1.0 Introduction.

English language is one of the six official international languages presented by the United
Nations, UN officially in 1946 (SIL International, 2019). Its common usage around the world has
created the term English as a lingua franca (ELF) which refers to the teaching, learning and the
use of English language has become the main means of communication for speakers of different
native languages (Richard, 2019). The growing importance of English as an international language
has caught the People’s Republic of China (PRC) attention to incorporate English as a subject that
should be taught in schools. Consequently, English as a foreign language (EFL) then made a
compulsory subject from elementary school (Simone, 2016). On the other hand, English is taught
as a second language (ESL) in all Malaysian primary and secondary schools. This writing will
discuss and highlights on some comparison on the current English Language curriculum in
Malaysia and China in terms of their curriculum designs, the factors that influenced the
development of curriculum, and the teachers’ role in designing curriculum as well as their role as
an implementer.

2.0 Curriculum Design.

In 2011, the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Malaysia introduced a new standard based
curriculum, known as Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR). It was designed and written
based on international benchmarks that are aligned with the National Education Philosophy
(Ministry of Education, 2013). Specifically, KSSR has an increased emphasis on skills such as
reasoning, creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. It was designed based on two components
consisting content standards and learning standards. As stated in the Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013-2015, the content standards identify the specific knowledge, skills, and values that
pupils need to acquire (Ministry of Education, 2013). Meanwhile, the learning standards represent
the degree of proficiency that pupils need to display in relation to the different content standards on
a year-by-year basis. This means that every subject for every year of primary education have their
own standard document which called as the Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran
(DSKP). In other words, Malaysia’s system of curriculum development is also considered as a
centralized system. Next, Malaysian curriculum is also built by adopting concepts from the eclectic
curriculum model. This is because the Malaysian curriculum is built to cater the development of
children needs. In particular, the new KSSR has made big changes in the education system by
replacing examination with school-based assessment, specifically to pupils of Year 1 until 3 of
primary schools. This type of assessment actually allows teachers to emphasize more on pupils’
development in achieving learning objectives. Likewise, it goes along with eclectic model as it
counts pupils’ outcome or competency as the central of development process (Dyah, 2018).

In contrast with Malaysian’s education system, China’s system is diverse and increasingly
decentralized (OECD, 2016). Its curriculum is immense that it was declared as the country that has
the largest education system in the world in the year 2014 (National Bureau of Statistic, 2014).
Even though the curriculum is state-run, the education system on each district or school still needs
to be administered based on a specific national curriculum. After years of revising the curriculum
for English language education, the Ministry of Education’s Department of Basic Education finally
established the current one known as the English Curriculum Standards of China, which took effect
in September 2012. This new national curriculum main goal is to develop the pupils’
comprehensive competence in using English rather than merely “mastering knowledge and skills”
(Cheng, 2001 as cited in; Kirkpatrick, 2016). Although English has been officially introduced as a
compulsory subject in primary schools, it has the least total number of weekly lessons compared to
two other core subjects; Chinese and mathematics (Grace, 2016). This indicates that the status of
English language is not been taken as serious as it is in the Malaysian education system. In fact,
schools in the urban areas introduce English earlier, from Primary One while schools in rural areas
may delays the introduction of English due to limited teaching resources. In China, curriculum
development process involves 4 main stages that are similar with Tyler’s model (Chinese National
Commission, 2004 as cited in; Kaynat, 2017). The successful of this model is measured by
evaluating the pupils’ learning outcome in the end of learning process (Dyah, 2018). As mentioned
before, English was made as a core subject in China because of its importance globally. These
facts go along with Tyler’s model as it is more of a demand-oriented design (Dylan, 2018).

