.3 Remedial support

The counterpart to increasing success is reducing failure. Unless
the principle that all children must be given the chance to reach
the highest standard of which they are capable is incorporated into
the fabric of the English language programme, those most likely to
fail to reach their own potential will be the most vulnerable, and
will include the poor and those in rural and remote areas. From a
national point of view, it is particularly important to cater for the
needs of those bright students whose lack of success is caused in
part by the social circumstances into which they were born, and for
whom early intervention will open up greater chances in life, and
whose success will greatly benefit the nation in the longer term.
What we need is a system of remedial English language
education which is not an add-on to the main programme, but
part of the main programme itself. Children should not be allowed
to fail in English and then given support to help them recover
from failure, but should be given support to stop them failing in
the first place. Effective differentiated teaching will take us some
way towards this objective, and keep some children within the
mainstream who would otherwise be regarded as failures.
In this connection, it has to be recognised that if the proposed
reduction in the number of hours allocated to English goes ahead,
the result will be not just increased failure in English, but cascading
failure in English. Since the cuts are planned at primary level, the
increased failure will begin in primary school and continue through
secondary school to tertiary education, and lead in due course to
increased graduate unemployment. In response to increasing failure
in English, either large numbers of children will be left behind for
no fault of their own, or else we shall have to mount a massive and
hugely expensive remedial operation to repair the damage.
In order to provide an effective remedial support system,
consideration should be given to the creation of a remove system
which goes beyond the temporary support provided under LINUS
329

2.0, so that children in danger of falling behind can be taken out of

the mainstream for a substantial period, and given special attention
to provide them with the foundation in English they will need later
on in their educational careers.
become English teachers, and that they are given the high quality
training which alone will enable them to achieve excellence in
their classroom performance. Entry to the profession must be
controlled, so that the number of recruits trained matches the
number of new English teachers required.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
High-calibre English teachers need to work within the

framework of a high quality English language programme. Again,
the solution to the problem is internationally well known, and it
involves aligning the whole programme to prevailing international
standards. Curricula, teaching and learning, and assessment need
to be closely integrated into a single programme, so that students
are faced with a coordinated set of learning activities at any one
time, and as they progress through the programme, they tackle
appropriate activities of increasing difficulty and complexity. In
practice, these objectives are most effectively to be achieved by
aligning the whole programme to the CEFR, and maintained by
bringing together under a single authority the different stakeholders
currently responsible for the different components curriculum,
teaching and learning including materials development, and
assessment of the English language programme.
We have before us an opportunity to create a world class English

language education system. The motivation for the preparation of
the present Roadmap is the realisation that unless we create a top
performing general education system, we are not going to achieve
our national aspiration to become a high-income developed nation,
or to become an educational hub for the region and beyond. In
view of the importance to this national enterprise of achieving
excellence in English, our English language education system has
to undergo systemic reform, and the special remit of this Roadmap
is to mark out the way ahead. Public attention has focused on
graduate unemployment and its connection with inadequate
English, but this is a symptom of the underlying problem that our
English education system is not at this stage designed to put us in
the position among the nations of the world to which we aspire.
It is internationally well known that in order to create a top
performing education system, it is essential first to create a highcalibre teaching force. We too must ensure that the right people
330
It is in our national interest, and it is also a moral imperative in

accordance with the principle of equity, to narrow and if possible
close the performance gaps between different groups of students.
We have to support the most vulnerable, so that by becoming
strong they cease to be vulnerable, and contribute to the prosperity

and wellbeing of the nation. Among the most vulnerable are the
very young, the poor, those with disabilities, and those in rural and
remote locations. All these groups need and deserve the very best
of English teachers. And male and female students need to see
the point of learning English, so that they are motivated to devote
the years of effort required to develop the level of proficiency and
language learning skills that will enable them to get a first job, and
then advance in their careers.
There is never enough time to study English given the rival
claims of other subjects that must be included in the timetable,
and so the time that is available must be spent wisely on learning
activities that stimulate the interest of young people. Since time
is most available in the early years, before competition with other
subjects begins in earnest, the strategy should be to make as much
progress in English as possible in the early years, which is also the
time when the childrens natural language learning ability is at
its peak. Given a good start, children should be able to continue
their learning of English as greater demands are made of them,
and what they are required to do in English becomes increasingly
difficult and complex. A strategy of this kind is needed because it is
not possible in the real world to create the ideal situation in which
the number of teaching hours increases as students progress to
higher levels.
And finally, it must constantly be borne in mind that the

ideas put forward in this document relate to only one half of the
MBMMBI policy. In order to survive and prosper as a nation in a
globalised world dominated by English, we have no choice but to
become more international in outlook, and achieve high standards
of English in order to communicate with the rest of the world. It
is our responsibility to provide our young people with the English
language skills they need to find employment commensurate with
their educational qualifications, and compete successfully in an
increasingly competitive international jobs market. Yet it is also our
privilege and our duty to promote Malay as our national language
and the language of unity.
To ensure the successful implementation of the proposals put
forward in this document, we make the following recommendations
for policy:
(i) Teacher qualification:
a. The minimum entry requirement to be set for teachers at
all stages of education should be a first degree or equivalent
qualification combining Education and English Language;
b. The minimum proficiency requirement for English teachers
should be C1; those not having reached C1 being required
to undergo further proficiency training;
331

c. Teachers should be required to apply for renewed

certification every five years.
(ii) International benchmarking:
The whole of the English language education system,
including curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment
must be aligned to the CEFR at all levels of education.
(iii) Monitoring standards and quality:
The ELSQC should be empowered to make final decisions
on all projects, initiatives and ventures concerning the
teaching of English in Malaysia to ensure that they are
consistent with the Roadmap. All these projects, initiatives
and ventures should be screened before submission by a
body authorised to make recommendations to the ELSQC.
While the Roadmap summarised in this report has been in
preparation, countries across the world have been doing much the
same, and making plans to improve their English education systems.
Among the countries that see the necessity to raise the standards
of English attained by their young people is the United Kingdom
itself, the very historical home of the English language. Malaysia
cannot hope to succeed in an interconnected world dominated
by global English without bringing national standards of English
up to the standards now expected and required internationally.
If we do not take the opportunity now before us, we will fail in
332
our ambition to become internationally recognised as an advanced

nation. And if we fail, the future will be bleak for us all; but it will
be bleakest of all for those who are already the most vulnerable,
for the children of the poor, and for the children of those in rural
and remote locations.
The most vulnerable members of our community are those
who most need the support that can be given by a high quality
education system that provides them with high standards of Malay
to give them confidence in using the national language, and with
high standards of English to enable them to join the international
community and make them feel part of it. The stakes are too high,
and we shall not fail; and that is because we have a plan which
when implemented will put us on course to bring our English
language education system up to the standards enjoyed by the
most advanced countries in the world.

THE ROADMAP
PRESCHOOL
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
POST-SECONDARY
UNIVERSITY
TEACHER EDUCATION
333

334

THE ROADMAP
Preschool
335

PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
THE ROADMAP (2015-2025)
MEB WAVES 1 - 3 (20132025)
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
E
F
R
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
Strong CEFR
Foundation
to achieve
international
standards
LEAD
AGENCY
BPK
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Set CEFR
staged learning
outcomes based
on Cambridge
Baseline 2013
study as a guide
for preschool
Staged learning
outcomes
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
Implement
and monitor
staged learning
outcomes
with DAP as a
reference
OUTCOMES
Staged learning
outcomes
with DAP as
a reference
implemented
and a report on
implementation
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
Evaluate and
revise staged
learning
outcomes
with DAP as a
reference
OUTCOMES
C
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL (2025)
A1
Appropriate
staged learning
outcomes
O
Develop CEFR
descriptors
suitable for the
preschool stage
of learning
U
N
D
A
DAP-CEFR
alignment
BPK
CEFR descriptors Validate the

developed CEFR
descriptors
Alignment of the English language

curricula, teaching and learning,
and assessment to DAP and CEFR
The CEFR
descriptors
validated
Review and
revise CEFR
descriptors
Final CEFR
descriptors
Launching and monitoring of DAPCEFR-aligned English language

curricula, teaching and learning, and
assessment
Review and revision of DAPCEFR-aligned English language

assessment
A
T
I
DAP-CEFR
implementation
and monitoring
ELSQC
ELTC
BPPDP
Setting up of an independent
body responsible for the
implementation and monitoring of
the reform process
Monitoring of all actions required for

reform
Review of and report on outcomes

and efficacy of reform
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION ROADMAP (2015-2025): PRESCHOOL

336
I
O
O
N
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
PHASE 2 (20172020)
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
C
U
Alignment
of learning
standards
BPK
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
M
Transition
from one
instructional
language to
another
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment
in preschools
BPK
JNJK
ELTC
BKK
Adopt the CEFR as

the reference for the
development of the
content and learning
standards for EL
CEFR used as the

reference for the
development of the
content and learning
standards for EL
Evaluate and
monitor teachers
comprehension of
the EL content and
learning standards
in the revised
document
Reinforce DAP as the

reference for including
pedagogical aspects
in the content and
learning standards for
EL
DAP reinforced as the

reference for including
pedagogical aspects
in the content and
learning standards for
EL
Provide the NPSC in

English to encourage
the use of English for
the Thematic Module
Teachers are provided

with the NPSC in both
bahasa Malaysia and
English
Adopt DAP as
the reference for
planning daily
schedules focusing on
instructional language
use
Appropriate sample
schedules focusing on
instructional language
use
Encourage an
immersive English
learning environment
in preschools with
school-based initiatives
An emerging immersive Implement and

English environment
monitor schoolbased initiatives to
encourage a highly
immersive English
environment
A comprehensive
report of the
evaluation
Review the
EL content
and learning
standards in
the revised
document
based on the
evaluation
report
An improved
document
Review and
revise CEFR
descriptors
Final CEFR
descriptors
A1
C
U
R
R
I
C
U
Evaluate and
monitor the
implementation
of the schedules
focusing on
instructional
language use
A comprehensive
report of the
evaluation
An emerging
highly immersive
English-rich
environment in
preschools
Review the
schedules
based on the
evaluation
report
A set of
improved
schedules
Review and
improve
school-based
initiatives
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment in
preschools
L
U
M

337

PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
U
R
R
I
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
Parental and
community
engagement
LEAD
AGENCY
PPD
JPN
PIBG
U
L
U
M
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
ACTIONS
Design
programmes
to engage
parents and
the community
in supporting
preschool
students EL
learning (e.g.
teacher aides)
PHASE 2 (20172020)
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
Programmes
for parental
and community
engagement
designed
Launch parent
and community
engagement
programmes
Community
engagement
programmes
launched
Monitor
programmes
Monitoring reports
submitted
ACTIONS
Review
engagement
programmes
OUTCOMES
Increased
effective EL
engagement
time
ELTC
JNJK
IPTA/USM
Conduct courses
on understanding
and using DAP
principles to
inform practice
Awareness and
understanding
of DAP raised
among In-service
and pre-service
teachers
Minimum
qualification
for preschool
teachers:
English
proficiency
and academic
qualifications
BPSM
IPTA/USM
Appoint
competent users
of English to
teach preschoolers
(focus on retired
local English
teachers)
Competent users,
particularly retired
local English
teachers considered
for post of
preschool teacher
R
R
I
C
L
U
M
TEACHING & LEARNING

DAP-informed
pedagogy
Provide continuous
professional
development
courses for the
inspectorate to
enable them to
effectively monitor
and evaluate the
effectiveness of
pedagogy using
DAP principles
Inspectorate
trained in
DAP-informed
pedagogy
Continue
appointment of
competent users
of English
A body of
Review
EL proficient
the English
preschool teachers language quality
of preschool
teachers
Monitor and
evaluate the
effectiveness of
pedagogy using
DAP principles
DAP-informed
pedagogy used
effectively
A1
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
English
language quality
achieved among
preschool
teachers

338
C
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
Broader
opportunities to
use EL in and
outside school
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
Minimum
qualification
for preschool
teachers:
BPSM
ACTIONS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
OUTCOMES
IPTA /
USM
English
proficiency
and academic
qualifications
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
Implement the Bachelors

degree as the minimum
qualification for preschool
teachers to be achieved by
2025:
Appointment
requirements
implemented
Review the
appointment
qualifications
of preschool
teachers
OUTCOMES
CEFR
EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
Minimum
qualifications
for pre-school
teachers
attained
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
b. Major Early Childhood

Education or Preschool
Education, minor English
c. Double degree consisting
of English and Early
Childhood Education or
Preschool Education
ASSESSMENT
CEFRinformed
assessment
BPK
LP
Revise constructs and

descriptors for performance
standards to incorporate
assessment on phonics
(for 5+ age group) and
HOTs complemented by a
glossary of terminologies
relating to constructs,
descriptors and concepts
used, guided by the CEFR
A revised National
Preschool Assessment
Tool (NPAT) based
on a CEFR-informed
assessment framework
Provide exemplars of
developmentally and
linguistically appropriate
assessment tools for
standardisation
Exemplars of
developmentally
appropriate and
linguistically appropriate
assessment tools
Monitor and evaluate

CEFR-informed assessment
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
a.Major English, minor

Early Childhood Education
or Preschool Education
A
S
PHASE 2 (20172020)
A
Evaluation
reports on
the effective
use of CEFRinformed
assessment
by JNJK
Review the
NPAT guided
by the CEFR
A robust NPAT
based on
CEFR-informed
assessment
Developmentally
and linguistically
appropriate
non-standardised
and standardised
assessment tools
A1
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

339

PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Train teachers
to create
developmentally
and linguistically
appropriate
assessment tools
individually (or
collaboratively) for
own (or shared)
use
Developmentally
and linguistically
appropriate
assessment
tools created
Evaluate
assessment tools
and upskilling
courses
Evaluation report
by JNJK to PPD
and JPN
Evaluate teachers
competency in
assessment - to
be carried out by
JNJK
A report on
teachers
competency in
assessment
CEFR
EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
ASSESSMENT
A
S
S
Institutional
support
for the
development
of assessment
tools
PPD
JPN
Mobilise
teachers
to develop
collaboratively
standardised
assessment
tools for testing
listening and
speaking skills
Standardised
assessment
tools for
listening and
speaking
developed
collaboratively
Train teachers to adapt

valid assessment
tools to create
developmentally
and linguistically
appropriate
assessment tools for
all language skills (L,
S, R, W)
S
S
Valid assessment
tools adapted for all
language skills
Professional upskilling
courses for teachers
with advisory support
on (a) English
language assessment,
and (b) adapting
and developing
standardised
assessment tools by
ELTC
M
E
N
T
Teacher
competency
in preschool
assessment
BPSH
Recruit
EL option
teachers and/
or competent
users of English
to (teach
and) conduct
assessment
EL option
teachers and/or
competent users
of English (teach
and) conduct
assessment
Supervise, monitor
and evaluate teachers
competency in
assessment to be
carried out by PPD,
JPN and JNJK
An evaluation report
on teachers use of
the exemplars and
assessment tools
Assess pupils
guided by
exemplars
Pupils are more

comfortable
in the use of
language
Assess pupils guided

by the exemplars and
adaptations of valid
assessment tools
Conduct student
Pupils are more
confident in the use of portfolio
assessment
language
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
Enforcement
of the use of
student portfolio
assessment

340
A1
E
N
T
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
THE ROADMAP (2015 - 2025)
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
MONITORING OF PROGRESS TOWARDS A QUALITY ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION SYSTEM

International
standard of
Preschool EL
education
ELSQC
Conduct a
A benchmark
benchmark study
study report
for preschool
students to
establish the
impact of
initiatives on the
EL proficiency of
preschool students
Carry out an
impact study on
the reformed
preschool EL
education system
Students achieve
minimum EL
proficiency target
A1

341

342

THE ROADMAP
Primary
343

PRIMARY EDUCATION
MEB WAVES 1 - 3 (20132025)
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
E
F
R
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
Strong CEFR
Foundation
to achieve
international
standards
LEAD
AGENCY
BPK
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
CEFR alignment
BPK
O
N
CEFR
implementation
and monitoring
ELSQC
ELTC
BPPDP
ACTIONS
Set CEFR staged
target proficiency
levels for primary
education based
on the Cambridge
Baseline 2013
OUTCOMES
Staged target
levels
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Implement and
monitor staged
target levels
Staged
target levels
implemented
and a report on
implementation
Evaluate and
revise staged
target levels
Appropriate
staged target
levels
Develop CEFR
CEFR
descriptors suitable
descriptors
for every year at each
stage of learning
Validate the
developed CEFR
descriptors
The CEFR
descriptors
validated
Review and revise

CEFR descriptors
Final CEFR
descriptors
CEFR Master
Build capacity by
training key deliverers Trainers (key
(teachers SISC+, MoE deliverers)
EL officers) for the
implementation
of CEFR-aligned
curricula, teaching
and learning, and
assessment
Implement
and monitor
CEFR training
for teachers by
Master Trainers
Teachers trained
in the CEFR
and reports
on training
programmes
Evaluate and
revise CEFR
training by Master
Trainers
Form a CEFR
task force from
the Master
Trainers
CEFR Task Force Develop the

CEFR-M (by the
CEFR Task Force)
The alignment of English language

assessment to the CEFR
The launching and monitoring of

CEFR-aligned English language
and assessment
Review and revision of CEFR-aligned

English language curricula, teaching and
learning, and assessment
The setting up of an independent

the reform process
Monitoring of all actions required

for reform
Review of and report on outcomes and

efficacy of reform
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL (2025)
Year 3: A1
Year 6: A2
E
F
R
F
O
Effective
CEFR training
programmes
U
N
D
The CEFR-M
developed
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION ROADMAP (2015-2025): PRIMARY

344
A
T
I
O
N
PRIMARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
C
U
R
internationally
aligned
curriculum
and learning
standards
BPK
R
I
C
U
L
Effective
implementation
and delivery of
curriculum
BPK
ELTC
IPGM
BPG
IAB
BPK
ELTC
IPGM
BPG
Review and revise

the KSSR primary EL
curriculum (Years 1-6)
The primary
KSSR-EL
curriculum
reviewed and
revised
Roll out CEFRaligned KSSR

primary EL
curriculum in
stages
Gradual
implementation of
the CEFR-aligned
KSSR EL curriculum
for all stages of
learning
Align the reviewed

KSSR EL curriculum to
the CEFR
The CEFR-KSSR
EL curriculum
Monitor and
evaluate the
implementation of
the CEFR- aligned
KSSR EL curriculum
Recommendations
for Improved
delivery of the
CEFR-KSSR primary
EL curriculum
Promote understanding
of the CEFR-aligned
KSSR EL curriculum
among teachers, school
leaders and parents
to appreciate the
significance of the new
curriculum
Appreciation of
the significance
of the revised
curriculum
Reinforce
understanding
among teachers
and school leaders
to appreciate the
new EL curriculum
Increased
appreciation of the
revised curriculum
Build capacity for

