Globalisation, Societies and Education

ISSN: 1476-7724 (Print) 1476-7732 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgse20

Common European framework of reference

for languages (CEFR): insights into global policy
borrowing in Malaysian higher education

Liyana Ahmad Afip, M. Obaidul Hamid & Peter Renshaw

To cite this article: Liyana Ahmad Afip, M. Obaidul Hamid & Peter Renshaw (2019):
Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR): insights into global policy
borrowing in Malaysian higher education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, DOI:
10.1080/14767724.2019.1578195

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1578195

Published online: 13 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 126

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgse20
GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1578195

Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR):

insights into global policy borrowing in Malaysian higher
education
Liyana Ahmad Afip , M. Obaidul Hamid and Peter Renshaw
School of Education, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has Received 7 August 2018
emerged as a global policy in language education which has been Accepted 31 January 2019
‘borrowed’ by nations across the world. This paper presents a critical
KEYWORDS
analysis of Malaysia’s borrowing of the CEFR as part of English language Policy borrowing; CEFR;
curriculum reform with particular reference to policy motivation and English language education;
implementation processes as outlined in the English Language curriculum reform; higher
Education Roadmap for Malaysia (2015–2025). The analysis draws on education; Malaysia
Phillips and Ochs’s (2003, “Processes of Policy Borrowing in Education:
Some Explanatory and Analytical Devices.” Comparative Education 39 (4):
451–461.) framework for examining educational policy borrowing to
highlight challenges as well as prospects of the implementation of the
global policy in higher education in Malaysia.

1. Introduction
This article provides insights into the context, motivation and processes of global policy borrowing
in higher education. We draw on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR) as an example of global policy and English language education as the field into which the
CEFR is borrowed in the context of Malaysian higher education.
Contemporary national education policies typically aim at producing human capital, so that
nations may compete in a globalised economy. As Rizvi and Lingard (2010) emphasised, ‘educational
purposes have been redefined in terms of a narrower set of concerns about human capital develop-
ment, and the role education must play to meet the needs of the global economy to ensure the com-
petitiveness of the national economy’ (3). English language education has been at the forefront of
developing human capital, given the preeminent role of English as a language of globalisation
(Hamid 2016; Majhanovich 2014; Spring 2014). Increasingly, English language policy and practice
are geared towards enhancing students’ job-market skills in nations across the world.
Malaysia provides a typical case. Not long ago, the English language curriculum at Malaysian uni-
versities was designed mainly to pursue academic goals. However, an academically-oriented curricu-
lum is not considered sufficient in a globalising world where it is widely believed that English as a
global language mediates access to information, knowledge and employment, both locally and glob-
ally. Therefore, English language teaching in the university sector has now an additional – or per-
haps, the central – purpose of producing graduates who can communicate in English to ensure
that they are employable in the current job market. In 2012, the Graduate Employability Blueprint
2012–2017 reported that more than half of the graduates (55.8%) from Malaysian universities had
a poor command of English which could potentially leave them unemployed (Ministry of Education

CONTACT Liyana Ahmad Afip liyana.ahmadafip@uq.net.au

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

2012). Indirectly, the document increased pressure on universities to produce graduates who can
fulfil local and global job-market demands of English.
To achieve the status of a developed nation by 2020, Malaysian policymakers have emphasised
human capital development in the higher education sector. Rosli et al. (2010) consider higher edu-
cation as the ‘dispenser and innovator of knowledge, contributing towards a nation’s growth and
development’ (1). Knowledge, skills and proficiency in a global language are among the key graduate
attributes that can transform them into human capital for a nation’s future in a globalised economic
environment. Thus, it is a critical task for universities to develop efficient English language curricu-
lum benchmarked to international standards. Steiner-Khamsi (2016) argues that international stan-
dards are an effective catalyst for education reform and policy borrowing, as it generates national-
level fear of falling behind others in global competitions.
Many countries around the world have either borrowed or adopted the CEFR as a basis for estab-
lishing English language teaching and learning standards (Read 2014). The CEFR was introduced by
the Council of Europe in 2001 to provide ‘a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses,
curriculum guidelines, examination, textbooks, etc. across Europe’ (Council of Europe 2001, 1). It
aims to ‘promote and facilitate co-operation among educational institutions in different countries,
provide a sound basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications, and assist learners, tea-
chers, course designers, examining bodies and educational administrators to situate and coordinate
their efforts’ (Council of Europe 2017, 25). Since the CEFR is not bound to a specific language or
context, it has been translated into 40 different languages for use both within and beyond Europe.
One of the main reasons for borrowing or adopting the CEFR as an instrument of language edu-
cation policy development is the levels of language proficiency description. These levels have been
used by language testing agencies such as Cambridge English Language Assessment, British Council
and Educational Testing Service for global English language tests including International English
Language Testing System (IELTS), Cambridge Exams and Teaching of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL). The growing alignment of language exams around the world to CEFR levels
gives it global currency.
Following this global policy-borrowing trend, the Ministry of Education Malaysia (henceforth
MOE) decided to borrow CEFR in the wake of a comprehensive review of English in Malaysia by
Cambridge English based on recommendations from the English Language Quality Standards and
Council (ELQSC1). The Cambridge Baseline Study 2013 used the CEFR to evaluate the current
state of English teaching and learning in Malaysia and assessed English language proficiency of
samples of students from preschool to post-secondary education as well as English teachers (Don
et al. 2015). As a result of the CEFR borrowing, Cambridge English signed an agreement with the
MOE Malaysia to deliver a five-year programme of consultancy which includes the incorporation
of the CEFR into creating cognizance, structural preparation, implementation and monitoring of
change including the assessment of its impact (Greene n.d.).
The reform agenda was later translated into the English Language Education Roadmap for Malay-
sia 2015–2025. The Roadmap serves as a guide for curriculum developers and teachers to ensure stu-
dents can attain the targeted proficiency levels of English aligned with the CEFR scales starting from
preschool to tertiary level as well as teacher education. The document is concerned with curriculum,
teaching and learning, and assessment of English language programmes. Section A of the Roadmap
contains preparatory and background materials, and deals with general considerations that encom-
pass the more specific issues in Sections B and C. Section B provides a critical evaluation of the cur-
rent English language programmes from preschool to tertiary education, including teacher education
and makes recommendations for reform and sustainable improvement. Based on the findings and
recommendations from Sections A and B, Section C presents recommendations in a set of tables
for the formulation of policy.
Since the reform has only recently been introduced to the Malaysian education system, research
on the CEFR-induced curriculum, pedagogy and assessment practices is currently at its earliest stage.
The examination reported in this article is located in this context. It seeks to understand why, how
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 3

and under what circumstances the policy borrowing occurred in Malaysia, and what impact it may
have on higher learning institutions in the country. It is hoped that the insights will provide confi-
dence to local policy actors in implementing the policy and avoiding delay, rejection or resistance.
The article examines the English language curriculum reform in national higher education in
Malaysia based on Phillips and Ochs’s (2003) framework of education policy borrowing. Divided
into four stages (discussed in detail later), the framework outlines the processes, motivations and
consequences of policy borrowing. The framework provides an appropriate lens for the present
examination in terms of its aims. Moreover, the framework’s emphasis on context-sensitivity may
help to detect incompatibilities between the borrowed policy and the borrowing country. Further-
more, the top-down nature of the CEFR borrowing in Malaysia and a clear articulation of its
aims and objectives fit the processes of the framework.

