Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia: Teachers’ awareness and the Challenges

Nurul Farehah Mohamad Uri, Mohd Salehhuddin Abd Aziz


This study mainly seeks to investigate English teachers and Ministry of Education officials’ views on the implementation of CEFR in Malaysia. It also intends to explore the challenges encountered by the stakeholders in view of the adoption of CEFR onto Form 5 English syllabus and assessment. Data for this study were collected from questionnaires distributed to 331 English secondary school teachers and from in – depth interviews with two senior ministry officials. The findings revealed that most of the teachers had very limited knowledge, minimum exposure and low level of awareness about CEFR. Nevertheless, they were optimistic about the idea and believed that the framework is vital in order to improve the level of English proficiency of Malaysians. The officials in the ministry were also positive about the implementation plan despite the challenges and obstacles perceived. The teachers’ resistance, lack of training and negative conception that most teachers have namely it would be difficult to incorporate CEFR in their teaching are some of the main challenges identified in this study. In conclusion, the adoption of CEFR in Malaysia is seen as obligatory but sufficient time should be given by the ministry to ensure that all stakeholders are fully prepared and familiar with the framework before it is extensively introduced and used in the country.


Keywords: CEFR; English proficiency; Malaysian CEFR; CEFR alignment; education system

Full Text:



Bond, T.G. & Fox, C.M. 2007. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. (2nd) Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Incorporation.

Bucar, C. S., Ryu. H., Skof, N. M. & Sangawa, K.H. (2014). The CEFR and Teaching Japanese as a foreign language. Linguistica. 54(1), 455-469. doi:10.4312/linguistica.

Celik, S. (2013). Plurilingualism, Pluriculturalism, and the CEFR: Are

Turkey's Foreign Language Objectives Reflected in Classroom Instruction. Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal. 70(25), 1872-1879.doi:10.1016j/.sbspro.2013.01.265

Chu, Y. 2014. A review of studies on luxury hotels over the past two decades. Published Masters Thesis. Iowa State University. Retrieved from [ 15 January 2016]

Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S. & Brown, P. (2011). Teacher reactions to CEFR’s task- based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergie Europe Journal. 6, 109- 120.

Fennelly, M.G. (2016). The influence of CEFR on English language education in Japan. Bull Shikoku University Online Repository 46(A), 109-122. Retrieved from https://www.shikoku-

Gaynor, B., Grave, E., Hagley, E. & Johnson, M. (2011). Toward a Cohesive Curriculum of Communicative Language Instruction at Muroran Institute of Technology. Mururon IT Academic Resource Archieve. 60, 61 – 72. Retrieved from


Hazita Azman. (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.

Hismanoglu, M. (2013). Does English language teacher education curriculum promote CEFR awareness of prospective EFL teacher? Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal. 938-945.

Houghton, C., Casey, D. & Shaw, D. (2013). “Rigour in qualitative case-study research”. Nurse Researcher, V. 20(4), 12-17

Ilin, G. (2014). Student-Teacher Judgements on Common European Framework: Efficacy, Feasibility and Reality. Journal of Language and Literature Education. 9(12), 8-19.

Kantarcioglu, E. (2012). Relating an Institutional Proficiency Examination to the CEFR: A case study. Published PhD Dissertation. Department of Media, Culture and Language. University of Roehampton.

Kir, E. & Sulu, A. (2014). Language teachers’ views on CEFR. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). 1(5), 358 - 364.

Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychology Measurement Journal. 30, 607-610.

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage Publication. Los Angeles.

Lange, F. & Soderlund, M. (2004). Response format in questionnaires: Itemized rating scales versus continuous rating scales. SSE/ EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration. 1-16. Retrieved July 14, 2017 from

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.

Marconnet, N. N. & Bianco, J.L. (2013). Importing Language Assessment? The Reception of the Common European Framework of Reference in Australian Universities. The International Academic Forum. Retrieved from

Majdah Mahamud. (2018). The CEFR levels of English among student representatives in a polytechnic in Malaysia. National Innovation and Invention Competition Through Exhibition (iCompEx). 1 – 10. Retrieved September 5, 2018 from


Majima, J. (2010). Impact of can do statements/ CEFR on language education in Japan: on its applicability. In Schmidt, M.S., Naganuma, N.,

O’Dwyer, F., Imig, A & Sakai, K. (Eds.), Can do statements in language education in Japan and beyond (pp. 49-65) Tokyo: Asahi Press.

Maxwell, D. (2015). Thai schools adopt European framework to boost English language proficiency. Asian Correspondent Online: Education Section. Retrieved from

Nagai, N. & O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe Journal. 6, 141 – 152. Retrieved from

National Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025: Preschool to Post-Secondary

Education. (2013). Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Norhana Abdullah & Chandran, S. K. (2009). Cultural elements in a Malaysian English Language textbook. 1 – 22. Retrieved from

Nguyen, V.H. & Hamid, M.O. (2015). Educational Policy Borrowing in a Globalized World: A Case Study of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in a Vietnamese University. Journal of English Teaching, Practice & Critique. 14(1), 60-74. doi:10.1108/ETPC-02-2015-0014

O’Dwyer, F. (2014). Toward critical, constructive assessments of CEFR based language teaching in Japan and beyond. Osaka University Knowledge Archive (OUKA), Osaka University. 4, 191 – 204. Retrieved from

Palys, T. (2008). Purposive Sampling. In Given, M. L. (Ed). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Vol. 2, 678-679. Retrieved on January 28, 2016 from

Papageorgiou, S. (2010). Setting cut scores on the Common European Framework of Reference for the Michigan English Test. CaMLA Technical Report, CaMLA.

Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R. J, Bridgeman, B. & Cho, Y. (2015). The Association between TOEFL iBT test scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels. Educational Testing Service. 1 – 28. Retrieved from

Ramiaida Darmi, Noor Saazai Mat Saad, Norhana Abdullah, Fariza Puteh Behak, Zarina Ashikin Zakaria & Juliana Niza Ismail Adnan. (2017). Teachers’ views on students’ performance in English language proficiency courses via CEFR descriptors. IJAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in Education. 3(8). 363-370.

Rajabi, S. & Ketabi, S. (2012). Aspects of Cultural Elements in Prominent English textbooks for EFL setting. Theory and Practice in Language Studies Journal. 2(4), 705 – 712.doi:10.4304/tpls.2.4.705-7012

Reja, U., Manfreda, K.L., Hlebec, V. & Vehovar, V. (2003). Open-ended vs close- ended questions in Web questionnaires. Journal of Developments in Applied Statistics. 160-176.

Rozana Sani. (2016). Journey to master English. 18 July. The New Straits Times Online. Retrieved July 14, 2017 from

Sezgin G. (2007). An Exploratory Study of Curricular Change in an EFL Context, (Masters Dissertation), Ankara: Bilkent University. Bilkent University Institutional Repository. Retrieved from

Vallax P. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A critical analysis of its impact on a sample of teachers and curricula within and beyond Europe. PhD Thesis.

Williams. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business and Economic Research. 5(3), 65-72.

Wu, J. R.W & Wu, R.Y.F. (2012). GEPT and English language teaching and testing in Taiwan. Language Assessment Quarterly. 9(1), 11-25. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.553251

Yuksel, I & Demiral, S. (2013). Evaluating European Language Portfolio in Turkish Context: Teachers’ Views on New Secondary Education English Teaching Program. International Journal of Social Science & Education. 3(4), 904-916.

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”. UM repository. Retrieved from

Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Journal of Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3(2), 254-262. http://doi.10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262



  • There are currently no refbacks.




eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157