Cambridge Baseline Study 2013

Cambridge Baseline 2013
Introduction

Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
Project background and aims
Cambridge English expertise
Conceptual framework
Key questions
Structure of the report
2. METHODOLOGY
Research design: Convergent parallel mixed-method design
Project sample
Data collection instruments
13
Data analysis
13
Project timeline
14
Limitations
14
3. STUDENT ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Overall national profile
17
Summary: National profile
36
National profile: Comparison with other countries
38
State profiles
40
Urban/rural/remote profiles
46
School type profiles
55
Gender profiles
62
Class specialisation profiles
68
High performing versus low performing learners
71
Summary
76
4. TEACHER ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, TEACHING KNOWLEDGE AND TEACHING PRACTICE

Language proficiency: Teachers
79
Teaching Knowledge
88
Teaching practice
93
The role of assessment in learning and teaching
106
5. CURRICULA, LEARNING MATERIALS AND NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS

Curricula
111
Learning materials
115
National exams
118
6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
120
REFERENCES
124

Introduction
1.
Project background and aims
Malaysia has embarked upon a visionary English language education reform programme which will fundamentally
transform the existing system, providing the young people of Malaysia with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and
beliefs to enable them to become global citizens of the 21st century.
In October 2011, the Ministry of Education launched a review of the education system in order to develop a new
National Education Blueprint the Malaysia Education Blueprint 20132025 (referred to as the Education
Blueprint in the rest of this document). This document recognises the increasing importance of English as a global
language and the fact that the English proficiency of the population of a country is linked to its economic
development:
Education is a major contributor to the development of our social and economic capital Prime
Minister of Malaysia: DatoSri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, Education Blueprint
Therefore, in 2013 the Ministry commissioned Cambridge English Language Assessment to undertake a
comprehensive evaluation of the learning, teaching and assessment of English language in Malaysian schools from
Pre-school to pre-university.
The resulting evidence-based 2013 baseline gives the Ministry a clear picture of how the Malaysian English
language education system is currently performing against internationally recognised standards. The findings and
recommendations will act as the basis for discussion with the Ministry so that together Cambridge English
Language Assessment and the Ministry can move to the next phase of collaboration.
Cambridge English expertise

Cambridge English is uniquely positioned to deliver these services to the Ministry of Education given our expertise
in educational reform, especially where English is concerned. We deliver over 4 million language assessments
every year and have worked with governments and organisations around the world on similar projects.
The effective and timely delivery of the baseline project involved a unique team of Cambridge English staff and
external consultants with extensive expertise and experience in the fields of English language assessment,
curricula development, teacher training and development, primary and secondary education, sampling, research
methodology, data analysis, operational delivery and processing, and educational reform.
Conceptual framework
Central to the design of this project was the construct of communicative language competence, which has become
widely accepted as the goal of language education and as central to good classroom practice (Canale and Swain
1980; Bachman and Palmer 1982). Communicative language competence comprises linguistic competence, as well
as the ability to functionally use that competence in language activities which involve oral and/or written
reception, production and interaction in different domains. An approach driven by a communicative view entailed
the inclusion of the four language skills of Reading, Listening, Writing and Speaking in the investigation of the

Introduction
student and teacher English language baseline. Measuring just the receptive skills of Reading and Listening, albeit
the most straightforward from a test administration perspective, would have given only a partial picture of the
level of English proficiency of students and teachers. It was felt important, therefore, to include Speaking and
Writing in the project as well, in order to gain a more comprehensive and accurate view of the language
proficiency baseline.
A further conceptual premise underlying the project was the belief in the importance in triangulating the
investigation of English language proficiency with a complementary investigation of lesson observations and
teacher subject and pedagogic knowledge. Such an approach allowed us to develop a more in-depth view of
Malaysia English teachers profiles and their impact on student English language proficiency.
Teachers and students do not exist in a vacuum, but are part of an ecological system which also includes
documents such as curricula, textbooks and examinations, which often determine policy, classroom practices and
educational impact. As such, one strand of the project included a review of current primary and secondary school
curricula, national textbooks and examinations.
Taking into consideration the views of stakeholders is a further important conceptual premise which was
fundamental to the project. The context of and stakeholder attitudes to English language learning and teaching
can provide insight into factors that may be influencing learning outcomes. Therefore, background and attitudinal
questionnaires for teachers, students and Heads of Panel/Head Teachers, as well as interviews with teachers,
Heads of Panel/Head Teachers and policy planners from the Ministry of Education, comprised a further strand in
the project.
The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR, Council of Europe 2001) provides a useful common basis
for the investigation of many of the questions of interest in the project, such as language proficiency, curricula,
examinations and textbooks. The CEFR:
describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use
language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be
able to act effectively. The Framework also defines levels of proficiency which allow
learners progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis (Council
of Europe 2001:1).
The CEFR, therefore, provided a useful tool for description and comparison, which also allowed the findings of the
project to be considered against a broader international context where the CEFR is used. The CEFR describes a set
of six broad common reference levels, which cover the language learning continuum from a basic Breakthrough
level to an advanced Mastery level. The CEFR is not Europe-specific and has also been used beyond Europe,
either in its original form or adapted to different contexts, e.g. the CEFR-J is an adaptation of the original CEFR to
language teaching, learning and assessment in Japanese contexts (Negishi, Takada and Tono 2013).
The CEFR common reference levels and the Can Do statements which characterise the levels can be seen in Table
1.1. The Can Do statements for each level will be useful reference points for readers of this report, since they
specify in broad terms what the baselines established for the different cohorts in the project actually mean.

Introduction
Table 1.1 CEFR Common reference levels: Global scale (Council of Europe 2001:33)
C2
C1
Proficient
User
B2
Independent
User
B1
A2
Basic User
A1
Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read.

Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources,
reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation.
Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely,
differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations.
Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise
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 organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive
devices.
Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and
abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of
specialisation.
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 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.
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 his/her background, immediate
environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic
phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type.
Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions
about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and
things he/she has.
Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and
clearly and is prepared to help.

Introduction
Key questions
The project was guided by the following set of key questions:
Students: Language proficiency

1. How do students at different school stages in the Malaysian states/federal territories perform on a set of
Cambridge English language tests overall and by skill (Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking) against the
CEFR?
2. How does overall and by skill student performance at different school stages compare according to:
a. state/federal territory (16 states/federal territories)
b. location (urban/rural/remote)
c. type of school (National, Chinese, Tamil at Primary; National and Religious at Secondary)
d. gender (male/female)
e. class specialisation at Form 5 and 6 (Arts, Science, Religious, Vocational/Technology)?
Teachers: Language proficiency, teaching knowledge and teaching practice

Language proficiency
3. How do teachers teaching at different school stages in Malaysian states/federal territories perform on a
set of Cambridge English language tests overall and by skill (Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking) against
the CEFR?
4. How does overall and by skill teacher performance compare according to:
a. school stage (primary/secondary)
b. location (urban/rural/remote)?
Teaching knowledge
5. How do teachers teaching at different school stages in the Malaysian states/federal territories perform
overall on a test of teaching knowledge?
6. How does teaching knowledge compare according to:
Teaching practice
7. How do teachers teaching at different school stages in the Malaysian states/federal territories perform
overall in terms of teaching practice based on classroom practice evaluations and observations and postobservation discussions?
8. How does teaching practice compare according to:
Curricula, national textbooks and examinations

9. What are the features of currently used learning, teaching and assessment materials (e.g. curricula,
textbooks, national tests) according to international standards, e.g. the CEFR, and according to current
trends in teaching practice?

Introduction
Recommendations
10. What recommendations can be made, based on the benchmarking of teachers/students and the
evaluation of teaching/assessment materials, to enable the achievement of the envisioned education
transformation by the Malaysia Ministry of Education?
Structure of the report

The report is structured following the key aims and questions which underlie it. After the introduction (Section 1),
an overview of the methodology will be given (Section 2), outlining how the project was carried out in terms of
research design, data collection, analysis and participants. The findings on student English language proficiency
then follow (Section 3), with a focus on the overall and by-skill performance of the five school grades of interest
and the attitudinal and background factors which play a role in English language achievement. The performance of
the cohorts overall is followed by an investigation of performance based on key variables and comparisons
between them, such as: states/federal territories; urban, rural and remote location; school types; gender; class
specialisation. The next section (Section 4) presents findings on teacher English language proficiency, teaching
knowledge and teaching practice. In each case, performance overall is given, followed by comparisons based on
key variables, such as urban, rural and remote location, and primary/secondary school. The test performance
findings are integrated with findings about attitudinal and background variables which play a role in teacher
attainment, open-ended comments from the teacher questionnaire, interviews with Heads of Panel/Head
Teachers and Ministry of Education officials, and extended feedback from the classroom observers. The review of
key policy-setting documents which shape the learning, teaching and assessment in classrooms follows (Section 5),
with a discussion of current curricula, learning materials and examinations. Finally, the report ends with a set of
recommendations which emerge as a result of the qualitative and quantitative findings, and suggestions for ways
forward (Section 6).
More detailed information on the project, including sampling, project participants, instrument development, data
analysis procedures and significance testing output can be found in the Cambridge Baseline 2013 Technical Report.

Methodology
2.
The large-scale scope of the project and its aim, i.e. to build up a comprehensive profile of English language
education in Malaysia in order to provide the Ministry of Education with data-driven recommendations for
improving English language standards in Malaysia, necessitated a research design which allowed the gathering of
different types of information through the use of a range of tools. A premise recognised in educational reform is
that a key characteristic of the educational process is that student learning is influenced by many small factors
rather than a few large ones (Chapman, Weidman, Cohen and Mercer 2005:526); therefore, any
recommendations made in this project need to be based on an in-depth understanding of all aspects of the
educational system in order to ensure they are achievable and reduce the chances of any negative unintended
consequences. As a result, the project focused not only on measuring English language levels of students and
teachers, but also on investigating the context of learning, the availability and quality of resources, and
stakeholder perceptions. A mixed-method approach formed the basis of the study and a convergent parallel
design (Creswell 2009) was chosen due to its value in collecting qualitative and quantitative data strands in a
parallel fashion and in relatively short timeframes.
Research design: Convergent parallel mixed-method design

A fundamental feature of the convergent parallel mixed-method design is that it consists of two data strands a
qualitative and a quantitative one. These occur independently and concurrently, are analysed separately and
findings are then converged and integrated to inform the final overall findings. The key assumption of this design
is that a complex project, such as for example a national survey, can best be understood by gathering and
investigating different types of information which provide insights into different aspects of the project. A typical
aim, therefore, is to use large-scale statistical quantitative findings and detailed qualitative insights to develop an
in-depth understanding of a situation or an event through integrating these two types of information.
The use of two data collection strands in the Cambridge Malaysia Baseline Project one quantitative and one
qualitative allowed the project to maximise the value of two different research methodologies which are
grounded in different theoretical paradigms and interpret data through different lenses. The quantitative
paradigm underlies research which is based on large data sets, representative samples and statistical methods. A
quantitative strand was, therefore, well suited to the investigation of student/teacher language ability, teacher
pedagogic knowledge and stakeholder views through a suite of tests and questionnaires. The qualitative paradigm
draws on discovery and description; it is inductive and uses small purposefully chosen samples. It was, as such,
well suited to observations of classroom practices, interviews with stakeholders, comments written in response to
open-ended questions by stakeholders, and curricula, textbooks and examination reviews. This approach allowed
the project to build a rich picture of the current situation with regards to learning, teaching and assessment in
Malaysia and enhance the validity of the findings. Figure 2.1 presents an overview of the data collection and data
analysis procedures which formed the backbone of the project.