2. CEFR for the English language

CEFR consists of descriptions of processes to develop language knowledge and skills for effective
communication taking into consideration the cultural context. The six levels of language compe-
tences categorising learners’ abilities are clustered into three main groups: Basic users (Levels A1
& A2), Independent users (Levels B1 & B2) and Proficient users (Levels C1 & C2). The framework
describes four modes of language use in oral or written form, or both: reception, production, inter-
action and mediation. In September 2017, the Council of Europe published another document
known as Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment
Companion Volume with New Descriptors which introduced the pre-A1 level. Moreover, it provides
an extended version of the illustrative descriptors that have become increasingly useful over the
years. The new document also suggests that the CEFR will continue to be updated and upgraded
(Council of Europe 2017).
CEFR ‘does not attempt to list specific language features (grammatical rules, vocabulary, etc.) and
cannot be used as curriculum or checklist of learning points’ (Cambridge English 2011, 4). The Coun-
cil of Europe encourages the production of support materials to complement CEFR known as Refer-
ence Level Descriptors (henceforth RLDs). The RLDs are important to ensure that the CEFR
framework is used appropriately and adapted to local contexts and purposes. The RLDs aim to transfer
the CEFR framework descriptors that characterise learners’ competences at a given level into a
language-specific linguistic material which is considered important for implementing those compe-
tencies. Therefore, RLDs represent a new generation of descriptions which identify the specific
forms of language at each of the six reference levels which can be set as objectives for learning or
can also be used to identify students’ attainment (UCLES/Cambridge University Press 2011).
The University of Cambridge with the support from the Council of Europe, published The English
Profile Programme. It was formally established and endorsed as an officially recognised RLDs project
for the English language in 2006 and was funded by the European Commission (UCLES/Cambridge
University Press 2011). The CEFR describes a model of language use known as action-oriented
approach in which a language user develops competence through various kinds of cognitive pro-
cesses, strategies and knowledge. Learners need to use the language and cognitive processes suitable
to the context when engaging in language activities to complete the tasks. Language activity is the
observable performance on speaking, writing, reading or listening task (Cambridge English 2011).
It is important to note that language activities as interpreted by Cambridge English refer to these
four skills and not to the four modes of reception, production, interaction and mediation as stated
in the CEFR document.

3. English language education reforms in Malaysia

Malaysia has adopted a bilingual (Malay and English) system of education to create a balance
between national and international needs and challenges manifested in language educational policies
4 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

(Darmi and Albion 2013; Gill and Kirkpatrick 2013). Besides Malay language, English is officially the
second language in Malaysia. Article 152 of the Malaysian Constitution has established the Malay
language as the national language for official purposes. However, teaching, learning and use of
other languages is also permissible (Government of Malaysia 1957). The Chinese and Indian
languages are considered languages of Malaysia, not foreign languages. Although English used to
be an official language in Malaysia, it has never been referred to as one of the Malaysian languages
(Thirusanku and Yunus 2014).
The presence of multi-ethnic groups in Malaysia was the result of the massive migration of Chi-
nese and Indians during British colonial rule. The typical divide and rule policies practised by the
British resulted in unequal infrastructure development in Malaysia. Development efforts mostly
focused on the central and southern regions, leaving the less developed east coast, northern region,
Sabah and Sarawak behind. The diverse needs of a multi-ethnic society with urban-rural disparities
shaped the national education policy landscape in Malaysia. The national education system compris-
ing preschool, primary, secondary, post-secondary and tertiary levels is centralised and regulated by
the MOE. The English language is introduced as early as preschool and is a compulsory subject in the
national curriculum at the primary for both national (Malay as the language of instruction) and
national-type school (Chinese or Tamil as the language of instruction), secondary, post-secondary
as well as tertiary level of education. However, English is not a compulsory subject for students to
pass either primary or secondary level of education. Malaysians who complete formal education
from preschool to tertiary education (undergraduate) have had 15–16 years of English language
instruction. Nevertheless, there has been a significant decline in the standard of English language
proficiency as the role of English was reduced from being the medium of instruction to a subject
taught at school after the implementation of Education Act 1961.
There are three interrelated issues for policies on English language education in Malaysia: per-
ceived threat of English to Malay language; lack of English proficiency leading to unemployment;
and the urban-rural divide in proficiency attainment (Don 2014). English may not pose a threat
to the Malay language because the two languages operate in different domains. However, if English
is perceived as a threat by the community, there may be detrimental effects which will interfere with
the setting of realistic goals for students. Students may not be highly motivated to learn English if it is
perceived as a threat to their mother tongue. For students in urban areas, the frequent use of English
in their social surroundings may be more motivating compared to students in rural areas, where the
social surrounding does not support the use of English. Therefore, teachers and parents in rural com-
munities need to help students to envision the role of English in their future studies and employment
in a globalised world.
In response to nationwide concerns over levels of English language proficiency, MOE introduced
two major national education reforms. First, the New Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025
(henceforth MEB) was launched in 2012 which introduced a Standard-Based Curriculum (abbre-
viated as KSSR). KSSR focuses on the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (LINUS) programme to
ensure that 100% of primary school children are literate in Bahasa Melayu and 90% in the English
language by the end of Year 3 (Azman 2016). This is in line with the government’s plans to uphold
Malay as a language for unity and language of knowledge, enhance English language proficiency
among multilingual learners, and maintain pupils’ vernacular languages such as Mandarin and
Tamil.
The implementation of KSSR followed the failure of the Integrated English Language Syllabus for
Primary School (KBSR) to revive and enhance Communicative Language Teaching. Previously, tea-
chers faced problems in adjusting their knowledge about interactive learner-centred learning in a
large class situation. Moreover, their inability to reflect on their training caused them to maintain
their old classroom practices rejecting innovations (Hardman and Rahman 2014). In 2003, the
Malaysian government took a bold decision of changing the medium of instruction for Science
and Mathematics from Malay to English. This was considered the most controversial education
reform in Malaysia (Rashid, Rahman, and Yunus 2017). The aim of the policy change was not to
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 5