3.0 Factors Influence The Development of Curriculum.

There are several factors found that influenced the development of Malaysia education
curriculum and one of them is social needs factor. After more than 60 years of post-independence,
the Malaysian government started to realize the importance of English as the lingua franca of the
world. Hence, English had made as one of the core compulsory subject alongside Bahasa Melayu,
mathematics, science, history, and geography (Clark, 2014). However, the fact that Malaysian
students still could not converse in English even after going through a formal education of English
Language since Year 1 of primary school, still bothers us as our Ministry of Education had raised
this issue several times in media (Jalil, 2014). After taking this issue as a serious matter, the MOE
had adopted The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), an international standard
language proficiency framework. As stated in the English Language Education Reform in Malaysia,
named as The Roadmap 2015-2025, The CEFR consists of “can do” statements that concerned
with pupils’ ability to interact successfully in social situations using the target language (Ministry of
Education, 2015). This means that English curriculum of Malaysia’s education system is now
moving towards not just preparing pupils with sufficient knowledge of English, but also making sure
that the language could be used successfully in communication effectively. In short, social need
factors on communicating in English language effectively had influenced the development of
Malaysian education curriculum from time to time.

On the other hand, China’s curriculum development was influenced by their economic
needs factor. According to Dennis (2020), about 3% of the 6.5 million Chinese students who
graduated in 2011 are still unemployed. The Chinese government then encouraged universities to
design new majors that focus on emerging industries such as alternative energy. On top of that,
many carriers that associated with such industries require employees that are well versed in
problem solving and have strong communication skills (Rada, 2018). In line with that, their Ministry
of Education had suggested shifting the focus from memorisation for examination to preparation for
the real-world situations (Smith. 2018). For instance, teachers in schools are asked to relate
lessons to real-world situations and teach different methods of solving problems. In other words,
the education curriculum is now starting to incorporate real life skills the pupils would need in future
life to suit the country’s economic needs on specific jobs demands.

4.0 Role of Teachers as Curriculum Designer and Implementer.

The Ministry of Education of Malaysia is the one who is responsible for education system
including designing the education curriculum itself (Ministry of Education, 2013). This also means
that teachers did not involve in designing our national education curriculum. In fact, Malaysian
teachers’ role in designing curriculum only applies to the school level like designing the yearly or
daily lesson plan; Rancangan Pengajaran Tahunan (RPT) and Rancangan Pengajaran Harian
(RPH). In planning and designing the lesson plan, teachers will have to refer to the standardized
document as mentioned earlier, DSKP.

Likewise, teacher’s role as the curriculum implementer is to conduct a lesson that aligns
with specific aims written in the DSKP. As such, the lesson’s objectives have to suit the particular
standard chosen from the DSKP. For English subject which are classified into 4 main categories
for English subject; listening and speaking, reading, writing, language arts, and grammar. In
addition, teachers’ role as a curriculum implementer also could be seen in a different angle
whereby they should be incorporating new elements illustrated in the KSSR. For example,
Malaysian teachers should consider in using suitable teaching strategies that involve group
discussions for instance rather than keep on practicing the traditional teacher-centered lessons.
Only then, the pupils are given opportunities to develop and enhance their creativity, innovation
and entrepreneurship as highlighted in the new MEB 2013-2025 (Ministry of Education, 2013).

Conversely, China has a different ways in designing a curriculum as it consists of three

main levels (OECD, 2016). As stated by the OECD, at the first level of the provincial, several
departments of education are in charge of the national educational development. Then, at the
country level, bureaus of education are involved in formulating policy documents that correspond to
national policy to include local adjustments and guidelines for specific implementation. These
policies then been distributed to schools, where classroom teachers will work together to plan and
design practical guidelines to be implemented in classroom. This reflects that the teachers in China
do take parts directly in designing their curriculum. Teacher’s role as a curriculum designer widens
as they are also encouraged to design teaching and learning materials including textbooks to be
used in a particular province. This was proven when the MOE issued the ‘Temporary Provisions for
the Evaluation and Management of Primary and Secondary School Textbooks’ where qualified
teachers, particularly those in rural areas and minority regions, are encouraged to design and write
high-quality materials for primary and secondary schools in 2001 (Minglin, 2007).

In order to improve the effectiveness of English Language Teaching (ELT), the MOE took
an initiative by introducing the content-based English instruction (CBEI) to schools that uses
English as an additional language of instruction in subjects like mathematics, physics, and
computer science (Zheng, 2017). Richards and Rodgers (2001) states that a content-based
learning should incorporate activities involving real communication that promotes language
learning. Based on the statement, teachers’ role as an implementer is to implement teaching
strategies that accommodate the curriculum and initiative introduced while optimizing the
usage of English as communicative functions. Conducting a problem solving activity in groups
is one way that suits achieving this goal. Through this activity, pupils would be able to
participate into meaningful tasks while performing targeted language learning.

5.0 Conclusion.

In short, curriculum of education in both countries shows many differences of various

aspects especially aspects involving the process of designing the curriculum. Based on above
discussions, it was clear that different stakeholders’ participation in designing curriculum have
significant relationship with the type of education system whether it was a centralized or
decentralized curriculum. I believe that every decision made has its own reason. In this case,
China’s educational system is decentralized which could be confusing and complicated as it
consists of various construction of curriculum that differs according to different providence.
However, its implementation could be practical for them as China’s enormous amount of
population of 1.3 billion and is 29 times bigger than Malaysia (Country Size Comparison, 2020).

As the world technologies and achievements grow to be more advanced, teaching our
children with only ideas and facts is no longer relevant. The purpose of education should be to
prepare pupils with knowledge and 21st century skills that feed today’s demands (Murali, 2019).

In conclusion, curriculum changes over time do not reflect that one’s education system is failing.
Instead, it was made to encourage improvements to thrive better outcomes for future. I believe that
it is a good step as we all need to be able to accept new changes and adapt with new environment
in order to compete healthily in this new era of globalization.
References

Clark Nick. (2014). Education in Malaysia. Retrieved from https://wenr.wes.org/2014/12/education-

in-malaysia

Country Size Comparizon. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-

comparison/china/malaysia

Dennis MJ. (2020). China’s economy and its impact on higher education. Retrieved from https://
www.hgexperts.com/expert-witness-articles/china-s-economy-and-its-impact-on-higher-
education-27777

Dyah Tri Palupi. (2018). What type of curriculum development models do we follow? An
Indonesia’s 2013 curriculum case. Indonesian Journal of Curriculum and Educational
Technology Studies. 6(2). 98-105.

Grace Yue Qi. (2016). The importance of English in primary school education in China: perceptions
of students. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s13616-016-0026-0

Jalil A. H. (2014). Poor English due to learning anxiety? Strait Times. Retrieved from December 14,
2014.

Kaynat Hina. (2017). Curriculum development in China. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/

HinaKaynat/curriculum-development-in-china

Kirkpatrick R. (2016). English language education policy in Asia. Switzerland: Springer.

Mahdzir: New KSSM, KSSR curriculum from 2017. (2016). The Star. Retrieved from December 31,
2016.

Minglin Li. (2007). Foreign language education in primary schools in the people’s republic of China.
School of Education. 8 (2). 148-161.

Murali Rajaratenam R. (2019). Tap into 21st century skills. New Straits Times. Retrieved from
October 17, 2019.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2014). China Statistical Yearbook, China Statistics Press,
Beijing. Retrieved from www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2014/indexeh.htm
Rata Emily. (2018). What are skills required to get job in renewable energy sector? Retrieved from
https://www.quora.com/What-are-skills-required-to-get-job-in-renewable-energy-sector

Richards, J.C. & T.S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.

Richard Nordquist. (2019). English as a lingua franca (ELF). Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.
com/english-as-a-lingua-franca-elf-1690578

SIL International. (2019). How many international languages (EGIDS 0) are there? Retrieved from
https://www.ethnologue.com/enterprise-faq/how-many-international-languages-egids-0-are-
there

Simone Santo Baldi. (2016). English language education in China Mainland: quality assessment in
an uneven economic development country. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/309266525_English_Language_Education_in_China_Mainland_Quality_Assess
ment_in_an_Uneven_Economic_Development_Country

Smith David. (2018). What is the Chinese government doing to improve education? Retrieved from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/what-chinese-government-doing-improve-
education#survey-answer

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Education in China: a
snapshot. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/china/Education-in-China-a-snapshot.pdf

Weiwen Zhang. (2012). A brief introduction to foreign languages education policy in China.
Retreived from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530281.pdf

Zheng Huang. (2017). Native and non-native English speaking teachers in China perception and
practices. Shanghai: Springer.