Methodology
Figure 2.1 Research design
QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION

Benchmarking tests for students
and teachers
Questionnaires for students,
teachers and education leaders
Classroom observations teaching
practice assessment
QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics of test scores
and questionnaire responses (mean
and standard deviation; frequency
%, mode)
Mapping onto CEFR levels (Rasch
analysis and ability estimates)
Linear and logistic regression
Multilevel modelling
INTEGRATION
AND
INTERPRETATION
QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION
Comments in questionnaires for
students, teachers and leaders
Semi-structured interviews with
policy planners
Classroom observations observer
comments and post-observation
discussions
Review of curricula, examinations,
learning materials
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

Thematic analysis of questionnaire
comments, interviews, classroom
observations notes and document
review trends
Project sample
The participants included students at five different age ranges, teachers, Heads of Panel/Head Teachers and policy
planners. Specific information on their distribution within the sample can be seen in Table 2.1. The selected
schools were chosen as part of a two-part stratified sampling methodology (i.e. schools were selected first based
on a range of variables and then students were selected within each school). This methodology resulted in a
sample which was intended to be representative of the overall target population.
10

Methodology
Table 2.1 Participants: by data collection instruments

Participants
Tests
Interviews
Qres
Reading/
Listening
Writing
Speaking
20402
9921
1372
Pre-school
3430
2127
187
12
Year 6
4795
1328
206
14
4956
Form 3
4858
2422
331
16
4740
Form 5
5458
2941
431
23
5495
Form 6
1861
1103
217
13
1913
424
266
42
600
78
1290
Primary
115
71
13
196
26
558
Secondary
287
188
29
352
52
732
Unknown
22
52
Students
Teachers
Teaching
knowledge
Classroom
observations
(Number of
classes)
17104
Heads of
Panel/Head
Teachers
41
31
Primary
14
Secondary
27
22
Ministry of
Education
Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of students by school grade. As can be seen, the sample covered all school
grades of interest, with Year 6, Forms 3 and 5 having a roughly similar proportion, and Form 6 having the smallest
proportion of students in the sample due to the smaller proportion of Form 6 in the target population.
Figure 2.2 Distribution of students by school grade (N=20,402)
Form 6
9%
Form 5
27%
Pre-school
17%
Year 6
23%
Form 3
24%

Methodology
11
The distribution of teachers in the sample can be seen in Figure 2.3, which shows that approximately one quarter
of the teachers in the survey came from the primary school level, and approximately two thirds came from
secondary schools.
Figure 2.3 Distribution of teachers by primary/secondary school (N=424)
Unknown
5%
Primary
27%
Secondary
68%
In addition to the language tests for teachers and students, questionnaires for students, teachers and Head
Teachers/Heads of Panel were also distributed in order to allow the collection of attitudinal and background data.
The distribution of completed questionnaires across the different school grades is given in Figure 2.4. Pre-school
children were not included in the questionnaire data, due to concerns with the reliability and validity of
questionnaire data supplied by young children (Borgers, Leeuw and Hox 2000).
Figure 2.4 Distribution of student questionnaire responses by school grade (N=17,104)
Form 6
11%
Year 6
29%
Form 5
32%
Form 3
28%
12

Methodology
The distribution of teacher questionnaire responses by primary/secondary school is shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 Distribution of teacher questionnaire responses by primary/secondary school (N=1,290)
Primary
43%
Secondary
57%

Methodology
13
Data collection instruments

A range of instruments was used to allow the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data. They comprised:
Benchmarking English language tests for students and teachers: aimed at providing information on
language proficiency, in terms of Reading, Listening, Writing and Speaking as measured against the
CEFR
Benchmarking teaching knowledge test for teachers: intended to provide a measure of knowledge of
and familiarity with teaching knowledge concepts in an objectively-scored test
Student, teacher and Head of Panel/Head Teacher questionnaires: aimed to gather stakeholder
perceptions of and attitudes toward English language learning, teaching and assessment
Classroom observations and post-observation discussions: intended to gather in-depth information on
teaching competence and performance for a smaller sub-set of the selected sample
Semi-structured interviews with policy planners and senior school administrators: focused on
exploring perceptions of the review project and expected outcomes, as well as views on curriculum,
textbooks, examinations, teaching practice
Curricula, textbooks and examinations review: intended to investigate issues such as the relationship
between standards, curricula, textbooks and examinations and the CEFR; information on the extent to
which the different documents complement each other and reflect latest trends in learning, teaching
and assessment, e.g. student-centred learning and teaching, learning-oriented assessment,
communicative-ability assessment.
Data analysis
As noted above (Figure 2.1), the mixed-method research design underlying this project involved both qualitative
and quantitative analyses, which comprised:
CEFR level mapping: Rasch analysis and ability estimates
Descriptive statistics in the quantitative strand: aimed to provide an overall picture of CEFR language
level, teaching knowledge and stakeholder perceptions, as well as the amount of variability within each
group. The analysis focused on the cohort as a whole (e.g. all Form 5 students) and on specific variables
within the cohort (e.g. Form 5 boys and girls; Form 5 urban, rural and remote students)
Linear and logistic regression: aimed to investigate which background and attitudinal factors play a
role in high- and low-achievers
Multilevel modelling: aimed to explore and confirm whether any attitudinal and background variables
(e.g. student motivation, use of the internet, etc.) played a significant role in predicting the language
level of students
Chi-square test of independence: aimed to investigate whether the different variables of interest (e.g.
state, location, gender, etc.) were related to questionnaire responses. Standardised residuals were also
computed to identify which responses were contributing to the test of significance
ANOVA and t-tests: aimed to explore whether there was any variance in the teacher group means for
questionnaire composite measures. Questionnaire statements on similar topics (e.g. assessment
practices, use of English in the classroom, etc.) were grouped together to determine whether teacher
variables (i.e. experience, education, school type, etc.) influenced responses
Thematic analysis in the qualitative strand: focused on bringing the wealth of collected in-depth
observational, questionnaire, interview and descriptive data into general thematic categories which
indicated major issues brought up by the different stakeholders participating in the project.
14

Methodology
The final analysis stage involved an integration of the quantitative and qualitative findings. This was essentially an
expert judgement approach which involved key members of the project team identifying relationships between
the different quantitative and qualitative findings and providing evidence for these relationships.
Ethical guidelines from the University of Cambridge, the British Association of Applied Linguistics and the British
Educational Research Association were followed during all data collection and data analysis phases of this project.
Project timeline
Activity
Date
Cambridge English proposal for the baseline project

submitted to the Ministry of Education
3 February 2013
Gathering of relevant data from the Ministry of

Education
February September 2013
Development of assessment and questionnaire

instruments
February April 2013
Review and analysis of curricula, teaching

documentation, examination data, etc.
February October 2013
Visits to schools for classroom/teacher observations,

Speaking tests, interviews with staff
18 October 1 November 2013
Administration of paper-based benchmarking tests

in schools
29 October 5 November 2013
Receipt and processing of results
November December 2013
Analysis of data and production of reports
January 2014 March 2014
Presentation of findings and recommendations
1 4 April 2014
Limitations
There were several issues that arose during the dispatch, administration and return of the exam materials which
resulted in fewer candidates taking the tests and completing questionnaires than expected or in some data being
removed from the analysis.
Exam/classroom observation administration:
The administration of the Cambridge English exams coincided with the end of term, which resulted in
fewer students in attendance than expected.
For the classes who had not yet taken their exams, the lessons observed tended to focus on exam
preparation, which may not have been indicative of a typical English lesson.

Methodology
15
Missing/incorrect ID data:
Pre-school learners comprise a smaller proportion in the sample than originally planned, due to the
high incidence of missing or incorrect student data in the data files. ID and name information for Preschool children was not provided. The data entered by the children and/or their teachers showed
frequent irregularities which led to some data being discarded.
The proportion of primary and secondary school teachers was more similar in the original sample (41%
primary school classes/teachers and 59% secondary school classes/teachers). However, due to large
numbers of incorrectly completed test sheets for teachers and the absence of such data from the
Ministry of Education for cross-referencing, it could not be determined which school stage some
teachers taught in and as such their data was excluded from the data set.
The number of teachers who completed the language tests (N=424) and teaching knowledge test
(N=600) was smaller than the number expected (N=934). This suggests that some teachers may have
opted out of taking the tests and that the teachers who did complete the tests may have been selfselected (See Section 4 for more information).
Exam malpractice:
During the marking of Writing scripts, examiners noticed many instances of malpractice in that either
pairs of students had the same/similar answer or in some cases the whole class had the same/similar
answer. This was particularly evident for Pre-school classes.
Questionnaires:
The learner questionnaire was intended to be administered to all secondary students and Year 6
students only; however, it was inadvertently included in the test materials sent to Pre-school classes.
Response data from Pre-school students was not included in the analysis because reliability and
accuracy could not be assured.
The proportion of questionnaires returned from each state was also unequal, with Selangor accounting
for 20% of all teacher questionnaires and all learner questionnaires returned. Perlis and WP Putrajaya
accounted for fewer than 1% of all teacher questionnaires returned. WP Labuan and WP Putrajaya
accounted for fewer than 1% of all learner questionnaires returned.
Examination review:
Cambridge English did not receive important statistical data about item and test performance for the
national exam sample question papers. This information would have allowed a far more in-depth
analysis to be carried out.

Student English language proficiency
16
3.
Key findings
The key findings provide a snapshot of the established learner proficiency baseline and also highlight the most salient
and meaningful differences in proficiency levels which emerged across certain variables as statistically significant, such
as location, gender and class specialisation. In addition, the key findings note the main attitudinal and background
factors which were found to be associated with high performing learners.
Pre-school
On average below CEFR level A1
78% below A1, 22% at A1/A2
Writing and Speaking emerge as weaker skills than Listening and Reading
Year 6
On average at CEFR level A1
32% below A1, 56% at A1/A2, 13% at B1/B2
Similar performance observed across Listening, Reading and Speaking; Writing emerges as the strongest skill
Students in remote and rural areas perform significantly worse than in urban areas
Form 3
69% at A1/A2 and below; 30% at B1/B2; 1% at C1/C2
Speaking emerges as the weakest skill
Female students perform significantly better than male learners
Form 5
Speaking emerges as the weakest skill
Male students perform significantly worse than female students
Students in Science classes perform significantly better than students in other specialisation classes
Form 6
On average at CEFR level A2/B1
Listening and Speaking emerge as the weakest skills
Students in Science classes perform significantly better than students in other specialisations

17
Role of attitudinal and background variables

Learners at all levels recognise the importance of learning English for improving their employment and
educational opportunities in the future
Learners have very little exposure to English or the opportunity to use English either within the learning
environment or outside it
Learners whose parents speak English are more likely to be performing better in school
Learners in rural and remote schools are less likely to be highly motivated or have parents who speak English
when compared to their urban counterparts
Note: Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
As noted in the Methodology section in this report, the language tests used to benchmark the students (and
teachers) tapped into both receptive language skills Listening and Reading and productive skills Writing and
Speaking. The use of a suite of tests which are based on a communicative construct of language ability was an
important aim of the project, in order to allow a more comprehensive and valid profile of language proficiency to
be built. The need to gather a broad range of data about language proficiency, instead of just relying on easy-toadminister reading and listening tests, is also emphasised in the CfBT Education Trust Commentary on the
Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (McAleavy, Hamilton and Latham no date:12).
We now move on to an overview of the national baseline at the school grades of interest and supplement the test
findings with the key insights obtained from the questionnaires, interviews and classroom observations.
Overall national profile

Question 1: How do students at different school stages in the Malaysian states/federal territories perform on a
set of Cambridge English language tests overall and by skill (Reading, Writing, Listening, Speaking) against the
CEFR?
Language proficiency: Primary school

Pre-school
Overall, Pre-school learners in Malaysia achieved a CEFR level below A1. In terms of the language skills of Reading,
Writing, Listening and Speaking, all four skills were found to be below CEFR level A1, as can be seen in Table 3.1.
The CEFR levels in the table are based on the mean scores of the Pre-school cohort, and for Listening and Reading,
the Pre-school children achieved a mean score just below the A1 level boundary, indicating that their productive
skills of Speaking and Writing in English lag behind their receptive Listening and Reading skills. This could partly be
a reflection of the slower development of literacy in young learners, who often lack the skills to handle the
cognitively complex processes of writing in both their first and additional languages (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley and
Wilkinson 2004). It is also in line with the trend found in many learners for receptive skills to be stronger than
productive ones.
Table 3.1 Average CEFR proficiency levels: Pre-school
Language skill
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
Below A1
Below A1
Writing
Speaking
Below A1
Below A1

18
The distribution of Pre-school learners across the different CEFR levels covered in their tests (Table 3.2 and Figure
3.1) ranged from A2 to below A1. In all four skills, the largest proportion of Pre-school children were below level
A1, but as noted above, Speaking and Writing appear to be weaker than Reading and Listening: in the case of
Listening and Reading, approximately a third to a half achieved either level A1 or A2 (32% for Listening and 44%
for Reading), in the case of Speaking and Writing that proportion was much smaller (12% for Writing and 3% for
Speaking).
Table 3.2 Distribution of CEFR levels: Pre-school
Language skill
Listening
Reading
A2
9%
11%
Writing
4%
Speaking
0%
Overall
6%
A1
23%
33%
8%
3%
16%
Below A1
68%
56%
89%
97%
78%
Note: Overall percentage is based on the equal distribution of all four skills. Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
Figure 3.1 Distribution of overall CEFR levels: Pre-school

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Below A1
A1
A2
Year 6
Overall, Year 6 learners in Malaysia achieved a CEFR level A1. Listening, Reading and Speaking were observed to be
at A1, with Writing performance at level A2 (Table 3.3). However, the mean score which the CEFR Writing level is
based on corresponds to a low A2 level, making the four skills generally comparable in development.
Table 3.3 Average CEFR proficiency levels: Year 6
Language skill
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
A1
A1
Writing
Speaking
A2
A1
The range of CEFR levels across Year 6 can be seen in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.2, which indicate that the
performance of most Year 6 students spans CEFR levels B1 to below A1. Compared to Pre-school learners, Year 6
learners show a smaller proportion at level A1 and below (94% at Pre-school, 66% at Year 6), and a larger
proportion at the higher A2 level, with some achieving B1 as well. The gap between the high and low achievers in
Year 6 is worth noting, as it signals that a variation in learning gains is already present at the end of primary
school, and will increase further in Form 3 and Form 5, as will be seen later.