improve students’ proficiency in English but to enable them to learn Mathematics and Science in the
global language and to improve the standard of human capital in Malaysia. The policy not only bur-
dened content-area teachers who were not proficient in English; it also added pressure on English
language teachers who had to ensure that students were able to understand lessons in Mathematics
and Science classes. In 2012, the Malaysian government reversed the policy in favour of Malay as a
result of the collective fear of the endangerment of other languages particularly from multilingual
ethnic Malays and Chinese (Azman 2016). The policy was also unsuccessful as students from
rural areas were found to be failing in Mathematics and Science (Gill 2012).
The English Language Education Roadmap outlines the latest education reforms by extending the
efforts made in MEB. Azman (2016) believes that these reforms have the potential to bring definitive
transformations in the way English as a second language is taught and learned in Malaysia. She also
suggests that the Roadmap will buffer any potential shift in socio-political sentiments against English
that previously influenced flip-flop decisions about the role of English in language education policy
and practice. The Roadmap consists of three phases. Phase 1 (2013–2015) focused on elevating Eng-
lish proficiency of school teachers. During this period, teachers attended various professional devel-
opment activities. Results from the Cambridge baseline study were utilised by the ELSQC to develop
the CEFR descriptors, set the target for each level and plan for capacity building. Phase 2 started in
2016 after a year was allocated to the ELSQC to set appropriate CEFR levels for each level starting
from preschool to teacher education. In the first part of Phase 2, curricula were also aligned with
CEFR descriptors and the ELSQC decided to select international CEFR-aligned textbooks and sup-
port materials. The second part started after the validation of CEFR targets and descriptors for each
level and the implementation of the new CEFR aligned curricula started from 2017 and will continue
until 2020. Concurrently, teachers will attend a series of training related to CEFR which will make
them familiar with the framework and new curricula. In Phase 3, the ELSQC will evaluate, review
and revise the targets and implementation of CEFR. The descriptors will be revised and evaluated,
and the selected textbook and teaching materials will be reviewed. Lastly, the focal turning point for
this final phase will be the development of CEFR-Malaysia (CEFR-M) based on the findings of the
review, re-evaluation and revised processes (see Don et al. 2015 for a detailed roadmap for each edu-
cation level).

4. Analysis of CEFR policy borrowing in national higher education institutions

This section draws upon Phillips and Ochs’s (2003) framework of education policy borrowing to
examine the borrowing of CEFR in Malaysia. The four stages of policy borrowing discussed by
the authors are: (i) Cross-national attraction: impulses and externalising potential, (ii) Decision mak-
ing, (iii) Implementation, and (iv) Internalisation/Indigenisation.
The first stage identifies the impulses that trigger the needs to change existing policies which can
be created by various phenomena such as: internal dissatisfaction, particularly among those who are
directly involved in the system or institutions; systemic collapse, which may result from the inade-
quacy of educational provision and the need for educational reconstruction after war or natural dis-
aster (Phillips 2015); negative external evaluation, particularly conducted by influential international
organisations on local students’ attainment; economic change or competition, which can be related
to rapid economic change in developing countries calling for additional training needed to actively
participate in economic competition; political and other imperatives, such as dissatisfaction among
voters leading to ‘turn around’ policy; novel configurations such as global education training and
policy from international alliances as a result of globalisation tendencies; knowledge/skills inno-
vation emerging from deficiency in utilising new technologies; or political change such as change
of governments.
The second stage recognises various categories of decision makings by governments. Theoretical
decision making reflects choice and diversity (Phillips 2015, 144) in which policy ambition may pro-
vide no evidence of effective implementation. Realistic/practical decision making is usually evidence-
6 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

based, although contextual factors may not be considered in such decisions. ‘Quick-fix’ decision
making is often a response to immediate necessity based on advice from external sources that results
in adopting foreign models. It is considered a dangerous form of decision-making (Phillips and Ochs
2003). Finally, ‘phoney’ decision-making includes ‘enthusiasms shown by politicians for aspects of
education in other countries for immediate political effect, without the possibility of serious fol-
low-through’ (Phillips 2015, 145).
The third stage seeks to analyse the effectiveness of the implementation which depends on the
context of the ‘borrower’ country. The attitudes of significant actors influence the speed of change
in implementing the new policy. Significant actors are those who have the power to support or resist
the change and development. Phillips (2015) emphasises that these significant actors can actively
implement the policy in a less direct manner introducing decentralised systems. Resistance or rejec-
tion by actors may lead to delaying the process of implementation or non-decision.
The final stage occurs when the borrowed policy is integrated as part of the education system in a
country making it possible to assess the effects of the policy on the existing system in education.
There are four steps in understanding the internalisation of the policy: (i) impact on the existing sys-
tem which can be measured by examining the motives and objectives of policymakers in conjunction
with the existing system; (ii) the absorption of external features which refers to the extent to which
the features from another system (borrowed policy) are adopted in a local context (borrowing
country); (iii) synthesis, which refers to how educational policy and practice become part of an over-
all strategy of the borrowing country. This process acknowledges the context that affects the
interpretation and implementation of the borrowed policy (Phillips 2015); (iv) Evaluation, which
seeks to understand the extent to which the expectations of the borrowing country are realistic.
The results of evaluation might start the whole process again, with further investigation of the bor-
rowed policy to overcome the perceived deficiencies in the first cycle of the policy implementation.
In Malaysia, the English language courses offered by public universities do not have a common
curriculum or standards for English proficiency attainment. Some of the problems that affect English
proficiency achievement include: insufficient contact hours for English courses (80–320 h), no mini-
mum proficiency requirement for English teachers, students’ preference for a teacher-centred
approach and the use of instructional materials that does not reflect internationally recognised Eng-
lish standards (Don et al. 2015; Jaafar and Thang 2013). There are varieties of English language
courses offered by universities which are also assessed differently by different institutions. Some
of the language courses may not reflect the language proficiency or graduate attributes deemed
important for communication in real-life situations. There is no common denominator for compari-
son of students based on language proficiency, particularly for future employers. Moreover, local
assessment scales may be unhelpful for students in looking for jobs in the international job market,
highlighting the importance for assessments to be benchmarked against internationally recognised
standards. The introduction of CEFR for English language education in universities aimed to over-
come these multifarious problems and bring about major changes to the existing system. We now
examine the CEFR borrowing in Malaysia in light of the four stages of policy borrowing in Philips
and Ochs’s framework.

