The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages or CEFR was formulated in 2001 and designed to establish international standards for foreign language education to cater to the needs of language learners as well as academics and other professions related to assessment, teaching and learning of languages. CEFR thoroughly describes what language learners are required to accomplish to communicate using a language. The framework has six levels of descriptors which are used to categorize learners’ ability to use a language. Language users are grouped into three main categories: Proficient users (levels C1 & C2), Independent users (levels B1 & B2) and Basic users (levels A1 & A2). Detailed descriptors of what learners are able to do are known as the “can do” statements for listening, writing, readings and speaking skills (Uri & Aziz, 2018). CEFR is now a familiar concept to many leading Asia countries such as Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China and Korea because these countries have adopted this framework years ago

The implementation of CEFR in Malaysia began with the establishment of English Language Standards and Quality Council (ELSQC) in 2013. The Council provided assistance to English Language Teaching Center (ELTC) to help the Ministry of Education to elevate and improve English language proficiency of Malaysian students. The council was responsible for introducing the CEFR framework onto the education system and also for developing a roadmap for systematic reforms of English language education. Alignment of the education system against CEFR is a key feature in the Malaysia Education Blueprint with the aims to boost the level of education to international standards (Azman 2016). The roadmap is a long- term goal and plan which started from 2013 and expected to end in 2025 with the main aim to provide the best language education starting from pre – school up to tertiary education (Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025). The roadmap consists of three phases. Phase 1 had taken place from 2013 to 2015 which focused on elevating the English proficiency of school teachers. The two-year span was used to send teachers out for various training including Professional Up- Skilling of English Language Teachers (Pro-ELT), the Native Speaker programme, the Fulbright English Teaching Assistant programme and the Expanded Specialist Coach (SISC) role for English (Sani 2016).

In a recent circular, a pivotal decision was made affecting some three hundred TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) teacher trainees who have completed their degree programme and are currently waiting for their placement in schools. These teacher trainees have yet to obtain the CEFR requirement for proficient users which is either a C1 or a C2. The minimum requirement however, is a C1 for these English language teachers to move on and start their teaching careers. In the course of their programme, these teachers have sat for various proficiency-based examinations such as the MUET (Malaysian University English Test), APTIS and APTIS Advanced but have yet to obtain the desired outcome. Several attempts such as preparatory classes run by teacher educators, workshops and online courses by examiners have been on-going and is still going on in teacher training institutes with the hope that the teacher trainees will graduate with both honours and a C 1 or C2 in their proficiency level. The plight of these three hundred teacher trainees is now a major concern. One last attempt made is an intensive one-month English language proficiency course located at four different institutes of teacher education around Malaysia. The one-month intensive course entails both lecture and practice sessions run by the teacher educators both offline and online. Instead of joining their counterparts who managed to obtain the much-sought after proficiency level and making preparations for graduation, these teachers-to-be are literally on lock-down for a full month doing practice tests after tests, proficiency-based tasks after tasks. Their future now lies on the APTIS Advanced Proficiency test which they will sit for at the end of the course. As educators we all know that no matter how much practice we do, how many sample tests we attempt at, the scenario facing an examination especially one that has a lot vested on is daunting to say the least. 

As a teacher educator, my hopes and prayers are with the twenty-eight teacher trainees who are placed in my teacher training campus and are currently into the second week of the intensive course. Their spirit remains high despite being in this unfortunate predicament of the devil, the deep blue sea and the CEFR.

References

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.

Rozana Sani. (2016). Journey to master English. 18 July. The New Straits Times Online. Retrieved July 14, 2017 from https://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/03/159164/journey-master-english

Uri, N. F. M., & Aziz, M. S. A. (2018). Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia: Teachers’ awareness and the Challenges. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(3), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-13

Written by Shubashini Suppiah