Janius Bin Pangawat

CBBBP DB, BAHASA

NAMA: JANIUS BIN PANGAWAT

NO. KAD PENGENALAN: 860427495189

TAJUK CADANGAN PENYELIDIKAN:

PEDAGOGICAL IMPACTS OF CEFR IN SECONDARY SCHOOL

IN INTERIOR SABAH

Universiti Yang Dimohon:

Bil. Institusi Pengajian Nama Jumlah keseluruhan jam

Tinggi yang dipilih Kursus/Program kredit yang ditawarkan

1. UM Bahasa Inggeris by 6 Semester

Research

2. UNIMAS Bahasa Inggeris by 6 Semester

Research

3. UKM Bahasa Inggeris by 6 Semester

Research

1
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
NAMA: JANIUS BIN PANGAWAT

NO. KAD PENGENALAN: 860427495189

PEDAGOGICAL IMPACTS OF CEFR IN SECONDARY SCHOOL

IN INTERIOR SABAH

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Over the years, the level of proficiency amongst Malaysians has dwindling and

continues to deteriorate despite numerous reforms introduced and implemented by the

government. This has prompt the Ministry of Education, after a comprehensive review of

the national education system conducted in 2011, to take yet another “definitive

transformations to the way English as a second language is taught and learned in

Malaysia in the 21st century from primary to tertiary levels” (Hazita Azman, 2016),

hence, the Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB) 2013-2015 was launched in 2013

which deemed “vital to meet the current and future demands both locally and globally”

(W.I.Ishak, M.Mohamad, 2018). One of the goal outlined in the document is to “ensure

every child is proficient in Bahasa Malaysia and English language and is encouraged to

learn an additional language” (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2-25, E-12). The

Ministry of Education (MOE) with the assistance of the English Language Standards

and Quality Council (ELSQC), has developed and launched its blueprint “English

Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025” to support the

goal. The key to the road map is the alignment of Malaysia’s English Language

Education System with CEFR.

2
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
2.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Since the implementation of CEFR into the curriculum, the number of study conducted

related to the impact of CEFR is limited specifically involving teachers in non-urban

setting where teachers are less informed of anything new in the system. One

contributing factor to this problem is “the watering down of information as it passed

through the layers” (Mwangi & Mugambi, 2013; Nyarigoti, 2013; Wanzare & Ward, 2000

cited in Aziz, Rashid & Zainudin, 2018).

When change is introduced, especially when curriculum is concerned, teachers

usually will adjust how they carry out their teaching practices in the classroom.

Teachers in interior Sabah are no exception. This is to make sure, they are keeping up

with the current trend and they are clear about the change. This is clearly supported by

Wang stating that “the degree of success or failure of an innovation depends on the

teacher as they are responsible for implementing the innovation in the classroom” (cited

in Lo, 2018).

Thus this proposed research is investigating how teachers in interior Sabah

respond to the implementation of CEFR and how the document affect their approach to

language classroom practices.

3.0 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) is a thorough document that

specifically outlined what language learners need to do in order to be able to use any

language in any given context, in this instance, English. Initially, it was intended for

3
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
European context but soon after it was published, it gain acceptance around the globe

and many countries including Malaysia adopted the framework.

In Malaysia, the introduction of CEFR into the curriculum was made possible

when the Cambridge conducted a Baseline Study in 2013. It was found out that “the

level of English usage ability among many Malaysians were below average” (MEB,

2013). Following this finding, “the Malaysian government has taken a bold decision to

implement this framework in an effort to improve the English proficiency of its students

(Zuraida Mohd Don, 2015).

The implementation of CEFR is the second part of phase 2 as outlined in the

roadmap with the validation of CEFR levels set for each educational stage and the

implementation of the new CEFR aligned curricula starting from 2017 until 2020 (MEB,

2013).

Currently, they are still no publication relating to pedagogical impact of CEFR in

Malaysian context. Most previous studies conducted focusing more on the teachers’

perception of the CEFR implementation. Since past research within Malaysian context

is limited, I will therefore use the information and knowledge from studies conducted

outside of Malaysia in my proposed research where applicable.

4
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
Potential Pedagogical Impacts of CEFR

Teaching practices will greatly be affected when a new curriculum framework is

rigorously implemented. This is due to the reason that curriculum and pedagogy can

interact in multiple ways (Troman & Jeffery, 2011). Richards (2001) further supported

this by stating that teachers’ practices, and pedagogy may be influenced by changing

their values and beliefs about teaching when curriculum changes.

The focus of my study is on the role of CEFR in language teaching practices

primarily on its pedagogical impacts. There are broadly, as characterized by North

(2008), three areas of teaching practices affected by CEFR. However, for the purpose

of this research I will be focusing on the lesson planning as it is acknowledged as “the

main methodological implication of the CEFR all concern planning” (North, 2008) and

although it is highly disputed that the impact of the document on teacher and classroom

practices is less significant compared to language policy and testing, (Figueras, 2012),

still, many hold the opinion that “CEFR is seen to have an important role in specifying

learning objectives in line with the CEFR levels and planning of language teaching and

learning process”. (Arslan & Özenici, 2017).

4.0 OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

The proposed research aims to examine the pedagogical impacts of CEFR one year

after its implementation in Malaysian Education system beginning 2018. More

specifically, how its implementation transforming the way English teachers in interior

Sabah in their lesson planning.

5
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
5.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The finding in this research would be beneficial at least to two important stakeholders in

the education.

Essentially, teachers who are coping with similar challenges; how the

implementation of CEFR impacting how they carry out their teaching practices in their

classroom. The participants’ personal success story will encourage other language

practitioners to adapt their teaching style to the pedagogy that the CEFR promoted.

Similarly, it is hoped that this study serve as the preliminary data to language

policy makers who seek to understand how this new alignment impacting teachers.

Additionally, the data gathered in this study will contribute to the Ministry of Education

when they begin their third phase of the CEFR implementation in 2021 where it will be

evaluated, reviewed and revised.

6.0 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This proposed research seeks to answer the following questions:

RQ1: How did CEFR transforms the way teachers setting lesson objectives?

RQ2: How often teachers address the four skills: listening, reading, speaking and

writing?

RQ3: How often teachers address vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation?

6
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
7.0 METHODOLOGY

This proposed research will employ the quantitative approach. The instrument for

collecting data in this study is a questionnaire as it ensures practicality (Burns, 2010)

and efficiency (Mckenny & Reeves, 2012) when surveying relatively large groups.

The questionnaire is administered on Survey Monkey for practicality and

confidentiality. Also, the questionnaire is piloted before conducting the study. Piloting a

questionnaire before conducting the survey helps to improve the questions and

measure how much time respondents will need to complete it.

The participants of this study will be teachers who are currently teaching Year 1,

Year 2, Year 3, form 1, form 2 and form 3 in secondary schools in interior Sabah. The

teachers are selected because they are directly involved and affected by CEFR i.e. the

one who are responsible to implement and integrate CEFR into their teaching practices.

Raw data gathered from the questionnaire is going to be analysed systematically

using SPSS.

7
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
Bibliography

Arslan, A. & Ozenici, S. (2017). A CEFR-based Curriculum Design for Tertiary

Education Level. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching.

5(3), p.12-36.

Aziz, A.H. A. A., Rashid, R. A., & Zainudin, W.Z.W. (2018). The Enactment of the

Malaysia Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR): National Master

Trainer’s Reflection. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 409-417.

Burns, A (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for

Practitioners (1sted.). New York: Routledge.

Figueras, N. (2012). The Impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 444-485.

Hazita Azman. (2016). Implementation and challenges of English Languages Education

reform in Malaysian Primary schools. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English

Language studies. 22(3), 65-78.

Ishak, W.I.W., & Mohamad, M. (2018). The Implementation of Common European

Framework of References (CEFR): What are the effects towards LINUS

Students’ Achievements? Creative Education, 9, 2714-2731.

Lo, Y.Y. (2018). English Teachers’ Concern on Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages (CEFR): An application of CBAM. Jurnal Kurikulum

dan Pengajaran Asia Pasifik. 6(1). 46-58

Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025: Preschool to Post-Secondary Education.

(2013). Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.

McKenney, S. & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. New

York: Routledge.

8
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA

North, B (2008). The Releveance of the CEFR to Teacher Training. Babylonia, 2, 55-57.

Richards, J.C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:

University Press.

Troman, G. & Jeffrey, B. (2011. The Promise of Ethnography for Exploring Creative

Learningl. In P. Thompson & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Researching Creative

Learning Issues (pp.78-87). London:Routledge.

Zuraidah Mohd Don. (2015). English Language Proficiency, Graduate Employability and

the Role of CEFR. ASEAN Seminar 2015 on “Best Practices in English Teaching

in ASEAN Universities”.

9
 Janius Bin Pangawat
CBBBP DB, BAHASA
8.0 Framework Schedule

The following Table 8.1 illustrates the research plan and activities for the whole 24

months of the study.

Table 8.1 Timeline of the Proposed Study

Time Frame ACTIVITY

Until June 2019  Select issue
 Do research
 Write up research proposal
 Submit
Sept – November 2019  Meet and discuss with the research
supervisor on the research proposal
 Amendments where necessary
November – December 2019  Inform teachers on research and send
letter to administrators of the selected
schools for permission and notification.
 Submission of report for progress review
January 2020  Preparation for Pilot Test
February – July  Progress on research phase 1
 Collect data and analysis
July – Dec 2020  Meet and discuss with supervisor
 Progress on research phase 2
 Data analysis
January – March 2021  Collect data and analysis
April 2021  Progress on research phase 3
 Meet up with supervisor
May to July 2021  Full paper write up
 Meet up with supervisor
September 2021  Submit research paper
Subject to change

10