4.1. Cross-national attraction: impulses and externalising potential

In 2012, 61,000 English language teachers in Malaysia were asked to sit the online Cambridge Place-
ment Test to measure their English proficiency level. It was reported that about two-thirds of the tea-
chers failed the test which indicates problems with the teacher education programme calling for
reforms. A year later, Cambridge English conducted another evaluation of the whole English language
education system in Malaysia and observed that the existing English curriculum in Malaysia was not
adequate for Malaysians to compete in a globalised world that requires English for international com-
munication (Don et al. 2015). Therefore, reforms were initiated setting an overall target of English
language proficiency for English language programmes as well as common-sense interim targets to
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 7

be achieved by 2025. The Cambridge benchmarking results, the targets, and common-sense targets are
outlined in Figure 1. The Malaysian case shows that educational policy borrowing can be triggered by
external assessment of educational achievement. Ochs (2006) illustrated that Britain’s performance on
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) created concerns about students’
educational achievement and the need to compete and be competitive within Europe (603). Nguyen
(2016) highlights similar considerations for the adoption of CEFR in Vietnam. These examples indicate
that international comparison is indispensable in the era of globalisation.

4.2. Decision making

The Malaysian government’s decision to ‘borrow’ the CEFR can be categorised broadly as realistic or
practical. Evidence for this can be found in the efforts made by the Ministry of Education Malaysia
including the appointment of Cambridge English to provide an evidence-based report on the existing
English language curriculum benchmarking and the establishment of the ELSQC. The ELSQC prepared
the Roadmap for English language education in Malaysia which includes the agenda-driven planning
(Figure 2) for curriculum, teaching and learning as well as assessment for ten years (Don et al. 2015).
Malaysia has long aspired to be recognised internationally as an advanced high-income nation by
2020. Therefore, a clearly defined agenda is needed to turn the aspiration into reality. Specifically,
with regards to English, the MOE seeks to ensure quality in its teaching and learning in schools
and higher learning institutions to improve employment prospects of young people; enable learners
to participate fully in academic professional and life; and take advantage of economic opportunities
created by the formation of the Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN). These aspirations
have motivated the decision to benchmark the English language programme in Malaysia. The bench-
marking results are to be used to guide the modification of the curriculum to ensure that the English
language programme is maintaining international standards. The benchmarking does not intend to
regulate what MOE plans for English language education in Malaysia; rather, it will help MOE,
specifically the ELSQC, to decide what should be included in the national curriculum to fulfil the
national aspirations. The curriculum is expected to drive teaching and learning, and teaching and
learning to drive the development of learning materials and ultimately bring out quality outcomes
for assessment and teacher training by 2025.

Figure 1. Cambridge benchmarking results, CEFR targets and common-sense targets (source: Don et al. 2015).
8 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

Figure 2. Agenda-Driven Programme (source: Don et al. 2015).

The decision to adopt the CEFR was made based on the experience of other countries such as
Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam in reforming English language programmes. Three important lessons
learnt from these countries are related to teacher training, programme review and information dis-
semination. The MOE Malaysia made it compulsory for all English teachers to attend CEFR familiar-
isation training. The cascade training is provided by CEFR Master Trainers and Observers appointed
by the MOE Malaysia. It is also compulsory for universities in Malaysia to review their English
language programmes which include curriculum, assessment, and teaching and learning in the
light of the CEFR (Don et al. 2015). The Council of Language Deans is the forum to disseminate
information related to CEFR from the MOE to universities. In addition, the mass media provides
information related to the implementation of CEFR at the national level to avoid ill-informed criti-
cisms and resistance towards the policy (Aziz 2016; Chan 2017; Mustafa 2017; Rajaendran 2016).

4.3. Implementation
Universities in Malaysia have the means to move ahead with the CEFR without waiting for the whole
implementation process to be completed at the lower levels of education. In Japan, CEFR is success-
fully implemented in universities which suggests that CEFR can be partially implemented at specific
levels of education (Don et al. 2015; Sugitani and Tomita 2012). The MOE Malaysia seeks to ensure
that the significant actors understand and support the decision to implement the CEFR-based policy
in their respective institutions. Significant actors at universities, for example, the Head of the English
Language Unit and English language teachers are expected to be actively involved in implementing
the CEFR-based policy. They are the gatekeepers who are responsible for introducing CEFR to stu-
dents and translating as well as integrating it into their teaching.
The Roadmap includes several recommendations specifically for the English Language Unit such
as: setting the CEFR as a common framework of reference for English language curriculum, teaching
and learning, and assessment; increasing credit hours for English language learning; setting a mini-
mum teacher proficiency level corresponding to CEFR C1; recertification of English language com-
petency for teacher promotion; an internationally benchmarked exit test for all graduates; and
institutional support for the creation of an English-rich environment. Divided into four phases,
the implementation process started in 2015 and will end in 2028. These phases are designed
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 9

based on the Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013–2025) and the Graduate Employability Blueprint
(2012–2017).
The first phase, Preparing for Structural Change (2015–2016), aimed ‘to establish the CEFR as a
common framework for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment across all universities’ (Don et al.
2015, 265). The ELSQC Chair conducted CEFR familiarisation workshops in all public universities
in Malaysia to explain the process of reforming English language education at the tertiary level. Uni-
versity English language teachers were invited to be trained as Master Trainers to disseminate knowl-
edge about CEFR to their colleagues. These Master Trainers then conducted in-house training to
explain the core conception of language learning, language pedagogy, curriculum development as
well as teaching methodology and assessment.
Malaysian universities have autonomy to determine the course content, sequence of courses and
learning outcomes based on the CEFR targeted proficiency level and to re-design learning outcomes
by incorporating input from employers on language-related tasks that employees are expected to
perform. The CEFR-aligned curriculum and imported learning materials are used to guide the teach-
ing and learning as well as assessment to achieve the CEFR targets. Teachers are also expected to
promote autonomous learning among students, as students need to monitor their progress based
on the ‘can do’ statements. Credit hours need to be increased if students’ English proficiency levels
at the entry point are below Malaysian University English Test (MUET2) Band 4 or 5. Students need
approximately 200 h of guided learning to progress from one level of the CEFR to the next (Don et al.
2015). The CEFR descriptors are used as a framework for assessment especially in creating rubrics
for assessment such as speaking task or writing task. The CEFR-benchmarked test can be used to
determine baseline proficiency of students at graduation. Students are expected to exit university
with a minimum level of low B2. Universities are encouraged to revise the minimum English
language entrance requirement and support the use of English language outside the classroom.
The current language qualification for teachers was reviewed, followed by the introduction of C1
as the minimum proficiency level.
The second phase, Implementing and Monitoring Structural Change (2017–2020), focuses on
implementing, developing and monitoring the efforts initiated in Phase 1. Course materials aligned
with CEFR standards suitable for the Malaysian context are adopted or developed for use in the
CEFR-driven classroom. Teachers have attended continuous professional development workshops
to improve the quality of teaching and recertification of their proficiency level based on the CEFR
test as a criterion for promotion. Universities are expected to monitor the efforts made in Phase 1
in promoting learner autonomy and sustaining an English-rich environment for students. They
are required to develop and pilot a standardised CEFR-benchmarked test to monitor the effective-
ness of the efforts in reforming the English language curriculum. At the end of this phase, graduates
should be able to achieve high B2 on the CEFR proficiency scale.
Scaling up Structural Change (2021–2025), the third phase, will focus on two important aspects
namely, reviewing strategies and efforts implemented in previous phases and monitoring graduate
attributes. In this phase, the CEFR-aligned curriculum will be reviewed based on the feedback from
teachers, students and institutions who are directly involved in the implementation process. Language
teachers will be monitored in terms of quality and upskilling efforts. Universities are urged to develop
and conduct an Employer Satisfaction Survey (ESS) to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the
CEFR-aligned curriculum based on their satisfaction with graduates’ English language performance.
Feedback from the alumni will also be useful to identify and address problematic aspects of the curri-
culum. An established CEFR-benchmarked test will be deployed to monitor the language competence
of the entire university graduate population at exit point. Data from the test and the ESS will be used to
compare student performance indicated by grades and language proficiency demands in the job mar-
ket. The standardised CEFR-benchmarked test will be reviewed and validated. The minimum exit
requirement for English language at this point of time will be set at high B2 to C1.
Finally, the Post-MEB Phase (2026–2028) will focus on validating the appropriateness of the
Malaysian CEFR-aligned curriculum, teaching and learning efforts and assessment methods. In
10 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

