The 3rd International Conference on Language Testing and Assessment and the 5th British Council New
Directions in Language Assessment Conference, 2 – 3 December 2017. Shanghai, China.
CEFR in Malaysia:
Current issues and challenges in the implementation of the framework
Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz drsallehhudin@gmail.com
Nurul Farehah Mohd Uri nfarehah@unikl.edu.my
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Universiti Kuala Lumpur
Abstract
The Common European Framework of Reference or CEFR is now acknowledged
internationally as the standard language proficiency framework to adopt. The framework which
was first intended to serve as a shared language framework in the EU to regulate its language
education system across several countries within the union has been embraced by countries
outside Europe such as Vietnam, Japan, and Indonesia. The framework has also made its
way to Malaysia and was officially introduced in 2013. Recent important documents such as
the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013 -2025 and English Language Education Reforms
2015-2025 have shown that the government has agreed not only to incorporate and align the
framework into the present education system but accelerate its implementation. Unfortunately,
there are a number of issues that need to be dealt with first before CEFR is fully implemented
in the country. This paper therefore intends to highlight some of these important issues that
Malaysian ministry of education faces in implementing CEFR. In order to understand the
issues thoroughly, this paper will first provide some historical background of the Malaysian
education system and relevant issues associated to it. Next, some studies on CEFR that have
been conducted in Europe, Asia, and in Malaysia will be thoroughly discussed. Then, it will
highlight some of the challenges that may hinder the implementation of the framework. Some
possible solutions are also deliberated. This paper will also suggests the need to critically
evaluate these studies before the framework is fully incorporated into the education system.
Introduction
Malaysia, a former British colony with a population of 32, million is home to multi ethnic groups
such as Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban, Bidayuh and Kadazan. Although English is spoken
widely among the educated and elitists, Bahasa Melayu or Malay is the national language and
language of the masses. Since the proclamation Malay as the national language in 1968 and
the medium of instruction in schools and universities, the standard of English has mostly gone
spiraling downwards. The majority of the people now use Malay for their everyday
communication.
After more than 60 years of post-independence and the worsening standards of English, the
Malaysian government has begun to realize the significance of English as the lingua franca of
the world and is now actively promoting and strengthening the English language again. It’s a
problem that the government is taking very seriously as illustrated in Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013-2025. According to the government, this is new assertiveness is necessary to
help Malaysia compete with other countries in attracting much needed tourists and foreign
direct investments. But thus far the government’s language policies of promoting the use of
English seem to have not produced any exemplary results as the standard of English
continues to drop among its students (Ranjit Singh Gill 2013).
1
In order to arrest the declining standards of English, the government decided to form a body
that is known as the English Language Standards and Quality Council (ELSQC). . The
members of the council consisted of experts appointed by the Ministry of Education which also
included the director of the ELTC or English Language Teaching Center. One of the aims of
the body is to advise the government on the appropriate of language policy. The ELSQC was
mainly set up to help elevate the standard of English in Malaysia. The council is assisted by
the English Language Teaching Center (ELTC) which is the leading agency to elevate and
improve English proficiency of Malaysian students (Nurul farehah & Mohd Sallehhudin Aziz
(2017).
The language council eventually put forward the idea of adopting Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) for the country. The proposed adoption of CEFR in the
development of the English education system in Malaysia is to meet the international standard
(Ministry of Education Malaysia Blueprint, 2015(b): 62). Recent documents and plans released
by the government such as the English Language Roadmap 2015-2025 which are part of the
Malaysian Education plan have clearly indicated that the Malaysian government is expediting
the implementation of the framework into the current education system. One of the ultimate
aspirations of the education system is the development of a bilingual proficiency mainly the
dual language policy i.e. the policy to uphold “Bahasa Malaysia and to strengthen the English
language”. This policy aims to ensure that every student in Malaysia has at least an
operational proficiency with two other languages (which includes English) by the time they
have completed their 11 years of education. Key to the elevated the standard of English in the
country is the alignment of Malaysia’s English language curriculum and assessments with the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages or CEFR.