Table 3.4 Distribution of CEFR levels: Year 6

CEFR level
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Overall
B2
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
B1
10%
0%
31%
5%
12%
A2
20%
14%
33%
20%
22%
A1
28%
29%
19%
59%
34%
Below A1
42%
57%
14%
16%
32%
19
Figure 3.2 Distribution of Overall CEFR levels: Year 6

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Below A1
A1
A2
B1
B2
Attitudinal and background factors: Primary school

In order to better understand the context of learning and teaching in Malaysia, students were asked to complete a
questionnaire. The focus of the questionnaire was on learners attitudes toward learning and background factors
which may play a role in learner motivation, with the aim being to identify key factors which may be associated
with high achievement in English language learning. Due to the young age of the Pre-school learners, it was not
deemed appropriate to ask them to complete a questionnaire. There is widespread consensus that questionnaires
are not generally given to children under the age of 8 because they are still at an early stage of their linguistic and
cognitive development, which can make it difficult to ensure the validity and reliability of their responses (Borgers,
Leeuw and Hox 2000). As such, this section focuses on Year 6 only.
Questionnaires were completed by 4,956 Year 6 students (29% of the returned student questionnaires) and by
443 teachers who indicated that they have the most experience teaching Year 6 learners (35% of teacher
questionnaires). The key findings from the questionnaires which emerged as significant and meaningful are
summarised below. The data analysis procedures for the questionnaires can be found in the Cambridge Baseline
2013 Technical Report.
Attitudes towards learning English
The academic literature on second/foreign language acquisition has indicated that learners attitudes towards
learning a language and the extent to which they perceive the language to be useful can influence learner
behaviour, both in terms of the amount of effort exerted on language learning and the extent to which they
persist with learning it (Csizr and Drnyei 2005; Gardner 1985; Oxford and Ehrman 1993). This was, as such, an
important construct captured in parts of the questionnaire in this project.

20
Fifty percent of Year 6 learners strongly agreed that learning English is important to them; however, this figure
was lower than all other grades (see Figure 3.3), possibly because unlike secondary school learners they have less
experience of the world and are further away from making choices about further study or work. Figure 3.3 also
shows that primary school students were more likely than secondary school students to strongly agree when
asked if they enjoy their English lessons at school. This may be linked to the level of difficulty of their lessons as
the lower level of proficiency of Year 6 students means that their lessons likely focus on simple grammatical
structures and vocabulary, whereas the older leaners are facing more cognitively demanding lessons as their
language ability increases. The secondary school students are also preparing for exams which have a more direct
impact on their future plans, perhaps influencing their level of enjoyment.
Figure 3.3 Importance and enjoyment of English by grade (percentage who strongly agree)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Year 6
Form 3
Learning English is important
Form 5
Form 6
I enjoy English lessons
Several statements in the questionnaire were designed to shed further light on the motivational factors that may
be influencing learners language learning behaviour such as instrumentality or milieu (Gardner 1985).
Instrumental motivation refers to the utilitarian benefit or incentives associated with learning a language such as
getting a job, a place in university, travelling or using the internet, whereas the motivational dimension of milieu
refers to the influence of learners immediate social environment (i.e. parents, family and friends), excluding
teachers, in shaping their attitudes to learning. Learners who perceive family support for language learning are
more likely to persist with it and more willing to work harder at it (Colletta, Clment and Edwards 1983; Gardner
1985). Figure 3.4 shows that Year 6 learners did recognise the functional purpose of English, as 73% of these
learners reported that it is very important for them to learn English as it will help them get into a good university
and 69% reported that it is very important as it will help them get a good job. These learners were also more likely
than the students in all other grades to say that it is very important for them to learn English to please their
parents (53%) (Form 3: 36%; Form 5: 34%; Form 6: 22%).

21
Figure 3.4 Reasons for learning English: Year 6
How important are these reasons for you? Learning English will...
help me get into a good
university.
help me get a good job.
Very important
make it easier for me to travel

to other countries.
Important
Not very important
please my parents.
Not at all important
make it easier for me to talk

to other people.
.help me use the internet to
get information.
Not sure
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
These findings suggest that Year 6 learners are primarily motivated to learn English for instrumental reasons, and
to a lesser extent but likely a very important reason, to please their parents. Although neither motivational
dimension is causally linked to learner outcomes because other variables such as instructional quality, learning
opportunities and learner ability also play a crucial role, they do provide an indication of how much energy or
attention learners are willing to expend on learning. However, despite these indications that learners are
motivated to learn English, only 11% of teachers strongly agreed that they thought their Year 6 students enjoyed
their English lessons and several teachers commented in the open-response questions that they thought students
were unmotivated and lacked interest in learning English:
Students have no background in English and have no interest (Rural primary school teacher, Sarawak)
This point was also mentioned by Heads of Panel/Head Teachers:
The students are not interested in learning English (Urban primary school teacher, Melaka)
During post-observation interviews, some teachers felt that parents could do more to support and motivate their
children. Teachers were asked in the questionnaire whether their students parents participate actively in their
education and 45% of primary school teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this question. Teachers
did recognise though that perhaps parents, particularly those in rural areas, may not have the skills or knowledge
to provide this support and that the Ministry may need to take on the responsibility of helping parents in this area:
Support and encouragement from parents can help. Education Ministry should have a series of
motivational courses for parents from rural areas to expose the importance of English to them (Rural
primary school teacher, Melaka)
Have seminars for parents to create awareness about the importance of mastering the language (Urban
primary school teacher, Sarawak)
22

Teachers see the value of involving parents in their childrens education; however, ensuring parents have the
information and skills to do this may be a necessary first step.
Exposure to English
It is a widely accepted premise both in the theoretical and practical language learning domains that exposure to a
foreign language within the learning environment and/or the home environment plays a positive role in learning.
The European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC) found that greater use of English, by both students and
teachers, in the classroom was positively related to language ability (Jones 2013). The ESLC also found that
parents knowledge of the foreign language being studied and leaners exposure to it in the home or community
was positively related to learner outcomes (Jones 2013). Therefore, in the questionnaire, we investigated the
extent to which leaners are exposed to English either in their home environment or at school.
Approximately 50% of Year 6 students reported that their parents speak English either very well or moderately
well and 38% take English lessons outside school, which is the highest percentage for all grades (Form 3: 26%;
Form 5: 21%; Form 6: 10%). However, despite this, a majority of these students said that they either never speak
English or do not speak English very often outside school, which includes with family or friends (56%) or in the
wider community (74%). Figure 3.5 shows the frequency of English language usage for different activities that
young people are likely to engage in.
Figure 3.5 Frequency of English language usage for different activities: Year 6
Outside of school
I use the internet in English including
playing games.
I watch TV of films in English.
Very often
Sometimes
I read books or comic books in English.
Not very often
I speak English with my family and/or

friends.
Never
Not sure
I speak English to people in my

village/town/city.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
As learners do not appear to be using English very often in their home environment, the use of English within the
learning environment becomes even more important to their language development. Only 55%, the lowest
percentage of all grades, said that their teacher speaks English very often during lessons (Form 3: 75%; Form 5:
79%; Form 6: 90%). Comments in the teacher questionnaire suggest that too much instruction may be taking place
in the learners first language:
The headmaster should ensure that teaching and learning English must be done in English. Sometimes
when people visit it's in English, otherwise they teach in their mother tongue There should be more focus
on using English during teaching and learning in class (Rural primary school teacher, Perak)
English teachers should speak English during lessons (Urban primary school teacher, Kedah)
This finding could relate to teacher language proficiency, as 13% of primary school teachers as compared to 4% of
secondary school teachers reported that they speak the local language a lot during lessons because they do not

23
feel confident teaching in English. The teacher test data, to be discussed in Section 4, will show that primary
teachers language ability is lower than that of secondary school teachers. However, the relatively low percentage
of English usage in the classroom could also be linked to teachers perceptions of their learners language ability.
Some teachers admit that they do not speak English during lessons because they do not believe learners are able
to cope with instruction which is completely in English:
Lessons cannot be fully conducted in English as students dont understand (Rural primary school
teacher, Perlis)
This finding is worrisome because it suggests that teachers may not be fully aware of how to grade their language
so that it is comprehensible for their learners. Observation findings indicate that this is an issue for some teachers
(see Section 4).
Turning to the learners use of English, they reported that they do not use English that often during English lessons
either, whether it is with their teacher or with their classmates (see Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6 Use of English in the classroom: Year 6
During English lessons...
my teacher speaks English.
Very often
Sometimes
I speak to the teacher in English.
Not very often
I speak to other students in

English.
Never
Not sure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The limited use of English in the classroom could be related to the type of learning activities chosen by teachers,
and mentioned by observers, such as drilling, reading aloud, etc., which do not give learners opportunities to use
English communicatively (see Section 4). The observers also noted a propensity for teacher-dominated lessons
which also tends to reduce the amount of English produced by learners.
Beyond the classroom, the school environment can also influence students motivation to learn English by
providing opportunities to practise English outside the classroom and by showing support for English learning.
Thirty-five percent of primary school teachers strongly agreed that their school has created an English
environment outside the English classroom, but they did comment that the school could do more:
Expose students to more English, e.g. through English charts and labels around the school compound
(Urban primary school teacher, Kelantan)
Despite the fact that Year 6 learners do not appear to have much exposure to English either within or outside the
classroom, 40% of them strongly agreed that they would like to learn other subjects in English, such as Maths or
Science. This point was also made by several teachers, in response to the open-ended questions; they feel that
learners would benefit from Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL):
Teaching and learning in English for subjects like Science and Mathematics can have a positive impact.
This can help the students improve their understanding of the English language (Urban primary school
teacher, Johor)
24

Other suggestions frequently made by teachers to improve English learning in their school related to reducing the
number of students in each class and increasing the number of contact hours in English:
Reduce the number of students in the classroom to about 20 or 25 (Urban primary school teacher,
Pahang)
The time allotted for English is insufficient (Urban primary school teacher, Melaka)
Research suggests that large class sizes can reduce the likelihood that teachers will actively encourage student
participation, because there is a tendency for them to be more concerned with controlling student behaviour
(Fuller and Kapakasa 1991). Therefore, to ensure that students are given opportunities to use English in the
classroom, it may be necessary to further investigate optimal class sizes.
The suggestion to increase the number of English contact hours could also be explored further. A review of the
Malaysian educational system by UNESCO found that the curriculum was overcrowded and that many student
competencies may not be fully developed as a result (2013:7). It may be worth considering whether it is feasible
for schools that are struggling to meet English language targets to reduce their curricular offerings in order to
increase lesson time for core subjects like English until they reach the expected learning outcomes. This would
require the national curriculum to be structured into a core component and an optional component in order to
allow schools some flexibility to focus attention on the needs of their students. This has been found to lead to
improvements in learning (Chapman et al 2005 and Wagner et al 2006). However, it is important to point out that
both of these suggestions will only lead to improved learner outcomes if other factors, such as school leadership,
instructional quality, the curriculum, etc. are improved at the same time.
Learner perceptions of their language ability
Learners beliefs about their own capacity to learn, often referred to as self-efficacy, have been found to be
positively associated with academic outcomes (Mills, Pajares and Herron 2006; Multon, Brown and Lent 1991).
Self-efficacy centres on the belief that one is capable of learning. In order to investigate this construct, learners
were asked about the perceived difficulty of their lessons and their strengths and weaknesses in English, as these
can both be an indication of linguistic self-confidence (Clment, Gardner and Smythe 1977; Wesely 2012).
Sixty-four percent of Year 6 students reported that their English lessons were at the right level of difficulty but
15% said they were too easy and 11% said they were too hard. This suggests that learners generally feel that they
are able to cope with their lessons and succeed at the tasks they are given. When asked about their strengths and
weaknesses in English, Year 6 students believed that Reading was their strongest skill followed by Listening,
whereas they indicated that Speaking was their weakest skill (see Table 3.5). When teachers were also asked
about their learners strengths and weaknesses they agreed with their students self-assessment (see Table 3.5).
However, the test data suggests that learners may be performing slightly better in Writing than they think
(performance in Writing was at level A2, with the other skills at A1). Year 6 students overwhelmingly want to
improve their Speaking skills (40%).

25
Table 3.5 Learners strengths and weaknesses in English: Learner and teacher perceptions
Weaknesses
Strengths
Skill/system
Learners: Year 6
Teachers: Year 6
Learners: Year 6
Teachers: Year 6
Listening
21%
26%
7%
5%
Reading
29%
54%
10%
2%
Writing
13%
10%
23%
33%
Speaking
7%
3%
27%
42%
Vocabulary
2%
4%
10%
10%
Grammar
Not sure
4%
3%
9%
8%
24%
0%
14%
0%
An interesting finding related to learners perceptions of their strengths and weakness is the number who selected
Not sure when asked about their strength (24%). The frequent selection of Not sure could indicate an issue with
either their language learning awareness, their confidence as language learners or it could be linked to a sense of
modesty, related to cultural values associated with a collectivist society. A combination of these factors may be
the likeliest explanation because when students were asked about their worst skill in English, only 14% of them
selected Not sure which could indicate that they are more willing to state their weaknesses or are more focused
on them than their strengths. However, the percentage who did select Not sure for their weaknesses is still quite
high when compared to other questions. It may be that Year 6 learners lack some awareness of their English
language ability. This could be expected of primary school learners who may have limited knowledge about
language.
Discussion
English language education in primary school is critical not only because it is where learners are taught the basics
of English (i.e. grammar and vocabulary) but also because it is during this school stage that children are going to
decide whether they like English and are capable of learning it. If children have negative learning experiences, it
could impact their future learning. Many secondary school and Year 6 teachers complained in the questionnaires
that they felt students were not being adequately prepared in the lower grades, which they associated with the
number of non-optionist teachers in primary school. As two teachers put it:
Obtain an English optionist teacher to teach the Pre-school level to ensure theyre taught the basics
correctly (Urban primary school teacher, Perak)
Students should have a strong foundation in English in primary school before moving to secondary school
(Rural secondary school teacher, Sabah)
Questionnaire findings do also suggest that non-optionist teachers are less confident than optionist teachers in a
number of areas, such as planning English lessons, using English in the classroom and assessing their students, (see
Section 4 for more detail). However, teacher shortages may not make it feasible to hire only optionist teachers.
Therefore, upskilling of current teachers by providing specialist training becomes even more essential.
Ministry policy planners had expressed the hope that by the end of primary school, students would have achieved
level B1. Although 13% of Year 6 learners are at B1 or above, the majority of students are A1 and below. The
desire to achieve B1 by the end of primary is perhaps ambitious when one considers that many European
countries target either A1 or A2 as the expected minimum by the end of primary school (Eurydice 2012). The
conditions for learning English are somewhat more conducive in Europe because of the presence of the language
in many aspects of daily culture, yet the ESLC results show that only in Sweden, Malta and Belgium do at least 80%
of learners achieve B1 or above by the end of lower secondary (Jones 2013). It is clear from the questionnaire data
26

that Malaysian learners in primary school are facing challenges particularly related to their exposure to English,
both within the learning environment but also in the home environment which their European counterparts are
facing to a lesser extent. The variation in performance across Year 6 indicates that a phased approach may be
necessary to achieve higher levels of English language ability at the end of primary school, which takes into
consideration realistic targets achieved over several phases. More detailed recommendations will be discussed in
Section 6.

27
Language proficiency: Secondary school

Form 3
Overall, Form 3 learners in Malaysia achieved a CEFR level A2, as seen in Table 3.6. As observed with Pre-school
and Year 6 learners, Speaking performance was weaker, at CEFR level A1.
Table 3.6 Average CEFR proficiency levels: Form 3
Language skill
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
A2
Writing
Speaking
A2
A1
A2
The range of CEFR levels achieved by the majority of Form 3 learners (Table 3.7 and Figure 3.7) spans CEFR levels
B2 to below A1. Speaking presents the weakest profile, with relatively more students at the lowest A1/A2 levels
and below than any of the other skills (84% at Speaking, 67% at Reading, 64% at Listening, 64% at Writing).
The range in CEFR levels observed at Form 3 is a striking finding, since this range in CEFR levels represents learners
who are very basic beginners to independent upper intermediate learners, and signals that the differentiation in
language proficiency, which started to become apparent at the end of primary school, where the span of levels for
Year 6 was B1 to below A1, has increased by one CEFR level to span levels B2 to below A1. The achievement gap is,
therefore, widening in secondary school. This may be because less equitable exposure to factors which contribute
to language learning (e.g. exposure to the language, the internet, books in English) is starting to make a stronger
impact among those secondary school learners who have access outside school to such an enabling environment
than among those learners who do not. The questionnaire data supports this supposition, and a full discussion of
the attitudinal and background variables for all secondary school students will be presented at the end of this
section.
Table 3.7 Distribution of CEFR levels: Form 3
Language skill
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Overall
C2
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
C1
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
B2
21%
13%
14%
4%
13%
B1
16%
20%
21%
11%
17%
A2
23%
45%
27%
21%
29%
A1
30%
16%
10%
56%
28%
Below A1
11%
6%
27%
7%
12%

28
Figure 3.7 Distribution of Overall CEFR levels: Form 3

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Below A1
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
Form 5
On average, Form 5 learners in Malaysia achieved a CEFR level A2, as seen in Table 3.8. Despite achieving the same
CEFR level across all skills, the mean scores the CEFR levels are based on indicate that learners are stronger in
Listening and Reading compared to Writing and Speaking.
Language skill
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
A2
A2
Writing
Speaking
A2
A2
Form 3 learners were also found to be on average at CEFR level A2 (Table 3.6); however, taking mean scores and
distribution of CEFR levels into account, Form 5 students displayed higher proficiency as a cohort compared to
their Form 3 counterparts and the learners at the lowest levels of language proficiency (A1 and below) are smaller
in proportion in Form 5.
The range of overall CEFR levels achieved by Form 5 students (Table 3.9 and Figure 3.8) spans below A1 to C1.
Similar to the performance of other school grades reported so far, speaking presents a slightly weaker profile, with
relatively more students at the lowest A1/A2 levels and below than any of the other skills (65% for Speaking, 57%
for Reading, 55% for Listening; 45% for Writing).
Language skill
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Overall
C2
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
C1
0%
0%
2%
4%
2%
B2
26%
20%
9%
11%
17%
B1
18%
23%
45%
19%
26%
A2
24%
41%
27%
24%
29%
A1
25%
13%
Below A1
6%
3%
18%
31%
10%
27%
Note: The percentages observed for Writing are combined at levels A1 and below because the Writing test which was given to Form 5
cannot reliably distinguish between these two levels and they are, therefore, reported together. Percentages may not always add up to
100% due to rounding.

29

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
A1 and
Below A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
Form 6
On average the majority of Form 6 learners in Malaysia achieved a level spanning A2 and B1, as seen in Table 3.10.
Compared to Form 5, they performed similarly in Listening, and better in Reading, Writing and Speaking in terms
of average score.
Language skill
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
A2
B1
Writing
Speaking
B1
A2
Table 3.11 and Figure 3.9 show that the range of CEFR levels achieved by the majority of Form 6 students (80%)
spans levels A2 and B2, with Speaking showing a weaker profile (31% were found to be at level A1 and below for
Speaking, compared to 17% for Listening, 5% for Writing and 2% for Reading), which is in line with findings for the
other school grades. It is worth noting that the variation in language proficiency found for Forms 3 and 5 is not as
pronounced at Form 6, possibly due to the fact that Form 6 students are self-selecting and more motivated to
succeed academically, including in English, and therefore present a more homogenous group. The smaller
differentiation in achievement could also be as a result of the previous national policy to teach Science and Maths
in English, which is no longer in effect, but is likely to have contributed to the language proficiency of Form 6
learners.
Language skill
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Overall
C2
4%
1%
2%
0%
2%
C1
6%
1%
5%
5%
4%
B2
13%
16%
43%
13%
21%
B1
18%
44%
39%
27%
32%
A2
43%
35%
8%
24%
27%
A1
13%
2%
Below A1
4%
0%
5%
15%
16%
14%
Note: The percentages observed for Writing are combined at levels A1 and below because the Writing test which was given to Form 6
cannot reliably distinguish between these two levels and they are, therefore, reported together. Percentages may not always add up to
100% due to rounding.

30

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
A1 and
Below A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
Attitudinal and background factors: Secondary school

Questionnaires were completed by 4,740 Form 3 learners (28% of all student questionnaires), 5,495 Form 5
learners (32%), 1,913 Form 6 learners (11%) and by 738 secondary school teachers (57% of all teacher
questionnaires). The grades in which teachers indicated they have the most experience teaching are as follows:
Form 3 305, Form 5 330 and Form 6 87. The key findings which emerged as significant and meaningful are
summarised below for all secondary students.
Attitudes towards learning English

As discussed in the Year 6 section, learners attitudes towards learning a language and their reasons for learning it
can shed light on their motivation and ultimately provide insight into the level of effort they are willing to expend
on language learning (Csizr and Drnyei 2005; Gardner 1985; Oxford and Ehrman 1993). The secondary school
leaners recognise the importance of learning English and the majority of them strongly agreed with the statement
Learning English is important to me (Form 3: 54%; Form 5: 61%; Form 6: 64%). They also appear to be very aware
of the importance of English for employment, university entrance and travel (see Figure 3.10). The secondary
school learners were less likely than Year 6 students to report that it was very important for them to learn the
language to please their parents (Year 6: 53%, Form 3: 36%, Form 5: 34%, Form 6: 22%) suggesting that parental
pressure eases off as learners become older. However, teachers noted that parents can still play an important role
in their childrens education, but that they may need support in order to do this successfully:
Parents should be counselled and taught easy teaching techniques to help their children at home. Most
have no guidance at home and cannot focus in class (Urban secondary school teacher, Selangor)

31
Figure 3.10 Reasons for learning English: Secondary school students
How important is each of these reasons for you? Learning English will...
help me get into a good
university.
help me get a good job.
Very important
make it easier for me to travel.
Important
make it easier for me to talk to

other people.
Not very important

Not at all important
.help me use the internet to get

information.
Not sure
please my parents.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The findings presented above suggest that secondary school learners are primarily motivated to learn English for
instrumental reasons such as getting a good job, a place in a good university or for travel. However, we also find
that secondary students are showing a slightly stronger tendency than primary school students to report that they
are interested in learning English out of cultural interest or interest in English media. Clment, Drnyei, Noels
(1994) and Csizr and Drnyei (2005) describe this dimension of motivation as relating to learners interest in the
cultural products or media associated with the second language. Secondary school learners are more likely than
primary school students to report that it is very important to learn English to use the internet (53%) and teachers
also reported that they are interested in English music and TV:
Students enjoy watching English movies and listening to English songs (Urban secondary school
teacher, Pahang)
Although these learners seem to be motivated to learn, they were less likely than Year 6 learners to strongly agree
that they enjoy their English lessons at school (Secondary: 31%, Year 6: 43%). This may be attributable to the
increasing difficulty of their lessons as they progress from one grade to the next and/or to a more prominent focus
on passing exams. Some teachers also raised a concern about the number of courses students are required to take
in secondary school:
Students are confused as there is too much content and too many subjects for them to learn. An
overambitious syllabus confuses students leading to a haywire situation (Urban secondary school
teacher, Terengganu)
When secondary school teachers were given the statement My learners like learning English, only 5% of them
strongly agreed while 29% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Secondary school teachers, like their primary
counterparts, consistently commented in the questionnaire open fields and during post-observation interviews
that they thought learners were unmotivated and do not perceive English as important:
My students lack motivation because English is not a necessity in their lives (Rural secondary school
teacher, Perak)
Students are not interested in English because they havent realised its importance (Urban secondary
teacher, WP Kuala Lumpur)
32

There appears to be a disconnect between what learners are reporting and their teachers perceptions of their
motivation. One possible consequence of this is that teachers may not be taking advantage of what is actually
motivating their students when they plan their lessons. Learning how to take advantage of learner motivation may
be a useful feature in any future teacher upskilling programmes.
Exposure to English
Learners exposure to English in school and outside school plays an important role in learning. When teachers
were asked whether their school provides learners opportunities to practise English outside their English classes,
only 28% strongly agreed. Many teachers made comments that the school could do more:
School authorities should inculcate a culture of speaking English in school by having more English
activities (Rural secondary school teacher, Negeri Sembilan)
[We need] to provide an English-friendly environment in schools: notice boards in English, speaking in
English, English speaking day, debates, public speaking, quizzes, choir, reduce teacher talk in the
classroom and encourage students to speak more (Urban secondary school teacher, Sabah)
Create an English environment in school where it is compulsory for all students and teachers to speak in
English (Urban secondary school teacher, Kedah)
Showing support for English language learning within the school can also contribute to learner motivation, and is
thus an issue that should not be ignored.
Turning to the English classroom, secondary school learners are more likely (between 75% and 90%) than their
Year 6 counterparts (55%) to report that their teacher speaks English very often during lessons. They are also more
likely to report that they speak to their teacher very often in English (between 21% and 35%) compared to Year 6
learners (12%). However, all learners whether in primary or secondary school report that they either do not speak
English very often with other students during lessons (between 36% and 40%) or they never do this (between 6%
and 15%). These findings support the observations made by observers that English lessons may be too teacherdominated, which is limiting learners opportunities to use English communicatively, since the focus is likely to be
on accuracy in answering the teachers questions, and not on communicating with each other.
Secondary school teachers, like their primary counterparts, also point out that the current amount of time
devoted to English lessons is inadequate:
English knowledge does not happen overnight. Students cannot grasp English fluency in 5 periods a week
(Urban secondary school teacher, Selangor)
As mentioned earlier when discussing this issue for primary school students, there may be an opportunity to
reduce the curricular offerings in other subjects in order to increase the number of contact hours in English. This
may be particularly important for those schools that are not achieving the desired learning outcomes. Although
research shows that giving schools this type of flexibility has resulted in improved outcomes, it is only feasible if a
number of conditions are met: firstly, the school administration need to have the skills necessary to make these
decisions and understand the associated trade-offs (Chapman et al 2005); secondly, other aspects of the
educational system need to be improved at the same time (e.g. instructional quality, the curriculum, assessment
practices, etc.) (UNESCO 2013).