this final phase, universities will establish an external validation of the CEFR-benchmarked test. The
results will validate the CEFR curriculum, CEFR-based teaching and learning and assessment in
Malaysia. The data from ESS in Phase 3 will validate the CEFR-informed efforts to develop the
desired graduates for employment. At this stage, universities should be able to only accept students
with low B2 at the entry level to bring them up to an exit proficiency level between high B2 and C1 on
graduation.
The Roadmap also addresses a potential scenario where universities may continue to have differ-
ent MUET entry requirements for their programmes. However, to ensure that students improve their
language proficiency, they must exit the university scoring at least one level higher than the MUET
level with which they entered the university in the first place. This requirement was implemented in
2016 for students with MUET Entry Level Band 1–3. However, universities may freely decide
whether to enforce English exit policy rules in which case students will graduate only if they retake
the MUET test and manage to score Band 3. If students still cannot obtain MUET Band 3, they need
to attend English remedial courses in their final year and sit for internal English examination con-
ducted by the university. Since MUET will be used for student placement and exit test, an alignment
exercise has already been undertaken by Cambridge English to refine the MUET exam, so it becomes
a valid and reliable test (Don et al. 2015). The MOE also launched the Malaysian English Assessment
(MEA) for university students as an initiative to ‘enhance the Ecosystem for English Language
Assessment in Higher Education’ (Mustafa 2017). MEA seeks to integrate formal and informal learn-
ing and it serves as a question bank that will be used for the CEFR empowerment programme. At this
point of time, the status of the MUET realignment and the MEA is unknown.

4.4. Internalisation
There are several points that need to be considered to ensure the effectiveness of the reform process.
Steiner-Khamsi (2004) argues that education policy makers often overlook the local context and
ignore the social, political and economic aspects of the borrowing country. As a result, a successful
policy in one country may not bring the same effect in another country. Similarly, Hu and McKay
(2012) mention common assumptions among policymakers who tend to believe in a ‘one size fits all’
approach. This suggests that it is critical for a country to reflect on the reform process and how it may
affect the local context.
Modifications are needed if policy does not suit the country. Tan and Reyes (2016) argue about
the use of a ‘hybrid model of education’ which combines foreign and local ideas and practices in the
context of China. One of the outcomes of this hybrid model is the Chinese teaching method known
as ‘teacher-dominated’ pedagogy. This pedagogy became prominent after the introduction of the
new curriculum reform which saw educators promoting student-centred approaches as well as
retaining their traditional teacher-directed pedagogy. It is important for the ELSQC and other sta-
keholders to convince Malaysians that the reform will have positive impact on English language edu-
cation in Malaysia and that it will not affect or jeopardise existing social, political and economic
arrangements. One popular concern in this case is how English may have an impact on Malaysians’
identity. To address this concern, the debate surrounding English and the loss of national identity
should be rendered into a ‘non-issue’ (Chin 2018) pointing out that there is no scope for English
to erode nationalism, national identity and nation-building if we refer to the federal Constitution,
National Language Act 1967, and National Education Policy. None of these documents states that
English should be discarded. It also needs to be stressed that learning English does not make one
less patriotic or affect the way they learn the national language.
With regard to using imported learning materials and textbooks, Aziz, Rashid, and Zainudin
(2018) listed some issues including high cost, foreign cultural elements and teachers’ dilemmas in
using textbooks. Despite these concerns, the MOE Malaysia decided to go ahead with the plan of
implementing imported textbooks. Chin (2018) invited teachers not to blame the textbook which
can actually serve as a bridge between the content in the textbook and students. She added that if
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 11

users consider textbooks as ‘foreign’, they may distance themselves from the content and learning,
but if they regard these resources as ‘international’ they will open a new understanding about their
global relevance and usefulness.
Regular monitoring of the policy implementation is needed to ensure that the reform process runs
smoothly. Don et al. (2015) encourage English language teachers at different levels of education to
investigate the reforms. They believe that ‘no matter how carefully a new programme is devised, we
have to expect problems arising from imperfect integration and uncoordinated implementation.
Innovations should not be introduced in the belief that they might work, and they need to be tested.’
(28). Teachers are invited to report problems to receive advice from experienced teachers, in this
case, the CEFR Master Trainers or experts from the ELSQC. Teachers’ feedback is important to
make necessary modifications to improve the curriculum. Rashid, Rahman, and Yunus (2017)
argued that teachers need to be involved in the planning of new policies because a top-down
approach is problematic. They added that although the changes in policies are aimed to improve
the quality of education in Malaysia, the implementation is often ‘made in haste without considering
the voices and opinions of the wider society, causing a loud public outcry and strongly challenging
teachers at the front-line of the new policies’ (10). Therefore, to ensure that the objectives of the pol-
icy can be achieved, policymakers need to consider input from relevant parties especially teachers as
they are the individuals who are directly involved in translating the policy.
Feedback on the Roadmap can be provided through a systemic structure. Teachers may ask for
opinions from their students regarding textbooks or assessments that they had experienced in
their institutions. This will indirectly help teachers to know the problems faced by students. Teachers
may then bring forward suggestions to the department’s meeting for discussion. If the problem is
beyond the knowledge of the Master Trainers in their institution, it can be referred to ELSQC
experts.

5. Learning from others and the way forward

Although the CEFR policy in Malaysia has seen a comprehensive implementation plan, producing
the outcomes of the policy may still pose enormous challenges for policymakers and stakeholders.
Malaysia has a poor record of successfully implementing education reforms. Introducing and rever-
sing the same policies repeatedly are common experiences in Malaysia. The most recent example of
the policy vicissitudes is the school-level English medium instruction policy for science and math-
ematics subjects which was introduced in 2003 and was repealed in seven years (Ali, Hamid, and
Moni 2011; Gill 2005, 2012). While critics may refer to these policy experiences in commenting
on the future of the CEFR, certainly one of the advantages of being a relatively late borrower of
the CEFR framework is that Malaysia may learn from the experiences of other CEFR borrowers
in the region and find ways to address its emerging challenges. In this section, we identify key chal-
lenges for Malaysia and provide recommendations for addressing those challenges. In doing this, we
draw on CEFR experiences in Taiwan and Vietnam.
In Taiwan, Wu (2012) reported three problems of the CEFR which are related to test comparabil-
ity, validity of tests aligned with the CEFR, and setting proficiency achievement on the CEFR as a
graduation requirement. Many Taiwanese test users only considered the score equivalence to the
CEFR without paying attention to the test construct. As a result, the purpose of the tests may not
suit test-takers. Secondly, although the government requested test developers to design tests follow-
ing the CEFR levels, it did not appoint any authorised body to investigate the validity of the test.
Consequently, test developers may claim that their tests were aligned with the CEFR without provid-
ing theoretical and empirical evidence for this. Finally, universities require students to demonstrate a
minimum level of English proficiency before they can be awarded degrees. Students in Taiwan may
opt for external tests such as IELTS, TOEFL, General English Proficiency Test (henceforth GEPT) or
internal tests designed by universities. However, allowing students to sit external tests raises ques-
tions about the relationship between teaching practices in the classroom and external tests.
12 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

Tien’s (2013) research in Vietnam identified a different set of problems. She believes that the
CEFR framework was not suitable for Vietnamese learners of English because of their socioeconomic
conditions on the one hand and the status of English as a foreign language on the other. She argued
that learning conditions, target language environment, students’ learning ability and practices were
not adequately addressed in designing the ELT curriculum and developing teaching materials and
methods. She views the CEFR as an ideal framework for learning English as a second language
(rather than foreign language) and for countries with better socioeconomic conditions compared
to Vietnam. Finally, teachers in Vietnam did not receive enough training at the beginning of their
teaching career and there are limited opportunities for retraining and self-learning in their pro-
fessional practice.
Wu (2012) and Tien (2013) made several recommendations to support the positive impact of the
CEFR on teaching and learning. First, government agencies should help teachers to develop famili-
arity with the CEFR through a series of professional development programmes. This familiarity is
important to enhance teachers’ knowledge of the CEFR and encourage them to reflect on their teach-
ing and assessment practices. Next, authorities should make adequate resource investment to inves-
tigate the implementation of English language reform projects and develop an understanding of
project performance. Studies conducted by researchers and teachers from inside and outside the
countries can be used to improve the language curriculum, develop new textbooks, provide training
and retraining of teachers, design English tests and develop appropriate resources and facilities for
language teaching. Finally, the government should prioritise investment into foreign language edu-
cation in creating appropriate policies, targets and roadmaps to ensure the successful implemen-
tation of projects and avoid wastage of resources as in some previous education reform projects.
It appears that the CEFR implementation plan in Malaysia has addressed most of the problems
reported by these two authors and many of their recommendations have been incorporated into the
four stages of the Roadmap. Malaysia enjoys relatively better socioeconomic conditions than Viet-
nam where English also has a more established and widely accepted role in different social domains.
The MOE Malaysia has comprehensive plans for teacher training and professional development con-
cerning English teaching and the CEFR. The MOE has planned courses for teachers to be holistic by
breaking the dissemination of the reform into four major themes: Familiarisation; Learning Material
Evaluation, Adaptation and Design; Curriculum Induction; and Item Writing (Aziz, Rashid, and
Zainudin 2018).
Unlike Taiwan, the MOE Malaysia has appointed the ELSQC to play a leadership and supervisory
role in monitoring all projects, initiatives and ventures related to teaching English in Malaysia to
ensure they are consistent with the Roadmap. It helps to overcome issues of test validity which
occurred in Taiwan. The efforts made by the ELSQC to align the MUET to the CEFR can be
cited as an example. One lesson that Malaysia may learn from Taiwan is the strong support from
the government in enforcing the use of the CEFR which can be regarded as the best formula to
implement the policy in Taiwan. The MOE Taiwan on behalf of the government made it compulsory
for students, English teachers and civil servants to sit English language tests as a requirement for
graduation and job promotion. As a result, test providers especially the locally developed GEPT
must calibrate all tests against the CEFR levels to assist test takers in choosing a suitable test for
them. University graduates in Taiwan are expected to achieve a minimum of GEPT-Intermediate
Level which is equivalent to CEFR-B1. The MOE Taiwan also indirectly forced the universities to
establish regulation to only awarding degrees to students who have passed the GEPT or any other
external test at an equivalent point.
On the other hand, Malaysian students are currently in a state of complacence as there is no
requirement from the MOE Malaysia for them to pass the SPM3 English language subject paper,
although it was scheduled for implementation in 2016. The government backtracked on its plan
to make English as a compulsory subject to pass and decided not to enforce it due to the fear that
it may increase the rate of failure for SPM takers especially in rural areas. This requirement may
also mean that the need to learn English will be transformed into a mere need to get a pass in the
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 13