Master Trainers
(key deliverers) to
understand, implement
and use the CEFRaligned KSSR EL
curriculum
Master Trainers
well trained
in the CEFRaligned KSSR EL
curriculum
Train primary
school teachers
to understand,
implement and use
the CEFR-aligned
KSSR EL curriculum
through workshops
Teachers welltrained and

confident in the
implementation and
use of the CEFRaligned KSSR EL
curriculum
Monitor training
Recommendations
for improvement
Review and
revise the
CEFR-KSSR
primary EL
curriculum
The CEFRaligned KSSR

primary EL
curriculum
meets
international
standards
Year 3:
A1
Year 6:
A2
C
U
R
R
I
Strengthen
partnership
amongst all
stakeholders
to sustain
curriculum
implementation
Curriculum
implementation
sustained by
an effective
network of
stakeholders
Continue
capacity
building for all
primary school
teachers
Improvement
in the use of
the CEFRaligned KSSR
EL curriculum
C
U
L
U
M

345

PRIMARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
Effective
implementation
and delivery of
curriculum
BPK
Effective
remedial
programmes
BPK
U
R
R
I
BPK
JNJK
U
L
U
M
Optimal
language
engagement
time
BPK
BPK
ELTC
IPGM
CEFR-aligned
KSSR primary
EL curriculum
toolkits
developed
Improve interpretation
and implementation
of the CEFR-aligned
KSSR primary EL
curriculum through
in-service teacher
training
CEFR Capacity
building
workshops for
teachers
Monitor and
review the
implementation
of the CEFRaligned KSSR EL
curriculum
Improved delivery
of the CEFRaligned KSSR
primary EL
curriculum
Develop remedial
programmes for
students yet to
achieve set targets
for Years 4-6
Sound remedial
programmes
developed
Roll out and monitor

remedial programmes
Remedial
programmes for
Years 4-6 rolled
out and monitored
Review and
revise remedial
programmes for
Years 4-6
Improved remedial
programmes for
Years 4-6
Monitor and Review

the LINUS 2.0
programme
A revised LINUS Conduct an impact

2.0 programme study of LINUS 2.0
An impact study
report produced
Revise LINUS 2.0

programme based
on the study
Good remedial
programme for
Years 1-3
Increase EL learning
time for SRJK
schools (Years 1-6)
Similar EL
learning time
to SRK schools
(Year 1-6)
Implement and
monitor the use of
increased language
learning time
Increased
language learning
time implemented
and monitored
Review the
effectiveness
of increased EL
learning time
Consolidation of
EL learning time
Select other
subjects to be
taught in English
(e.g. Science or
Maths)
Subjects
selected to
be taught in
English
Implement the
teaching of selected
subjects in English
The teaching of
subjects in English
implemented
Dual language
programme in
primary schools
Monitor the
implementation
Monitoring reports
submitted
Review the
effectiveness of
the teaching of
subjects in English
Conduct in-service
EL training for
subject teachers
Teachers trained Continue in-service EL Training

programmes for
and proficient
training for teachers
in English
subject teachers
in place
Implement preservice EL training for
the subject teachers
involved
BPG
Plan for pre-service

EL training for the
subject teachers
involved
346
Year 3:
A1
Ensure correct
interpretation and
implementation
of the CEFRKSSR primary EL
curriculum by all
teachers
C
U
R
R
I
Consolidate
the teaching of
subjects in English
Review the
effectiveness
of the training
programmes
Year 6:
A2
Subject teachers
well-trained in
using English to
teach
Revise the training Higher EL

programmes
proficiency among
primary students
U
M
PRIMARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
C
U
R
R
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment
in schools
ELTC
BKK
C
U
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
PHASE 2 (20172020)
Parental and
community
engagement
PPD
JPN
PIBG
Encourage an
immersive
English learning
environment
in primary
schools with
opportunities
for the
purposeful and
contextualised
use of English
An emerging
immersive
English
environment
in primary
schools
Design
programmes
to engage
parents and
the community
in supporting
primary students
EL learning (e.g.
teacher aides, EL
immersion camps)
Programmes
designed for
parental and
community
engagement
Develop and
implement schoolbased initiatives to
encourage the active
use of English among
students
An emerging highly immersive Review and

English-rich environment in
improve
primary schools
school-based
initiatives
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment
in primary
schools
Year 3:
A1
Year 6:
A2
C
U
R
R
I
Monitor the initiatives
C
U
Launch and
monitor parent
and community
engagement
programmes
Programmes launched
Reports submitted on
opportunities for primary
students to use EL in and out
of school
Review and
improve parent
and community
engagement
programmes
Increased EL
engagement
time for
primary
students
Continue
capacity
building for
the CEFR to
cascade to all
teachers
Improved
teaching of
the CEFRaligned KSSR
EL curriculum
at all primary
levels
L
U
M
TEACHING & LEARNING

CEFRinformed
pedagogy
BPK
ELTC
BPG
IPGM
Build capacity for

Master Trainers
(key deliverers)
to understand
and use CEFRinformed pedagogy
Master Trainers
well-trained in
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
Build capacity for

teachers to use CEFRinformed pedagogy at
all levels by Master
Trainers
Teachers familiar and

confident in the use of
CEFR-informed pedagogy
Year 3:
A1
Year 6:
A2
347

PRIMARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
T
E
A
C
H
Internationallyaligned
teaching
and learning
materials
BBT
BTP
BPK
BBT
BTP
BPK
&
L
ELTC
BBT
BTP
BPK
ELTC
R
N
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
BTP
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
BTP
ELTC
Select
international
CEFR-aligned
textbooks
and support
materials for
Years 1-6
Selection criteria
for the CEFRaligned textbooks
and support
materials
Appropriate CEFRaligned materials
selected
Review existing Teaching-learning

teachingresources reviewed
learning
and aligned
resources
to ensure
alignment with
CEFR
Coordinate and
consolidate
reviewed
teachinglearning
resources
A repository of all
teaching-learning
resources set up.
A directory of
teaching-learning
resources produced
Purchase and
monitor the
use of the
international
CEFR-aligned
textbooks and
support materials
Textbooks in line
with the aims of
the CEFR-aligned
KSSR EL curriculum
Evaluate and revise the

selection of textbooks
and support materials
for Years 1-6
The selection of textbooks

and support materials
revised
Effective student
engagement with EL
materials
Improved student
engagement with
EL materials
Year 3:
A1
Year 6:
A2
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
Train EL
teachers to use
teaching-learning
resources to
improve delivery
of the CEFRaligned KSSR EL
curriculum
EL teachers trained
to use teachinglearning resources
Evaluate teacher use

of teaching-learning
resources
Recommendations for more

effective use of resources by
primary school teachers
&
L
E
A
Adopt/Develop
effective online
teaching-learning
resources
Online teachinglearning resources

made available
Integrate on-line
teaching-learning
materials into lessons
Online materials are a

regular part of lessons
Create a database and

web portal of language
needs and resources for
primary education
Database and web portal

/ LMS made available
as gateway to teachinglearning resources for
primary education
Review and upgrade

the existing learning
management system
(LMS)
348
OUTCOMES
TEACHING & LEARNING
I
N
PHASE 2 (20172020)
R
N
I
The existing learning

management system (LMS)
reviewed and upgraded
N
G
PRIMARY EDUCATION
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR
REFORM
Teacher
competence
LEAD
AGENCY
ELTC
IPGM
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Train teachers to
conduct remediation
for students with
learning difficulties
and disabilities
Teachers trained
in remedial
instruction
Monitor and
evaluate teacher
use of remedial
instruction
Recommendations
for improvement
in teacher use
of remedial
instruction
Review the training of

teachers in remedial
instruction
Teachers competent
to meet the needs
of students with
learning difficulties and
disabilities
Train teachers to
enable differentiated
learning for varied
EL proficiency levels
in primary school
Teachers trained
to enable
differentiated
learning
Monitor and
evaluate
teacher use of
differentiated
learning
Recommendations
for improvement
in teacher use
of differentiated
learning
Review the training of

teachers in the use of
appropriate pedagogy
including differentiated
learning
Teachers competent
to meet the needs of
students at different
proficiency levels
Train teachers to
develop aesthetic/
creative language
use among students
Teachers trained
in developing
aesthetic/
creative language
use
Monitor and
evaluate the
development
of aesthetic/
creative language
use
Recommendations
for improvement
in the
development of
aesthetic/ creative
language use
Review training
of teachers in the
development of
aesthetic/ creative
language use
Teachers competent in
developing aesthetic/
creative language use
among students
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
Year 3: A1
Year 6: A2
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
ASSESSMENT
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
Assessments
and national
examinations
of
international
standard
BPK
LP
Develop the CEFRaligned EL schoolbased assessment

(SBA) for Years 1-6
to include all 4 skills
The CEFR-aligned Implement and

EL SBA
monitor the
CEFR-aligned
SBA for Years I-6
CEFR-aligned
SBA for Years 1-6
implemented and
monitored
Review and revise the

CEFR-aligned SBA for
Years 1-6
Valid and reliable CEFRaligned school-based

assessment for Years 1-6
Develop a new
CEFR-aligned
national EL exam
for Year 6 which
includes all 4 skills
Draft of a CEFRaligned national

Year 6 EL exam
Valid and reliable

CEFR-aligned
national Year 6
exam
Review the national

exam and calibrate
standards
Year 6 national exam

reviewed and calibrated
Pilot, improve
and implement
the CEFR-aligned
national Year 6
EL exam
Year 3: A1
Year 6: A2
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

349

PRIMARY EDUCATION
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
PHASE 3 (20212025)
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
All teachers
trained in the
management of
CEFR-aligned SBA
Monitor and
evaluate teacher
management of
CEFR-aligned SBA
Recommendations
for the
improvement
to the EL SBA
training for
teachers
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
ASSESSMENT
Upskill EL
teachers
in the
administration
of schoolbased
assessment
ELTC
IPGM
BPG
Train primary EL
Master Trainers to
implement CEFRaligned schoolbased assessment
(SBA)
Master trainers
well-informed in
the management
of CEFR-aligned
SBA
Upskilling of all
teachers in the
management of
CEFR-aligned SBA
Year 3: A1
Year 6: A2
Improved SBA

International
standard of
Primary EL
education
ELSQC
Select
independent
international
body/organisation
to conduct
benchmark and
impact studies.
An Independent
international
body identified
to carry out
benchmarking and
impact studies up
to 2025
Conduct a
benchmark study
on Year 3 and
Year 6 students
to establish
the impact of
initiatives on the
EL proficiency of
primary students
Student
performance
benchmarked
against
international
standards
Benchmark
students EL
performance
against
international
standards
Benchmark Study
Report
Carry out an
impact study on
the reformed
Primary EL
education system
Students achieve
EL proficiency
targets
Transformed
Primary EL
Education system

350
Year 3: A1
Year 6: A2
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T

THE ROADMAP
Secondary
351

SECONDARY EDUCATION
MEB WAVES 1 - 3 (2013 2025)
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
E
F
R
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
Strong CEFR
foundation
to achieve
international
standards
LEAD
AGENCY
BPK
F
O
U
N
D
A
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Set CEFR staged

target proficiency
levels for secondary
education based
on the Cambridge
Baseline 2013
Staged target
levels
Develop CEFR
for each year of
secondary education
CEFR
descriptors
Build capacity by
training key deliverers
(teachers SISC+, MoE
EL officers) for the
implementation
of CEFR-aligned
curricula, teaching
and learning, and
assessment
CEFR Master
Trainers (key
deliverers)
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR alignment
BPK
O
N
CEFR
implementation
and monitoring
ELSQC
ELTC
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Implement and
monitor staged
target levels
Staged
target levels
implemented
and reports on
implementation
submitted
Evaluate and
revise staged
target levels
Appropriate
staged target
levels
Validate the
developed CEFR
descriptors
The CEFR
descriptors
validated
Review and
revise CEFR
descriptors
Final CEFR
descriptors
Implement and
monitor the
CEFR training
of teachers by
Master Trainers
Teachers trained
in the CEFR
and reports
on training
programmes
Evaluate and
revise the
CEFR training
by Master
Trainers
Effective
CEFR training
programmes
Develop the
CEFR-M (by
CEFR Task
Force)
The CEFR-M
developed
Form a CEFR task CEFR Task Force

force from Master
Trainers
T
I
PHASE 3 (20212025)
C
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL (2025)
Form 3: B1
Form 5: B1/B2
F
R
F
O
Alignment of English language

Launching and monitoring of

assessment
Review and revision of CEFRaligned English language

curricula, teaching and
learning, and assessment
Setting up of an independent body

responsible for the implementation
and monitoring of the reform process
Monitoring of all actions required for

reform
Review of and report on

outcomes and efficacy of
reform
BPPDP
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION ROADMAP (2015-2025): SECONDARY

352
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Review and
revise the CEFRaligned KSSM
secondary EL
curriculum
International
standard CEFRaligned KSSM
secondary EL
curriculum
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
C
U
R
internationally
aligned
curriculum
and learning
standards
BPK
Align the KSSM

secondary EL
curriculum to the
CEFR
CEFR-aligned
KSSM secondary
EL curriculum
Implement the
CEFR-aligned
KSSM secondary EL
curriculum (2017)
CEFR-KSSM
EL curriculum
implemented
in stages for all
secondary levels
R
I
C
U
Form 5:
B1/B2
C
U
R
R
Effective
implementation
and delivery of
curriculum
BPK
ELTC
IPGM
BPG
IAB
L
U
Form 3: B1
BPK
ELTC
IPGM
BPG
Promote
understanding of the
need to align the
KSSM EL curriculum
to the CEFR among
teachers, school
leaders and parents
to appreciate the
curriculum
Acceptance of
the need for a
CEFR-aligned EL
curriculum by
stakeholders
Build capacity for

Master Trainers
(key deliverers)
to understand,
implement and use
the CEFR-aligned
KSSM secondary EL
curriculum
Well-equipped
Master Trainers
for the CEFRaligned KSSM EL
curriculum
Reinforce
understanding
among teachers
and school leaders
of the importance
of the new
CEFR-aligned EL
curriculum
Acceptance of the
new curriculum
Train secondary
school teachers
to understand,
implement and use
the CEFR-aligned
KSSM EL curriculum
through workshops
Teachers familiar
with the CEFR and
confident in the
implementation
of the CEFRaligned KSSM EL
curriculum
Strengthen
partnership
amongst all
stakeholders
to sustain
curriculum
implementation
Curriculum
implementation
sustained by
an effective
network of
stakeholders
I
C
U
L
Continue
capacity
building for
all secondary
school teachers
Improvement
in the use of
the CEFRaligned KSSM
EL curriculum
U
M
Monitor training

353

SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
C
U
R
LEAD
AGENCY
Effective
implementation
and delivery of
curriculum
BPK
BPG
ELTC
U
L
U
M
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Optimal
language
engagement
time
BPK
Ensure correct
interpretation and
implementation
of the CEFRKSSM secondary
EL curriculum
by all teachers
through provision of
curriculum toolkits
CEFR-aligned
KSSM secondary EL
curriculum toolkits
developed
Increase EL learning
hours for all
secondary schools,
particularly Forms
4-5
EL learning hours
increased for all
secondary schools
Utilise existing EL
optional subjects
(EST and Eng.
Lit) to cater for
higher proficiency
students.
Higher proficiency
students register
for the optional EL
subjects
Improve
interpretation
and
implementation
of the CEFRaligned KSSM
EL curriculum
through the inservice training
of teachers
CEFR capacitybuilding
workshops for
teachers
Monitor and
review the
implementation
of the CEFRKSSM EL
curriculum
Implement and
monitor the use
of the increased
hours
The increased
Review the
language learning effectiveness of
time monitored
the increased EL
learning time
Implement
and monitor
the teaching
of the optional
EL subjects to
achieve higher
proficiency
goals for higher
proficiency
students
Curriculum goals
for optional EL
subjects include
focus on higher
proficiency goals.
Improved delivery
of the CEFRaligned KSSM
secondary EL
curriculum
Form 3:
B1
Form 5:
B1/B2
C
U
R
R
I
Report on the
teaching and
implementation
of optional EL
subjects
Review the
effectiveness of
achieving higher
proficiency goals
for students
in optional EL
subjects
Consolidation of
the EL learning
time
C
U
L
Recommendations
for improvement
Higher EL
proficiency (B2)
among students
in EL optional
subjects

354
CEFR
EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
ACTIONS
PHASE 2 (20172020)
U
M
SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
Optimal
language
engagement
time
BPK
Introduce new
elective subjects
(e.g. Critical
Thinking and
Academic English)
New elective
subjects
developed to be
taught in English
Implement and
monitor the
teaching of new
elective subjects
in English
The teaching of
elective subjects
in English
implemented and
monitored. A report
on the teaching of
the elective subjects
in English.
Increase in student
EL use
C
U
R
The teaching of
subjects in English
implemented
Review the
A dual language
programme in
effectiveness of
the teaching of
secondary schools
subjects in English
Monitor the
implementation
Monitoring reports
submitted
Consolidate
the teaching of
subjects in English
Conduct in-service Teachers trained

EL training for
and proficient in
English
subject teachers
Continue the inservice EL training

of the teachers
Training programmes Review the

for subject teachers effectiveness
in place
of the training
programmes
Plan for the preservice EL training

of the subject
teachers involved
Implement the
pre-service EL
training of the
subject teachers
involved
Subjects selected
to be taught in
English
U
M
ELTC
IPGM
Higher EL
proficiency
among secondary
students
Implement the
teaching of the
selected subjects
in English
Select other
subjects to be
taught in English
(e.g. Science or
Maths)
Review the
Recommendations
effectiveness
for improvement
of the teaching
of new elective
subjects in English
Form 3:
B1
Form 5:
B1/B2
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
Well-trained
subject teachers
in using English to
teach
Revise the training Higher EL

proficiency
programmes
among secondary
students

355

SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
Effective
remedial
programmes
BPK
U
R
JNJK
BPPDP
BPK
Develop remedial
programmes for
students yet to achieve
the set targets at each
secondary level
Sound
remedial
programmes
developed
Roll out and monitor

remedial programmes
Remedial programmes
for Forms 1-5 rolled
out and monitored
Implement Gap year

(Remove Class) for
students yet to attain
CEFR A1 for incoming
Form 1 students
Gap Year for

students with
CEFR A1
Implement and
monitor the
effectiveness of the
Gap Year for identified
low EL proficiency
students
The Gap Year for

low EL proficiency
students implemented
and monitored
Encourage an
immersive English
in secondary schools
with opportunities
for purposeful and
contextualised use of
English
An emerging
immersive
English
environment
in secondary
schools
Develop and
implement schoolbased initiatives to
students
An emerging highly
immersive Englishrich environment in
secondary schools
Monitor the initiatives
Monitoring reports
submitted
Identify opportunities
and design programmes
to engage parents
and the community in
supporting students EL
learning (e.g. teacher
aides, home learning
programmes, EL
immersion camps)
Programmes
for parental
and
community
engagement
designed
Launch parent
and community
engagement
programmes
Programmes launched
C
U
L
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment
in schools
ELTC
BKK
U
M
Parental and
community
engagement
PPD
JPN
PIBG
Monitor the
programmes
Monitoring reports
submitted on
opportunities for
secondary students to
use EL in and outside
school
Review and
revise the
remedial
programmes
for Forms 1-5
Effective
EL remedial
programmes
for Forms 1-5
Review and
revise the
Gap Year
programme
(to include
students with
CEFR A2)
An effective
remedial
programme
for Form
1 students
with low EL
proficiency
Review and
improve the
school-based
initiatives
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment
in secondary
schools
Form 5:
B1/B2
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
M
Review and
improve
parent and
community
engagement
programmes
Increased EL
engagement
time for
secondary
students

356
Form 3:
B1
SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
T
E
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
A
C
H
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
BPK
BPG
IPGM
IPTA
L
E
N
I
N
G
ACTIONS
teaching and
learning
materials
BBT
BTP
BPK
Build capacity for Master

Trainers (key deliverers)
to understand and
use CEFR-informed
pedagogy with the focus
on developing student
self-directedness and
a communicative and
interactive teaching
approach
Master Trainers well- Build capacity for

trained in CEFRteachers to use
informed pedagogy
CEFR-informed
pedagogy at all
levels by Master
Trainers
Select international
CEFR-aligned textbooks
and support materials for
Forms 1-5
Selection criteria
for CEFR-aligned
textbooks and
support materials
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR
EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
BBT
BTP
ELTC
Review existing
teaching-learning
resources to ensure
alignment with the CEFR
Coordinate and
consolidate reviewed
teaching-learning
resources
T
E
A
Teachers familiar
and confident with
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
Continue
the capacity
building for
the CEFR to
cascade to all
teachers
Improved teaching
of the CEFRaligned KSSM EL
curriculum at all
secondary levels
Form 3:
B1
Form 5:
B1/B2
C
H
I
N
G
Appropriate CEFRaligned materials

selected
A
R
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
TEACHING & LEARNING
&
PHASE 2 (20172020)
Teaching-learning
resources reviewed
and aligned
A repository of all
teaching-learning
resources set up.
A directory of
teaching-learning
resources produced
Purchase and
monitor the use of
the international
CEFR-aligned
textbooks and
support materials
Textbooks in line
with the aims of
CEFR-aligned KSSM
EL curriculum
Improved student
engagement with
EL materials
Evaluate and
revise the
selection of
textbooks
and support
materials for
Forms 1-5
A revised selection
of textbooks and
support materials
Effective student
engagement with
English
&
L
E
A
R
Train EL teachers
to use teachinglearning resources
to improve the
delivery of the
CEFR-aligned KSSR
EL curriculum
EL teachers
trained to use the
resources
Evaluate
teacher use of
the teachinglearning
resources
Recommendations
on the more
effective use
of resources by
secondary school
teachers
N
I
N
G

357

SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
T
E
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
A
C
H
I
N
G
PHASE 2 (20172020)
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
teaching and
learning
materials
Teacher
competence
BBT
BTP
ELTC
BPG
ELTC
IPTA
&
L
Train teachers to
enable differentiated
learning for varied EL
proficiency levels in
secondary school
Train teachers to
enable independent
and self-directed
learning among
students
Teachers trained
in the use of
differentiated
learning and
techniques
enabling
independent and
self-directed
learning
Adopt/Develop
effective teachinglearning resources
(including on-line
resources)
Teaching-learning
resources made
available
Monitor and
evaluate teacher
use of differentiated
learning and
techniques enabling
independent, selfdirected learning
Recommendations
for improvements
in teacher use
of differentiated
learning and
independent, selfdirected learning
Integrate
teachinglearning resource
materials into
lessons
Resource
materials are
part of daily
lessons
Review the
training of
teachers in
the use of
differentiated
learning and
independent
learning
Teachers
competent to
meet the needs
of students
N
I
N
G
Form 3:
B1
Form 5:
B1/B2
C
H
I
N
G
L
E
A positive
student
language
learning culture
ELTC
Encourage a positive
student learning
culture especially in
terms of independent
and self-directed
language learning
Pedagogy to
encourage a
positive student
language learning
culture
Enhance student
development
in independent
and self-directed
language learning
Development of
related learning tools
similar to the CEFR
Language Portfolio
Development of
related learning
tools similar to the
CEFR Language
Portfolio
Monitor student
development
Recommendations
for improving
student
independence and
self-directedness in
language learning
Review student
development in
independent and
self-directed
language
learning
Students
demonstrate
greater
independence
in language
learning

358
&
TEACHING & LEARNING
IPGM
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
A
R
N
I
N
G
SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
ASSESSMENT
A
S
Assessments
and
examinations
of international
standard
BPK
LP
Align EL school-based
assessment (SBA) to
the CEFR for Forms
1-5 and include all 4
skills
CEFR-aligned EL
SBA
Implement and
monitor CEFRaligned SBA for
Forms 1-5
CEFR-aligned SBA
for Forms 1-5
implemented and
monitored
Review and
revise CEFRaligned SBA for
Forms 1-5
Develop new
CEFR-aligned EL
examinations for
Forms 3 and 5
to include all 4
skills
CEFR-aligned EL
examinations for
Forms 3 and 5
Pilot, improve
Valid and reliable
and implement
CEFR-aligned
CEFR-aligned
examinations
examinations for
Forms 3 and 5
Assessment
practices that
encourage
independent and
self-directed
learning identified
and adopted
Integrate
assessment
practices that
encourage
greater student
independence
and self-directed
learning into SBA
Assessment
practices that
encourage
independent and
self-directed
learning integrated
into SBA
Review and
monitor
assessment
practices
Master trainers
well informed in
the management
of CEFR-aligned EL
SBA
Upskilling of all
teachers in the
management
and
implementation
of CEFR-aligned
SBA
All EL teachers
trained in the
management of
CEFR-aligned SBA
Monitor and
evaluate teacher
management of
CEFR-aligned
SBA
S
E
S
Adopt assessment
practices that
encourage greater
student independence
and self-directed
learning
S
M
E
N
T
Upskill EL
teachers in
administration
of school-based
assessment
ELTC
IPGM
IPTA
BPG
Train secondary EL
Master trainers to
implement CEFRaligned school-based
assessment (SBA)
with the emphasis on
performance-based
assessment and can
do statements
Improved
implementation
of SBA that is
performance-based
and reflects can do
statements
Valid and reliable

CEFR aligned
school-based
assessment for
Forms 1-5
Students
demonstrate
independent and
self-directed
qualities related
to assessment
Form 3:
B1
Form 5:
B1/B2
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
Recommendations
for improvements
to EL SBA training
for teachers

359

SECONDARY EDUCATION
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
A
S
S
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
M
E
N
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
ASSESSMENT
S
S
Establish
continuous
validation
processes for
CEFR informed
assessments
ELTC
Set up a special
independent
body to validate
assessments
An independent
body set up
to validate
assessments
Monitor the
effectiveness of
the independent
validation body
and relevant
agencies
Improved validation
of assessments
with an improved
relationship
between teaching
and assessment
Review the
roles and
responsibilities of
the independent
validation body
and relevant
agencies
Recommendations
for more effective
implementation
of the validation
processes
Form 3:
B1
Form 5:
B1/B2
Select an
independent
international body/
organisation to
conduct benchmark
and impact studies.
An independent
international
body identified
to carry out
benchmarking and
impact studies up
to 2025
Conduct a
benchmark study
for Forms 3
and 5 students
to establish
the impact of
initiatives on the
EL proficiency of
secondary students
S
M
E
T
Student
performance
benchmarked
against
international
standards
Benchmark
students EL
performance
against
international
standards
Students achieve EL
proficiency targets
A Benchmark
Study Report
Carry out an
impact study on
the reformed
secondary EL
education system
Transformed
secondary EL
education system
Form 3:
B1
Form 5:
B1/B2

360

ELSQC
S
S
International
standard of
Secondary EL
education

THE ROADMAP
Post-secondary
361

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
MEB WAVES 1 - 3 (2013 2025)
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
E
F
R
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
Strong CEFR
Foundation
to achieve
international
standards
LEAD
AGENCY
BPK
F
O
U
N
D
A
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Set CEFR staged

target proficiency
levels for postsecondary EL based
on the Cambridge
Baseline 2013
Staged target
levels
Develop CEFR
for each year of postsecondary education
CEFR
descriptors
Build capacity
by training key
deliverers for the
implementation
of CEFR-aligned
curricula, teaching
and learning, and
assessment
CEFR Master
Trainers (key
deliverers)
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
PHASE 3 (20212025)
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
Implement and
monitor staged
target levels
The staged
target levels
implemented and
a report on their
implementation
Evaluate and
revise the
staged target
levels
Appropriate
staged target
levels
Validate the
developed CEFR
descriptors
The CEFR
descriptors
validated
Review
and revise
the CEFR
descriptors
Final CEFR
descriptors
Implement and
monitor the
CEFR training
of teachers by
Master Trainers
Teachers trained
in the CEFR
and reports
on training
programmes
Evaluate and
revise the
CEFR training
by Master
Trainers
Effective
CEFR training
programmes
Develop the
CEFR-M
The CEFR-M
developed
Form a CEFR task A CEFR Task

force from Master Force
Trainers
OUTCOMES
C
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL (2025)
B2
CEFR alignment
BPK
CEFR
implementation
and monitoring
ELSQC
ELTC
The alignment of post-secondary


assessment

and assessment
Setting up of an independent body

responsible for the implementation
and monitoring of the reform process
The monitoring of all actions

required for reform

outcomes and the efficacy of
reform
BPPDP
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION ROADMAP (2015-2025): POST SECONDARY

362
U
N
D
A
T
O
N
F
O
T
I
I
O
N
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
C
U
R
R
I
An
internationally
aligned EL
curriculum
Effective
implementation
and delivery of
curriculum
BPK
B.Matrik.
KPT
KPT
A CEFR-informed
curriculum
developed
Implement and
monitor the CEFRinformed curriculum
The CEFR-aligned
curriculum
implemented
Evaluate the
effectiveness
of the CEFRinformed
curriculum
Recommendations
for the
improvement of
the curriculum
Build capacity for

Master Trainers
(key deliverers)
to understand,
implement and use
the CEFR-aligned
post-secondary EL
curriculum
Master Trainers
well trained for
the CEFR-aligned
post-secondary EL
curriculum
Train postsecondary teachers

to understand,
implement and use
the CEFR-aligned EL
curriculum
Teachers welltrained and

confident in the
implementation
and use of the
CEFR-aligned EL
curriculum
Continue
capacity
building for all
post-secondary
teachers
Improvement in
the use of the
CEFR-aligned
post-secondary EL
curriculum
Monitor the training
Recommendations
for improvement
U
L
U
L
U
M
Optimal
language
engagement
time
MPM
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment
ELTC
KPT
KPT
B2
Develop a CEFRinformed postsecondary EL

curriculum
Enforce adherence to
language engagement
time
Language
engagement time
enforced
Monitor the
adherence to
language engagement
time for all four skills
Language
engagement for all
four skills enforced
and monitored
Encourage an
immersive English
in post-secondary
schools and institutions
with opportunities for
the purposeful and
contextualised use of
English
An emerging
immersive English
environment
Develop and
implement school
and institutionbased initiatives to
students
An emerging highly
immersive Englishrich environment
in schools and
institutions
C
U
R
R
I
C
U
Review and
improve school
and institutionbased initiatives
A highly
immersive
English-rich
environment in
post-secondary
schools and
institutions
Monitor the initiatives Monitoring reports

submitted

363

PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
T
E
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
A
C
H
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
BPG
IPGM
KPT
&
L
E
A
R
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
EL teachers
equipped to
teach at postsecondary level
IPGM
BPG
KPT
Build capacity
for Master
Trainers to use
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
Master Trainers
well-trained in
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
Establish
the baseline
proficiency of
teachers and
trainers
Baseline
proficiency
of teachers
and trainers
established
Train teachers to Teachers trained

use differentiated in differentiated
learning in post- learning
secondary EL
classrooms
Build capacity
for teachers to
use CEFR-informed
pedagogy at all
levels by Master
Trainers
Teachers familiar
and confident
in the use of
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
Continue capacity
building for the
CEFR to cascade to
all teachers
Monitor teachers
and trainers
content and
pedagogical skills
Teachers enrolled
in upskilling
courses
Monitor teachers
and trainers in
the classroom
and evaluate their
proficiency
Recommendations
for improvement
in the proficiency
and classroom
performance
of teachers and
trainers
Review the training

of teachers in the
use of appropriate
pedagogy including
differentiated
learning
Teachers
competent to
meet the needs
of students
at different
proficiency levels
Identify teachers
requiring upskilling
Monitor and
evaluate
teacher use of
differentiated
learning
Recommendations
for improvement
in teacher use
of differentiated
learning
Improved teachinglearning practices

at post-secondary
level
N
G
B2
C
H
I
G
&
L
E
A
R
N
Set CEFR level C1

as the minimum
requirement for
post-secondary
EL teacher
proficiency
C1 accepted as
the minimum
requirement for
post-secondary EL
teachers
Enforce the
minimum
requirement for EL
teachers to have
level C1 proficiency
The minimum
requirement
enforced
Review EL teacher
proficiency
Recommendations
for improving
teacher proficiency
submitted

364
N
I
T
A
TEACHING & LEARNING
I
G
PHASE 2 (20172020)
I
N
G
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
T
E
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
A
C
H
I
EL teachers
equipped to
teach at postsecondary level
Develop teacher
education
programmes for
post-secondary
teachers
MoE-approved
education
training
programmes
developed
L
E
ACTIONS
teaching
and learning
materials
BBT
BTP
KPT
Select learning
and resource
materials
aligned to CEFR
instructional
pedagogies
Learning and
resource materials
are aligned to the
CEFR
Implement
post-secondary
teacher education
programmes
N
I
N
G
Allocate
adequate and
appropriate
resources to
support online
learning
Post-secondary
teacher education
programmes
implemented and
monitored
Monitor the
programmes
Monitoring reports
submitted
Implement and
monitor the use of
the CEFR-aligned
learning and
resource materials
CEFR-aligned
learning materials
in use in postsecondary schools
and institutions
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
Improved
resources for
online learning
Upgrade IT
resources to
improve online
learning
Implement
teachers use of
online learning
IT resources
support effective
online learning
T
E
A
Evaluate the
effectiveness of
post-secondary
teacher education
programmes
Post-secondary
teacher education
programmes
evaluated and
improved
B2
C
H
I
N
G
Evaluate the
effectiveness of
the CEFR-aligned
learning materials
Recommendations
for the
improvement of
learning materials
Improved student
engagement with
EL materials
Monitoring
Reports submitted
A
R
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
TEACHING & LEARNING
&
PHASE 2 (20172020)
Further upgrade
of IT resources to
improve online
learning
IT resources
enhance effective
online learning
Monitor teachers
use of online
learning materials
in post-secondary
English lessons
Teachers make
efficient use of
IT resources for
teaching English
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G

365

PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
A
S
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
S
S
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
ASSESSMENT
S
E
PHASE 2 (20172020)
Internationally
benchmarked EL
assessment for
post-secondary
students
MPM
KPT
Design a
CEFR-informed
assessment
framework:
include
continuous
assessment
A CEFRinformed
assessment
framework
designed
E
N
Build capacity
among teachers
for CEFRinformed
assessment
Teachers able
to use the
CEFR-informed
assessment
framework
Implement the
CEFR-informed
post-secondary
EL assessment
framework
The CEFR-informed
post-secondary
EL assessment
framework
implemented
Monitor the
implementation
Monitoring Reports
on the framework
submitted
Monitor teachers
use of the
CEFR-informed
framework
submitted
Recommendations
for increasing
teacher capacity
to use the CEFRinformed framework
ELSQC
Select an
independent
international
body/
organisation
to conduct
benchmark and
impact studies.
The independent
international
body identified
to carry out
benchmarking
and impact study
up to 2025
Conduct a
benchmark study
on post-secondary
students to
establish the
impact of the EL
programme on
their proficiency
Evaluate the
CEFR-informed
post-secondary
EL assessment
framework
Recommendations
for improvement
to the assessment
framework
submitted
Provide teacher
support for
the improved
assessment
framework
Student
performance
benchmarked
standards
Benchmark
students EL
performance against
international
standards
S
M
E
N
Teachers able
to use the
CEFR-informed
framework
efficiently
A Benchmark Study
Report
Examine the impact

of the reformed
post-secondary EL
education system
Students achieve
EL proficiency
targets
commensurate with
exit standards for
post-secondary
English
E
S
The CEFR-informed
post-secondary
English assessment
framework revised

366
S
S
B2

International
standard postsecondary EL
education
B2

THE ROADMAP
University
367

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
MEB WAVES 1 - 3 (2013 2025)
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
E
F
R
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
Strong CEFR
Foundation
to achieve
international
standards
LEAD
AGENCY
KPT
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
CEFR alignment
O
N
CEFR
implementation
and monitoring
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Set CEFR target

proficiency levels for
university English
language courses and
programmes based
on the Cambridge
Baseline 2013
The target
levels
confirmed
Implement and
monitor target
levels
The target levels Evaluate and

implemented and revise the
a report on the
target levels
implementation
Appropriate
target levels
Develop CEFR
for university English
language courses and
programmes
CEFR
descriptors
Validate the
developed CEFR
descriptors
The CEFR
descriptors
validated
Review
and revise
the CEFR
descriptors
Final CEFR
descriptors
Build capacity by
(university teachers,
lecturers) for the
implementation
of CEFR-aligned
curricula, teaching
and learning, and
assessment
CEFR Master
Trainers (key
deliverers)
Implement and
monitor the
CEFR training
of teachers by
Master Trainers
Teachers trained
in the CEFR
and reports
on training
programmes
Evaluate and
revise the
CEFR training
by Master
Trainers
Effective
CEFR training
programmes
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
E
F
R
F
O

Trainers
Develop the
The CEFR-M
CEFR-M (by
developed
the CEFR Task
Force)
Individual
universities
The alignment of English language


assessment

and assessment
Individual
universities

the reform process

required for reform

reform
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION ROADMAP (2015-2025): UNIVERSITY

368
B2/C1
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
C
U
An
internationally
aligned EL
curriculum
Individual
universities
Council of
Language
Deans
Review the existing

EL curriculum and
align to international
standards (CEFR) and
GE competencies
R
I
C
U
Adopt the CEFR

as the framework
of reference for
the development
of university EL
curriculum
Optimal EL
engagement
time
KPT
Individual
universities
Recommend an
increase in EL
engagement time an increase in credit
hours for EL learning
A CEFR-aligned
curriculum in
each university
Implement and monitor

the CEFR-aligned
curriculum
EL curriculum
reviewed and
aligned to
CEFR and GE
competencies
The CEFRaligned
curriculum is
implemented
and monitoring
reports are
submitted
Review
and revise
the CEFRaligned
curriculum
Minimum
English
language
entrance
requirement
Individual
universities
Council of
Language
Deans
MPM
Observe appropriate
CEFR-aligned
MUET bands as the
minimum EL entrance
requirements for
university programmes
set by the institutions
R
R
I
The
Implement the increase
recommendations in EL engagement
are accepted
time
Appropriate
CEFR-aligned
MUET bands
as minimum
EL entrance
requirements
enforced
B2/C1
U
*Post-MEB phase:
validation of the
curriculum
The EL
engagement
time is
increased
Evaluate the
effectiveness
of the
increased EL
engagement
time
U
M
An improved
CEFR-aligned
curriculum*
Monitor and review

the minimum CEFRaligned MUET bands as
EL proficiency entrance
requirements
Set a MUET Band
equivalent to CEFR B2
as the minimum EL
entrance requirement
for all courses.
A MUET band
equivalent
to CEFR B2
accepted as
the minimum
EL proficiency
entrance
requirement
Observe
CEFR B2
as the
minimum EL
proficiency
entrance
requirement
The
implementation
of increased
engagement time
evaluated and
improved, and a
report submitted
CEFR B2 as
the minimum
EL proficiency
entrance
requirement
to university
programmes is in
place by 2025
C
U
L
U
M

369

PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
U
R
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
PHASE 2 (20172020)
OUTCOMES
C
U
Systemic
institutional
support for
EL proficiency
development
Individual
universities
L
U
Create an English-rich
An emerging
environment at the
English-rich
institutional level through environment
collaboration between
the language proficiency
unit and other entities in
the university
Implement English
activities beyond the
classroom
M
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Monitor and
evaluate the
effectiveness of
systemic efforts
to sustain an
English-rich
environment
Recommendations
for sustaining
an English-rich
environment
Implement
A sustained
recommendations English-rich
for a sustained
environment
English-rich
environment
B2/C1
Individual
universities
Review the
appropriateness of
pedagogy for CEFRaligned curricula
Review the
appropriateness of
course materials for
the realigned CEFR
curriculum
L
U
M
Develop and
implement
CEFR-informed
pedagogy
Guidelines
for the
development of
CEFR-informed Monitor the
implementation
pedagogy
drawn up
Course
materials
for the
realigned CEFR
curriculum
reviewed,
and a report
submitted
I
U
Activities
implemented
beyond the
classroom
Review
completed
TEACHING & LEARNING

CEFRinformed
pedagogy
U
R
Develop or adopt
and implement
the use of new
course materials
aligned to CEFR
standards and
appropriate for
the Malaysian
context
The CEFRinformed
pedagogy
developed and
implemented.
Evaluate the
effectiveness of
CEFR-informed
pedagogy and
revise
Recommendations
for improvements
including
improved
pedagogy
Review the
effectiveness of
course materials
Recommendations
for the
improvement of
course materials
Monitoring reports
submitted
Appropriate
course materials
aligned to CEFR
standards adopted
or developed and
implemented

370
C
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
CURRICULUM
R
I
ACTIONS
PHASE 3 (20212025)
B2/C1
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
TEACHING & LEARNING

CEFRinformed
pedagogy
Individual
universities
Student
autonomy in
EL learning
Individual
universities
A minimum EL
requirement
for EL
teachers
across
universities
Individual
universities
Review current
English language
teacher
qualifications
Set CEFR level C1

as the minimum
requirement
for teacher
proficiency
English language Implement CPD

teacher
specifically for language
qualifications
teachers in universities
reviewed and
recommendations
submitted
CEFR level C1
adopted as
the minimum
requirement
Appropriate
CPD
implemented
Continue
upskilling efforts
High quality
English language
teachers
Implement and integrate Student

student autonomy in EL learning
learning
autonomy
implemented
Monitor the
development of
auto nomy in EL
learning
Student learning
autonomy
developed
Review EL
teacher quality
EL teacher quality
reviewed and
recommendations
for improving
teacher quality
submitted
Review the
effectiveness of
CEFR-informed
assessment
Improvements in
CEFR-informed
assessment*
Recommend the
re-certification of
proficiency every 5 years
Recertification
implemented
Establish recertification
using a CEFR-referenced
international test as the
criterion for promotion
Recertification as
the criterion
for promotion
accepted
B2/C1
T
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
ASSESSMENT
A common
international
framework of
reference for
interpreting
EL
performance
across
universities
Individual
universities
Council of
Language
Deans
Adopt the CEFR

as the common
framework for
assessment across
universities
Set appropriate
CEFR targets for
EL courses
The CEFR
adopted as
the common
framework for
assessment
Develop and implement

CEFR-informed methods
of assessment
The CEFRinformed
assessment
developed and
implemented
Monitor the
implementation
Monitoring
reports
submitted
B2/C1
*Post-MEB phase:
validation of
university-based
assessment

371

PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
S
S
E
S
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
ASSESSMENT
Standardised
CEFRbenchmarked
exit test
MPM/
Individual
universities
Develop and
pilot a Malaysian
standardised CEFRbenchmarked exit
test for universities
A Malaysian
standardised
CEFRbenchmarked
university exit
test
Review and validate

the standardised
CEFR-benchmarked
university exit test
A valid and reliable

standardised
CEFR-benchmarked
university exit test
B2/C1
N
T
E
S
M
Individual
universities
Alignment
of student
EL CEFR
grades with
job-related
performance
Conduct an
Employers
Satisfaction Survey
and Alumni Tracer
Study to obtain
feedback on Student
EL proficiency and
their performance in
job situations
Confirmation of the
alignment between
the student EL
CEFR grades
and job-related
performance
E
N
T

Graduate
performance
benchmarked
against
international
standards
Council of
Language
Deans/
Individual
universities
Conduct an
established CEFRbenchmarked exit
test on a sample of
students
EL proficiency
profiles for
students at each
university
CEFR baseline
Identify the
proficiency levels
baseline proficiency of the students
levels of the
students
Conduct an
established CEFRbenchmarked exit
test for the total
student population
at each university
Graduate EL
proficiency
ascertained

372
S
S
M
E
B2/C1

THE ROADMAP
English Language
Teacher
Education
373

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

MEB WAVES 1 - 3 (2013 2025)
PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
C
E
F
R
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
Strong CEFR
Foundation
to achieve
international
standards
LEAD
AGENCY
BPK
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
CEFR alignment
BPK
O
N
CEFR
implementation
and monitoring
ELSQC
ELTC
BPPDP
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
PHASE 3 (20212025)
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
Implement and
monitor staged
target levels
The staged
target levels
implemented and
a report on their
implementation
Evaluate and
revise the
staged target
levels
Appropriate
staged target
levels
Set CEFR staged

target proficiency
levels for English
language teaching
programmes based
on the Cambridge
Baseline 2013
Staged target
levels
Develop CEFR
for English language
teachers
CEFR
descriptors
Validate the
developed CEFR
descriptors
The CEFR
descriptors
validated
Review
and revise
the CEFR
descriptors
Final CEFR
descriptors
Build capacity by
(teachers, teacher
educators) for the
implementation
of CEFR-aligned
curricula, teaching
and learning, and
assessment
CEFR Master
Trainers (key
deliverers)
Implement and
monitor the
CEFR training
of teachers by
Master Trainers
Teachers trained
in the CEFR
and reports
on training
programmes
Evaluate and
revise the
CEFR training
by Master
Trainers
Effective
CEFR training
programmes

Trainers
Develop the
The CEFR-M
CEFR-M (by
developed
the CEFR Task
Force)
The alignment of the English

language curricula, teaching and
learning, and assessment to the CEFR

assessment

and assessment

the reform process

required for reform

reform
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
C1
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION ROADMAP (2015-2025): TEACHER EDUCATION

374
C
E
F
R
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N

PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
PRE-SERVICE
Strict criteria
for the
selection
of teacher
trainees
IPGM
Universities
Set strict criteria for

EL teacher trainees
Strict
criteria for
selection
set and
adopted
Implement the
selection criteria
and monitor the
implementation
Assess the EL
teacher trainees
Continue the use

The selection
criteria implemented of the selection
and monitored; a
criteria
monitoring report
submitted.
High-calibre EL
teacher trainees
C1
Revise the
CEFR aligned EL
curriculum based
on feedback
and emergent
technologies
Recommendations
for improvement
C1
Recommendations
for improvement
The refinement of
the selection criteria
CURRICULUM
C
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
M
An
internationally
aligned
language
curriculum for
EL Teacher
education
(ELTE)
Professional
programme
standards for
EL Teacher
Education
BPG
IPGM
ELTC
BPG
IPGM
ELTC
Review and align EL

Teacher Education
Language curricula to
the CEFR: include EL
Assessment Literacy
A common
CEFRaligned EL
curriculum
adopted
Develop professional
programme
standards aligned
to international
standards
Professional
programme
standards
adopted
Develop an ELTE
curriculum that
ensures delivery of all
professional and core
courses in English
The ELTE
curriculum
developed
Implement the
CEFR-aligned EL
curriculum
The CEFRaligned curriculum

implemented
Monitor the
implementation
Reports with
recommendations
for improvement
submitted
Use professional
standards in
programme
review, design and
delivery
All ELTE
programmes aligned
to professional
programme
standards across all
providers
Monitor the
implementation of
standards
Implement the
curriculum
The curriculum
implemented and
monitored
Review and revise

the curriculum
IPTA
MQA
Monitor the
implementation
An updated EL
Teacher Education
curriculum
C
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
Recommendations
for improvement
U
M
A revised ELTE
curriculum

375


PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
&
PHASE 2 (20172020)
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
English as the
medium of
instruction (in
the delivery
of the TESL
curriculum
except Bahasa
Malaysia)
Outcomesbased
education
EL teacher
educator:
qualification
requirement
R
N
I
N
G
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
TEACHING & LEARNING

BPG
IPGM
ELTC
IPTA
Use English as the

medium of instruction
for EL teacher training in
additional courses: the
Education component in
TESL curriculum
MQA
All providers Implement studentcentred methodology

of ELTE
Programmes
for all levels
of schooling
English used as
the medium of
instruction in
additional courses
Monitor the use

of English as
the medium of
instruction
Studentcentred and
communicative
methodologies
used in training
EL teacher
educator: EL
proficiency
requirement
All providers Establish a PhD in

Education as the
of ELTE
Programmes minimum qualification
for all EL educators by
2025
A PhD in
Education
accepted as
the minimum
qualification
All providers Set CEFR Level C2 as the Level C2 accepted

minimum requirement for as the minimum
of ELTE
requirement
Programmes EL teacher educators
Review the
effect of
English as
the medium
of instruction
on EL teacher
trainee
proficiency
The use of
English as
the medium
of instruction
enforced
for TESL
programmes
Monitoring
reports with
recommendations for
improving studentcentred teacher
training
Review the
impact of
training
Continued
improvement
of studentcentred
teacher
training
The requirement is
enforced
Continue
implementing
the minimum
requirement
Monitoring Reports
on the use of English
as the medium of
instruction
Extended exposure
to the use of English
and improved
language outcomes
Increased
exposure to
English on TESL
programmes
Monitor the
implementation of
student-centred
strategies in
training
L
E
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
Implement
the minimum
qualification
requirement
C1
E
A
C
H
I
N
G
High-calibre
teacher
educators
&
L
E
A
R
Enforce level C2
as the minimum
requirement
Level C2 enforced
as the minimum
requirement
Develop
programmes
to achieve C2
proficiency
among EL teacher
educators
Up-skilling
programmes
developed and
implemented
Review the
impact of
the minimum
requirement
on EL teacher
educators
performance
Up-skilling
programmes
are retained
and improved

376
N
I
N
G

PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
A
S
S
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
PHASE 2 (20172020)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
A
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
Adopt a common
CEFR-aligned
EL proficiency
exit test for all
institutions
Set a common EL
exit proficiency
requirement for all
ELTE programmes
A common CEFRaligned EL exit

proficiency test
adopted
A common EL
exit proficiency
requirement
enforced
S
E
ASSESSMENT
A standardised
IPGM and
internationally all providers
benchmarked
of ELTE
exit exam
programmes
as the EL
requirement
for all teacher
training
programmes
Implement
the common
proficiency
exit test for all
institutions
A common
standardised
proficiency exit
test implemented
Evaluate the
common CEFRaligned EL
proficiency exit
test
Monitor the
implementation
Monitoring reports
submitted
Report with
recommendations
for the common
EL test
Consolidation
of the common
CEFR-aligned
EL proficiency
exit test for all
teacher training
programmes
C1
S
S
M
E
N
T
IN-SERVICE
I
N
S
E
IN-SERVICE
TEACHERS
ELTC
Linguistically
and
pedagogically
competent
teachers
Develop a
professional
development
matrix for different
levels of teachers
by operationalising
PSELT
R
V
I
C
E
ELTC
Plan and
implement CPD
programmes using
the school-based
training model
A standardsbased professional
development
matrix developed
for teachers at
different career
stages from
beginning teachers
to developing
teachers to
competent and to
specialist teachers
Implement and
monitor the
PSELT matrix
support system
School-based
CPD programmes
conducted
Monitor and
evaluate
the CPD
programmes
conducted
The professional
development
PSELT matrix
support system in
place: appropriate
courses for
teachers at
different stages of
their careers
Review and
strengthen the
PSELT matrix
support system
An Improved
support system
C1
Comprehensive
career pathways
I
N
S
E
R
V
Recommendations
for improving the
CPD programmes
Revise schoolbased CPD

programmes
Improved schoolbased CDP

programmes
I
C
E

377


PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
IN-SERVICE
I
N
PHASE 2 (20172020)
IN-SERVICE
TEACHERS
Linguistically
and
pedagogically
competent
teachers
All providers
of ELTE
Programmes
for all levels
of schooling
Revamp the training

approach: Cascade
model to schoolbased training
model
Studentcentred and
communicative
methodologies
used in training
Monitor the
implementation of
student-centred
strategies in schoolbased training
Active and engaged

teaching and
learning at all
levels
All providers
of ELTE
Programmes
for all levels
of schooling
Design EL classroom
observation
methods for
formative purposes
EL classroom
observation
methods designed
for formative
purposes
Implement and
monitor EL classroom
observation methods
for formative
purposes
All providers
of ELTE
Programmes
for all levels
of schooling
Set CEFR level C1

as the minimum
proficiency
requirement for all
teachers by 2025
CEFR level C1
accepted as
the minimum
requirement
All providers
of ELTE
Programmes
for all levels
of schooling
Assess teachers
using CEFR-aligned
proficiency tests and
the international
Teaching Knowledge
Test (TKT) and the
TKT practical
Teachers assessed
and the baseline
of teacher EL
proficiency and
pedagogical
competences
established
Review and
evaluate the
impact of
training
An effective
school-based
training model
Revise the
training model
Competent
English
trainers and
teachers
EL classroom
observation
methods
implemented and
monitored
Evaluate
classroom
observation
methods.
Effective
classroom
observation
methods for
formative
purposes
Enforce C1 as
the minimum
requirement
CEFR level C1
enforced as
the minimum
requirement
Continue the
enforcement of
the minimum
requirement
Proficient EL
teachers with
C1
Monitor and
evaluate teacher
EL proficiency
and pedagogical
competences
according to
international
standards
Teacher EL
proficiency and
pedagogical
competences
monitored and
evaluated.
Continue the
evaluation of
teacher EL
proficiency and
pedagogical
competences
according to
international
standards
High-calibre
EL teachers
Monitoring reports
submitted
Monitoring
reports
submitted
C1

378
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E

PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
S
E
IN-SERVICE
TEACHERS
Internationally
recognised
specialisms
in language
teaching for
in-service
teachers,
particularly
primary
teachers
BPG
ELTC
IPGM
IPTA
Identify and
collaborate with
international
providers of
specialist courses:
early literacy
skills, diagnostic
skills, remediation,
reading etc.
An action plan
for working with
specialist teachers
and the children
I
C
OUTCOMES
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
Licensure
and recertification
for EL
requirements
Implement the action

plan to work with
specialist teachers and
children
EL teachers
all levels with
specialist
training
School-based
training run
by specialist
teachers
Enrol EL teachers
especially at primary
level in specialist
courses
Pre-school
and primary
teachers with
specialisms
Evaluate the
impact of
training
Continue post-graduate
specialist courses
especially for preschool and primary
teachers
R
V
ACTIONS
PHASE 3 (20212025)
IN-SERVICE
I
N
PHASE 2 (20172020)
BPG
ELTC
Propose a policy
for the licensing
and certification of
new EL teachers
followed by recertification for all
EL teachers every
5 years
The policy on
licensing EL
teachers to
teach and the
certification
of language
proficiency for
teachers is in
place
Implement the policy

on licensing and recertification
Re-certify nonEnglish option

teachers with C1/
C2 proficiency
and 10 years
experience
Proficient nonoption English

teachers recertified
Continue the
re-certification policy
A cadre of
English teachers,
particularly
primary and preschool levels, with
specialisms
C1
N
-
Recommendations
for improvement
submitted
S
E
R
The quality
of English
language
teachers
assured
Continue the
re-certification
requirement
Sustained high
quality EL
teachers
Report on the
impact of the recertification policy
for post-MEB
Band 4
(Cambridge
English
TKT and
TKT:
Practical)
V
I
C
E
Quality English
teachers
Continue the
re-certification
policy