33
Despite the fact that secondary school students are less likely to enjoy their English lessons than Year 6 students,
large numbers did strongly agree that they would like to learn other subjects in English (between 37% and 40%).
Their teachers also mentioned CLIL as a possible approach to improve learning outcomes:
Retain English in the teaching of Maths and Science (Urban secondary school teacher, Melaka)
Secondary school students are more likely to have had some experience with CLIL classes than their primary
school counterparts so their level of agreement is an interesting finding which may require further investigation.
Although secondary school students are less motivated to learn English to please their parents than primary
school students, their parents knowledge of English can influence their own language development as well as
opportunities to use the language outside school. Between 32% and 49% of secondary school students reported
that their mother speaks English either very well or moderately well and this increases to between 42% and 53%
for their father. Similar to the trends found with Year 6 students, secondary students do not seem to use English
outside school - between 49% and 55% reported that they either never speak English with family and friends or do
not do this very often, while approximately 77% either never speak English with people in their community or do
not do this very often. Test data indicates that they have more capacity to speak in English than primary school
students (31%, 45% and 59% of Form 3, 5 and 6 learners respectively are at CEFR level B1 and above, compared to
13% for Year 6 students). However, it may be that they either do not have opportunities or are unwilling to take
advantage of these opportunities. Teacher comments seem to suggest that the former is more likely the case:
[Students] dont speak English at home (Urban secondary school teacher from Selangor)
Lack of exposure, limited use of English outside the school (family background, friends and environment)
do not help much in learning English (Urban secondary school teacher, Terengganu)
Although secondary school students do not seem to use English in face-to-face interactions, they do appear to be
exposed to English when engaging with technology or media. Secondary school students are more likely to watch
TV or films very often in English (41%) and use the internet very often in English (65%) compared to primary school
students (23% and 46% respectively). Their higher proficiency may account for these findings. They might be more
willing and able to engage in these activities because they would find them easier.
Learner perceptions of their language ability
Linguistic self-confidence or self-efficacy is another factor that can positively impact learner motivation (Clment,
Gardner and Smythe 1977). The majority of learners in secondary school reported that their English lessons are at
the right level of difficulty (between 69% and 77%) with between 6% and 10% saying that their classes are too
easy and the same proportion saying that they are too hard. This indicates that, in general, learners believe they
are able to cope with their lessons.
Turning to their perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses, secondary students unanimously selected Reading
as their strongest skill followed by Listening (Table 3.12). They selected Writing as their weakest skill followed by
Speaking. Again, as seen with Year 6 students, secondary students are also focused on Writing as a weak skill. This
could be linked to the content and focus of the exams they are taking, which emphasise Reading and Writing. Not
unlike the Year 6 learners, a large percentage of learners selected Not sure when asked about their strengths
(between 26% and 31%). As mentioned previously, this could be linked to cultural factors of modesty. It could also
be an indication that learners are not receiving sufficient teacher feedback in their lessons, and/or may suggest
that they lack confidence in their abilities. However, unlike the Year 6 learners, secondary school students should
have more meta-cognitive awareness about their language ability and as a result more capacity to self-assess. The
large number who selected Not sure indicates that they may need to engage in more awareness-raising activities
34

in their lessons, which will support the development of their linguistic self-confidence and make it easier for them
to set appropriate language learning goals.
Table 3.12 Strengths and weaknesses in English: Learner perceptions

Strengths
Skill/system
Learners:
Learners:
Learners:
Learners:
Form 3
Form 5
Form 6
Form 3
25%
26%
15%
5%
Listening
Weaknesses
Learners:
Form 5
5%
Learners:
Form 6
10%
Reading
33%
36%
43%
4%
3%
1%
Writing
5%
4%
4%
35%
34%
27%
Speaking
7%
6%
7%
20%
18%
23%
Vocabulary
2%
1%
0%
10%
12%
11%
Grammar
Not sure
2%
1%
1%
13%
16%
15%
26%
26%
31%
13%
12%
13%
When teachers were asked about their learners strengths and weaknesses in the questionnaire, they agreed that
Reading was their strongest skill and Writing their weakest. Secondary school students, like their primary
counterparts, overwhelmingly selected Speaking as the skill they most want to improve (between 43% and 58%).
Discussion
During the interviews, one of the Ministry officials noted that in lower secondary school it was hoped learners
would have achieved B2, and by the end of Upper Form 6, C1. Clearly the data shows that learners in secondary
school are still a long way off these targets with only 14% in Form 3 achieving B2 or above and 6% of Form 6
students achieving C1 or above. Again, the majority of European countries are targeting B2 as the expected exit
level for secondary students (Eurydice 2012) and only in the northern European countries are these targets close
to being achieved (Jones 2013). Attitudinal and background factors affecting the achievement of B2 or C1 in
secondary school primarily relate to the variation in learning environments (including instructional quality which
will be discussed in Section 4), exposure to English in the home and school environment and motivation. The
following summary will shed light on language progression from Pre-school to Form 6 and help in identifying more
realistic targets for the short, medium and long-term.

Summary: National profile

So far the language proficiency of each grade has been discussed separately, with only limited comparisons with
other grades. In addition to such a comparison within grades, it is also useful to explore an across-grades
comparison, so that progression from one school grade to another can be clearly seen. The progression (shown
also in Figure 3.11) was found to be as follows:
Pre-school

78% below A1, 22% at A1/A2
Year 6

32% below A1, 56% at A1/A2, 13% at B1/B2
Form 3

12% below A1, 57% at A1/A2, 30% at B1/B2, 1% at C1/C2
Form 5

55% at A1/A2 and below, 43% at B1/B2, 2% at C1/C2
Form 6

Figure 3.11 shows a progression from one grade to the next, with the proportion of learners at CEFR A levels (in
blue in the chart) decreasing, as learners move from one grade to the next and achieve the higher B and C levels.
As noted above, however, the proportion of learners with basic or no proficiency in English (levels A2 and below)
is relatively high at the end of secondary school.
Figure 3.11 Overall CEFR level: Comparison of school grades
Form 6
Below A1
Form 5
A1
A2
Form 3
B1
B2
Year 6
C1
C2
Pre-school
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Note: Levels A1 and Below A1 are amalgamated for Forms 5 and 6, but in the Figure proportions had to be plotted equally
against level A1 and below B1 for technical reasons. This simplification was felt to be warranted for the sake of visual
illustration.
35

36
The CEFR levels can roughly be seen as representing three important thresholds for success in a bilingual context:
level B1 represents low intermediate learners who are independent users of the language, but in a limited range
of familiar contexts; level B2 is widely recognised as the threshold for high intermediate, independent users of a
language who can function in a foreign language in a range of familiar and unfamiliar contexts; level C1 is seen as
the level at which advanced language proficiency is displayed. Taking these three thresholds into account, the
baseline project findings indicated that at Form 5 the key school stage when a large proportion of learners leave
school 45% have B1 level proficiency in English or above, 19% have B2 proficiency or above and 2% display
advanced C1 proficiency or above. At Form 6, the proportion of learners at these levels has increased, with 59% at
B1 and above, 27% at B2 and above and 6% at C1 and above (Figure 3.12).
Figure 3.12 Distribution of CEFR levels B1 and above across school grades
70%
60%
59%
50%
40%
45%
30%
31%
27%
20%
19%
10%
0% 0% 0%
13%
14%
1% 0%
1%
2%
6%
0%
Pre-school
Year 6
B1 and above
Form 3
B2 and above
Form 5
Form 6
C1 and above
In terms of distribution of learners at the lower CEFR levels A1 and A2, which represent basic language
proficiency we can see that in the two top school grades (Form 5 and Form 6) the proportion is still relatively
high, with 27% of Form 5 learners and 14% of Form 6 learners being at the lowest A1 level and below (Figure
3.13). The high proportion of learners who make very limited progress in English at the end of secondary school is
a cause for concern, and may indicate that some aspirations in the Education Blueprint are highly ambitious.
Figure 3.13 Distribution of CEFR levels A2 and below across school grades
100%
90%
100%
94%
80%
88%
70%
60%
66%
70%
50%
56%
40%
41%
30%
41%
20%
27%
10%
14%
0%
Pre-school
Year 6
A2 and below
Form 3
Form 5
A1 and below
Form 6

37
The distribution of CEFR levels according to the four skills is given in Figures 3.143.17. Speaking (Figure 3.17) is
the weakest skill, with the smallest proportion of learners achieving levels B1 and above. The weaker development
in Speaking could be partly attributed to the teacher-dominated lessons which were frequently observed, where
opportunities for free practice and meaningful communication between students were missed. It could also be
due to the impact of national exams, which were found to be narrowly focused on Reading and Writing at the
expense of Speaking and Listening.
Figure 3.14 Listening CEFR level: Comparison between school grades

Form 6
Below A1
Form 5
A1
A2
Form 3
B1
B2
Year 6
C1
C2
Pre-school
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 3.15 Reading CEFR level: Comparison between school grades

Form 6
Below A1
Form 5
A1
A2
Form 3
B1
B2
Year 6
C1
C2
Pre-school
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
38

Figure 3.16 Writing CEFR level: Comparison between school grades

Form 6
Below A1
Form 5
A1
A2
Form 3
B1
B2
Year 6
C1
C2
Pre-school
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 3.17 Speaking CEFR level: Comparison between school grades

Form 6
Below A1
Form 5
A1
A2
Form 3
B1
B2
Year 6
C1
C2
Pre-school
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
National profile: Comparison with other countries

This project focused on establishing a baseline of students and teachers language proficiency within Malaysia
with a suite of benchmarking tests. It would also be useful to compare the performance of Malaysian learners on a
different set of tests the Cambridge English suite of General English tests against a number of countries of
interest. The selected countries chosen for comparison were: India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand and Brazil. The
first four countries on the list were chosen due to their geographic proximity with Malaysia and historical, political
and economic ties. Brazil was selected as a useful comparison due to its implementation of an ambitious
educational reform programme, which has allowed it to demonstrate learner achievement, and to move up in
ranking within the PISA survey. The data were based on exams taken in 2012 and 2013.
These comparisons have only indirect relevance for the present survey, since the exams they are based on are not
necessarily aimed at the state-school sector, and the test takers are self-selecting. This is, of course, different,
from the methodology and cohort in the current survey. Albeit an indirect piece of information, this was
nonetheless felt useful, as it may provide guidance for future language learning targets for Malaysia.

39
If we take CEFR level B2 as the minimal threshold of being operational in a language, then we can see (Figure 3.18)
that Malaysian test takers taking the Cambridge English General English exams perform better than all the
countries in their geographic region: the proportion of learners at level B2 and above for Malaysia is 25%, Thailand
10%, India and Indonesia 9%, Myanmar 8%. Brazilian learners have shown stronger performance than Malaysia,
with 49% achieving B2 or higher.
Figure 3.18 Comparison across selected countries: Cambridge English exams
Overall CEFR level across countries

(based on Cambridge English General English
exams)
Brazil
Below A1
Malaysia
A1
Thailand
A2
Myanmar
B1
B2
Indonesia
C1
India
C2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
40

State profiles
Question 2a: How does overall and by skill student performance at different school stages compare according to
state/federal territory?
State profiles: Primary school

Pre-school
In addition to looking at performance of Malaysian Pre-school children at national level, a range of variables
identified in the Education Blueprint (2012:E7) as linked to achievement gaps (e.g. location, school type and
gender) were also explored in the analysis.
One of these variables relates to performance across the 16 states/federal territories. This was identified as an
important variable in the Education Blueprint, which noted that states with more rural and remote schools (e.g.
Sabah and Sarawak) showed a weaker performance than states with fewer rural schools.
Test performance by state at Pre-school level showed little variation, as can be seen in Table 3.13, with most
states performing below CEFR level A1 and a few achieving level A1 in Listening, Reading and Writing (Speaking is
not included in the state-level comparison due to the small number of students who were assessed for Speaking in
each state). The states which showed a stronger than average performance in terms of CEFR level and/or average
score in all three skills were found to be Johor and WP Kuala Lumpur. The stronger findings for these two states
are most likely due to higher proportion of urban schools (e.g. Kuala Lumpur) and to the successful
implementation of a state-wide school improvement programme (e.g. Johor, as noted in the Education Blueprint
2012:E7). Other states which performed higher than the national average in two skills were Pahang, Perlis,
Terengganu and WP Putrajaya. An analysis of top-performing classes (operationalised as classes whose average
scores were 1.5 standard deviations above the national mean) indicated that the top-performing Pre-school
classes by state came from Johor (National and Chinese schools), Pahang (National and Tamil schools) and Perak
(National and Tamil schools). It is important to note that in all states, including the ones performing above the
mean for Listening and Reading, Writing emerged as a weaker skill, which would be expected due to childrens
delayed development in literacy in both first and additional languages.