examination (Don 2014). However, Aziz and Uri (2017) argued that the decision not to enforce Eng-
lish as a compulsory subject to pass was because the relevant authorities were afraid of losing votes in
the Malaysian general election. It is important to note that education in Malaysia, as in some other
countries, is susceptible to political influence, for example, the establishment of the New Economy
Policy to restructure society through education. It can be argued that enforcing the plan to create a
push factor for students and provide students with a better understanding of why they are learning
English and what will be expected of them in the future is a right direction for English language pol-
icy in Malaysia.
Similarly, the recommendations provided by the Taiwan and Vietnam studies seem to have
already been acted upon in Malaysia. Teacher familiarity with the CEFR is given priority in the Road-
map and there are strategies for engaging teachers with the framework. The Roadmap appears to be a
guideline for the implementation of the education reform. What probably needs to be emphasised is
a sincere pursuit of the plan making adequate resources investment at different levels of the sector.
The role of research on the implementation of the CEFR needs to be recognised and supported which
may provide an evidence-based assessment of the policy and feedback on its utilisation. The auth-
orities may consider the following recommendations in the areas of curriculum, teaching and learn-
ing and assessment.
The majority of Malaysian students at this point of time enter universities with levels of Eng-
lish proficiency which are equivalent to B1 or A2 on the CEFR. It can be predicted that these
students will be able to graduate with a proficiency level at B1 or B1+ if the English Language
Unit at each university can organise English language activities outside the classroom for students
throughout their studies. A recent study conducted by Noor, Sarudin, and Aminudin (2017)
found that Malaysian universities have been productive in helping students to improve their Eng-
lish proficiency by organising various English language programmes beyond formal instruction.
These out of the classroom programmes should be considered critical because it is impossible
for the English Language Unit to increase the number of contact hours for English courses,
given that students are fully occupied with courses related to their areas of specialisation. The
English Language Unit may consider providing certificates of participation to students after the
completion of each English language activity outside the classroom. Such activities will also encou-
rage students to take control of their learning, as they can choose activities in which they are
interested. This autonomous mode of learning is also aligned with the aim of CEFR which
seeks to promote student-centeredness and independent learning. Language scholars are increas-
ingly emphasising the utilisation of various affordances provided by new technologies and net-
works for meaningful learning of English and other languages.
The CEFR promotes learner-centeredness in line with its action-oriented approach emphasising
learners’ communicative capacity. However, autonomy in the Malaysian context may be different
from its Western conception. Traditionally, students in Malaysia are nurtured to consider teachers
as the main source of knowledge which directly influences their learning. A learner-centred approach
may somehow change the teaching and learning landscape in Malaysia for which there has to be
some awareness development among students, teachers and other stakeholders. This awareness
development work may highlight the Malaysian version of autonomy that may refer to students’
‘capability to learn and work on their own despite their preference to learn in teacher-centred
environments’ (Jaafar and Thang 2013, 43). This may generate a hybrid model of education (Tan
and Reyes 2016) in English teaching and learning.
As for assessment, the reform process should involve both English teachers and students. English
teachers should attend CEFR workshops to find support in dealing with issues related to the
implementation of the CEFR-based policy in the classroom. They also should be supported in
their pursuit of continuous professional development programmes and opportunities. Teachers
should be encouraged to continue enhancing their English language proficiency and provided
with opportunities to retake tests such as International English Language Testing System (IELTS)
if they have not reached the minimum requirement of C1 as stated in the Roadmap. Universities
14 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

may also consider including English language proficiency as one of the criteria for recruiting future
academic staff. As an example, those who will be teaching English language courses should demon-
strate the level of proficiency equivalent to a C1 on the CEFR and those who will be teaching non-
English subjects should possess B2 as a minimum. These levels of proficiency, together with other
skills and experiences, may ensure that academics are comfortable in delivering lectures in English
and indirectly promoting a positive English-speaking environment in the classroom. As for assess-
ment of students’ English language proficiency, it may be recommended that students who obtained
MUET Band 3 or below when they enrolled in universities to sit for a new version of MUET-CEFR
aligned test before they graduate.

6. Conclusion
This paper has elaborated on the stages of the borrowing of the CEFR in public universities, high-
lighting the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the global policy in language edu-
cation in Malaysia. The CEFR is expected to promote knowledge sharing among English language
teachers, creating an opportunity for best practices to be emulated in helping students to achieve
the targeted CEFR level of English proficiency. Although the decision to adopt the CEFR into English
language education in Malaysia was made by the former Malaysian government, it is hoped that the
new government will continue the efforts made so far to reform English language education. It is
desirable to invest in the existing policy initiatives and reforms for schools and higher education
without making any drastic changes. The MEB and the Roadmap were developed based on evidence
and opinions of English language experts, professional bodies and practitioners in the field. Malay-
sians may not be looking forward to another policy reversal related to English language education in
the near future.
Although Malaysia has a poor record of successfully implementing education reforms, it is
hoped that the adoption of the CEFR will not suffer the same fate as some other educational
changes. It is important for Malaysians to be patient to see the outcomes of the implementation
of the CEFR and its contribution to English language education in Malaysia. Since the outcomes
of the reforms may not available in a year or two, it is essential to monitor the progress of the
reform. The process is still new and ongoing, and the change of government is also something
that needs to be taken into account. As the implementation of the CEFR in Malaysian primary
and secondary schools started only in January 2018, there might be some unanticipated challenges
that may have surfaced within this short period. Teachers may feel that they have lost control over
the curriculum and have difficulty in adapting to the new teaching and learning materials. While
they need time to adjust to the changes, it is also crucial for the ELSQC to provide support and
initiate improvement in making sure that the English education reform initiative comes to its
fruition.

Notes
1. ELSQC was established in May 2013 and it is an independent panel of English language experts comprising
seven members from universities, professional bodies and individuals who are practitioners and experts
in the field of English Language Teaching in Malaysia. The council assists the Ministry of Education in
determining English language policy through the recommendation of English language standards and
by assuring the quality of English language programmes, subject to the approval of the Minister of
Education.
2. MUET was introduced by the Malaysian Examinations Council in 1999 and was designed to measure students’
language ability before they enter universities in Malaysia. The test covers reading, listening, speaking and writ-
ing skills and is aggregated on six-point scale (Band 6 – excellent user, Band 5 – very good user, Band 4 – good
user, Band 3 – modest user, Band 2 – limited user, and Band 1 – extremely limited user).
3. Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia is abbreviated as SPM is an examination at the end of the upper secondary education in
Malaysia. English is one of the subjects tested in this examination.
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 15

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on an earlier draft of the
paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Liyana Ahmad Afip http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6920-1036
M. Obaidul Hamid http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3205-6124
Peter Renshaw http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2052-2055