The CEFR was introduced in 2001 by the Council of Europe with a view to provide “a
common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines,
examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe” (Council of Europe, 2001 p.1.) The Common
European Framework of References or CEFR was essentially developed by the Council of
Europe more than two decades ago. Then, there was a greater need for language education
to promote free movement of people, information and ideas within Europe after the Second
World War and the birth of the Council of Europe and the EU（Byram and Parmentar 2012).
Since then, the framework has grown in status not only in Europe but also across the world.
(Asian correspondent 2015). The framework is also beginning to be accepted in this part of
the region. The first country in South East Asian to officially adopt CEFR is Vietnam. The
country decided to implement the international standard framework because a large number
of Vietnamese students failed to meet the global standard compared to its competitors
(Nguyen & Hamid 2015).
The CEFR framework defines foreign language proficiency into six levels. They are
A1 and A2, B1 and B2, C1 and C2. It also distinguishes five communication skills, namely
listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing. Language proficiency
is measured in relation to the five skills on a scale beginning with A1, and progressing through
A2, B1, B2 and C1 to C2. Proficiency in each skill is defined at each level by a series of “can
do” statements (see Table 1).
Table 1: CEFR Descriptors
A
Basic user
A1
Breakthrough
or beginner
•
•
•
A2
Waystage or
elementary
•
•
•
B
Independent B1
user
Threshold or
intermediate
•
•
•
•
Can understand and use familiar
everyday expressions and very basic
phrases aimed at the satisfaction of
needs of a concrete type.
Can introduce themselves and
others and can ask and answer
questions about personal details
such as where he/she lives, people
they know and things they have.
Can interact in a simple way
provided the other person talks
slowly and clearly and is prepared to
help.
Can understand sentences and
frequently used expressions related
to areas of most immediate
relevance (e.g. very basic personal
and family information, shopping,
local geography, employment).
Can communicate in simple and
routine tasks requiring a simple and
direct exchange of information on
familiar and routine matters.
Can describe in simple terms
aspects of their background,
immediate environment and matters
in areas of immediate need
Can understand the main points of
clear standard input on familiar
matters regularly encountered in
work, school, leisure, etc.
Can deal with most situations likely
to arise while travelling in an area
where the language is spoken.
Can produce simple connected text
on topics that are familiar or of
personal interest.
Can describe experiences and
events,
dreams,
hopes
and
ambitions and briefly give reasons
and explanations for opinions and
plans.
B2
Vantage or
upper
intermediate
•
•
•
C
Proficient
user
C1
Effective
operational
proficiency or
advanced
•
•
•
•
C2
Mastery or
proficiency
•
•
•
Can understand the main ideas of
complex text on both concrete and
abstract topics, including technical
discussions in their field of
specialization.
Can interact with a degree of fluency
and spontaneity that makes regular
interaction with native speakers quite
possible without strain for either
party.
Can produce clear, detailed text on a
wide range of subjects and explain a
viewpoint on a topical issue giving
the advantages and disadvantages
of various options.
Can understand a wide range of
demanding, longer clauses, and
recognize implicit meaning.
Can express ideas fluently and
spontaneously without much obvious
searching for expressions.
Can use language flexibly and
effectively for social, academic and
professional purposes.
Can produce clear, well-structured,
detailed text on complex subjects,
showing
controlled
use
of
organizational patterns, connectors
and cohesive devices.
Can understand with ease
virtually everything heard or
read.
Can summarize information
from different spoken and
written
sources,
reconstructing arguments
and accounts in a coherent
presentation.
Can express themselves
spontaneously, very fluently
and precisely, differentiating
finer shades of meaning
even in the most complex
situations.
