Adopting a common framework

3.6.1 Adopting a common framework

English. Project 2020 is said to have a budget of USD443 million.

The introduction of a common framework can be expected to USD20.8 million to enable students to speak English after graduating

According to TuoitreNews 6 , Long An Province set aside some

bring with it a new culture of English language teaching and learning. 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

The CEFR and the English language programme

place in 70% of Grade 3 classes (age 8-9) by 2015 and throughout by The CEFR approach to the curriculum complements the

2019. Other initiatives include a workshop organised by the British approach taken in the present curriculum. It speciies the outcomes

Council 7 in 2013 to provide input “on how teachers might better to be achieved, but does not indicate how they are to be achieved,

integrate the CEFR and its “can do”statements into their teaching whereas the present curriculum speciies what is to be taught, but is

as well as classroom based exam preparation techniques”. less clear on the outcomes of teaching. For example, the basic level

6 http://tuoitrenews.vn/education/11052/central-vietnam-province-to-spend-4-mln-on-english-teaching, accessed 17 May 2014. 7 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.

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia The Roadmap 2015-2025

of reading at A1 is described (p. 69) as “Can understand very short, The CEFR levels and descriptors are already available, and can simple texts a single phrase at a time, picking up familiar names,

be used by all parties, including curriculum designers. teachers, words and basic phrases and rereading as required”.

materials producers and assessors alike. For example, at level A1, teachers know they have to teach students to introduce themselves,

The corresponding pages 8-9 of the KSSR for years 1 and 2 materials producers have to create materials to support the teachers, (SK) include references to phonics and to phonemic awareness, and assessors can appropriately test whether the students can do it. and the curriculum (pp. 16-17) deals with such things as letter

recognition, phoneme recognition and production, and segmenting

International standards

and blending. Although these components undoubtedly contribute The current educational initiative of which the preparation

to early reading, the question is how they fit logically together to of this roadmap constitutes a part is timely since it comes at the

form a consistent pedagogical approach, and how they enable the confluence of two long term historical developments outlined in

learner to understand short simple texts. In this case, the CEFR chapter 2. On the one hand, the Malaysian education system has

greatly facilitates the task of upgrading the curriculum, as task advanced to the point where it is both feasible and desirable to take which has to be undertaken in any case. the quantum leap required to achieve national goals: if Malaysia

The common framework brings with it the advantage that it can is to be recognised as a developed country, then we need the

be used by all parties working on the English language programme. educational infrastructure to support developed country status. It would be difficult enough for assessors and curriculum developers

On the other hand, we have to come to terms with English as the to integrate their work without a common framework to work to,

global language. If we take the right steps now, English will support and well-nigh impossible to bring teachers and materials developers

our development and keep us in touch with the international into line. The possibility of getting assessors, curriculum developers,

network.

teachers and materials developers to produce a pedagogically The last two centuries or so have seen the emergence of

ordered and internally consistent programme from preschool to international standards of all kinds. Independent countries have the

tertiary level would be zero without a common framework, and not right to decide on their own standards, but it is of advantage to

worth even considering. It might be possible to devise a framework all countries to use the same standards. For example, it is much

ad hoc, but it is obviously preferable to use a framework which has to our advantage – and to the advantage of countries that trade

already been developed, and tried and tested.

and otherwise interact with us – to use the metric system. In the someone who understands the metric system has to use it to do same way, we have adopted ISO and many other international the weighing and measuring. In the same way, we cannot take the standards. This is clearly an appropriate time to move over to CEFR off the shelf and expect it to provide us with a ready-made international standards in language education. Adopting the CEFR

development plan for our English language programme. It is our is the appropriate next step.

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

The adoption of international standards saves an enormous

development plan.

amount of unnecessary work. As part of a comprehensive scientific system of weights and measures, the metric system has the great

Benchmarking, alignment and calibration

advantage of saving Malaysian scientists the need to work out their The recent baseline study was a benchmarking exercise which own weights and measures, for example to measure atmospheric

involved assessing the English proficiency of a large number pressure. In the same way, much of the work involved in developing

of students and teachers on the CEFR scale. From the large

a language programme has already been done as the CEFR has number of individual scores it is possible to compute averages evolved over the years, so that we do not now have to start at the

and distributions, and make comparisons with other countries beginning and do all the work for ourselves.

or with our own performance at some other time. Meaningful If the question is asked why we have to import a foreign comparisons of this kind can only be made if all the scores relate to framework, when we are quite capable of producing one for

a common framework. The benchmarking of our English language ourselves, there are two answers. In the first place, there is no

education system has brought to light what we have to do to align point in doing so, as the work has already been done. Secondly, a

it to international standards, and this includes integrating the domestically produced framework would face the same problems

components of the English language programme, training teachers as traditional weights and measures such as kati and tahil, in that it

in communicative language teaching, and enforcing high standards would be irrelevant outside the home country in a world that has

for learning materials.

gone over to an international standard. Alignment to a common framework enables the comparison of At the same time, the metric system does not actually do the

qualiications from different countries. Suppose a foreign student work, and cannot weigh a durian or compute the size of Kelantan:

applies to study at a Malaysian university, claiming to have achieved

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia The Roadmap 2015-2025

an A in English in some examination XYZ. We have no idea how to relevance to present day Malaysia of the discussion above of the evaluate this A, because we do not know what XYZ sets out to test,

Classical paradigm is that, although we would have to undertake or what is required to get an A. On the other hand, if XYZ is linked

an extensive investigative research project to prove the point, to a known framework, we are able to work these things out. The

all the evidence we have indicates that Malaysia has inherited a same, of course, applies to Malaysian students applying to foreign

Classical paradigm for the teaching and learning of English. universities, or seeking employment with international organisations.

For example, the approach to grammar laid down in the national The precise comparison of grades and qualiications depends on

curriculum follows the tradition of English “school” grammar, accurate calibration. For example, if we want our English qualiications

and the sound system associated in the curriculum with phonics such as the MUET to be recognised abroad, it would be a great teaching is primarily concerned not with the sounds of the spoken advantage to have the MUET calibrated with the CEFR. We irst

language but with the spellings of the written language. As already have to ascertain that the MUET is aligned to the CEFR, because only

reported in Chapter 1, the Cambridge Baseline found the spoken in this way can we be sure that the same things are being measured.

language a source of weakness for both teachers and students. There is no need for the MUET to use the CEFR scale from A1

As in other countries, individual Malaysian English teachers to C2, and it can use any scale at all, as long as each point on the

adopt a variety of approaches to teaching and learning. Some – MUET scale matches a corresponding point on the CEFR scale. Since

including perhaps some of the best and most experienced teachers the CEFR is a framework and not an examination, some precision is

– will follow the Classical paradigm, and even associate the Modern required to clarify exactly what is being compared to what. Calibration

paradigm with dumbing down and lowering standards. Others will comes at the end of a long process beginning with benchmarking and

follow some variant of the Modern paradigm, and perhaps regard continuing with alignment.

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 One of the major tasks that confront us is to change the classroom practices without having much idea of their purpose or

culture of English language education, including the philosophy of what paradigm they belong to. Each of these groups has much to that is expressed in teaching and learning in the classroom. The

learn and much to gain by bringing the different paradigms together to enable our English learners to develop communicative competence learn and much to gain by bringing the different paradigms together to enable our English learners to develop communicative competence

already been done, we do not need to start at the beginning and do all language classroom.

the work ourselves. The outcome of this work is the development of common frameworks, so that instead of making ad hoc measurements

The point was made in Chapter 2 that English language and comparisons, these things are interrelated in a principled manner.

education was first introduced to Malaya for the children of the privileged. Students would hear English spoken all around them,

There are now several frameworks available, and we have to or complete their education in England, so that the shortcomings

select the one most suitable for Malaysia. Again we are fortunate of the Classical paradigm would be made good. The same solution

in that relevant work has already been done, in this case in Canada. has worked up to the present time, and explains how and why

Although the Canadian language situation is very different from so many Malaysians have excellent English. However, what is our own, the need for a common framework is much the same. appropriate for the education of the privileged is not necessarily

The reasons that led to the decision to use the CEFR in Canada 10 appropriate for the mass education that has been introduced and

apply equally to Malaysia.

developed since 1957. We are also in a position to benefit from the experiences of

Most students have not had the opportunity to complement other countries. A lesson that comes across very clearly is that school English with the regular day-to-day contact with English that

superficial flirting with the CEFR serves no purpose whatsoever. is necessary for them to learn to speak English well. It is not in the

Any change in the existing English language programme will be least surprising that the baseline study found the problem greatest in

expensive, and involve huge amounts of time and effort. We rural areas where contact with and access to English is least.

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 One of the advantages of coming relatively late to the adoption

3.6.2 Benefiting from experience elsewhere

programme, which would leave teachers and students not knowing of international standards is that much of the work has been done.

which way to turn, and quite possibly lower the overall level of The CEFR is based on research on measuring language proiciency

attainment instead of raising it.

10 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.

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia The Roadmap 2015-2025

be an expert on English grammar. Exploiting the possibilities knew concerning the things that have to be done, including (a)

The experience of other countries confirms what we already

offered by the CEFR will necessarily be a group effort. teacher training, (b) reviewing the programme and (c) disseminating

The ELSQC may be the appropriate body to play a leadership information. and supervisory role, but for the implementation of a revised

1. Teacher training. Our first priority has to be improved programme, the Ministry of Education will need to be able teacher training, including retraining existing teachers and

to draw on the services and expertise of several groups of introducing new approaches to learning into the classroom.

appropriately qualified contributors, including teachers, Without changes in the classroom, the influence of the CEFR

materials producers, curriculum designers and language testers. will remain superficial. This is the only way to achieve genuinely

In this connection, the introduction of the CEFR has important higher standards by the end of Wave 3.

implications for materials production. For example, teachers

2. Reviewing the programme. We need to review the whole are typically required to teach students to pronounce English English language programme, including the curriculum,

words correctly, and speak with appropriate stress, rhythm methods of assessment, and teaching and learning, in the light

and intonation 11 . But they cannot enable students to do things of the CEFR, and in accordance with the agenda driven model

they cannot do for themselves, and if their only resource is a outlined in Chapter 1.

silent printed textbook.

Work on the CEFR has been progressing for over forty years, Instead of teachers having to follow the textbook, materials and the CEFR document is long and complex. It is beyond

producers will have to cater for the needs of teachers and their the capacity of any single individual to write, and few if any

students. Given the constraints of time, it will be impossible in individuals are likely to be able to understand it fully in its entirety.

practice to produce suitable home-made materials in time for Implementing the CEFR and even handling the CEFR document

teachers with improved levels of training. It will therefore be will therefore require the cooperation of a group of people with

necessary to consider the possibility of buying existing CEFR- complementary skills and high levels of expertise working closely

aligned learning materials, at least in the short term. together. For example, an expert grammarian may not be a good writer of classroom materials, and the materials writer may not

11 Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah: Bahasa Inggeris (SJK), p14.

3. Disseminating information. The introduction of the These things have to be clear and explicit, for otherwise, as CEFR has to be accompanied by the dissemination of reliable

in Vietnam, teachers are likely to be demoralised. Students also information. However benign the new system may be, it need to know explicitly how their academic progress and future could still cause resistance and even be perceived as a threat

careers are likely to be affected by the effort they put in to by those who do not properly understand it. Considerable learning English. Thirdly, expectations – like targets – must be efforts will therefore have to be made to ensure that all those

realistic, and related to our current position and the resources involved in implementing the CEFR understand what it is made available for development. about and why it is being introduced. This is also the way to

There are only eleven years left to the end of Wave 3, which avoid ill-informed criticism. Teachers and curriculum designers

is just over a third of the time it took Singapore to overhaul its will need to be made aware of the CEFR, while for others,

English language programme, and what will be achievable in that including materials developers and testers, awareness of the time will be limited by the available resources and by the will and CEFR and the knowledge and expertise to operate at the

determination to see the project through to completion.

appropriate professional level should be made a condition of appointment.

Malaysia has much to learn from the Vietnamese experience.

3.6.3 Using the CEFR in planning

First, targets must be realistic, and related to what we know about the current state of affairs. The Cambridge Baseline is of major

Forming explicit connections between the curriculum and the CEFR “can do” descriptors illustrates one way in which the CEFR

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

can be used in planning. Using the CEFR to develop the curriculum the course of Wave 2 and Wave 3. Secondly, people need to know

will involve not only reviewing content but also the setting of target proficiency levels (A1 and A2 or Basic User; B1 and B2 or

how the new programme will affect them. For example, teachers Independent User; and C1 and C2 or Proficient User) to describe

need to know how they are going to benefit if they put in the time and effort required to improve their proficiency and qualifications,

what learners are expected to achieve at each stage of learning from preschool to university. 12 Preliminary investigations indicate

and conversely what problems they will face if they do not. that the CEFR levels will have to be subdivided, especially at the

12 For further discussion of targets, see the editorial introduction to section B.

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia The Roadmap 2015-2025

lower end (e.g. A1.1, A1.2 etc), each new level representing a “listen to and repeat simple greetings”, while the corresponding CEFR significant advance in English proficiency, and building on learning

standard requires students to be able to use that knowledge in social at previous levels.

situations. The difference may sound subtle or even trivial; but it has profound consequences for the way the spoken language is taught in

As already mentioned in passing above, the subdivision is

the classroom.

especially important for lower levels where learners may spend several years mastering A1 and A2. It will enable learners to

A key notion is “communicative language competence”, which measure their own progress on the proficiency scale more finely

includes among its components linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic and in smaller increments than using undivided levels, which can

competences (p. 13). These competences are discussed further on require study for several years in order to move up to the next

pages 30-1, and later explained in some detail (pp. 108-130), and level. The subdivision will also facilitate classroom organisation include lexical, grammatical semantic, phonological, orthographic and and the delivery of language instruction. In this respect, Malaysia

orthoepic 13 competence (p. 109).

will be able to take good advantage of experience elsewhere (see, Communicative language competence thus includes but goes

e.g. French Elementary – Secondary Curriculum, 2011, p. 5). beyond mere linguistic knowledge and involves the ability to use that

To the extent that the existing curriculum corresponds to knowledge appropriately in a range of communicative situations. the progression implied by the CEFR, we can align the two by

Chapters 4 to 9 of the CEFR document draw on an extensive body of matching corresponding items in the curriculum and the CEFR.

research in the ield of language education to spell out in some detail But we must also anticipate the need to bring our curriculum how the scale A1 to C2 applies in learning, teaching and assessment. 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.

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

The Roadmap 2015-2025