References
Ali, N. L., M. O. Hamid, and K. Moni. 2011. “English in Primary Education in Malaysia: Policies, Outcomes and
Stakeholders’ Lived Experiences.” Current Issues in Language Planning 12 (2): 147–166.
Aziz, H. 2016. “Raising English Language Proficiency.” New Straits Times, September, 28. https://www.nst.com.my/
news/2016/09/176566/raising-english-language-proficiency.
Aziz, A. H. A. A., R. A. Rashid, and W. Z. W. Zainudin. 2018. “The Enactment of the Malaysian Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR): National Master Trainer’s Reflection.” Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8
(2): 409–417.
Aziz, M. S. A., and N. F. M. Uri. 2017. “CEFR in Malaysia: Current Issues and Challenges in the Implementation of the
Framework.” The 3rd international conference on language testing and assessment and the 5th British council new
directions in language assessment conference, Shanghai.
Azman, H. 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.
Cambridge English. 2011. Using the CEFR: Principles of Good Practice. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/
126011-using-cefr-principles-of-good-practice.pdf.
Chan, L. 2017. “Education Ministry to Increase Classes When Imported English Textbooks Arrive.” The Star Online,
December, 1. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/12/01/education-ministry-to-increase-classes-when-
imported-english-textbooks-arrive/.
Chin, C. 2018. A Call for Reform.” The Star Online, August, 5. http://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2018/08/
05/a-call-for-reform/.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf.
Council of Europe. 2017. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment
Companion Volume with New Descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/
1680787989.
Darmi, R., and P. Albion. 2013. “English Language in Malaysian Education System: Its Existence and Implication.” 3rd
Malaysian postgraduate conference. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279867616_ENGLISH_
LANGUAGE_IN_MALAYSIAN_EDUCATION_SYSTEM_ITS_EXISTENCE_AND_IMPLICATION.
Don, Z. M. 2014. “English in Malaysia: An Inheritance from the Past and the Challenge for the Future.” In Dynamic
Ecologies, 117–133. Dordrecht: Springer.
Don, Z. M., M. H. Abdullah, A. C. Abdullah, B. H. Lee, K. Kaur, J. Pillai, and M. Y. Hooi. 2015. English Language
Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015–2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.
Gill, S. K. 2005. “Language Policy in Malaysia: Reversing Direction.” Language Policy 4 (3): 241–260.
Gill, S. K. 2012. “The Complexities of Re-Reversal of Language-in-Education Policy in Malaysia.” In English as an
International Language in Asia: Implications for Language Education, edited by A. Kirkpatrick, 45–61.
Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
Gill, S. K., and A. Kirkpatrick. 2013. “English in Asian and European Higher Education.” In The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics, edited by C. A. Chapelle, 1–4. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Government of Malaysia. 1957. Federal Constitution. http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/FC/
Federal20Consti20 (BI%20text).pdf.
Greene, A. n.d. Helping to Improve English Standards in Malaysia. http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/blog/
helping-to-improve-english-standards-in-malaysia/.
16 L. AHMAD AFIP ET AL.

Hamid, M. O. 2016. “The Politics of Language in Education in a Global Polity.” In The Handbook of Global Education
Policy, edited by K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, and A. Verger, 259–274. London: Wiley Blackwell.
Hardman, J., and N. A. Rahman. 2014. “Teachers and the Implementation of a New English Curriculum in Malaysia.”
Language, Culture and Curriculum 27 (3): 260–277.
Hu, G., and S. L. McKay. 2012. “English Language Education in East Asia: Some Recent Developments.” Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (4): 345–362. doi:10.1080/01434632.2012.661434.
Jaafar, N. M., and S. M. Thang. 2013. “Revisiting Autonomy and Attributions: A Case in a Malaysian University.”
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 13 (2): 41–64.
Majhanovich, S. 2014. “Neo-liberalism, Globalization, Language Policy and Practice Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region.”
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 34 (2): 168–183.
Ministry of Education. 2012. The National Graduate Employability Blueprint 2012–2017. Serdang: Universiti Putra
Malaysia Press.
Mustafa, Z. 2017. “MOHE Launches Malaysia English Assessment for University Students.” New Straits Times,
October, 24. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2017/10/294741/mohe-launches-malaysia-english-assessment-
university-students.
Nguyen, V. H. 2016. “Global Policy Borrowing and Individual Agency in Vietnamese Higher Education.” Unpublished
PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Noor, Z. M., I. Sarudin, and Z. M. Aminudin. 2017. “English Language Proficiency and Initiatives of Malaysian
Universities.” The Social Sciences 12 (1): 1–4.
Ochs, K. 2006. “Cross-National Policy Borrowing and Educational Innovation: Improving Achievement in the London
Borough of Barking and Dagenham.” Oxford Review of Education 32 (5): 599–618.
Phillips, D. 2015. “Policy Borrowing in Education: Frameworks for Analysis.” In Second International Handbook on
Globalisation, Education and Policy Research, edited by J. Zajda, 137–147. Dordrecht: Springer.
Phillips, D., and K. Ochs. 2003. “Processes of Policy Borrowing in Education: Some Explanatory and Analytical
Devices.” Comparative Education 39 (4): 451–461.
Rajaendran, R. 2016. “Roadmap to Continue Enhancing English Levels.” The Star Online. https://www.thestar.com.
my/news/nation/2016/08/31/roadmap-to-continue-enhancing-english-levels.
Rashid, R. A. B., S. B. A. Rahman, and K. Yunus. 2017. “Reforms in the Policy of English Language Teaching in
Malaysia.” Policy Futures in Education 15 (1): 100–112.
Read, J. 2014. “The Influence of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in the Asia-Pacific Region.”
Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal 2014: 33–39.
Rizvi, F., and B. Lingard. 2010. Globalizing Education Policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rosli, T., S. H. Chan, A. Ain Nadzimah, B. E. Wong, N. Rohimi, and M. R. Sabariah. 2010. Perspectives and Defines of
Workplace English in Malaysia. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Spring, J. 2014. Globalization of Education. Florence: Taylor and Francis.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. 2004. “Globalization in Education: Real or Imagined?” In The Global Politics of Educational
Borrowing and Lending, edited by G. Steiner-Khamsi, 1–6. New York: Teachers College Press.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. 2016. “New Directions in Policy Borrowing Research.” Asia Pacific Education Review 17 (3): 381–
390.
Sugitani, T., and Y. Tomita. 2012. “Perspectives from Japan.” In The Common European Framework of Reference: the
Globalisation of Language Education Policy, edited by M. A. Byram, 172–183. Bristol, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Tan, C., and V. Reyes. 2016. “Curriculum Reform and Education Policy Borrowing in China: Towards a Hybrid Model
of Teaching.” In Chinese Education Models in a Global Age, Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns
and Prospects, Vol. 31, edited by C. Chou, and J. Spangler, 37–49. Singapore: Springer.
Thirusanku, J., and M. M. Yunus. 2014. “Status of English in Malaysia.” Asian Social Science 10 (14): 254–260.
Tien, L. H. 2013. “ELT in Vietnam General and Tertiary Education from Second Language Education Perspectives.”
VNU Journal of Foreign Studies 29 (1): 65–71.
UCLES/Cambridge University Press. 2011. English Profile: Introducing the CEFR for English. http://www.
englishprofile.org/images/pdf/theenglishprofilebooklet.pdf.
Wu, J. 2012. “Policy Perspective from Taiwan.” In The Common European Framework of Reference: The Globalisation
of Language Education Policy, edited by M. Byram, and L. Parmenter, 213–223. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.