379


PHASE 1 (2015-2016)
CONDITIONS
FOR REFORM
LEAD
AGENCY
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
N
S
E
I
C
E
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
PHASE 3 (20212025)
ACTIONS
OUTCOMES
CEFR EXIT
LEVEL
(2025)
IN-SERVICE
Basic
Qualifications
for EL
teachers
IPGM
R
V
PHASE 2 (20172020)
Shared
goals for EL
improvement
by all
education
stakeholders
BPG
IPGM
IPTA
ELTC
LP
Set a degree
in Education
specialising in
English or in English
with Education
as the minimum
qualification for all
EL teachers by 2025
A degree in
Education
specialising in
English or in
English with
Education accepted
as the minimum
qualification
Implement
the minimum
requirement
Put in place a
coordinated
communication
structure between
divisions of the MoE
for EL curricular
updates
Effective
communication and
collaboration for
curricular change
are in place
Monitor and
review the
effectiveness of
efforts to sustain
a coordinated
communication
The requirement
enforced
Continue to
implement
the minimum
requirement
High-calibre
teachers
C1
R
Recommendations
for sustaining
collaboration for
effective curricular
implementation
Monitor and
review the
effectiveness
of efforts
to sustain
coordinated
communication
Recommendations
for sustaining
collaboration
I
C
E

Select an
independent
international
body to carry out
benchmarking and
assess the impact
of pre-service and
in-service teacher
education on
teacher performance
An independent
international body
selected to carry out
benchmarking and
impact studies until
2025
Benchmark
teacher
performance
against
international
standards
A report
on teacher
performance and
recommendations
for improvement
Carry out an
impact study
on teacher
performance
An impact report
on teacher
performance
CEFR: C1
CE TKT:
Band 4
A transformed EL
pre-service and
in-service teacher
education system

380
BPK
ELSQC
MPM
An
internationally
competitive
Malaysian
English
language
teacher
education
system

Appendices
381

PRESCHOOL
Appendix 4.A: Mapping of the NPSC with the CEFR
Learning Standards for

Content Standard
4+
5+
CEFR
Listening and Speaking Skills
382
(BI1.1)
Listen to and
discriminate sounds
(BI 1.1.1)
Listen to and identify common
sounds around them.
(BI 1.1.2)
Listen to and identify sounds
in the environment.
No match found
(BI 1.2)
Listen to and understand
meaning of simple words
(BI 1.2.1)
Listen to and repeat simple greetings,
e.g. good morning, good afternoon.
(BI 1.2.2)
Listen to and respond verbally to
simple greetings with guidance.
(BI 1.2.3)
Listen to and identify objects in the classroom.
(BI 1.2.4)
Name common objects in the classroom.
(BI 1.2.5)
Listen to and repeat greetings.
(BI 1.2.6)
Listen to and respond verbally to greetings.
(BI 1.2.7)
Listen to and identify common
objects in the environment.
(BI 1.2.8)
Name common objects in the environment.
(BI 1.2.9)
Listen to words said aloud and
respond accordingly, e.g.:
show me the picture of a child eating
draw a f lower
stand up and touch your nose
Can make an introduction

and use basic greeting and
leave-taking expressions.
Can ask how people are
and react to news.
Can understand everyday
expressions aimed at the
satisfaction of simple needs
of a concrete type, delivered
directly to him/her in clear,
slow and repeated speech
by a sympathetic speaker.
(BI 1.3)
Acquire and use simple
phrases and statements
(BI 1.3.1)
Talk about familiar things and
experiences with guidance.
Can describe him/herself,

(BI 1.3.2)
Talk about familiar experiences, favourite things what he/she does and
where he/she lives.
and activities around them with guidance.
(BI 1.3.3)
Talk about the natural environment
with guidance.
(BI 1.3.4)
Talk about happenings around them.
(BI 1.4)
Listen to and follow
simple instructions
(BI 1.4.1)
Listen to and follow one word
instructions, e.g. Come.
(BI 1.4.2)
Listen to and follow simple instructions,
e.g. Please stand up.
(BI 1.4.3)
Listen to and follow instructions, e.g.
Please get me the book from the shelf .
(BI 1.4.4)
Listen to and perform actions based on
instructions in activities and games.
Can understand instructions

addressed carefully and
slowly to him/her and
follow short, simple
directions

Content Standard
4+
5+
CEFR

(BI 1.5)
Listen to and enjoy nursery
rhymes, action songs,
poems and stories
(BI 1.5.1)
Listen to and recite nursery
rhymes and action songs.
(BI 1.5.2)
Listen to, recite and act out nursery
rhymes and action songs.
(BI 1.5.3)
Listen to, recite and act out nursery
rhymes, action songs and poems.
(BI 1.5.4)
Listen to and retell simple stories using
aids: e.g. picture clues, visual props.
(BI 1.5.5)
Listen to and role play simple stories.
(BI 1.5.6)
Listen to and solve simple riddles.
No match found
(BI 1.6)
Sing songs and recite
rhymes and poems
(BI 1.6.1)
Sing songs.
(BI 1.6.2)
Recite simple rhymes and poems.
(BI 1.6.3)
Sing songs with the correct
pronunciation and intonation.
(BI 1.6.4)
Recite rhymes and poems with the
correct pronunciation and intonation.
No match found
(BI 1.7)
Tell simple stories
(BI 1.7.1)
Tell stories about personal
experiences with guidance.
(BI 1.7.2)
Tell stories using visual props with guidance.
(BI 1.7.3)
Tell stories about personal experiences
with or without guidance.
(BI 1.7.4)
Tell stories using visual props
with or without guidance.
Can produce simple

mainly isolated phrases
about people and places.
(BI 1.8) Dramatize familiar

situations and stories
(BI 1.8.1)
Role play familiar daily situations with guidance.
(BI 1.8.2) Role play familiar daily

situations without guidance.
(BI 1.8.3) Dramatise familiar
stories without guidance.
No match found
383


Content Standard
4+
5+
CEFR

(BI 1.9)
Perform a variety of
language forms and
functions in a social context
(BI 1.9.1)
Use simple sentences to carry
out a conversation:
e.g.:
to exchange greetings
to show appreciation
(BI 1.9.2)
Use simple sentences to carry
out a conversation:
e.g.:
to exchange greetings
to introduce oneself
to express feelings and emotion
(BI 1.9.3)
Use simple sentences to convey messages.

but communication is totally
dependent on repetition
at a slower rate of speech,
rephrasing and repair.
Can ask and answer
simple questions, initiate
and respond to simple
statements in areas of
immediate need or on
very familiar topics.
(BI 1.10)
Ask simple questions
(BI 1.10.1)
Ask simple questions pertaining to oneself
(BI 1.10.2)
Ask simple questions pertaining to:
stories heard or read, situations
(BI 1.10.3)
Ask simple Wh questions.

but communication is totally
dependent on repetition
at a slower rate of speech,
rephrasing and repair.
Can ask and answer
simple questions, initiate
and respond to simple
statements in areas of
immediate need or on
very familiar topics.
Pre-reading Skills
384
(BI 2.1) Understand

that printed materials
contain meaning
(BI 2.1.1)
Show awareness that print conveys
meaning by doing Pretend Reading.
(BI 2.1.2)
Show awareness that print conveys
meaning by doing Pretend Reading.
No match found
(BI 2.2)
Acquire knowledge of print
and ethics in reading
(BI 2.2.1)
Handle books carefully.
(BI 2.2.2)
Read print moving from left to
right and top to bottom.
(BI 2.2.3)
Recognise the basic features of a book.
No match found

Content Standard
4+
5+
CEFR
Reading Skills
(BI 3.1)
Identify letters of
the alphabet
(BI 3.1.1)
Recognise letters of the alphabet by their shapes.
(BI 3.1.2)
Recognise letters of the alphabet by their name.
(BI 3.1.3)
Recognise small letters of the alphabet.
(BI 3.1.4)
Recognise big letters of the alphabet.
(BI 3.1.5)
Name letter of the alphabet with guidance.
No match found
(BI 3.1.6)
Name letters of the alphabet.
(BI 3.1.7)
Sound out letters of the alphabet (basic phonics).
(BI 3.1.8)
Hear and sound vowel sounds.
(BI 3.1.9)
Hear and sound consonant sounds.
(BI 3.2)
Read simple words
with understanding
(BI 3.2.1)
Hear and pronounce simple words.
(BI 3.2.2)
Read simple words.
(BI 3.2.3) Read labels.
(BI 3.2.4)
Hear and say the initial sound
of a word, e.g. cup.
(BI 3.2.5)
Recognise and sound out simple
words, e.g. C u p for cup.
(BI 3.6.6)
Recognise and sound similar initial sound in
word, e.g. cup, cap, cat; man, map, mat
(BI 3.2.7)
Read familiar words printed in the surroundings
Can recognise familiar

names, words and very
basic phrases on simple
notices in the most common
everyday situations.
(BI 3.3)
Read phrases with
understanding
(BI 3.3.1)
Read simple phrases with guidance
(e.g. sit down, red ball).
(BI 3.3.2)
Read simple phrases.

(BI 3.4)
Read simple sentences
with understanding
(BI 3.4.1)
Read simple sentences with assistance
(BI 3.4.2)
Read simple sentences, e.g. I like papaya.

385


Content Standard
4+
5+
CEFR
Reading Skills
(BI 3.5)
Develop interest in reading
(BI 3.5.1)
Talk about stories (simple stories) being read.
(BI 4.1)
Pre-writing skills
(BI 4.1.1)
Engage in activities requiring
eye-hand coordination.
(BI 4.1.2)
Draw lines, circles and patterns using gross
motor and fine motor movements.
(BI 4.2)
Writing Skills
(BI 4.2.1)
Copy letters of the alphabet
correctly in neat, legible print.
(BI 4.2.2)
Write recognizable letters with guidance.
(BI 3.5.2)
Talk about stories (stories with more
difficult words) being read.
(BI 3.5.3)
Relate stories read to others.
(BI 3.5.4)
Talk about illustrations in printed materials.
(BI 3.5.5)
Talk about prints from different media in
the environment (e.g. newspaper, story
books, computers screen, television,
pamphlet, wood engraving)
(BI 3.5.6)
Talk about different types of
books around them.
No match found
Writing Skills
386
No match found
(BI 4.2.3)
Write recognizable letters.
(BI 4.2.4)
Write simple words in neat, legible print.
(BI 4.2.5)
Write simple phrases.
Can copy out single words

and short texts presented
in standard printed format.
Content
Level Pre A1
a. Can make simple purchases where pointing
or other gesture can support
the verbal reference;
b. Can ask and tell day, time of day and date;
c. Can use some basic greetings;
d. Can say yes, no, excuse me,
please, thank you, sorry;
e. Can fill in uncomplicated forms with
personal details, name, address,
nationality, marital status;
f. Can write a short, simple postcard.
Content
NPSC
(BI 1.2.1)
Listen to and repeat simple greetings,
e.g. good morning, good afternoon.
(BI 1.2.2)
Listen to and respond verbally to
simple greetings with guidance.
(BI 1.9.2)
Use simple sentences to carry out a conversation:
e.g.: to exchange greetings

to introduce oneself


to express feelings and emotion
(BI 1.9.3)
Use simple sentences to convey messages.
Level Pre A1
Overall Oral Production
1.
Can produce simple mainly isolated

phrases about people and places.
Sustained Monologue (Describing Experience )
2. Can describe him/herself, what he/

she does and where he/she lives.
Addressing Audiences
3. Can read a very short, rehearsed statement

e.g. to introduce a speaker, propose a toast.
Overall Written Production
4. Can write simple isolated

phrases and sentences.
Creative Writing
5. Can write simple phrases and sentences

about themselves and imaginary people,
where they live and what they do.
Overall Listening Comprehension
6. Can follow speech which is very slow and

carefully articulated, with long pauses
for him/her to assimilate meaning.
Listening to Announcements and Instructions
7. Can understand instructions addressed

carefully and slowly to him/her and
follow short, simple directions
NPSC
(BI 1.7)
Tell simple stories.
(BI 1.3)
Acquire and use simple phrases and statements.
(BI 1.4)
387

Content
388
Level Pre A1
NPSC
Overall Reading Comprehension
8. Can understand very short, simple

texts a single phrase at a time, picking
up familiar names, words and basic
phrases and rereading as required.
Reading Correspondence
9. Can understand short, simple

messages on postcards.
Reading For Orientation
10. Can recognise familiar names, words and

very basic phrases on simple notices in
the most common everyday situations.
Reading For Information And Argument
11. Can get an idea of the content of

simpler informational material and
short simple descriptions, especially
if there is visual support.
Reading Instructions
12. Can follow short, simple written

directions (e.g. to go from X to Y).
Overall Spoken Interaction
13. Can interact in a simple way but

communication is totally dependent
on repetition at a slower rate of
speech, rephrasing and repair.
14. Can ask and answer simple questions, initiate
and respond to simple statements in areas of
immediate need or on very familiar topics.
Understanding A Native Speaker Interlocutor
15. Can understand everyday expressions aimed at (BI 1.4)

the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete
type, delivered directly to him/her in clear, slow
and repeated speech by a sympathetic speaker.
16. Can understand questions and instructions
addressed carefully and slowly to him/
her and follow short, simple directions.
(BI 3.2)
Read simple words with understanding.
(BI 3.3)
Read phrases with understanding.
(BI 3.4)
Read simple sentences with understanding.
(BI 1.9)
Perform a variety of language forms
and functions in a social context.
(BI 1.10)
Ask simple questions.
Content
Level Pre A1
Conversation
17. Can make an introduction and use basic

greeting and leave-taking expressions.
18. Can ask how people are and react to news.
19. Can understand everyday expressions aimed at
the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete
type, delivered directly to him/her in clear, slow
and repeated speech by a sympathetic speaker.
Goal-Oriented Co-Operation
(E.G. Repairing a Car, Discussing a
Document, Organising an Event)

21. Can ask people for things, and
give people things.
Transactions To Obtain Goods And Services
22. Can ask people for things and

give people things.
23. Can handle numbers, quantities, cost and time.
Information Exchange

25. Can ask and answer simple questions, initiate
and respond to simple statements in areas of
immediate need or on very familiar topics.
26. Can ask and answer questions about
themselves and other people, where they
live, people they know, things they have.
27. Can indicate time by such phrases as next
week, last Friday, in November, three oclock.
Interviewing And Being Interviewed
28. Can reply in an interview to simple

direct questions spoken very slowly
and clearly in direct non idiomatic
speech about personal details.
NPSC
389

Content
390
Level Pre A1
Overall Written Interaction
28. Can reply in an interview to simple

direct questions spoken very slowly
and clearly in direct non idiomatic
speech about personal details.
Correspondence
29. Can ask for or pass on personal

details in written form.
Notes, Messages & Forms
31. Can write numbers and dates, own

name, nationality, address, age, date
of birth or arrival in the country, etc.
such as on a hotel registration form.
Processing Text
32. Can copy out single words and short texts

presented in standard printed format.
NPSC
(BI 4.2.1)
Copy letters of the alphabet correctly
in neat, legible print.
(BI 4.2.2)
Write recognizable letters with guidance.
(BI 4.2.3)
Write recognizable letters.
(BI 4.2.4)
Write simple words in neat, legible print.
(BI 4.2.5)
Write simple phrases.
Teacher Education
Appendix 9.A
Past English Language Initiatives
Programme/Project Dates
Focus of Programme/Project
Lead Agency/Partners
1. Cf BT
1978 to 1984
Placement of UK English teachers in secondary schools

the Cf BT English teacher placement project.
Ministry of Education Malaysia MoE Schools

Division / the Centre for British Teachers CfBT
2. RUPEP
1980 to 1985
The Rural Up-grading of English Project (RUPEP): an in-service

project to support English teaching improvement in Sabah.
MoE Schools Division / The Overseas

Development Administration ODA (now the
Department of International Development DFID / The British Council BC
3. 6-Year UK Preservice &

Inservice
1983 to 1997
Implementation of a pre- and in-service English teacher

development project, with extensive training in the United
Kingdom (the so-called 6-year programme); some
parallel, smaller scale provision in Canada / USA.
This major collaboration played a key role in determining
some aspects of the B.Ed Twinning Project from 1992.
MoE Schools / Division / numerous

UK higher education institutions / some
Canadian and USA institutions
4. A-level Project
1984 to 1988
The A Level Project: Placement of 100 UK teachers

in 10 residential schools to teach A level for UK
university entrance; initially English, later maths,
sciences, economics, geography, history.
MoE Schools Division; CfBT
5. SAC
1988 to 1991
The Self Access Centres (SAC) project for Teacher

Education Colleges. Maktab Perguruan IImu Khas (MPIK)
was the national centre for the SAC Project.
MoE Teacher Education Dision (TED) / UK ODA
6. UKM/ITM/UK B.Ed.
TESL
1988 to 1993
The development of the 6-year Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

(UKM) and Institut Teknologi Mara (ITM) B.Ed Teaching
English as a Second Language (TESL) Degree programme.
UKM / ITM / The British Council / the

UK Council for International Co-operation
in Higher Education - CICHE
7. Class Readers
1989 on
The Class Reader Programme for English in secondary schools.
MoE Schools Division / BC / ODA
8. KKSP
The introduction of process-based coursework (including

English) in Teacher Education Colleges. KKSP
MoE - TED
Self-access project for English in Malaysian Primary

(SAC) schools (150 schools by 1997) including, in 1996,
the Self-Access for Primary Support Programme.
MoE Curriculum Development Division

of the Ministry of Education BC
1990 on
9. SAC for Primary schools

1990 to 1997
391

392
10. KBKK HOTS

1992 on
Incorporation of a critical / creative thinking skills

course into the curriculum (including English) in all
Teachers Education Colleges (KBKK HOTS)
MoE - TED
11. B.Ed TESL Twinning &

inservice project
1992 to 2002
The English language B.Ed Teacher Education Project,

including Twinning; the training and education of a large number
of initial and in-service teachers on a development project,
with programme components provided both in Malaysia and UK;
some parallel smaller-scale provision involving New Zealand.
MoE TED with Maktab Perguruan IImu

Khas MPIK and 5 UK higher education
institutions / a New Zealand institution.
12. PETEP Trainer Training

1993 to 1998
The Primary English Teacher Education Project (PETEP)

aimed at developing innovative training approaches in the primary
pre-service English course to help develop teachers with the
personal and professional capacities for effective teaching and
learning in classrooms. Student-centred strategies, ref lective
practice and mentoring were some of the main elements covered.
MoE TED / ODA DFID / BC / a UK

institution of higher education.
13. MTDP
Malaysia Trainer Development Programme

This was a follow-up project, initially known as TROT,
from the PETEP project to extend the training of trainers
to include teachers from schools. This includes a 3-week
course and also a masters for those who qualify.
TED-a UK institution of higher education
14. TST
1993 to 1997
The Teachers Support Teams Project - TST (also

referred to colloquially as Teachers Support Teachers),
a school-based in-service education and training designed
particularly to support under-qualified teachers in schools.
MoE Schools Division / ODA

DFID / a UK institution.
15. ESP
1993 to 1997
English for Specific Purposes developments; the

design / development of syllabus / materials for
Polytechnic departments and technical institutes
ESP for Vocational & Polytechnics.
MoE Technical and Vocational Education Division

TAVED / Polytechnics / BC / external consultants.
16. CSED
1994 to 1998
Civil Service English Development Project

designed to develop English course provision for the
training of the Malaysian civil service staff.
Institut Tadbiran Awam Negara

INTAN (the National Institute of Public
Administration) BC / UK consultant.
17. Mentor Training

1995 on
The development of a mentor-training programme,

with master trainers provided with the skills needed
to provide school-based training in mentoring.
MoE Education-Planning and Research

Division EPRD / B / UK consultant.
18. 1997 to 1998
Secondary level English examination reform

and revision. Cambridge and LPM
MoE Malaysian Examinations Syndicate / University

of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate.
19. ELI /ELTC

1997 to 1998
The consultancy-based project to develop the design of

an English Language Institute (ELI now ELTC)
MoE Director-General / Ministers Office / TED

/ British High Commission / BC / UK consultants.
20. PRODELT
1997 to 1999
The Professional Development in English Language Teaching for

Secondary School teachers PRODELT in Sabah and Sarawak.
Education Departments, Sabah and

Sarawak / BC / UK consultants.
21. MTDP
1998 to 2001
The Malaysian Development Project (MTDP) to develop a

quality cadre of ELT trainers with skills, awareness and knowledge,
able to provide effective in-service training to teachers in schools.
MoE TED / UK institutions (in

the earlier stages) / BC.
22. Literature Project

2000 on
Introduction of English literary texts to

strengthen literature in secondary schools.
MoE Curriculum Development Centre CDC
23. First Steps

2002 on
The First Steps Structured Reading Programme for

Young Readers: to develop reading skills among primary
school children to enable them to read in English
MoE TED / Curriculum Development Centre
24. EST
2002 on
The English for Science and Technology Programme:

to orientate secondary school teachers to the teaching
of English with a Science and Technology bias to
Form 4 and 5 students in S/T streams. (EST)
MoE TED and a UK Institution
25. ETEMS
2002 on
Development of English for Teachers of Mathematics and

Science (ETeMS) programme, designed to enhance the English
Language competence of mathematics and science teachers to
enable them to teach using English as the medium of instruction.
MoE TED / the English Language

Teaching Centre ELTC.
26. UK-Link B.Ed TESL

2002 to 2012
Following the UK Malaysia Twinning Project, and drawing on

its experience, a 10-year B.Ed Link Project for the training of
primary and secondary teachers of English (now underway).
MoE TED / Institutions in UK,

Australia, New Zealand.
393

Teacher Education
Appendix 9.B
Universities Offering TESL Programmes
University
Diploma
Bachelor
Masters
PhD
Universiti Malaya
(Institute of
Graduate Studies)
IELTS 6
TOEFL 550
Universiti Malaya (UM)
IELTS 6
TOEFL 550 PBT
213 (CBT)
79-80 (IBT)
B.Ed.
M.Ed. (CW)
Ph.D. (R)
SPM credit
MUET 4
B.Ed. TESOL
M.Arts (Educ)
TESOL
Ph.D. TESOL
Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM)
IELTS
TOEFL
B.Ed.
M.Ed. (CW)
M.Ed. (R)
M.Ed. (Mixed)
Ph.D. (R)
Universiti Putra
Malaysia (UPM)
1119 Credit
IELTS 6
MUET 4
TOEFL 550
B.Ed
M.Ed.
M.Sc.(R)
Ph.D. (R)
Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris (UPSI)
SPM credit 6
MUET 4
B.Ed. (Hons)
M.Ed. (CW)
M.Ed. (R)
Ph.D. (R)
Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM)
IELTS 6
TOEFL 550
B.Sc. with Educ
M.Ed. (CW)
M.Phil. (R)
M.Ed. (Mixed)
Universiti Teknologi
Mara (UiTM)
SPM/SPMV Credit
MUET 4
ASASI TESL CGPA 2.50
TTC Cert /Dip with 5-7
years teaching experience
B.Ed.(Hons)
University Malaysia
Sabah (UMS)
IELTS 6
TOEFL 550
Nottingham University
SPM AIII9 B
IELTS 6.5
TOEFL (iBT)
10
394
English language Requirements

(at least any one)
PGCert TESOL
PGDip TESOL
B.Ed. TESOL
(Hons)
M.Ed.(CW)
M.Ed. (R)
Ph.D. (R)
M.Ed. (R)
Ph.D. (R)
M.A.ELT
M.A. TESOL
University
English language Requirements

(at least any one)
Bachelor
Masters
11
International Islamic
University Malaysia
12
UNITAR International
University
Not specified
M.Ed.
13
Universiti Tun Abdul

Razak (UNIRAZAK)
Not available
M.Ed.
14
Universiti Tunku Abdul

Rahman (UTAR)
SPM C6
1119 C6
MUET 4
IELTS 6.5
TOEFL 580
B.A. Eng Educ

(Hons)
15
SEGI University
Not specified
B.Ed. (Hons)
16
Management &
Science University
Not specified
17
Universiti Selangor
(UNISEL)
MUET 4
UNISEL Foundation TESL
UNISEL Dip TESL
B.Ed.(Hons)
18
Asia e-University (AEU)
IELTS 5.5
TOEFL 550
B.Ed.
19
Open University
Malaysia (OUM)
Not specified
B.Ed. (Hons)
20
Wawasan Open
University (WOU)
Not specified
B.Ed. (Hons)
Primary Educ
B.A. (Hons)
English Studies
SPM 2A
STPM LIT B
MUET 4
IELTS 6
TOEFL 550
Diploma
Dip. TESL
PhD
B.Ed.(Hons)
395

396

Glossary
397

Glossary Of Key Terms

TERM EXPLANATION
TERM EXPLANATION
Alignment
The setting of the same learning targets in the

same order in education systems. Language
education systems are in practice aligned to the
CEFR (q.v.).
Common European
Framework of Reference
for Languages (CEFR)
Assessment literacy
The ability and know-how to decide how best

to assess students effectively, including the use
of appropriate assessment methods to obtain
evidence of learning and the acquisition of specific
abilities, the correct use of assessment results,
and the analysis of assessment results to make
accurate inferences and decisions.
A common framework for language programmes

and for the education of language teachers. It is
best known for the proficiency scale from A1 to
C2, and for descriptors of achievement expressed
in the form of can do statements. As a common
framework, the CEFR can be used to organise
the curriculum, teaching and learning including
learning materials, and assessment.
Communicative
language teaching
An approach to language teaching which seeks to

enable learners to use the language effectively in
communication.
Construct
An item to be assessed.
Constructivist
The use of active techniques (experiments, realworld problem solving) to create more knowledge
and then to reflect on and talk about what
students are doing and how their understanding
is changing. Teachers make sure that they
understand the students preexisting conceptions,
and guide the activity to address them and build
on them.
Continuous Professional
Development (CPD)
A range of programmes or series of activities

through which professionals maintain and develop
their knowledge and skills.
Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH)
A critical period for language learning which peaks

between the ages of 3 and 5, which is also when
many children start learning English as a new
language.
Developmentally
Appropriate Practice
(DAP)
Teaching and learning designed specifically in

accordance with the age, development, and ability
of children.
English language
programme
That part of the English language system (q.v.)

which consists of curriculum, teaching and learning
and assessment.
Benchmarking
The comparison of specific performance with

best performance. An education system can be
benchmarked by comparing its performance with
the performance of the top-performing education
systems worldwide. Language education systems
are in practice benchmarked against the CEFR
(q.v.) as the exemplar of international standards.
Calibration
Adjustments made so that instruments measure

the same things and have corresponding
measurements. Instruments of assessment are
calibrated when a grade on the marking scale
of one corresponds accurately to a grade on the
marking scale of another. The prerequisite for
calibration is alignment (q.v.).
Cascade model
398
A training model which involves the transmission of

information from a small initial group to successively
larger groups. A small group known as Master
Trainers are first trained themselves, and then sent
out to train their own groups. The second group of
trainees become trainers and train their own groups,
and so on. Cascading is the most efficient means of
training large numbers of people.
TERM EXPLANATION
TERM EXPLANATION
English language system The whole system concerned with English

education, including the English language
programme (q.v.), teacher education, and
the administrative and logistical infrastructure
supporting English education.
In-service teacher
education
Education intended to upskill or upgrade teachers

already in teaching posts. Upskilling courses
normally range from a few days to a few
weeks, and are often directed centrally by the
MoE and related to innovations or changes in
the curriculum. Upgrading courses range from
more than 3 months to more than a year, from
certificate to diploma, from diploma to degree
level and from first degree to masters and doctoral
levels. These are often conducted by Institutes of
Teacher Education (ITEs) and universities, both
local and foreign.
Institute of Teacher
Education Management
(ITEM)
The agency under the Ministry of Education

that oversees the management of 27 Institutes
of Teacher Education, a role formerly played by
the Teacher Education Division at the Ministry of
Education.
KSSR
The Standards-based English syllabus which forms

part of the 2011 modular Kurikulum Standard
Sekolah Rendah (KSSR), or the Primary School
Standards-based Curriculum. Targeted curriculum
standards for the four language skills, grammar
and language arts are arranged in five modules: (1)
Listening and Speaking, (2) Reading, (3) Writing/
Grammar, (4) Grammar/Writing (only Writing for
Years 1& 2), (5) the Language Arts (except for
Years 1 and 2). Primary school English teachers are
expected to allocate one session per week to each
module to ensure a balanced treatment of the four
skills and provide opportunities to learn grammar
(Module 4) and use language learnt creatively
(Module 5).
FasiLINUS
LINUS facilitators appointed to support primary

school teachers in Years 1-3 in implementing the
basic English language literacy programme. They
also provide in situ coaching support for teachers
on curriculum implementation and assessment.
Formative Assessment
A school-based form of assessment carried

out during class time and an integral part of
the instructional process in Malaysian primary
schools. EL teachers refer to the Performance
Standards (which detail six levels of performance
with descriptors for each level) to help them
ascertain pupils level of mastery of the various
learning standards. Methods of assessment include
checklists,
observations,
oral
presentations,
quizzes, questions and answers, task sheets or
written assignments.
Graduate employability
The ability of graduates to obtain employment

commensurate with their level of education, skills,
knowledge and personal attributes, and to be
successful in their employment.
Grammar
The formation of complex words, the combination

of words to form phrases, and the combination of
phrases to form clauses and sentences.
Incidental learning
Unintentional, unplanned and mostly unconscious

learning that results from other activities
399

TERM EXPLANATION
TERM EXPLANATION
Language engagement
Being involved with a language and having a

sense of ownership while using it to accomplish
communication and other goals.
Performance-based
assessment
Licensure
The licensing of teachers based on the certification

of a competency, in this case, competency in
English. The license may need to be renewed
every five years or at intervals to be decided
by a licensing board, which may be an agency
appointed by the MoE.
A set of strategies for the assessment of the

acquisition and application of knowledge and
skills, through the performance of tasks that are
meaningful and engaging to students and goes
beyond traditional assessment that focuses on
testing the accuracy of student response on a
selection of questions.
Phoneme
The phonological units that make up spoken

words. In phonics teaching (q.v.), phonemes
can be thought of as the speech sounds that
correspond to the letters of spellings.
Phonics
The policy introduced in 2010 and entitled

Memartabatkan Bahasa Melayu dan Memperkukuh
Bahasa Inggeris to uphold Malay and to strengthen
English
An approach to the teaching of reading in which

the teacher teaches the learner to recognise
written words by explaining the correspondences
between the letters of the spellings of words and
the phonemes (q.v.) of the pronunciation.
Pre-service teacher
education
National Preschool (NP)
Preschools in which the medium of instruction is

divided equally between Malay and English.
The initial education of student teachers in ITEs

and universities before they are placed in schools
to be teachers.
Prosody
National Preschool
Assessment Tool (NPAT)
The standard referenced assessment instrument

used to measure the preschool students
achievement of content standards and learning
standards as stipulated in the NPSC. The three
indicators of success are: Has Mastered (Telah
Menguasai), Is Mastering (Sedang Maju) and Has
Not Mastered (Belum Menguasai).
Aspects of the pronunciation of a language other

than phonemes (q.v.). Prosody is conventionally
said to include stress, rhythm and intonation.
Remedial Programmes
Programmes that provide learning support for

pupils who lag far behind their peers. Teachers
do not generally teach the same things again,
but provide more learning activities and practical
experiences appropriate for these pupils abilities
and needs. Teachers may also design individualized
programmes with intensive remedial support
to help pupils consolidate their generic skills in
learning, strengthen their confidence and enhance
the effectiveness of learning.
LINUS 2.0
MBMMBI
National-Type Preschool
(NTP)
400
A remedial programme introduced in 2009 to

ensure that primary school pupils acquire basic
literacy and numeracy skills in Bahasa Malaysia by
the end of Year Three. It was expanded In 2014 to
include English literacy, and renamed LINUS 2.0.
Preschools in which the medium of instruction

is divided equally between Malay, English, and
Mandarin or Tamil.
TERM EXPLANATION
TERM EXPLANATION
Self-directed learning
A learning situation in which students are driving

the total learning experience, beginning with
recognising a need to take their own initiative for
their own learning without the assistance of others.
Teaching to the test
School-based INSET
In-service teacher development activities initiated

by teachers within the school, including structured
time-based programme-level, project-based or
research-based activities related to the curriculum.
Examples are training of mentors for the school
or the collaborative planning of lessons, such
as lessons study. Other forms of school-based
INSET include on-going one-off free sharing
sessions among teachers which may be related to
pedagogy, good practices, soft skills and so on.
The use of actual test items in class as a means

to prepare students for a test. This is considered
harmful if it distracts teachers from the body of
knowledge or skills that the test represents, or if
the test format does not encourage the effective
learning of important concepts being studied or
skills being learnt.
The washback effect
The effects of tests on individual teachers,

students or even whole classes and programmes,
which are positive or negative according to
whether they promote learning (e.g. through
encouraging the use of effective learning
strategies) or discourage learning (e.g. by focusing
too heavily on test preparation at the expense of
other more beneficial learning activities).
T&L
Teaching and learning, which are together

considered a single component of the English
language programme.
Strand
A term used in reference to the six content

components of the NPSC.
Systemic institutional
support
Support and opportunities for the development of

a specific concern (such as language proficiency)
not confined to one entity but made available
throughout an institution in various forms.
Teacher education
The specialist education provided to intending

teachers to enable them to perform effectively as
professionals in the classroom. The term teacher
education is used in preference to teacher training
to draw attention to the intellectual and academic
challenge involved, and to avoid the low-level
implications associated with mere training.
Teacher Educators
All educators involved in the training of English

language teachers from pre-service to in-service
at Institutes of Teacher Education (ITEs) and
universities.
401

402

List of Abbreviations
403

List of Acronyms / Abbreviations
404
ACRONYM/ ABBREVIATION
TERM
ACoCD
Arts and Co-curriculum Division (Bahagian Kokurikulum dan Kesenian)
B. Matrik
Bahagian Matrikulasi
B.A.
Bachelor of Arts
B.Ed.
Bachelor of Education
B.Sc.
Bachelor of Science
BBT
Bahagian Buku Teks
BKK
Bahagian Kokurikulum dan Kesenian
BPG
Bahagian Pendidikan Guru (Teacher Training Division)
BPK
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum (Curriculum Development Division)
BPPDP
Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan
BPSH
Bahagian Pengurusan Sekolah Harian
BPSM
Bahagian Pengurusan Sumber Manusia
BTP
Bahagian Teknologi Pendidikan
CDD
Curriculum Development Division (Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum)
CEFR
Common European Framework of Reference (for Languages)
CfBT
Centre for British Teachers
CGPA
Cumulative Grade Point Average
CPD
Continuous Professional Development
CPH
Critical Period Hypothesis
TERM
DAP
Developmentally Appropriate Practice
DEO
District Education Office (Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah)
DNUI
Department of National Unity and Integration (Jabatan Perpaduan Negara dan Integrasi Nasional)
DSMD
Day School Management Division (Bahagian Penguruan Sekolah Harian)
EAF
Employability Attributes Framework
ECCE
Early Childhood Care and Education
ECCECM
Early Childhood Care and Education Council of Malaysia (Alternative: National ECCE Council)
EL
English Language (school subject), English language (language)
ELP
European Language Portfolio
ELSQC
English Language Standards and Quality Council (Majlis Penarafan Standard dan Kualiti Bahasa Inggeris)
ELTC
ES
Examinations Syndicate
ESS
Employer Satisfaction Survey
FELDA
Federal Land Development Authority
GE
Graduate Employability
GEC
Graduate Employability Competencies
HEI
Health Equity Initiative or Higher Education Institution according to context
HOTs
Higher Order Thinking skills
405

TERM
IAB
Institut Aminuddin Baki
ICT
Information and Communication(s) Technology
IELTS
The International English Language Testing System
INSET
In-service Teacher Education
IPG
Institut Pendidikan Guru (Institute of Teacher Education)
IPGM
Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia (Malaysian Teacher Education Institute)
IPTA
Institut Pengajian Tinggi Awam
ITEM
Institute of Teacher Education Management
ITEs
Institutes of Teacher Education
JNJK
Jemaah Nazir dan Jaminan Kualiti
JPN
Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri
KEMAS
406
Community Development Department (Jabatan Kemajuan Masyarakat)
LP
Lembaga Peperiksaan (Examinations Syndicate)
MEB
Malaysia Education Blueprint
MEC
Malaysian Examinations Council
MoE
Ministry of Education
MoHE
Ministry of Higher Education
MPM
Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia (Malaysian Examinations Council)
TERM
MQA
Malaysian Qualifications Agency
MUET
Malaysian University English Test
NKEA
National Key Economic Areas
NP
National Preschool
NPAT
National Preschool Assessment Tool
NPE
National Philosophy of Education
NPSC
National Preschool Standards-Based Curriculum (Dokumen Standard Kurikulum Prasekolah, 2010)
NTP
National-Type Preschool
OBE
Outcome-Based Education
PIHE
Public Institutions Of Higher Education (Institut Pengajian Tinggi Awam)
PISA
Programme for International Student Assessment
PISMP
Program Ijazah Sarjana Muda Perguruan (Bachelor of Education Programme)
PPD
Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah
PPISMP
Program Persediaan Ijazah Sarjana Muda Perguruan (Bachelor of Education Preparatory Programme)
PSELT
Pedagogical Standards in ELT
PTA
Parent-Teacher Association
RISDA
SED
Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority

State Education Department (Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri)
407

408
TERM
SIPartner
School Improvement Partner
SIQA
Schools Inspectorate and Quality Assurance (Jemaah Nazir dan Jaminan Kualiti)
SISC
School Improvement Specialist Coach
SLA
second language acquisition
SPM
Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (Malaysian Certificate of Education)
STPM
Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (Malaysian Certificate of Higher Education)
T & L
TA
Teaching Assistant
TED
Teacher Education Division
TESL
Teaching English as a Second Language
TESOL
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
TEYL
Teaching English to Young Learners
TIMSS
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
TOEFL
Test of English as a Foreign Language
USM

References
409

References
Abdullah Hassan (2004). One hundred years of language planning in Malaysia:

Looking ahead to the future. Language in India, 4. Retrieved from http://www.
languageinindia.com/nov2004/abdulla2.html
Ainol Madziah Zubairi, Isarji Sarudin, Mohamad Sahari Nordin & Tunku Badariah
Tunku Ahmad (2011). English Language competency for entry level employment:
A market research on industrial needs. Cyberjaya: Prestariang.
Alatas,S. H.(1977). Themythof thelazynative.Abingdon:Routledge.
Ambigapathy, P. (2002). English language teaching in Malaysia today. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 22(2), 35-52. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/0218879020220205#preview.
Ambigapathy, P. (2006). What works in the classroom? Promoting literacy practices
in English. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 11, 15-39.
Anderson, G.T., Spainhower, A.R.,& Sharp, A.C. (2015). Where do the bears go?
The value of child-directed play. In H. Bohart, K. Charner & D. Koralek (Eds.),
Spotlight on young children: Exploring Play (pp. 39-45). Washington D.C.:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Andreassen, M. & Andreassen, R. (2013). Pho.nem.e.nal Uncommon Success
through love & learning: Phonological awareness. Retrieved from http://www.
phonologicalawareness.org/
Asiah, A. S. (1983, April). The English Language Communicative Curriculum for
Upper Secondary Schools in Malaysia: Rationale, design and implementation.
Paper presented at the RELC Regional Seminar on New Trends in Language
Syllabus Design, Singapore.
Asiah Mohd Sharif (2013). Language proficiency and teacher knowledge bases in
the teaching of Science through English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
410
ASLI-CPPS, PROHAM & KITA-UKM (2012). Education reform and process of

consultation. In Education Reform in Malaysia Report (pp.1-35). Bangi: Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.cpps.org.my/upload/
EDUCATION%20REFORM%20IN%20MALAYSIA%20REPORT%202012.
pdf.
Asmah, H. O. (1979). Language planning for unity and efficiency: A study of the
language status and corpus planning of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit
Universiti Malaya.
Asmah, H. O. (1982). Language and society in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan
Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Asmah, H. O. (1983). The Malay peoples of Malaysia and their languages. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Asmah, H. O. (1984). Kaedah pengajaran bahasa. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka.
Asmah, H. O.(1985). The language policy of Malaysia: A formula for balanced
pluralism. In Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics, no. 9, Language Policy,
Language Planning and Sociolinguistics in South-East Asia (pp.39-49). Pacific
Linguistics A-67. Canberra: Australian National University.
Asmah, H. O. (1987). Malay in its sociocultural context. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan
Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Asmah, H. O. (1995). Language policy and management in Malaysia. Journal of
Asian Pacific Communication,6(3), 157-165.
Asmah, H.O. (2007). Malaysia and Brunei. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and
national identity in Asia (pp.337359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Axelrod, Y. (2014). Todos Vamos a Jugar, Even the Teachers Everyone playing
together. Young Children, 69(2), 24-31.
Ball, A.F. & Tyson, C.A. (2011). Preparing teachers for diversity in the twenty-first
century. In A.F. Ball & C.A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education
(pp. 399-416). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Beacco J.C., Byram M., Cavalli M., Coste D., Cuenat M. E., Goullier F., &Panthier J.
(2010). (Language Policy Division). Guide for the development and implementation
of curricula for pluralingual and intercultural education. Document prepared for
the Policy Forum The right of learners to quality and equity in education
The role of linguistic and intercultural competences Geneva, Switzerland, 2-4
November 2010, p. 20.
Bennet, M. (2014). The importance of having good English speaking skills in your
career. Retrieved from http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article.
Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. London: Kings College.
Blevins, W. (1997). Phonemic awareness activities for early reading success: Easy,
playful activities that help prepare children for phonics instruction. New York:
Scholastic Inc.
Byram, M.& Parmenter, L. (2012a). Commentary on the European cases. In M.

Byram & L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference:
The globalisation of language education policy (pp. 114-116). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Byram, M.& Parmenter, L. (Eds.). (2012b). The Common European Framework
of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy (Vol.23). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Cambridge English (2013a). Results Report: Cambridge Baseline 2013. Cambridge:
CE
Cambridge English (2013b). Executive Summary: Cambridge Baseline 2013.
Cambridge: CE
Cambridge English Language Assessment (2015). Cambridge English Evaluation of
MUET 2015. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press (2015). English and the mother tongue. Retrieved from
http://www.cambridge.org.br/for-teachers/teaching-tips/teaching-younglearners? english-and-the-mother-tongue&id=157.
Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes weve overlooked: Enhancing

graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education
Research & Development, 28(1), 31-44.
Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to

know. Paris: UNESCO.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2011). French Elementary-Secondary: Draft

Curriculum September 2011. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/
drafts/french.pdf.
Castellotti, V. (2012). Academic Perspectives from France. In Byram, M. &

Parmenter, L. (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: European
and global perspectives on cultural politics and educational influences (pp.45-52).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bryant, P. & Bradley, L. (1985). Childrens reading problems: Psychology and

education. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Butler, G. Y. (2004).What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers
need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.
TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 245-278.
Celestine, C., Cheah, S.M., Geetha Rajaratnam, & Norazina Ismail (2003). A
comparative study of IELTS to ascertain its validity for the private school market.
Report 2. Retrieved from http://www.ielts.org/pdf/vol15_Report 2.pdf.
411

Chai, Hon-Chan (1977). Education and nation-building in plural societies: The West
Malaysian experience. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Cheeseman, H.R. (1949). Malaya: Post-war policy in education. The Yearbook of
Education.London: University of London.
Cheung, H. (2012). Academic perspectives from Taiwan. In M. Byram & L.
Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The
globalisation of language education policy (pp. 224-232). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. London:
Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
Doshi, A. (2012). Changing tides: The story of the English language in Malaysia. In
M.D. Zuraidah (Ed.), English in multicultural Malaysia: Pedagogy and applied
research (pp.15-30). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
Chng, L. C., & Rethinasamy, S. (2013). English language assessment in Malaysia:

Teachers practices in test preparation. Issues in Language Studies, 2(2), 24-39.
Economic Planning Unit (2001). Third outline perspective plan, 20012010. Vol. 2009.
Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Prime Ministers Department, Malaysia.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Eldredge, J.L. (1995). Teaching decoding in holistic classrooms. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper
& Row.
Cizek, G. & Fitzgerald, S. (1996). Teachers assessment practices: Preparation,
isolation, and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3(2), 159-179.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_
EN.pdf.
Council of Europe (2006). European Language Portfolio: Key reference documents.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/
Elptt/Results /DMlayout/Reference%20Materials/English/ELP%20key%20
reference%20documents.pdf.
de Meja, Anne-Marie (2012). Academic perspectives from Colombia. In M. Byram
& L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The
Matters.
412
De, L.T.K. (1980). Colonial education in Burma and Malaya: The move away from
Indian education policy. Malaysian Journal of History, Politics and Strategic
Studies,10,105-113.
Elliott, D. (2009). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in

honour of Rod Ellis. ELT Journal, 63(3), 295-296.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-105.
Eshtehardi, R. (2014). Pro-ELT: A teacher training blended approach. Advances in
Language and Literary Studies,5(5), 106-110.
Evangelou, M., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., & Siraj-Blatchford,
I. (2008). What makes a successful transition from primary to secondary school?
Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education 3-14 Project (EPPSE
3-14) (Report No. DCS-RR019). London: Institute of Education, University of
London.
Faculty of Education, University of Malaya (2014). Undergraduate Programmes

Session 2014/2015. Retrieved from http://education.um.edu.my/docs/
librariesprovider9/Undergraduate-PDF/degree-handbook.pdf?sfvrsn=0,
31 July 2015.
Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S. & Brown, P. (2011). Teacher reactions to CEFRs
task-based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies Europe, 6, 109-120.
Fakulti Bahasa dan Komunikasi, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (2015). Ijazah
Sarjana Muda Pendidikan (Pengajaran Bahasa Inggeris Sebagai Bahasa Kedua)
dengan Kepujian. Retrieved from http://fbk.upsi.edu.my/index.php/en/
programme/degree-programmes/ismp-tesl.
Federation of Malaya Central Advisory Committee on Education (1951). Report
on the Barnes report on Malay education and the Fenn-Wu report on Chinese
education. Federation of Malaya: Central Advisory Committee on Education.
Gill, S. K. (2007). Shift in language policy in Malaysia: Unravelling reasons for

change, conflict and compromise in mother-tongue education. AILA Review,
20(1), 106-122.
Gober, S. Y. (2002). Six simple ways to assess young children. New York: Delmar,
Thomson Learning.
Goh, P. S. C. (2011). Improving teacher competence through the new Malaysian
Teacher Standards: Exploring the challenges for teacher educators. Journal of
Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 1(1), 88-99.
Goullier, F. (2012). Policy perspectives from France. In M. Byram & L. Parmenter
(Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of
language education policy (pp. 37-44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Grace, L. (2015). Listening to childrens stories. Teaching Young Children/Preschool,
8(3), 18-21.
Fishman, J.A. (1972). Sociolinguistics: A brief Introduction. Rowley: Newbury

House.
Handy, C. (1990). The Age of Unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Gaudart, H. (1987). English language teaching in Malaysia: A historical account.The

English Teacher,16, 17-36.
Hawkins, R. (2005). Understanding what second language learners know. In B. E.

Wong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition: Selected readings(pp.1-18). Petaling
Jaya: Sasbadi.
Gedye, S., Fender, E., & Chalkley, B. (2004). Students undergraduate expectations
and post-graduation experiences of the value of a degree. Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 28(3), 381-396.
Gestwicki, C. (1999). Developmentally appropriate practice curriculum and
development in early education. New York: Delmar.
Hu, A. (2012). Academic perspectives from Germany. In M. Byram & L. Parmenter

Huebner, T. A. (2010). Differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 67(5),
79-81.
Gill, S. K. (2005). Language policy in Malaysia: Reversing direction. Language

Policy,4(3), 241-260.
Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald Press.
Gill, S. K. (2006). Change in language policy in Malaysia: The reality of implementation

in public universities.Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(1), 82-94.
Hymes, D.H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride &J. Holmes

(Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
413

Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid. (2004). Professional development of school principals for

revitalising schooling in Malaysia. In Y. C. Cheng, K. W. Chow, & M. C. Mo
(Eds.), Reform of teacher education in the Asia-Pacific in the New Millennium:
Trends and challenges (pp. 197-218). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
International Reading Association (1998). Phonemic awareness and the teaching of
reading: A position statement from the Board of Directors of the International
Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/
position-statements-and-resolutions/ps1025 _phonemic.pdf.
Isarji Sarudin, Ainol Madziah Zubairi, Mohamad Sahari Nordin & Mohd Azmi
Omar. (2008). The English Language proficiency of Malaysian public university
students. In Md Yurof Abu Bakar, Nor Eieni Hj Mokhtar, Rohana Jani, Ainol
Madziah Zubairi, Norasma Othman and Aries Gan (Eds.), Enhancing the
quality of higher education through research: Shaping future policy (pp 40-65).
Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Higher Education.
Jabatan Pengajian Tinggi Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi (2010). Hala tuju penajian
komunikasi dan media di Malaysia. Majlis Ketua-ketua Pengajian Komunikasi
(COHECS). Retrieved from http://www.mohe.gov.my/portal/images/
penerbitan/JPT/Pengurusan_Pembangunan_Akademik/Buku-Buku_Kajian.
Jarrett, O.S., Sutterby, J., DeMarie, D. & Stenhouse, V. (2015). Access to quality
play experiences as a social justice issue. In H. Bohart, K. Charner & D. Koralek
(Eds.), Spotlight on young children: Exploring play (pp. 98-106). Washington
D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Jemaah Nazir Sekolah (School Inspectorate) (Ed.). (2006). Info PPSMI-Pengajaran
dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris (Information
regarding the Program of Teaching and Learning Science and Mathematics in
English). Putrajaya: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Kahirol Mohd Salleh, Nor Lisa Sulaiman & Khairul Nazry Taib (2010). Globalisations
impact on soft skills demand in the Malaysian workforce and organisations: What
makes graduates employable? Proceedings of the 1st UPI International Conference
on Technical and Vocational Education and Training, Bandung, Indonesia.
414
Kaur, G. & Kaur, S. (2008). Malaysian graduates employability skills. UniTAR

e-Journal 4(1), 15-45.
Keaney, G. (2014). CEFR and its impact on classroom pedagogy. ESL Practitioner,
2, 42-73.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (2010a). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum Prasekolah.
Bahagian Perkembangan Kurikulum. Putrajaya: KPM.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (2010b). Preschool teachers guide: The
developmental assessment of children in preschools (Siri panduan guru prasekolah:
Modul pentaksiran perkembangan murid di prasekolah). Bahagian Perkembangan
Kurikulum. Putrajaya: KPM.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (2011). Dokumen standard-Kurikulum Standard
Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) Modul teras asas Bahasa Inggeris sekolah kebangsaan
Tahun Satu, Dua & Tiga. Bahagian Perkembangan Kurikulum. Putrajaya: KPM.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia (2012). Dokumen standard-Kurikulum Standard
Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) Modul teras asas Bahasa Inggeris sekolah jenis kebangsaan
Tahap Satu (Tahun 1, 2, 3). Bahagian Perkembangan Kurikulum. Putrajaya:
KPM.
Kennedy,J. (1993).HistoryofMalaya(3rded.).KualaLumpur:Synergy.
Kioko, A. (2015, January 16). Why schools should teach young learners in home
language. Voices. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/blog/whyschools-should-teach-young-learners-home-language.
Kite, Y.& Sakui, K. (2001). Requests by young Japanese learners of English in an
immersion context. Asian English Studies Monograph Series.
Knowles, G. (1997). A cultural history of the English language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Kok, T. (2013, March 6). Timeline for SPM English. The Star Online. Retrieved
from http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Letters/2013/03/06/Timeline-forSPM-English.aspx.
Komorowska, H. (2012). Academic perspectives from Poland. In M. Byram &

L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The
Matters.
Koo, Y. L. (2008). Language, culture and literacy: Meaning-making in global contexts.
Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Kua, K. K. (1999). A Protean Saga: The Chinese schools of Malaysia. Kajang: Dong
Jiao Zong Higher Learning Center.
Kua, K. K. (1998). Mother tongue education of Malaysian ethnic minorities. Kajang:
Dong Jiao Zong Learning Centre.
Kuh, G.D. & ODonnell, K. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices
to scale. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Kulliyyah of Education, International Islamic University Malaysia (2015).
Undergraduate Programme. Curriculum Structure. Retrieved from http://
www.iium.edu.my/educ/departments/department-language-literacy-0.
Laporan Tahunan 2013: Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia, Indeepreneur. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=UBMHCgAAQBAJ
Lapp, D., Flood, J., Brock, C., & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching reading to every child
(4th ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Le Haa, P., Kho, J., & Chng, B. (2013). Nation building, English as an international
language, medium of instruction, and language debate: Malaysia and possible
ways forward. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 2(2), 58-71.
Lee King Siong, Hazita Azman & Koo Yew Lie (2010). Investigating the
undergraduate experience of assessment in higher education. GEMA Online
Journal of Language Studies, 10(1), 17-33.
Lenneberg, E. H., Chomsky, N., & Marx, O. (1967). Biological foundations of

language (Vol. 68). New York: Wiley.
Lenz, P. & Schneider, G. (2002). Developing the Swiss model of the European
Language Portfolio. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Case studies (pp. 68-86). Strasbourg: Council
of Europe. Retrieved fromhttp://www.coe.int/portfolio> Documentation
(Other Documents).
Lenz, P. (2004). The European Language Portfolio. In Morrow, K. (Ed). Insights
from the Common European Framework (pp. 22-31). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice.
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M., P., Simons, G. F., & Fenning, C. D. (Eds.) (2013). Ethnologue: Languages
of the World, 17th edition. Dallas: SIL International. Retrieved from http://www.
ethnologue.com.
Lian, S. (2009). Ant Tribe: A record of inhabited village of university graduates.
Guangxi: Guangxi Normal University.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013).How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lim, P.H. (2008). Malay schools and school libraries in the Straits Settlements
under British colonial rule before the Second World War, 1876-1941. Malaysian
Journal of Library and Information Science, 13(1), 1-15.
Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 16790.
415

Little, D. (2009). The European Language Portfolio: Where pedagogy and assessment
meet. Paper presented at the 8th International Seminar on the European
Language Portfolio, Graz.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency (2014). Education Programme Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.mqa.gov.my/QAD/garispanduan/Education%20
Program%20Standard%20 (EPS).pdf.
Malone, M. E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between
testers and users. Language Testing, 30(3), 329-344.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2003). Education Development Plan 2001-2010.

Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2010). To Uphold Bahasa Malaysia and to Strengthen
the English Language. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2012). English Language teaching and learning at
university level. Unpublished report.
Mardziah H. Abdullah, Ho, S.W.,& Wong, B.E. (2015). Delivering the ELEx package:
An English Language Experience approach for developing undergraduates
language proficiency. Journal of Language and Communication, 2(2), 119-132.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2012). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from

http://www.moe.gov.my/en/soalan-lazim.
Marsick, V., Watkins, K. E., Callahan, M. W.,& Volpe, M. (2006).Reviewing theory

and research on informal and incidental learning. Retrieved fromhttp://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED492754.pdf.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 20132025

(Preschool to Post-Secondary Education). Putrajaya: Ministry of Education
Malaysia.
Mcmillan, J. H. (2014). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective

standards-based instruction. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2015a). Executive Summary, Malaysia Education

Blueprint 2015-2015 (Higher Education). Putrajaya: Ministry of Education
Malaysia.
McNair, J.C. (2015). Childrens literature and dramatic play. Teaching Young Children/
Preschool, 8(3), 12-14.
Mertler, C. A. (2005). Secondary teachers assessment literacy: Does classroom
experience make a difference? American Secondary Education, 33(1), 49-64.
Met, M. (2004). An international success story: What we know about early
language learning. In M. Bostwick (Eds.), Putting it All Together: Best Practices
in Immersion, EFL & Early English Education (pp. 28-36). Numazu: Katoh
Gakuen.
Metcalfe, S. (2011, April 8). Why a good command of English is important for your
career. Retrieved from http://www.businesstrainingcollege.com/blog/englishat-work.
416
Ministry of Education Malaysia (1967). Educational statistics of Malaysia. Kuala

Lumpur: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2015b). Malaysia Education Blueprint Annual Report

2014. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Mior Khairul, A.B.M.J. (2011). Sistem pendidikan di Malaysia: Dasar, cabaran, dan
pelaksanan ke arah perpaduan nasional. Sosiohumanika, 4, 33-48.
Mohamed Ismail Ahamad Shah & Normala Othman. (2006). Students output in
communicative language teaching classrooms. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal
of English Language Studies, 12, 45-64.
Mohd Izani, M.Z., and Harshita,A.H. (Eds). (2011). Meneraju kegemilangan ilmu.
Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Mohd Sofi Ali (2003). English Language Teaching in Primary Schools: Policy and
Implementation Concerns. IPBA E-JOURNAL,1-14.
Mohd Sofi Ali (2008). A case for a case: A qualitative research experience. Kuala
Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.
Morrison, G.S. (2007). Early childhood education today. New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Naginder Kaur (2006). Non-autonomy and low-English proficiency among
Malaysian students: Insights from multiple perspectives. In Kamisah Ariffin,
Mohd. Rozaidi Ismail, Ngo Kea Leng, & Roslina Abdul Aziz. (Eds.), English
in the Malaysian context (pp. 21-34). Shah Alam: Universiti Teknologi MARA.
NAEYC (2009). Position statement: Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, D.C.:
The National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDAP.pdf.
Nakata, Y. (2010). Improving the classroom language proficiency of non-native
teachers of English: What and how? RELC Journal, 41, 76-90.
Nalliah, M., & Thiyagarajah, R. (2002). Teacher education for TESOL in Malaysia:
The pursuance of conformity in the context of cultural diversity. In Cheong,
Y.C., Tsui, K.T., Chow, K.W., & Mok M.M.C. (Eds.). Subject teaching and
teacher education in the new century: Research and innovation. Norwell: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Nation, I.S.P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston: Heinle.
Newport, E.L. (n.d.). Critical periods in language development. Intermediate Article,
737-740. Rochester: University of Rochester. Retrieved from http://www.bcs.
rochester.edu/people/newport/Newport-ECS-A0506.PDF.
Nichols, S. L. & Berliner, D. C. (2005). The inevitable corruption of indicators and

educators through high-stakes testing. Education Policy Studies Laboratory.
Retrieved from from http://epicpolicy.org/files/EPSL-0503-101-EPRU.pdf.
Ng, Soo Boon (2010). Governance of education-related ECCE policies in Malaysia.
The International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(1), 45-57.
Ng, S.G. & Anna Christina Abdullah (2011). Preschool practitioners understanding
of project approach. Paper presented at the International Conference on Early
Childhood and Special Education (ICECSE). Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Noor Miza Abdul Rahman (2015). Pembinaan modul berasaskan pendekatan projek
untuk meningkatkan kemahiran berkomunikasi murid tadika (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia.
Normazidah Che Musa, Koo Yew Lie & Hazita Azman (2012). Exploring English
Language learning and teaching in Malaysia [Special issue]. GEMA Online
Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 35-51.
Norris, J. M. (2013). Some challenges in assessment for teacher licensure, program
accreditation, and educational reform. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2),
554-560.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Florence: Heinle & Heinle.
Nunan, D. (2015). What is wrong with approaches to teaching English to young
learners today? Retrieved from http://www.pearson.pl/ourdiscoveryisland/
download/ArtWhat% 20is%20 wrong .pdf.
Ojima, S., Nakamura, N., Matsuba-Kurita, H., Hoshino, T., & Hagiwara, H.
(2011). Neural correlates of foreign-language learning in childhood: A 3-year
longitudinal ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(1), 183-199.
Omar, M.K., Bakar, A.R.,& Rashid, A.M. (2012). Employability skill acquisition
among Malaysian community college students. Journal of Social Sciences,8(3),
472-478.
417

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.

Ozay, M. (2011). A brief overview of relations between Malay language and national
awareness. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research,
5, 473-477.
Ozog, A. C. K. (1993). Bilingualism and national development in Malaysia. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 14(1&2), 5972.
Poszytek, P. (2012). Policy perspectives from Poland. In M. Byram & L. Parmenter

Pallier, C. (2007). Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition.

In B. Kpke, M. S. Schmid, M. Keijzer& S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 155-168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Professional Up-skilling of English Language Teachers (Pro-ELT). (nd.) Retrieved

from http://www.whosite.org/www.eltc.edu.my_1072053.html.
Papageorgiou, S. (2014). Issues in aligning assessments with the Common European

Framework of Reference. Language Value, 6, 15-27.
Rama, J. L. & Agull, G.L. (2012).The role of grammar teaching: Communicative

approaches to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Revista de Lingstica y Lenguas Aplicadas, 7,179-191.Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10 .4995/rlyla.2012.1134.
Pekeliling MQA Bil (2013/2014). Penggunaan Standard Program: Pendidikan

(Education Programme Standards). Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Pea Dix, B., & de Meja, A.M. (2012). Policy perspectives from Colombia. In M.
Byram & L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference:
The globalisation of language education policy (pp. 140-148). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
418
Porto, M.& Barboni, S. (2012). Policy perspectives from Argentina. In M. Byram

& L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The
Matters.
Rasul, M. S.& A.P. Puvanasvaran (2009). Importance of employability skills as

perceived by employers of Malaysian manufacturing industry. Journal of Human
Capital Development, 2(2), 23-35.
Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment: A practitioners handbook. New York:
Guilford Press.
Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) (2010). 1 Malaysia:

Government transformation programme: The roadmap. Putrajaya: Department
of the Prime Minister, Malaysia.
Razianna Abdul Rahman (2005). Learning English from learners perspective.

Kertaskerja Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Kebangsaan ke XII 2005.
Putrajaya: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Popham, W.J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment.
Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Richards, J. C. (2011). Competence and performance in language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Porto, M. (2012). Academic perspectives from Argentina. In M. Byram & L.

Matters.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward,

central and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33.
Robinson, M., Galaczi E. D., Docherty, C., King, A.,& Khalifa, H. (2014).
Supporting national education reform: The Cambridge Malaysia Baseline Project.
Cambridge English: Research Notes, 58, 40-44. Full report available at
CambridgeBaseline2013.TechnicalReport.pdf.
Rohaty Mohd Majzub (2013). Critical Issues in Preschool Education in Malaysia.
In Azami Zaharim & Valery Vodovozov (Eds.), Recent advances in educational
technologies, (pp.150-155). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Education and Education Technologies (EET13). Retrieved from http://www.
wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2013/ Cambridge USA/EET/EET-26.pdf.
Rnneper, H. (2012). Policy perspectives from Germany. In M. Byram & L.
globalisation of language education policy(pp. 54-65). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Rosemala Ismail (2008). Factors affecting less proficient ESL learners use of strategies
for language and content area learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Rosli, T., & Malachi, E. (1990). A comparative study of the achievement and the
proficiency levels in English as a second language among learners in selected
rural and urban schools in Peninsular Malaysia.The English Teacher,19, 48-57.
Rozila Ahmad & Noor Azimin Zainol (2011). What it takes to be a manager: The case
of Malaysian five-star resort hotels. Paper presented at the 2nd International
Conference on Business and Economic Research (2nd ICBER 2011), 14-16
March 2011, Holiday Villa Beach Resort and Spa, Langkawi.
Ruben, R. J. (1999). A time frame of critical/sensitive periods of language
development. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, 51(3),
85-89. doi:10.1007/BF02996542.
Saadiyah Darus & Kaladevi Subramaniam (2009). Error analysis of the written
English essays of secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495.
Santiago, E. (2012). Cambridge ESOL, the CEFR & ALTE Can Do statements: How
many hours of study to reach each level? Retrieved from http://profesorbaker.
com/2012/10/07/cambridge-esol-the-cefr-alte-can-do-statements-howmany-hours-of-study-to-reach-each-level/.
Schneider, G. & Lenz, P. (2001). European Language Portfolio: Guide for developers.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
SEAMEO
INNOTECH
(2010).
Teaching
competency
standards
in
Southeast Asian countries: Eleven country audit. Retrieved from http://
www.seameo-innotech.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PolRes_
TeachingCompetencyStandardsInSEA.pdf.
Segawa, N. (2007). Malaysias 1996 Education Act: The impact of a multiculturalismtype approach on national integration. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast
Asia,22(1), 30-56.
Selvaraj, B. (2010). English Language Teaching (ELT) curriculum reforms in
Malaysia.Voice of Academia, 5(1), 51-60.
Singh, G. K. G., & Singh, S. K. G. (2008). Malaysian graduates employability skills.
UNITAR e-Journal, 4(1), 15-45.
Singleton, D. (1992). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Snow, C.E. & Hoefnagel-Hhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language
acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49(4),
1114-1128. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1128751.
419

Stapa, S.H., & Majid, A.H.A. (2006). The use of first language in limited proficiency
classes: Good, bad or ugly. Journal e-Bangi, 1(1), 1-12.
Stapa, S.H., Maasaum, T.N.R.T., Mustaffa, R., & Darus, S. (2008). Workplace
written literacy and its effect on the curriculum. GEMA Online Journal of
Language Studies, 8(1), 23-33.
Stiggins, R. J. (1995).Assessment literacy for the 21st Century. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 77(3), 238-245.
Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path
to success in standards-based schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
Suan, L.C. (2004). Economic Growth and Employment Generation: Employers
Perspective. Retrieved from: http://www.epu.jpm.my/new20folder/seminar/
stm/Presenter203.pdf.
Sugitani, M.& Tomita, Y. (2012). Perspectives from Japan. In M. Byram & L.
Matters.
Thang, S. M. (2003). How ready are Malaysian learners for online learning? An
investigation into learner characteristics. Proceedings of ASIACALL International
Conference on Information Technology and Language Education, 149-153.
Thang, S. M. (2005). Investigating Malaysian distance learners perceptions of their
English Proficiency Courses. Open Learning, 20(3), 243-256.
The National Brains Trust (2002). Education 2020: Fundamental goals, critical
objectives and strategic intervention points. Kuala Lumpur: ISIS Malaysia.
The National Graduate Employability Blueprint, 2012-2017 (2012). Putrajaya:
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.
Tien, L. H. (2013). ELT in Vietnam general and tertiary education from second
language education perspectives. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 29(1), 65-71.
Swettenham, F. A. (1900).The real Malay: Pen pictures. London: J. Lane.
Trigwell, K. & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2005). The research experience of postgraduate

research students at the University of Oxford. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Technical Report, Cambridge Baseline (2013). English Language in Malaysian schools,

Cambridge English Language Assessment. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Trim, J. L. (2007). Modern languages in the Council of Europe 1954-1997. Strasbourg:

Language Policy Division, Council of Europe.
Tedick, D. J., Christian, D. & Fortune, T. W. (2011). Immersion education: Practices,

policies, possibilities (Vol.83). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Trim, J. L. (2012). The Common European Framework of reference for languages

and its background: A case study of cultural politics and educational influences.
In M. Byram & L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of
Reference: The globalisation of language education policy (pp. 14-34). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
TESOL (2010). Position paper on language and literacy development for young
English Language learners. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/docs/pdf/371.
pdf?sfvrsn=2.
420
Thang, S.M. (2001). Malaysian learners conceptions of their learning processes and
their perceptions of their English as a Second Language (ESL) courses in a tertiary
distance learning context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nottingham:
University of Nottingham.
Turnbull, M. (2011). Stakeholders meeting on the implementation of CEFR (Common

European Framework of Reference) in Canada. Report by the Canadian
Association of Second Language Teachers.
Wu, J. & Wu, R. (2007). Using the CEFR in Taiwan: The perspective of a local
examination board. Paper presented at The Fourth Annual EALTA Conference,
Sitges, Spain. Retrieved from www.ealta.eu.org/conference/2007.
Vestergaard, J. (2007). Malaysia and the knowledge economy: Building a world-class

higher education system. World Bank Publications.
Zou, W. (2012). Perspectives from China. In M. Byram & L. Parmenter (Eds.),

The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language
education policy (pp. 183-196). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.),
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1934).
Waite-Stupiansky, S. (2014). Why play is learning at its best. Retrieved from http://
www.naeyc.org/yc/files/yc/file/201407/Play_Memos_YC0514.pdf.
Zuraidah Mohd Don (2006). English in a globalised environment: Investigating an

emerging variety of English. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
West, M. (1968). The minimum adequate (a quest). ELT Journal, 22(3), 205-210.
Zuraidah Mohd Don (2014). English in Malaysia: An inheritance from the past
and the challenge for the future. In N. Murray & A. Scarino, (Eds.). Dynamic
ecologist: Relational perspective on language education in the Asia-Pacific region
(pp.117-136). Netherlands: Springer.
Westhoff, G. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of the CEFR for reimagining

Foreign Language Pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 676679.
Zuraidah Mohd Don (2015). English Language Education in Malaysia: An agenda for
reform 2015-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Wiggins G.& McTighe J. (2006). Understanding by design: A framework for effecting

curricular development and assessment. Alexandria: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Williams-Kennedy, D. (2013). Building bridges between literacies. In A. Anning,

J. Cullen & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education: Society and culture (pp.
91-102). Los Angeles: Sage.
World Bank (2005). Investment Climate Survey Report. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wu, J. (2012). Policy perspectives from Taiwan. In M. Byram & L. Parmenter
421

422

Contributors
423

Contributors
424
No Name
Institution
Prof. Dr Zuraidah Mohd Don
Universiti Malaya
Dr Ranjit Singh Gill
LeapEd Services
Dr Mohamed Abu Bakar
Ms Zainab Yusof
Prof. Dr Anna Christina Abdullah
Assoc. Prof. Dr Arshad Abd Samad
Assoc. Prof. Datin Dr. Mardziah Hayati Abdullah
Dr Kuldip Kaur Karam Singh
LeapEd Services
Dato Dr Lee Boon Hua
LeapEd Services
10
Ms Janet Pillai @Liyana Pillai
Independent Consultant
11
Prof. Dr Gurnam Kaur Sidhu
University Teknologi Mara
12
Dr Choong Kam Foong
Inti International University
13
Assoc. Prof. Dr Ganakumaran Subramaniam
University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus
14
Ms Fadzilah Khalilah Amin
Independent Writer
15
Ms Clare Walker
British Council
16
Dr Suraya Sulyman
IPG Kampus Bahasa Antarabangsa
17
Dr Sivabala Naidu
University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus
18
Ms Sarina Salim

English Language Standards And Quality Council,

19
Assoc. Prof. Dr Tan Kok Eng
20
Ms Yeoh Phaik Kin
IPG Kampus Pulau Pinang
21
Dr Chithra K.M. Krishnan Adiyodi
22
Ms Regina Joseph Cyril
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum
23
Ms Siew Siew Kim
24
Dr Dahlia Janan
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
25
Ms Sia Soh Guad
SK Batu Unjur
425

426
26
Ms Yong Wai Yee
PPD Bangsar Pudu
27
Ms Chandrakala Raman
PPD Kuantan
28
Mr Mohamad Najib Omar
JPN Kelantan
29
Ms Ewe Choy Choo
PPD Hilir Perak
30
Dr Aspalila Shapii
Universiti Utara Malaysia
31
Datin Dr Raja Mazuin Raja Abdul Aziz
32
Dr Ramesh Nair
Universiti Teknologi Mara
33
Ms Leela James Dass
34
Ms Pamela Devadason
SMK Taman Yarl
35
Ms Majeedah Mohd Shukor
SMK Kepong Baru
36
Ms Eileen Jesse Ah Guan
37
Pn Aimi Mahfuzah Kamalluden
Lembaga Peperiksaan
38
Prof. Dr Fatimah Hashim
Universiti Malaya
39
Dr Hawa Rohany (Retired Assoc. Prof.)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
40
Dr Lim Peck Choo
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
41
Ms Marina Abu Bakar
Politeknik Melaka
42
Ms Mazlina Mohamad Aris
Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia
43
Ms Hooi Moon Yee
Universiti Malaya
44
Dr Saidatul Akmar Zainal Abidin
Universiti Teknologi Mara
45
Ms Amar Shobha Sarna
IPG Kampus Ilmu Khas
46
Ms Yong Lee Choo
47
Mr Terry Yap
48
Ms Cheok Oy Lin
49
Assoc. Prof. Dr Stefanie Pillai
Universiti Malaya
50
Mr Malek Baseri
IPGM
51
Dr Moses Samuel
Universiti Malaya
427

428
429

430

The Roadmap 2015-2025

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Roadmap 2015-2025

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

I

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

he Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 highlights the need

European Framework of Reference (CEFR) that we plan to adopt will

I am very hopeful that this plan will succeed as it has taken a

YB DATO SERI MAHDZIR BIN KHALID

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

he English language plays an important role in higher education. It

increasingly borderless world as education becomes more globalised and

has also become an imperative role of universities in todays complex global

European Framework of Reference (CEFR) as a move to firstly, allow

employment market. Universities are now expected to ensure that their

us to view the English proficiency levels of Malaysian graduates on an

graduates are more employable by being linguistically competent in the

Secondly, the CEFR provides a common denominator for reviewing

and aligning English Language curricula, pedagogy and assessment in

YB DATO SERI IDRIS JUSOH

Roadmap developed by the English Language Standards and Quality

Minister of Higher Education, Malaysia

Council (ELSQC). The Roadmap proposes the adoption of the Common

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

would like to congratulate the English Language Standards and

provided with an education that enables them to develop the English

YBHG. TAN SRI DR. MADINAH BT MOHAMAD

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

he Ministry of Education Malaysia strives to ensure that

teachers of the language in order for the plan to succeed. Alignment

I take this opportunity to thank the English Language Standards

Dato Sri Dr. Khair Bin Mohamad Yusof

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

eforming education is an enormous undertaking. We have

To create a top-performing education system, it is first necessary

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

a contribution to national advancement and the realisation of national

PROF. DR ZURAIDAH MOHD DON

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

his project was supported and funded by the Ministry

and reviewed by members of the ELSQC and Puan Hooi Moon

This document is the result of input and insights provided by

Zuraidah Mohd Don

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

English Language Standards and Quality Council

Prof. Dr Zuraidah Mohd Don

Prof. Dr Anna Christina Abdullah

Assoc. Prof. Dr Arshad Abd Samad

Assoc. Prof. Datin Dr.

Dr Kuldip Kaur Karam Singh

Universiti Sains Malaysia

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Dato Dr Lee Boon Hua

Ms Janet Pillai@Liyana Pillai

Dr Mohamed Abu Bakar

Mr Mohamed Khaidir Alias

ACTING SECRETARIAT OFFICER

English Language Teaching Centre

English Language Teaching Centre

English Language Teaching Centre

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

Editor, Writers and Reviewers

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia