UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| Implementing the Common European Framework or CEFR in English as a Second Language learning in the Malaysian education system is the focus of this paper. CEFR is a generally established international standard for depicting language proficiency. It is also extensively recognised in Europe and is becoming more widely accepted globally; it is now incorporated into the Malaysian education system. The CEFR provides thorough descriptions of what foreign or second language learners can perform in listening, speaking, reading, and writing at six proficiency levels. Thus the methodology used in this paper is qualitative through review documents specifically on past studies from 2015 to 2021 highlighting CEFR implementation. This study aims to answer two research questions; what are the importance of implementation of CEFR in the Malaysian ESL classroom, and how CEFR can be implemented in classroom assessment in the Malaysian ESL classroom. The findings related to the first aim indicate that the CEFR is important for the needs of the international standard framework, benchmarking, alignment, and calibration. The findings also show that CEFR assists teachers in monitoring students' development in ESL classrooms. This article will also examine the history of the CEFR's implementation in the Malaysian education system and its influence on the curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment. Then, the descriptors of CEFR in all four primary language skills, learning, speaking, listening, reading, and writing, will be briefly discussed before moving on to implementing the CEFR in classroom assessment. By the end of this paper, the recommendations for future study in implementing CEFR in the Malaysian ESL classroom will be proposed.
|
| References |
Abd Rahman, A.Z., Chong, S.T., Kaman, Z. K. & Leon, C. E. (2021). The CEFR Impact on English Language Educators Teaching Engineering Programmes at a Private University in Malaysia. Journal of Techno Social, 12(2), 41-47. Azli, N., & Akmar, A. (2019). Implementation Of CEFR-Aligned Assessment Tools in Malaysian ESL Classroom. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 4(2), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.31580/apss.v4i2.688 Azman, H. (2016). Implementation and Challenges of English Language Education Reform in Malaysian Primary Schools. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(3), 65-78. Brunfaut, T., & Harding, L. (2018). Teachers setting the assessment (literacy) agenda: A case study of a teacher-led national test development project in Luxembourg. In D. Xerri & P. Vella Briffa (Eds.), Teacher involvement in high stakes language testing (pp. 155–172). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Language Policy Unit, Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/lang-CEFR The Star Online. (2017). English Proficiency Still a Big Problem for Many M'sian Grads. Retrieved fromhttps://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/01/21/english-proficiency-still-a-big-problem-for-many-msian-grads/ Faez, F., Taylor, S.K., Majhanovich, S., & Brown, P. (2011). Teacher reactions to CEFR's task-based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies Europe, 6, 109-120. Figueras, N., & Noijons, J. (2009). Linking to the CEFR levels: Research perspectives. Arnhem: CITO and EALTA. Graën, J., Alfter, D., & Schneider, G. (2020). Using Multilingual Resources to Evaluate CEFRLex for Learner Applications. Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. Marseille, France: European Language Resources Association. Gultom, E. (2016). Assessment and Evaluation in EFL Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on English Language and Teaching (ISELT-4). http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/selt/article/view/6928 Harlen, W., & Gardner, J. (2010). Assessment to support learning. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, L. Hayward, & G. Stobart (Eds.), Developing teacher assessment (pp. 15– 28). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Heyworth, F. (2004). Why the CEF is important. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework (pp. 12-21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huttunen, I. (1986). Towards learner autonomy in foreign language learning in senior secondary school. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, Series E, Scientiae Rerum Socialum No. 3, Paedagogica No. 3. Oulu: University of Oulu. Legak, T. C., & Wahi, W. (2020). Communicative Language Tasks to Enhance Young Learners' Communicative Competence. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(6), 377–390. Leung, C. (2004). Developing formative teacher assessment: Knowledge, practice and change. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(1). 19–41. Lim, G. S., Geranpayeh, A., Khalifa, H., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2013). Standard-setting to an international reference framework: Implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Testing, 13(1), 32–49. Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22(3), 321–336. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt311oa Little, D. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 44, 381–393. Little, D. (2013). The Common European Framework of References for Languages: Purpose, origin, ethos and implications. Paper presented at the CEFR Conference. Putrajaya, Malaysia, 29-30 October 2013. Martyniuk, W. (2010). Aligning Tests with the CEFR. Reflections on using the Council of Europe's draft manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Ministry of Education. (2015). English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025. Ministry of Education. Mohd Don, Z. (2020). The CEFR and the Production of Spoken English: A Challenge for Teachers. The English Teacher, 49(3),77-87. Nishanthi, R. (2018). Important of learning English in today world. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3(1), 871-874. doi:10.31142/ijtsrd19061 Önalan, O., & Karagül, A. E. (2018). A study on Turkish EFL teachers' beliefs about assessment and its different uses in teaching English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(3), 190-201. Oscarson, M. 1989: Self-assessment of language proficiency: rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6, 1–13. Othman, I., Salleh, N. M., & Norani, N. A. M. (2013). The Implementation of school-based assessment in primary school standard curriculum. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(7), 1-10. Putri, N. S., Pratolo, B. W., & Setiani, F. (2019). The alternative assessment of EFL students' oral competence: Practices and constraints. Ethical Lingua Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, 6(2), 72-75. Sabbir, F. (2019). Perceived View of Teachers Towards Pentaksiran Tingkatan Tiga (PT3) (Form Three Assessment) English Language: A Case Study. Asian Journal of University Education, [S.l.], 15(3), 34-44. doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v15i3.7819. Sahib, H. F. & Stapa. M. (2021). Managing English Language Curriculum Reform in Malaysian Primary Schools: Issues and Challenges. e-Proceedings of International Conference on Language, Education, Humanities &Social Sciences (i-LEdHS2021). Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., & Lee, J. C. (2018). CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 452-463. doi:10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311 Spöttl, C., Kremmel, B., Holzknecht, F., & Alderson, J. C. (2016). Evaluating the achievements and challenges in reforming a national language exam: The reform team's perspective. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 5(1), 1–22. Thijs, A., & Van den Akker, J. (2009). Curriculum in development. Enschede: SLO. Brunfaut, T. & Harding, L. (2019). International language proficiency standards in the local context: Interpreting the CEFR in standard setting for exam reform in Luxembourg, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(2), 215-231. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2019.1700213 Uri, N. F., & Aziz, M. S. (2018). Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia: Teachers' awareness and the Challenges. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(3), 168-183. Van den Branden, K. (2009). Diffusion and implementation of innovations. In M. Long, and C. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Malden: Blackwell.
|
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |