ISSUES AND GAPS

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).

Figure 8.2 Issues at University Level

No common curriculum across all universities

Programmes and courses not informed by a common standard or reference

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

Lack of systemic institutional support for English language development

CURRICULUM

Teacher-centred pedagogy in most universities

Teacher Competence: no common minimum proficiency level and competencies for teachers

Instructional Materials: original, adapted materials or textbooks based on individual syllabi and course outcomes

TEACHING & LEARNING

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

ASSESSMENT

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia

The Roadmap 2015-2025

8.3.1 The Need for Reform: Common Issues

programmes. However, these minimum requirements are not always adhered to, resulting in the admission of students whose

In reviewing English language education at university level, a English proficiency is inadequate for the demands of the academic

number of common issues and needs have been identified in the programmes in which they are enrolled. This situation presents

three key areas of language curriculum, teaching and learning, and

a great challenge to the curriculum, teaching staff and students assessment.

themselves, as such students will require more contact hours At present, there is no common English Language curriculum

and more help in order to achieve proficiency levels expected by across the universities, and having a common one may not be employers on leaving university. viable as public universities have different programmes and are

Although language teachers in universities are seasoned largely independent of one another. In addition, existing English

practitioners familiar with different types of curriculum and teaching Language curricula or programmes have not been internationally

pedagogy, classroom pedagogy tends to be teacher-centred as benchmarked by any public university, suggesting the need

students are more comfortable with teacher-directed learning. for a common international framework of reference which all

With the introduction of OBE in most universities, there have been universities can use to inform their curriculum.

attempts to move towards learner autonomy. However, as seen in Another concern is the extremely limited number of credit and

studies cited, this has not been the case in language classrooms. contact hours that universities are willing to allocate for language

With the continued use of teacher-centred pedagogy, the learning. Research has shown that it takes between 600 and 800

teacher or instructor as the role model for proficiency and contact hours for a student to reach the higher levels of language

competency becomes more important. Yet minimum levels of proficiency, but the number of credit hours available ranges

teacher proficiency and competencies required by universities from two to a maximum of eight contact hours per week for 2-4

vary greatly, and no common minimum level of proficiency or semesters over the entire three or four years of study, translating

teaching certification stipulated for instructors teaching English only into 80 to 320 notional hours of learning.

courses across all universities has been established.

The MUET is the required English examination for university Significantly, there are few continuous professional

entrance, and individual universities have the prerogative to development programmes specifically meant for language teachers

decide on minimum MUET Band entry requirements for specific

English Language Education Reform in Malaysia The Roadmap 2015-2025

in universities. University English instructors are also responsible for all

CURRICULUM

TEACHING & LEARNING

ASSESSMENT

materials used in their courses, and these range from adopted textbooks,

A common

CEFR-informed

A common

adapted and original materials

international

pedagogy

international

which help achieve specific learning

framework of

framework of

Teacher

outcomes of courses; but it will be

reference for

reference for

curriculum across

Competence:

interpreting

necessary for them to ensure such

universities

materials are aligned to international

- A common

performance across

minimum entry

universities

standards.

Increased credit hours for English

requirement for

Benchmarking of

There is also a lack of systemic

proficiency

teachers across

student performance

institutional support for English

universities

against international

Implementation

proiciency development in most

standards

of minimum

- Continuous

universities, relected in minimum

English entrance

Professional

Alignment of

credits for English courses, few

requirement

Development for

student performance

activities conducted in English

language teachers

indicated by

Systemic

beyond the classroom, and minimal

grades with actual

institutional

opportunities for students in certain

performance in

support for the

programmes to engage with the

job situations

development of

language in other courses. Institutional

English proficiency

A standardised exit

support needs to be established in order

test to measure

to create English-rich environments in

language proficiency

in universities and for students to truly comprehend the international, global nature of the language.

Figure 8.3 Necessary Conditions for Reform

Employers have drawn attention to language grades that do not

8.4.1 The Proposed CEFR-aligned Curriculum

relect the performance of graduates at interviews. There is a great It is clear that a CEFR-aligned curriculum is better able to

discrepancy between interviewees’ English competency and scores inform language teachers, administrators and everyone involved

obtained for university language courses. Given the limited credits for in language teaching in universities about the levels of proficiency

language learning, most universities offer courses with speciic learning and competency that their students can attain. According to the

outcomes, and the grades relect internal assessment of courses taken CEFR, the reference levels can be presented and exploited in a

by students rather than proiciency in real social situations. number of different formats and in varying degrees of detail. A

Currently, there is also no common framework to interpret variety of language courses and programmes can be aligned to the students’ language scores or performance across universities. CEFR. Using a common international framework of reference will allow

The existence of fixed points of common reference (A1, A2, employers to interpret students’ language performance across

B1, B2, C1 and C2) offers transparency and coherence, a tool universities and against international standards. Some form of exit

for future planning, and a basis for the further development of test based on the framework would also meet these needs.

curricula. Each CEFR level corresponds to particular language tasks that students should be able to perform.