The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Language (Council of Europe,
2001)
English Language Education Reforms in Malaysia
The CEFR was publicly introduced in Malaysia in the year 2013 when the CEFR symposium
was held in Sepang just outside of Kuala Lumpur. The symposium was attended by key
teachers, lecturers and testing experts. According to the roadmap as highlighted in the
Malaysian Education Plan 2013-2015, CEFR in Malaysia would be fully developed in three
phases. The first phase should have been implemented between the year 2013 and 2015, the
second wave starts in 2016 and ends in 2020. While the third phase, which is the assessment
phase, starts from 2021 and ends in 2025.The MOE Malaysia has also set targets for each
stage of the English language programme. The targets set to be achieved by the year 2025
for Malaysian students to reach as they progress through the English language programme
are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Malaysian CEFR Targets set For Each Stage
Stage / Level
Target
Teacher Education
C2
University
B2/C1
Post-Secondary school
B2
Secondary school
B1/B2
Primary school
A2
Pre-school
A1
(Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2015)
In the context of English language proficiency, this means that between now and 2025, the
Ministry of Education expects an increasingly large proportion of Malaysian students from all
social backgrounds to attain the target proficiency level expressed in terms of the CEFR set for
each stage of education (English Language Education Reforms in Malaysia: The Roadmap 20152025, 2016, pp. 5-6). The Ministry also aspires that by the year 2016 all English language teachers
achieve a minimum level of C1, which is equivalent to a capable/expert user of the English
language according to the CEFR to enable them to continue to teach the subject.
The following section looks at the challenges that Malaysia faces in implementing CEFR in the
country .The implementation of the CEFR is seen as an important step forward, but one that will
be beset by numerable challenges. Below are the possible challenges that need to be addressed
by the relevant stakeholders in the country.
Majority of English teachers are not proficient in English
It has been revealed that a large number of Malaysia English language teachers are ‘not
proficient’ to teach English. As stated in the earlier section, the minimal level that a teacher must
attain in Malaysia is level C1. According to the Deputy Education Minister P Kamalanathan, about
15,000 of Malaysia’s 60,000 English teachers are not adequately equipped to teach the subject.
(The Star 2014). This is due to the fact that approximately two-thirds of the total number of English
teachers in the country failed to reach the minimal proficiency level in English according to the
baseline Cambridge English study. The relatively poor performance of the teachers in the test is
quite disconcerting as in any program they are the key players to the success implementation of
any program. The teachers are the main determinant of success of any learning outcomes.
In the 2014 baseline project which was headed by Cambridge English, it attempted to obtain a
comprehensive profile of English language teachers’ proficiency levels. The main purpose of the
study was twofold. First, to map out the proficiency level of Malaysian English teachers to an
internationally recognized measure for describing language ability. Secondly, the objective of the
project was to develop a framework of continuous professional development based on teachers’
needs and proficiency level. For that a Cambridge Placement Test (CPT), questionnaires and
even face-to-face interviews were administered to gauge the teachers’ English language
proficiency. The standard set for teachers to achieve is C1. Below are the detailed performance
of the Malaysian teachers in the evaluation exercise.
Figure 2: Malaysian teachers’ performance in Cambridge Placement Test
Teachers
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
Primary
school
teachers
0.2 %
4.0 %
28.3 %
45.5 %
21.1 5
3.9 %
0.9 %
11.7 %
36 %
36.7 %
14.7 %
Secondary 0 %
School
teachers
As can be seen from the figure, only approximately 52 % of the English language teachers in the
secondary schools made the grade. Whilst those teaching in the primary schools only 25 % are
qualified to teach English. The majority of the teachers are in the B1 and B 2 categories.
English is students’ weakest core subject in national assessments
The Ministry of Education quite recently has revealed that at least 23 per cent of the Primary 6
students who sat for the UPSR (year 6) failed the English language Writing paper (FMT November
18, 2016.) Despite learning English language for six years at the primary school level and another
five years at the secondary level, Malaysian students’ English language proficiency leaves much
to be desired. In fact, the students’ performance in the national exams have shown that, a quarter
of the total number of students who took the English paper in the three national exams failed the
English paper. A total of 25 % failed the year 6 UPSR exam and 22 5% and 23 % failed the PMR
and SPM exams respectively. The failure rate is much higher in the 1119 English exam (an
International English paper taken by form 5 students) where more than 50 % failed the English
paper (Ranjit Singh 2013).
