The Appropriacy and Applicability of English Assessment Against CEFR Global Scale: Teachers’ Judgement

Nurul Farehah Mohamad Uri, Mohd Salehhuddin Abd Aziz


This study intends to identify the appropriateness of the writing and reading assessment items of the current English syllabus according to the targeted CEFR levels set by the Ministry of Education and to find out English teachers’ familiarity with CEFR writing and reading scales by suggesting suitable CEFR levels for writing and reading assessment items. An assessment checklist was used to collect the data involving 331 secondary school English teachers. Results show that most of the assessment items are found to be suitable and applicable to be used in the CEFR. This study also proves that the teachers were aware of the six levels of CEFR global scale because they were able to identify the suitable CEFR level that matches against CEFR target level set by the Ministry of Education. In conclusion, the Ministry of Education, Malaysia should consider to continue using some part of the current English syllabus and assessment instead of recommending its total abolishment.


Keywords: CEFR in Malaysia; Teachers’ judgement; CEFR alignment; School based assessment; applicability

Full Text:



Abdul Hakim Ali Abdul Aziz, Radzuwan Ab Rashid & Wan Zhafirah Wan Zainudin. (2018). The enactment of the Malaysian common European framework of reference (CEFR): National master trainer’s reflection. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 8(2), 409 – 417. doi:10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13307

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


Byram, M., Gribkova, B & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Language Policy

Division. Directorate of School, Out of School and Higher Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe

Carlsen, S. (2010). Discourse connective across CEFR – levels: A corpus based study in I, Martin, M and Vedder, I (Eds.). Communicative proficiency and linguistic

development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp.81 – 99). EUROSLA Monoseries 1.

Chen, Y.H. (2009). Investigating lexical bundle across learner writing development. Published PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.

Council of Europe. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Learning, Teaching, Assessment. CEFR: A

manual. Language Policy Division, Strasbourg.

Eckes, T. (2012). Examinee – centered standard setting for large – scale assessments: The prototype group method. Psychological test and assessment modeling

Journal. Vol.54(3), 257 – 283. Retrieved September 26, 2018 from

Engku Haliza Engku Ibrahim, Isarji Sarudin, Khairiah Othman, Faridah Abdul Malik & Ainon Jariah Muhammad. (2017). The assessment of writing within the CEFR scale:

A Malaysian context. Advanced Science Letters Journal. Vol. 5(3), 4944 – 4947. doi: 10.1166/asl.2017.8986

Forsberg, F & Bartning, I. (2010). Can linguistics features discriminate between the communicative CEFR levels? A pilot study of written L2 French in Barthing, I, Martin,

M and Vedder, I (Eds.). Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. (pp.81 – 99). EUROSLA

Monoseries 1.

Franz, J & Teo, A. (2017). “A2 is normal” – Thai secondary school English teachers’ encounters with the CEFR. RELC Journal. Vol. 49(3), 1 – 7. doi:

1177/0033688217738816Harsch, C & Martin, G. (2012). Adapting CEFR descriptors for rating purposes: Validation by a combined rater training and scale revision

approach. Assessing writing. Vol. 17(4), 228 – 250. Retrieved September 29, 2018 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. Vol. 22(3). 65 – 78. doi: 10. 17576/3L-2016-2203-05

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

Kuiken, F, Vedder, I & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing in Barthing, I, Martin, M and Vedder, I (Eds.).

Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. (pp. 81 – 99). EUROSLA Monoseries 1.

Linacre, J. M. 2014. A user’s guide to FACETS Rasch-model computer programs. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from [14 October


Little, D. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching Journal. Vol. 44(3), 381- 393. doi:


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. Vol. 6(1), 46 -58. Retrieved September 2, 2018 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

Martyniuk, W. (2010). Aligning tests with the CEFR: Reflections on using the Council of Europe’s draft manual. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Mohd Khairul Abu Sufi. (2017). Mapping the IIUM students’ English language writing proficiency to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

(CEFR). Published Master’s Thesis. Kuliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences. International Islamic University, Gombak, Malaysia. Retrieved

September, 2018

Mohd Syukri Abdul Hamid, Rafikul Islam & Noor Hazilah Abd Manaf. (2014). Malaysian’s graduates employability skills enhancement: An application of the importance

performance analysis. Global Business Advancement Journal. Vol.7 (3). 181 – 197. Retrieved January 15, 2016 from

Nurul Farehah Mohamad Uri & Mohd Salehhuddin Abd Aziz. (2018). Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia: Teachers’ awareness and challenges. 3L: The Southeast Asian

Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 24 (3), 168 – 183. doi: 10.17576/3L- 2018-2403-13

O’Dwyer, F. (2014). Towards critical, constructive assessments of CEFR – based language teaching in Japan and beyond. Osaka University Knowledge Archive. Vol.

(3). 191 – 204. Retrieved September 11, 2018 from

Papageorgiou, S. (2014). Issues in aligning assessments with the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Value .Vol. 6(1), 15-27.


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. Vol. 3(8), 363 – 370. Retrieved

September 1, 2018 from

Runnels, J. 2013. Student ability, self – assessment and teacher assessment on the CEFR – J’s can do statements. The Language Teacher Journal. JALT SIG Special

Issue. Vol. 3(5), 3 – 5. Retrieved from [16 September 2016]

Sheridan, M. (2014). Job seekers with A in SPM English but can’t speak a word of it. The Malaysian Insider. 26 June: 20.

Sidhu, G.K., Kaur, S & Lee, J.C. (2018). CEFR-aligned school based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.

(2), 452- 463. doi:10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311.

The Ministry of Education Report. (2013). Malaysia Education Policy Review: Abridged Report. May 2013. Retrieved from

The Star Online. (2018). Let’s have our own textbooks.4 February.

Yu, H.L. (2019). Rethinking globalization, English and Multilingualism in Thailand: A report on a five year ethnography. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English

Language Studies. Vol. 25(1), 69 – 84.

Yuen, M. (2015). Poor English a major handicap. The Star. 15 November: 23.

Zhao, W., Wang, B., Coniam, D & Xie, B. 2017. Calibrating the CEFR against the China Standard of English for College English vocabulary education in China. Language

Testing in Asia Journal. Vol. 7(5), doi: 10.1186/s40468-017-0036-1



  • There are currently no refbacks.




eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157