Table 3: Percentage of students failing national exams 2013
Percentage of failure
National Exam
Year
25%
UPSR
Year 6
23%
PMR
Year 9
22%
SPM
Year 11
In terms of language ability of the students, Iber G (2014) in his study maintained that in Malaysia,
students occupy all three circles of Kachru’s Concentric Model with a significant majority
belonging to the lower level (English as a third or Foreign language) and ESL due to the difference
of the exposure to English between urban and rural areas. He further argues that the students
make up all the 3 stages of the Kachru’s model in terms of English ability. What this means is that
students in some parts of Malaysia especially in the rural areas see English as a third or foreign
language while in places like Kelantan and Sabah and it does not appear in their daily lives. Most
of these students are only exposed to the language during English classroom sessions.
To make matters worse, the English classroom allocation in schools and other education facilities
for English education exposes the students to the language on average of 210 -240 minutes of
English lessons a week. This compares to 5840 hours of English annually for native speakers
and around 2000 hours for ESL learners. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect students
who have so little exposure to English in comparison to compete with those who are exposed to
it regularly. Although the roadmap intends to address this concerns by increasing the time
students spend on learning English , to expect students to reach C1 level by the time they reach
tertiary education with only 800 hours of cumulative CEFR based English instructions from
primary level would be a challenge (Yunus & Sukri, 2017)
Lack of Political will
The so-called standard of English proficiency in Malaysia has reached a serious level as evident
in students’ poor performance not only in the national exams but also at the international one.
This kind of deterioration should have triggered alarm amongst the people and the stakeholders
to actually engage in a structural reform to improve the standards of English. Unfortunately, the
political will stands in the way of many concerned Malaysians and that the standard of English
has deteriorated to such a large degree as shown by the large number of unemployed youth (The
Star 24 Jan 2014) .To demonstrate that the government is taking a strong stance in upgrading
the standard of English, the Minister of Education 2014 enthusiastically announced that a pass in
English would be made compulsory. According to the plan, the English language would be made
a compulsory pass subject in Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination which is an 0 level
examination in line with the implementation of the second phase of the National Education
Development Blueprint.
Unfortunately the government backtracked on its plan and has decided that a pass in
English would not be enforced. According to P Kamalanathan deputy education minister, "If
English was a compulsory subject this year, 2015, we would have had about 25 per cent of the
students failing SPM,” “We have about 400,000 students sitting for the examination. 25 per cent
rate failure would give us about 100,000 of students not being able to get certificates. That's a
concern." (Channel News Asia 2017). In short, with a large number of students especially those
in the rural areas like in Terengganu, Kelantan and Sabah would have failed the SPM examination
the government tumbled under pressure. Such a drastic move would make the ruling party very
unpopular.
Teachers still not adequately trained
Malaysia still lacks qualified local English teachers who are capable of implementing the
Education Ministry’s new Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
aligned curriculum and assessment system. Most of them are still not sufficiently trained and to
make matters worse, in some schools, English teachers are selected to attend CEFR workshops
because they know a little more English than their peers, not because they are specifically trained
in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) or possessed similar qualifications. In fact,
most of these teachers in schools are still unaware of exactly what exactly CEFR is. The teachers
may also show the lack of interest in learning in adopting the framework. Most of the teacher in
Malaysia are still not aware of the framework (Nurul Farehah and Mohd Sallehhudin
(2017). Although the ministry of education has produced 300 master trainers and trained
thousands of teachers using the cascading method. Relying on cascade training as its central
training paradigm might help cascading to the big numbers of teachers, as its principle is that you
train a trainer to train other trainers who then train others
Lack of studies done on the implementation of CEFR in the Malaysian context.
There are dozens of studies on CEFR that have been completed outside Malaysia such as by
Nguyen and Hamid (2015) and Judith Runnels (2013), however a review of the literature
pertaining to CEFR in Malaysia shows that they have not been many studies done on CEFR in
the country. There are nonetheless a number of small scale studies completed which include
Razianna Abdul Rahman (2013). Her study however focuses on the instructor’s proficiency in
English and she highlights the importance of CEFR in improving the overall quality of Malaysian’s
teachers as it provides an international standard to benchmark the country’s educators. She
pointed out the Malaysian Education Plan needs and aspirations for a fully proficient English
teaching force by 2016 in order to implement the CEFR. In another related study,George Iber
(2014) looked at the Malaysian Education Blueprint and its plans for the current education system
moving forward to 2025. He argues that the implementation of CEFR onto the Malaysian
education system would not be appropriate without a proper preparation to aid in the transition.
Ramiada et al (2017) study aims to understand English language teachers’ views on the English
language proficiency courses in a local university, in Malaysia, based on CEFR scales. Data
shows there are variations in teachers’ views towards English language proficiency courses, and
this may not necessarily fit into the CEFR standards targeted for university learners. The result of
this study acts as preliminary data for further research on the link between English language
course content and CEFR standards, as well as expected English language proficiency of
university learners.
Nurul Farehah and Mohd Sallehhudin’s (2017) study seeks to investigate Ministry of Education
officials and teachers’ perspectives on the interpretation and implementation of CEFR in
secondary schools in Malaysia. It also aims to explore the challenges encountered by the
stakeholders in the process of adopting CEFR onto the English syllabus and assessments.
Overall, there are only a handful of studies that have been conducted here and these studies are
mostly small scale studies with minimal impact to be used as a guide to help the authorities with
the implementation of CEFR.
Some solutions
One of the most effective ways of upgrading the standard of English is to make it compulsory to
pass the English language paper in all the national exams. Malaysia once decided to make it a
ruling that it is compulsory for students to pass English for Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM)
Certification from 2016 in order to get a certificate but this was later reversed due to pressure
from some of the stakeholders. This step could have been viewed as a motivation for both
students and teachers in achieving higher standards in the teaching and learning of English.
However, it seems that there no appetite on the part of the relevant authorities to enforce the
ruling because of the fear of losing votes in view of the upcoming general elections expected to
be run latest by early next year.
However as a note of advice, before this plan is implemented the relevant ministries would have
to put in place a proper plan. This would have to include plans to train sufficiently qualified English
teachers and to make sure that upon graduation these teachers are sent to the rural areas where
they are needed the most. At the moment a lot of the trained English teachers in Malaysia opted
to teach in urban areas as they shy away from servicing in the rural areas. For any program to
succeed, skillful and knowledgeable teachers are of utmost importance. They are the people that
would ensure the success of any program.
Another measure to dramatically increase the chances of success of the approach is to have a
very good training system and adequate support and training for English language teachers. This
is needed to strengthen English teaching and learning in Primary and Secondary Schools across
Malaysia. In Malaysia, the Ministry has rightly put in place a program called Professional Upskilling of English Language Teachers (Pro-ELT) initiative run by British Council. The justification
for Pro – ELT is based on two main principles:
•
•
Quality of teachers is the single most important determinant of student outcomes
English proficiency is a prerequisite to good teaching of the language
Pro-ELT program is based on a blended learning approach which covers 240 hours of face to
face classroom training and 240 hours of online learning session. So far the ministry has trained
more than 14,000 English language teachers, it is hoped that at least 85 per cent of these teachers
would improve by at least one proficiency band under Common European Framework of
Reference. The Ministry of Education has formulated a plan that by 2025, it aims to meet the
following targets: ▪ 90% students achieve a minimum Credit in Bahasa Malaysia at SPM level; ▪
70% students achieve Cambridge 1119-equivalent minimum Credit in English at SPM level; and
▪ 30% students achieve independent proficiency in an additional language (Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013-2025).
Conclusion
The move by the Education Ministry Malaysia to implement the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages by means of Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2015 and
Roadmap for English Language Education 2015-2025 which is a step-by-step plan that aims to
improve teaching and learning, examination results, and the overall English proficiency of schoolleavers and graduates and teachers is seen as a positive move. However, there are numerous
challenges that would make the implementation of the framework difficult to achieve such as the
competency of the teachers, and the diverse proficiency levels of the students among others.
Nonetheless, there is general consensus among the stakeholders in the country that the adoption
of the framework is a vital step towards achieving its language goals and raising the standards of
English. It is hoped that the adoption of the framework is the first of many other steps towards the
raising of the standards of English in the country.
References
Asian Correspondent (2015). https://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/04/thai-schools-adopteuropean- framework-to-boost-english-language-proficiency/#9bRDEjS291IpdY2i.99.
Accessed: October 16, 2017.
Byram, M. & Parmenter, J. (Ed) (2012):The Common European Framework of
Reference- The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Languages for Intercultural Communication and Education CEFR（２００１）Common European
Framework of Reference.
Council of Europe (2001), The Common European Framework of Reference For Language
Learning Teaching Assessment, Cambridge University Publisher , Cambridge. (Google
Scholar)English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025,
2016, pp. 5-6).
Free Malaysia Today: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/11/18/ministryadmits-to-poor-level-of-english-among-students/
Language Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge University
Publisher, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
Harith Hela Ladin Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz (2017) THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CEFR IN
MALAYSIA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES The 6th International Conference on Social
Sciences and Humanities 4-6 April 2017, Malaysia
IBER, G. 2014. English language teaching in Malaysia: The case for a dual track English
Curriculum [Short Communication]. Advances in Language and Literacy Studies. 5(4):
68-71. Date of access:
01/01/2017.http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/428/366
Khairiah Othman The assessment of writing within the cefr scale: A Malaysian context Article
in Advanced Science Letters 23(5):4944-4947 · May 2017 DOI: 10.1166/asl.2017.8968
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA. 2012. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025.
Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Date of access: 1/6/2016
http://www.moe.gov.my/userfiles/file/PPP/Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng.pdf
Ministry of Education Malaysia 2013. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Preschool to
PostSecondary Education). Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Available
online at: http://www.moe.gov.my/cms/upload_files/articlefile/2013/articlefile_file_
003108.pdf. Accessed: October 3, 2013
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA. 2015. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 Higher
Education. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Date of access: 1/6/2016
http://www.moe.gov.my/cms/upload_files/files/3_%20Malaysia%20Education%20Bluepri
nt%202015-2025%20(Higher%20Education).pdf
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
Nurul Farehah and Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz (2017) Unpublished doctoral Thesis
Raziana Abdul Rahman Chapter 2.3 Developing Teachers in Meeting Students’ Needs:
Malaysia’s Current English Language Policy
The Star 2014 .http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/01/24/study-37-of-malaysianteachers-very-good-in-english/#ziPxH3i8KAPPWZtg.99. Accessed: October Accessed Oct
162017
Ramiaida Darmi1 *, Noor Saazai Mat Saad2 , Norhana Abdullah3 , Fariza Puteh-Behak4 , Zarina
Ashikin Zakaria5 , Juliana Niza Ismail Adnan6 (2017) . TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON
ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY COURSES VIA COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE SCALES, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, MALAYSIA,
ramiaida@usim.edProceedings of SOCIOINT 2017- 4th International Conference on
Education, Social Sciences and Humanities 10-12 July 2017- Dubai, UAE
GILL, R. S. 2013. Enhancing English Teacher Language Proficiency: The Malaysian
Experience. British Council, Date of access: 12/03/2017
https://www.britishcouncil.or.th/sites/default/files/dr.ranjit.pdf
Channel News Asia (2017): http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/english-a-failingsubject-for-malaysia-despite-national-push-8246744
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
Yunus, M. M. & Sukri, S.I.A. (2017). The use of English in teaching Mathematics and Science:
The PPSMI policy vis- à-vis the DLP. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1):
133-142. doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.1p.133