41
Table 3.13 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by State/Federal Territory: Pre-school

Listening
Reading
Writing
Malaysia overall
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
JOHOR
A1
A1
Below A1
KEDAH
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
KELANTAN
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
MELAKA
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
NEGERI SEMBILAN
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
PAHANG
Below A1
A1
Below A1
PERAK
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
PERLIS
A1
A1
Below A1
PULAU PENANG
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
SABAH
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
SARAWAK
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
SELANGOR
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
TERENGGANU
Below A1
A1
Below A1
A1
A1
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
Below A1
A1
A1
WP KUALA LUMPUR
WP LABUAN
WP PUTRAJAYA
Note: The missing data for Writing is due to late scripts, which were not included in the analysis; Speaking is not reported by state due to
the small size of the Speaking sample in a number of states.
Year 6
Test performance by state at Year 6 showed some variation, as can be seen in Table 3.14. The states which
showed stronger than average performance in all three skills were found to be: WP Kuala Lumpur (which also
performed above the mean at Pre-school) and Pahang. Negeri Sembilan and Selangor performed above the
national average in two of the skills. WP Kuala Lumpur, Pahang and Selangor also had some of the top-performing
Year 6 classes in terms of Reading and Listening. Perlis presents an interesting case in Writing at Pre-school and
Year 6 it achieved an average score above the national mean (in fact, the highest score across all states for Year 6).
At secondary school, as will be seen later in the report, it was found to be one of the lowest achieving states. Such
a jagged profile at primary and secondary level in this state is most probably due to the small number of students
who took the test (N=178 at primary school, N=120 at secondary school).
Sabah and Sarawak showed performance below the national average CEFR level in all three skills, most likely due
to the large proportion of rural and remote schools in those two federal territories, which have been shown to
perform less well than urban schools (Education Blueprint 2012:E9).
42

Table 3.14 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by State/Federal Territory: Year 6

Listening
Reading
Writing
Malaysia overall
A1
A1
A2
JOHOR
A1
A1
A2
KEDAH
A1
A1
A2
KELANTAN
A1
A1
MELAKA
A1
A1
A2
NEGERI SEMBILAN
A1
A1
A2
PAHANG
A1
A1
A2
PERAK
A1
A1
A2
PERLIS
A1
A1
A2
PULAU PENANG
A1
A1
A2
SABAH
A1
A1
A2
SARAWAK
A1
A1
A2
SELANGOR
A1
A1
A2
TERENGGANU
A1
A1
A2
WP KUALA LUMPUR
A2
A2
A2
WP LABUAN
A1
Below A1
WP PUTRAJAYA
A1
Below A1
Note: The missing data for Writing is due to late scripts, which were not included in the analysis; Speaking is not reported by state due to
the small size of the Speaking sample in many states.
Attitudinal and background factors by state: Primary school

The questionnaire responses indicated that there were variations by state to many of the questions. The largest
differences by state for Year 6 learners were found in the area of learners exposure to English, both inside and
outside the classroom.
Outside the classroom, only 16% of learners from WP Kuala Lumpur reported that they never speak English with
friends or family while 38% of learners from Sarawak reported the same. Similarly, when asked if they use English
to talk to people in their neighbourhood or town, 37% of learners from Kuala Lumpur said that they never do this,
while 64% of learners from Sarawak said the same. The learners from Sarawak, Sabah and Perak are more likely to
report that their mother or father cannot speak English (between 16% and 22%) than learners from WP Kuala
Lumpur and WP Putrajaya (between 4% and 10%). This is an important finding which could partly explain the
difference in achievement across states, since having and making use of opportunities to practice a second/foreign
language has a beneficial effect on language learning.
Within the English classroom, there were also differences between states in the amount of English being used.
Between 33% and 34% of Year 6 students from Negeri Sembilan, Sabah and Sarawak reported that they never
speak English to other students during English lessons, whereas only 13% to 18% of learners from WP Kuala
Lumpur, Pahang and Selangor said the same. This finding also relates to students perception of the difficulty of
their English lessons. Learners from Sabah and Sarawak were more likely to find their English lessons too hard
(between 16% and 18%) than learners from states that have fewer remote and rural schools such as WP Kuala
Lumpur, Selangor and Johor, who tend to indicate more frequently that their lessons are too easy (between 19%
and 25%).

43
State profiles: Secondary school

Form 3
Test performance by state at Form 3 showed variation (Table 3.15) and Selangor, WP Kuala Lumpur, WP Labuan,
and WP Putrajaya showed stronger than average performance, with learners from those states/federal territories
achieving CEFR B1 level in Listening and Reading or a high average score within A2. Selangor also had four out of
the eight top-performing Form 3 classes. This finding is most probably due to the high proportion of urban schools
in those territories, which tend to perform better. Perlis showed performance below the national average in all
three skills, with Listening being particularly weak.
Table 3.15 Average CEFR proficiency levels by State/Federal Territory: Form 3
Listening
Reading
Writing
Malaysia overall
A2
A2
A2
JOHOR
A2
A2
A2
KEDAH
A1
A2
A1
KELANTAN
A1
A2
A2
MELAKA
A2
A2
A2
NEGERI SEMBILAN
A1
A2
A1
PAHANG
A1
A2
A2
PERAK
A2
A2
B1
PERLIS
Below A1
A1
A1
PULAU PENANG
A1
A2
A2
SABAH
A2
A2
A2
SARAWAK
A2
A2
A2
SELANGOR
A2
A2
A2
TERENGGANU
A1
A2
A1
WP KUALA LUMPUR
B1
B1
A2
WP LABUAN
A2
B1
WP PUTRAJAYA
B1
B1
Note: The missing data for Writing is due to late scripts, which were not included in the analysis; Speaking is not reported due to the small
Speaking sample in many states.
Form 5
As Table 3.16 indicates, test performance by state at Form 5 showed some variation. Similar to the findings
observed for Year 6 and Form 3, WP Kuala Lumpur showed stronger than average performance compared to the
national average of A2. In this case it was in all three skills, with Form 5 WP Kuala Lumpur learners achieving CEFR
level B1. The analysis of top-performing Form 5 classes also indicated that four (out of 10) of the top performers
were in WP Kuala Lumpur. The stronger performance in Writing of Negeri Sembilan and Pulau Pinang is also worth
noting, as is the fact that two of the top-performing Form 5 class were in Pulau Pinang. Perak also showed B1 level
performance in Writing; however, this is based on a mean score just over the B1 level boundary. In terms of
weaker performance, Perlis Form 5 students achieved a lower CEFR level and/or average score than the national
average in all skills. The relatively weaker performance for Perlis was also observed at Form 3, and could be due to
the relatively small proportion of students from this state in the sample.
Table 3.16 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by State/Federal Territory: Form 5

Listening
Reading
Writing
Malaysia overall
A2
A2
A2
44

JOHOR
A2
A2
A2
KEDAH
A2
A2
A2
KELANTAN
A2
A2
A2
MELAKA
A2
A2
A2
NEGERI SEMBILAN
A2
A2
B1
PAHANG
A2
A2
A2
PERAK
A2
A2
B1
PERLIS
A1
A2
A2
PULAU PENANG
A2
A2
B1
SABAH
A2
A2
A2
SARAWAK
A2
A2
A2
SELANGOR
A2
A2
A2
TERENGGANU
A2
A2
A2
WP KUALA LUMPUR
B1
B1
B1
WP LABUAN
A2
A2
A2
WP PUTRAJAYA
A2
A2
A2
Note: The missing data for Writing is due to late scripts, which were not included in the analysis; Speaking is not reported due to the small
speaking sample in many states.
Form 6
As was found in all other school grades, test performance by state showed some variation at Form 6 (Table 3.17)
and several states showed performance higher than average in at least two out of the three skills: Melaka, Pulau
Penang, Selangor, WP Kuala Lumpur and WP Labuan. Top performing Form 6 classes were found in WP Kuala
Lumpur, Selangor and Sabah. In terms of mean scores, Perlis showed the weakest performance, which was also
observed with Form 3 and Form 5.

45
Table 3.17 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by State/Federal Territory: Form 6

Listening
Reading
Writing
Malaysia overall
A2
B1
B1
JOHOR
A2
B1
B1
KEDAH
A2
B1
B2
KELANTAN
A2
B1
B1
MELAKA
B1
B1
B2
NEGERI SEMBILAN
A2
B1
B2
PAHANG
A2
B1
B1
PERAK
A2
B1
B1
PERLIS
A2
B1
A2
PULAU PENANG
B1
B1
B2
SABAH
A2
B1
B1
SARAWAK
A2
B1
B2
SELANGOR
B1
B1
B1
TERENGGANU
A2
B1
B1
WP KUALA LUMPUR
B1
B1
B1
WP LABUAN
B1
B2
B1
WP PUTRAJAYA
A2
B1
B1
Note: Speaking is not reported due to the smaller speaking sample in a number of states.
Attitudinal and background factors by state: Secondary school

Although there is variation in learner responses by state, the majority of differences are not meaningful. Where
the variation in responses is meaningful, the pattern is very similar to those found in Year 6, namely exposure to
English within and outside the learning environment. As the findings by state are strongly linked to the number of
rural/remote schools within a particular state, a discussion of secondary school student differences is provided by
school location on the following pages.
46

Urban/rural/remote profiles
Question 2b: How does overall and by skill student performance at different school stages compare according to
rural/urban/remote location?
Location profiles: Primary school

Pre-school
The analysis also focused on the distribution of CEFR levels by location, i.e. urban, rural and remote. Table 3.18
presents the relevant findings and shows that in general there was no difference in CEFR level performance across
the different locations, with the exception of Reading, where urban Pre-school learners performed slightly better,
with a mean score just above the A1 level boundary, than their rural and remote counterparts. A multilevel
regression analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in performance based on location
at Pre-school. (Descriptive statistics and multilevel regression analysis findings for this variable and all subsequent
variables discussed in the report can be found in the Cambridge Baseline 2013 Technical Report.)
Table 3.18 Average CEFR proficiency levels by location: Pre-school
Listening
CEFR Level
Urban
Below
A1
Rural
Below
A1
Reading
Remote
Below
A1
Urban
A1
Rural
Below
A1
Writing
Remote
Below
A1
Urban
Below
A1
Rural
Below
A1
Speaking
Remote
Below
A1
Urban
Below
A1
Rural
Below
A1
Remote
Below
A1
Table 3.19 and Figure 3.19 present the distribution of CEFR levels of students in the three location types across all
skills and overall. In the case of Writing and Speaking, Pre-school students in all three locations performed in a
very similar fashion, with the vast majority below level A1. With Listening and Reading, urban and rural students
achieved a more even spread across A2, A1 and below A1, whereas students in remote schools were found to be
mostly at level A1 and below. This finding supports previous school achievement results reported for Malaysia in
the Education Blueprint (2012:E9). Interestingly, in terms of top performing classes, the analysis indicated that out
of seven classes, six came from Pre-school classes in rural schools.
Table 3.19 Distribution of CEFR levels by location: Pre-school
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
A2
21%
33%
7%
11%
12%
10%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
A1
29%
36%
20%
35%
31%
18%
8%
7%
0%
6%
0%
0%
Below
A1
51%
32%
73%
53%
57%
72%
88%
89%
100%
94%
100%
100%
Overall
Urban
Rural
Remote
A2
9%
12%
4%
A1
20%
18%
10%
Below
A1
72%
70%
86%

47
Figure 3.19 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by location: Pre-school

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Below A1
50%
A1
40%
A2
30%
20%
10%
0%
Urban
Rural
Remote
Year 6
Table 3.20 presents the relevant findings by urban/rural/remote location of schools and shows that consistently
Year 6 classes in remote and rural schools performed weaker than urban classes. A multilevel regression analysis
indicated that there was indeed a statistically significant difference between Year 6 students in urban areas, as
compared with rural and remote areas. Performance was the lowest in remote areas and the difference is
statistically significant. The difference between rural and urban Year 6 classes is also statistically significant for
Listening, Reading and Writing, but the effect is smaller than the one found for remote schools. This finding
supports previous school achievement results reported for Malaysia in the Education Blueprint (2012:E9), where
an achievement gap was noted between urban and rural/remote schools, in favour of urban schools.
Table 3.20 Average CEFR proficiency levels by location: Year 6
Listening
Reading
CEFR
Level
Urban
Rural
A1
A1
Remote
Below
A1
Urban
Rural
A1
A1
Remote
Below
A1
Writing
Urban
Rural
A2
A2
Speaking
Remote
Below
A1
Urban
Rural
A1
A1
Remote
Below
A1
Note: The number of students from remote locations for Writing and Speaking is very small (N=10 Writing, N=16 Speaking).
Table 3.21 and Figure 3.20 present the distribution of CEFR levels of students in the three location types. The
urban schools showed the largest proportion of Year 6 students at the higher A2 and B1 levels, and remote
schools showed the lowest (39% overall for urban, 30% for rural, 3% for remote). The vast majority of students
(98%) in remote locations achieved either level A1 or below. However, the much smaller number of students in
remote locations compared to rural and urban locations must be kept in mind, since the performance of a few
individual students in remote schools could have a large effect on the percent reported.

48
Table 3.21 Distribution of CEFR levels by location: Year 6

Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
B2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B1
16%
5%
2%
0%
0%
0%
38%
26%
0%
5%
6%
0%
A2
24%
18%
6%
21%
8%
2%
33%
34%
0%
19%
23%
0%
A1
Below
A1
30%
28%
19%
34%
27%
11%
18%
21%
0%
72%
59%
0%
30%
49%
72%
45%
65%
86%
8%
18%
100%
3%
12%
100%
Overall
Urban
Rural
Remote
C1
0%
0%
0%
B2
1%
1%
0%
B1
15%
9%
1%
A2
24%
21%
2%
A1
Below
A1
38%
34%
8%
22%
36%
90%
Figure 3.20 Distribution of CEFR levels by location: Year 6

100%
90%
80%
70%
Below A1
60%
A1
50%
A2
40%
B1
30%
B2
20%
10%
0%
Urban
Rural
Remote
Attitudinal and background factors by location: Primary school

The questionnaire findings suggest that learners from remote schools are facing more challenges to learning
English than their counterparts in urban and rural schools. Forty-seven percent of primary school students from
remote schools reported that their first language was something other than Malay, Chinese or Tamil. Only 5% of
urban students and 6% of rural students report having a first language other than Malay, Chinese or Tamil. This
indicates that learners from remote schools are likely learning English as their third or fourth language, which
could be one reason why they are performing less well than students in urban and rural areas. One teacher
highlighted this issue:

49
Many students learn 3 languages and are usually influenced by their native tongue (Rural primary school
teacher, Sarawak)
Learners who study in remote schools are also more likely to report that their English lessons are too hard (20%)
than students from rural schools (13%) and urban schools (9%). These findings may again be linked to the lack of
exposure to English in their daily lives. Learners from remote schools were more likely to indicate that neither
their mother nor father can speak English (38% and 34% respectively) compared to rural school students (14% for
both parents) and urban school students (9% for both parents). Learners from remote areas are also less likely to
use English in the classroom. Twenty-five percent reported that they never speak to their teacher in English, while
17% of students from rural schools and 10% of students from urban schools said the same. Not surprisingly, there
also appear to be fewer opportunities for students from remote areas to use English in the wider community.
Thirty-six percent of students never speak to family or friends in English and 63% never speak English in their
communities (rural students: 28% and 54% respectively; urban students: 20% and 44% respectively).
Location profiles: Secondary school

Form 3
Table 3.22 presents the relevant findings by urban/rural/remote location of schools and shows that Form 3 classes
in rural and remote schools generally performed less well than urban classes in all skills, achieving a lower CEFR
level and/or a lower average. A multilevel regression analysis indicated that there was indeed a statistically
significant difference between Form 3 students in urban areas, as compared with rural and remote areas. The
effect was significant for all three skills and was most pronounced for Writing. This finding is in line with the gap
between urban and rural/remote students found at Year 6 and with the findings noted earlier from the Education
Blueprint (2012:E9), where an achievement gap was mentioned between urban and rural schools, in favour of
urban schools.
Table 3.22 Average CEFR proficiency levels by location: Form 3
Listening
Reading
Location
CEFR Level
Writing
Speaking
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
A2
A1
A1
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A1
A2
A1
A1
Table 3.23 and Figure 3.21 present the distribution of CEFR levels of Form 3 students in the three location types.
As was found with Year 6, the urban schools showed the largest proportion of Form 3 students at the higher B1
and B2 levels, and remote schools showed the lowest (37% urban, 20% rural, 13% remote), with the majority of
students in remote locations (86%) achieving either level A2, A1 or below.

50
Table 3.23 Distribution of CEFR levels by location: Form 3

Listening
Reading
Location
Writing
Speaking
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
B2
29%
10%
6%
19%
5%
0%
18%
7%
0%
6%
2%
0%
B1
18%
13%
17%
24%
15%
31%
24%
16%
0%
10%
14%
0%
A2
23%
21%
33%
40%
51%
42%
23%
34%
21%
19%
18%
41%
A1
21%
43%
25%
11%
22%
28%
6%
16%
14%
57%
56%
53%
Below A1
8%
14%
19%
5%
7%
0%
26%
27%
64%
5%
9%
6%
Overall
Location
Urban
Rural
Remote
C2
1%
0%
0%
C1
1%
0%
0%
B2
18%
6%
1%
B1
19%
14%
12%
A2
26%
31%
34%
A1
23%
34%
30%
Below A1
11%
14%
22%
Figure 3.21 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by location: Form 3

40%
35%
Below A1
30%
A1
25%
A2
20%
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
C2
5%
0%
Urban
Rural
Remote
Form 5
Table 3.24 presents the relevant findings by urban/rural location of school. (Remote is not included as a category
due to the small number of students in remote Form 5 classes only 82 students from remote locations in Sabah
took the Form 5 test). The table shows a difference in CEFR level and/or average score in all skills, with learners in
rural schools consistently performing less well. The multilevel regression analysis indicated a statistically
significant difference between urban and rural students. The effect was found to be significant for Listening,
Reading and Writing; there was no conclusive evidence regarding Speaking, possibly due to the small sample size

51
for Speaking. This finding is in line with the gap between urban and rural/remote students found at Year 6 and
Form 3.
Table 3.24 Average CEFR proficiency levels by location: Form 5
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
A2
A2
A2
A2
B1
A2
A2
A2
CEFR Level
Note: Remote is not included in the analysis due to the small number of Form 5 students from remote schools in the sample (N=24 for
Listening, Reading, Speaking, N=10 for Writing, N=82 total).
Table 3.25 and Figure 3.22 present the distribution of CEFR levels of Form 5 students in the different location
types. As was found with Year 6 and Form 3, the urban schools showed the largest proportion of Form 5 students
at the higher B1 and above levels (53% urban, 34% rural). Similar to Form 3, where approximately half of the
learners were either at the A1 and below or B2 ends of the proficiency spectrum, a wide variation in achievement
is also observed for a large proportion of Form 5 urban students (20% at level A1 and below, 24% at level B2 and
above).
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Overall
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
7%
1%
2%
1%
B2
34%
16%
26%
13%
11%
6%
16%
7%
22%
10%
B1
19%
16%
24%
21%
48%
40%
24%
14%
29%
23%
A2
22%
27%
38%
45%
25%
29%
23%
25%
27%
32%
A1
20%
32%
9%
18%
31%
31%
Below A1
4%
9%
3%
4%
0%
21%
20%
35%
14%
24%
Note: Remote is not included as a separate category in the analysis due to the small number of Form 5 students from remote schools in
the sample (N=24 for Listening, Reading, Speaking, N=10 for Writing, N=82 total). Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to
rounding.

40%
35%
30%
Below A2
25%
A2
20%
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
5%
0%
Urban
Rural

52
Form 6
Table 3.26 presents the relevant findings by urban/rural location of school. (Remote is not included as a category
due to the small number of remote Form 6 students (N=84)). The Table shows a difference in CEFR level and/or
mean score in all skills. In line with the significance testing results noted for Year 6, Forms 3 and 5, the multilevel
regression analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between urban and rural students at Form 6. The
effect was found to be strongest for Speaking.
Table 3.26 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by location: Form 6
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
B1
A2
B1
B1
B2
B1
B1
A2
CEFR Level
Listening, Reading, Speaking, N=15 for Writing, N=84 total).
Table 3.27 and Figure 3.23 present the distribution of CEFR levels of Form 6 students in the different location
types and indicate that approximately one third (36%) of urban students were found to be at CEFR levels B2 and
above overall, and therefore having operational proficiency of English. The corresponding proportion for rural
students was 19%.
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Overall
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
C2
6%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
2%
1%
C1
8%
2%
2%
0%
6%
2%
10%
3%
7%
2%
B2
17%
9%
21%
11%
53%
29%
18%
13%
27%
16%
B1
21%
14%
45%
44%
32%
49%
39%
19%
34%
32%
A2
38%
50%
29%
41%
5%
12%
26%
18%
24%
30%
A1
8%
19%
1%
3%
16%
2%
5%
0%
0%
6%
6%
Below A1
3%
0%
31%
5%
20%
Listening, Reading, Speaking, N=15 for Writing, N=84 total). Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to rounding up and down.

40%
35%
30%
Below A2
25%
A2
20%
B1
B2
15%
C1
10%
C2
5%
0%
Urban
Rural

53
Attitudinal and background factors by location: Secondary school

Due to the low numbers of secondary school learners from remote schools who completed the questionnaire
(N=79), they have been grouped together with rural school students for this analysis. Learners from rural schools
were found to be less positive about learning English and either have fewer opportunities to use English inside or
outside school or are less likely to use English when given the opportunity. Unlike the primary school findings,
there is more language variation in urban secondary schools. Between 84% and 89% of rural/remote students
indicated that Malay is their first language whereas between 56% and 67% of urban students said the same.
Secondary school learners who study in rural schools are slightly less likely to strongly agree with the statement
Learning English is important for me (between 50% and 57%) than their counterparts in urban schools (between
57% and 69%). Although both groups recognise the functional purpose of English, urban school students are more
likely to take English lessons outside school (between 12% and 31%) than students from rural/remote schools
(between 7% and 19%). Form 6 learners from rural/remote schools, when asked if they enjoy their English lessons,
are less likely to strongly agree (22%) than their urban counterparts (32%). Secondary school students from urban
schools are more likely to strongly agree that they would like to learn other subjects in English (between 46% and
48%) compared to students from rural schools (between 24% and 29%). These findings suggest that rural
secondary school students may be less engaged with learning English and although they recognise its importance
are facing challenges to learning it.
When looking at the questions that focus on the use of English within the learning environment and home
environment, the main difference between urban and rural secondary students had to do with the extent to which
their parents speak English. We found that secondary students from rural areas are less likely to report that their
parents speak English very well or moderately well (between 24% and 39% for their mothers and between 35%
and 43% for their fathers) whereas urban secondary students report that between 38% and 56% of their mothers
and between 55% and 61% of their fathers speak it very well or moderately well. As mentioned previously,
parents knowledge of a language can positively influence their childrens language learning behaviour and their
attitude towards learning a language. Students studying in rural locations appear to be facing more disadvantages
in terms of exposure to English and parental support for learning than their urban counterparts, which could be
negatively affecting their attitude and motivation to learn. Teachers comments supported the viewpoints
mentioned above:
My students come from nearby rural villages. They are not exposed to English and hence dislike it (Urban
secondary school teacher, Pahang)
Students are mainly from rural villages. They come from different primary schools and most speak their
own local dialect. They dont speak English at all (Rural secondary school teacher, Selangor)
My students are all from rural areas. Family background influences their disinterest (Rural secondary
school teacher, Pulau Pinang)
In order to reduce the achievement gap between urban and rural students, it may be necessary to consider ways
of addressing these differences. In particular, those differences associated with opportunities to use English both
within the English classroom and the school, parental engagement in English language learning and student
motivation.
54

School type profiles

Question 2c: How does overall and by skill student performance at different school stages compare according to
school type?
School type profiles: Primary school

Pre-school
Another variable the analysis focused on was the performance of Pre-school children in different school types:
National, Chinese and Tamil schools. Table 3.28 suggests that there was some variation, and a multilevel
regression analysis indicated a statistically significant difference in the case of Tamil schools, with students in
Tamil schools performing slightly better on the Listening, Reading and Speaking tests than students in National
schools. It is also worth noting that an analysis of top performing classes at Pre-school indicated that classes from
all three school types were represented in the top group. This finding is in contrast with results reported in the
Education Blueprint (2012:E9), which noted an achievement gap between National and National-type Chinese and
Tamil primary schools in the Malaysia primary school system. At Pre-school level at least, we can see relative
equity in student outcomes in English language proficiency.
Table 3.28 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by school type: Pre-school
Listening
Reading
N
Below
A1
CEFR level
C
Below
A1
T
A1
N
Below
A1
A1
A1
Writing
N
Below
A1
C
Below
A1
Speaking
T
Below
A1
N
Below
A1
C
-
T
Below
A1
Note: N=National school, C=Chinese school, T=Tamil school. No National Chinese Pre-school classes were represented in the Speaking
sample.
Table 3.29 and Figure 3.24 present the distribution of CEFR levels of Pre-school students in the three school types.
In the case of Writing and Speaking, learners in the three school types performed in a very similar fashion, with
the vast majority below level A1. The highest proportion of children in levels A1 and A2 came from Tamil schools
(41% from Tamil schools, 26% from Chinese schools, 21% from National schools).
Table 3.29 Distribution of CEFR levels by school type: Pre-school
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
A2
6%
10%
33%
10%
11%
25%
3%
4%
7%
0%
0%
A1
Below
A1
23%
12%
33%
31%
35%
45%
7%
8%
17%
2%
5%
70%
78%
33%
59%
55%
30%
90%
88%
76%
98%
95%
Overall
N
A2
5%
8%
16%
A1
Below
A1
16%
18%
25%
80%
74%
59%

55
Figure 3.24 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by school type: Pre-school

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Below A1
40%
A1
30%
A2
20%
10%
0%
N
Year 6
The findings for Year 6 students based on school type can be seen in Table 3.30. They indicate some variation in
performance, e.g. Chinese schools performed better in Speaking, but that difference was not found to be
statistically significant.
Table 3.30 Average CEFR proficiency levels by school type: Year 6
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
Writing
Speaking
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A2
A2
A2
A1
A2
A1
Table 3.31 and Figure 3.25 present the distribution against CEFR levels of students in the three school types.
There is some variation in the proportion of learners at different CEFR levels, such as, the fact that the smallest
overall proportion of students below A1 came from Tamil schools (33% National, 31% Chinese, 20% Tamil) and the
largest proportion at B1 and B2 was found in Chinese schools (12% National, 26% Chinese, 8% Tamil); however, as
noted above, the multilevel regression analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in
performance by school type.
Table 3.31 Distribution of CEFR levels by school type: Year 6
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
B2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
8%
1%
0%
0%
0%
B1
10%
11%
6%
0%
0%
0%
31%
36%
27%
5%
50%
0%
A2
19%
20%
33%
14%
15%
11%
35%
21%
36%
18%
0%
30%
A1
Below
A1
28%
26%
37%
28%
27%
46%
20%
15%
25%
58%
50%
65%
43%
43%
24%
58%
59%
43%
13%
20%
11%
19%
0%
3%
Overall

56
C1
0%
0%
1%
B2
0%
2%
0%
B1
12%
24%
8%
A2
21%
14%
27%
A1
33%
29%
43%
Below
33%
31%
20%
A1
Figure 3.25 Distribution of CEFR levels by school type: Year 6
50%
45%
40%
35%
Below A1
30%
A1
25%
A2
20%
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
5%
0%
N
Attitudinal and background factors by school type: Primary school

Although there were no statistically significant differences in performance by school type, the questionnaire
responses do indicate differences in attitude to English language learning. Year 6 learners from Tamil schools have,
in general, a much more positive view of English language learning than students from National schools, who are
more positive than students from Chinese schools. Learners from Tamil schools are also more likely to have a
mother and/or father who speak English very well than students from National schools and students from Chinese
schools (see Figure 3.26).

57
Figure 3.26 Parents ability to speak English by school type (percentage for very well)
'My mother/father speaks English very well'

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
Mother
15%
Father
10%
5%
0%
Tamil school
National school
Chinese school
Tamil school students are also more likely to report that they speak English very often with family and friends
(24%) and with people in their communities (17%) than National school students (5% and 3% respectively) and
Chinese school students (5% and 5% respectively). However, this is likely linked to the previous findings that their
parents are more likely able to speak English. Learners from Tamil schools are more likely to strongly agree that
they enjoy their English lessons (68%) when compared to students from National schools (44%) and students from
Chinese schools (23%). These students are also more likely to report that their English lessons are too easy (34%)
compared to students from National and Chinese schools (13%).
School type profiles: Secondary school

Form 3
The findings for Form 3 students based on school type National or Religious can be seen in Table 3.32. They
indicate some variation in performance, e.g. Religious secondary schools performed better in Writing and
Speaking, but that difference was not found to be statistically significant since the difference in CEFR levels for
Writing and Speaking is based on minimal variation in mean scores.
Table 3.32 Average CEFR proficiency levels by school type: Form 3
Listening
Reading
School type
A2
A2
A2
CEFR level
Note: N=National school type, R=Religious school type
Writing
Speaking
A2
A2
B1
A1
B1
Table 3.33 and Figure 3.26 present the distribution of CEFR levels of students in the two school types. There is
some variation in the proportion of learners at different CEFR levels (e.g. Religious schools had higher proportions
of students at the higher B1 and above levels: 30% National, 50% Religious); however, as noted above, this
variation is relatively small and not statistically significant.

58
Table 3.33 Distribution of CEFR levels by school type: Form 3

Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
1%
0%
B2
21%
25%
13%
12%
13%
20%
3%
7%
B1
16%
21%
20%
30%
20%
33%
7%
50%
A2
22%
27%
45%
48%
27%
32%
19%
40%
A1
30%
23%
16%
9%
10%
9%
61%
3%
Below A1
11%
4%
6%
1%
28%
4%
8%
0%
Overall
N
C2
0%
0%
C1
1%
1%
B2
13%
16%
B1
16%
33%
A2
28%
37%
A1
29%
11%
Below A1
13%
2%
Figure 3.27 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by school type: Form 3

40%
35%
30%
Below A1
25%
A1
20%
A2
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
5%
0%
N

59
Form 5
The findings for Form 5 students based on school type National or Religious - can be seen in Table 3.34. Similar
to the findings for Form 3, Religious secondary schools performed better, in this case in Reading and Writing, but
that difference was not found to be statistically significant since the difference in CEFR levels is based on minimum
variation in mean scores.
Table 3.34 Average CEFR proficiency levels by school type: Form 5
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
School type
CEFR level
A2
A2
A2
B1
A2
B1
A2
Note: No speaking tests were carried out in Form 5 religious classes.
Table 3.35 and Figure 3.28 present the distribution of CEFR levels of students in the two school types. There is
some variation in proportion of learners at different CEFR levels; however, as noted above, this variation is not
statistically significant.
Table 3.35 Distribution of CEFR levels by school type: Form 5

Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
4%
B2
26%
26%
20%
29%
9%
7%
11%
B1
18%
20%
22%
29%
44%
63%
19%
A2
24%
21%
41%
32%
27%
25%
24%
A1
25%
20%
13%
9%
6%
13%
3%
1%
4%
31%
Below A1
19%
10%
Overall
N
C2
0%
0%
C1
1%
0%
B2
18%
21%
B1
28%
37%
A2
31%
26%
22%
16%
A1
Below A1
Note: Overall estimate is based on Listening, Reading and Writing only. Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.

60
Figure 3.28 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by school type: Form 5

40%
35%
30%
Below A2
25%
A2
20%
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
5%
0%
N
Form 6
School type is not included in the analysis due to the small number of Religious schools at Form 6 in the sample.
Attitudinal and background factors by school type: Secondary school

Despite the fact that 51% of the Religious secondary schools in the sample are located in rural areas compared to
only 41% of National secondary schools, there is very little variation between the two groups in the questionnaire
responses.
More of the National school students take lessons outside school (22%) than Religious school students (16%).
Religious school students are also less likely to report that they speak to their teacher very often during lessons
(16%) compared to National school students (25%).

61
Gender profiles
Question 2d: How does overall and by-skill student performance at different school stages compare according to
gender?
Gender profiles: Primary school

Pre-school
The performance of Pre-school children by gender can be seen in Table 3.36. The performance of boys and girls is
similar and any differences in mean scores were not found to be statistically significant.
Table 3.36 Average CEFR proficiency levels by gender: Pre-school
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
Male
Below
A1
Female
Below
A1
Male
Below
A1
Female
A1
Writing
Male
Below
A1
Speaking
Female
Below
A1
Male
Below
A1
Female
Below
A1
Table 3.37 and Figure 3.29 show the distribution of boys and girls in each of the CEFR levels covered by their test.
The findings indicate a very similar distribution in Reading and Listening, with approximately half to two thirds of
boys and girls below A1 and the remaining children at levels A1 and A2. Performance in Writing and Speaking is
also similar, with the overwhelming majority of both boys and girls below level A1.
Table 3.37 Distribution of CEFR levels by gender: Pre-school
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
A2
9%
9%
11%
12%
3%
4%
0%
0%
A1
23%
23%
33%
32%
7%
7%
1%
5%
Below A1
68%
68%
55%
56%
90%
89%
99%
95%
Overall
Male
Female
A2
6%
6%
A1
16%
17%
Below A1
78%
77%

62
Figure 3.29 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by gender: Pre-school

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Below A1
40%
A1
30%
A2
20%
10%
0%
Male
Female
Year 6
The performance of Year 6 learners by gender (Table 3.38) is similar, except for the better performance of girls in
Writing, which is statistically significant.
Table 3.38 Average CEFR proficiency levels by gender: Year 6
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
A1
A1
A1
A1
A2
A2
A1
A1
Table 3.39 and Figure 3.30 show the distribution of boys and girls in each of the CEFR levels covered by their test.
It shows a very similar spread of levels, with the majority of both boys and girls mainly achieving between B1 and
below A1, except in the case of Writing, where a larger proportion of girls achieved the higher B1/B2 levels.
Table 3.39 Distribution of CEFR levels by gender: Year 6
Listening
Reading
C1
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
B2
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
0%
0%
B1
10%
10%
0%
0%
24%
38%
4%
7%
A2
18%
21%
14%
13%
35%
30%
14%
23%
A1
28%
28%
27%
31%
22%
16%
71%
50%
Below A1
43%
41%
58%
56%
17%
12%
11%
19%
Overall
C1
Male
Female
0%
0%
B2
0%
1%
B1
10%
14%
A2
21%
22%
A1
37%
32%
Below A1
32%
32%

63
Figure 3.30 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by gender: Year 6

40%
35%
30%
Below A1
25%
A1
20%
A2
15%
B1
10%
B2
5%
0%
Male
Female
Attitudinal and background factors by gender: Primary school

The questionnaire data suggests that girls in Year 6 are, in general, more positive about English than boys. They
are more likely to strongly agree that learning English is important for them (58%) compared to boys (43%) and
more likely to strongly agree that they enjoy their English lessons (50%) than boys (36%). Girls are also less likely
to say that their English lessons are too hard (9%) than boys (14%).
Gender profiles: Secondary school

Form 3
The performance of Form 3 learners by gender (Table 3.40) shows some differences, and the results of a multilevel
regression analysis showed that Form 3 boys score significantly lower than girls in all four skills. The gender gap
was found to be the greatest in the Writing exam.
Table 3.40 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by gender: Form 3
Listening
Reading
Gender
CEFR level
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A1
A2
Table 3.41 and Figure 3.31 present the distribution of Form 3 boys and girls in each of the CEFR levels covered by
their test. It shows that more girls than boys achieved the higher B1 and above levels (26% boys, 35% girls).
Table 3.41 Distribution of CEFR levels by gender: Form 3
Listening
Reading
Gender
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
2%
B2
21%
21%
12%
14%
10%
17%
4%
3%
B1
14%
18%
17%
23%
15%
26%
9%
12%
A2
22%
23%
44%
46%
27%
27%
23%
19%
A1
30%
30%
19%
13%
11%
9%
50%
61%
Below A1
13%
9%
8%
4%
36%
19%
13%
2%

64
Overall
Male
Female
C2
0%
0%
C1
0%
1%
B2
12%
14%
B1
14%
20%
A2
29%
29%
A1
28%
28%
Below A1
18%
8%
Gender
Figure 3.31 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by gender: Form 3

35%
30%
25%
Below A1
A1
20%
A2
15%
B1
10%
B2
C1
5%
0%
Male
Female
Form 5
The performance of Form 5 learners by gender (Table 3.42) indicates that boys and girls achieved similar CEFR
levels, except for the better performance of girls in Writing, which was also observed in Year 6 and Form 3. In
addition, the mean scores by gender were found to be consistently higher for girls for all skills, even though the
CEFR levels are the same, and a multilevel regression analysis indicated that girls in Form 5 scored significantly
higher than boys in all four language skills and not just in Writing.
Table 3.42 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by gender: Form 5
Listening
Reading
Gender
CEFR level
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
A2
A2
A2
A2
A2
B1
A2
A2
Table 3.43 and Figure 3.32 show the distribution of Form 5 boys and girls in each of the CEFR levels covered by
their test. It shows that more girls than boys achieved the higher B1 and above levels (39% boys, 49% girls).
Interestingly, at B2 and above, the gender-specific proportions are similar.


Listening
Reading
Writing
65
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
5%
4%
B2
27%
26%
20%
21%
6%
11%
10%
12%
B1
16%
19%
20%
25%
39%
49%
15%
22%
A2
23%
25%
41%
41%
29%
24%
20%
28%
A1
27%
23%
15%
11%
5%
4%
3%
13%
26%
7%
24%
36%
Below A1
13%
6%
Overall
Male
Female
C2
0%
0%
C1
1%
2%
B2
16%
18%
B1
22%
29%
A2
28%
29%
32%
22%
A1
Below A1

35%
30%
25%
Below A2
20%
A2
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
5%
0%
Male
Female
Form 6
The performance of Form 6 students by gender can be seen in Table 3.44. In contrast to findings at the other
school grades, male students were either on a par with female students, or slightly better, as in the case with
Listening. A multilevel regression analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between male and female
Form 6 students. This finding is in line with other findings about Form 6, which indicated that differences within
Form 6 are not significant, possibly due to the more homogenous nature of the Form 6 cohort due to selfselection.

66
Table 3.44 Average CEFR proficiency levels by gender: Form 6

Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
B1
A2
B1
B1
B1
B1
A2
A2
CEFR level
Table 3.45 and Figure 3.33 show the distribution of Form 6 male and female students in each of the CEFR levels
covered by their test. As can be seen, the distribution is very similar across all CEFR levels.
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
C2
5%
3%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
C1
8%
5%
1%
1%
6%
4%
5%
5%
B2
16%
12%
19%
15%
39%
45%
19%
10%
B1
19%
17%
42%
46%
39%
38%
19%
32%
A2
40%
44%
34%
35%
9%
7%
13%
29%
A1
9%
15%
2%
2%
4%
0%
0%
4%
16%
2%
5%
13%
Below A1
29%
8%
Overall
Male
Female
C2
2%
1%
C1
5%
4%
B2
23%
20%
B1
30%
33%
A2
24%
29%
A1
15%
12%
Below A1

35%
30%
25%
Below A2
A2
20%
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
C2
5%
0%
Male
Female

67
Attitudinal and background factors by gender: Secondary school

Although there were significant differences in attitudes towards learning English between boys and girls in primary
school, these differences are less pronounced at secondary school. There are a few differences at Form 3 and 5 in
that girls still tend to be more positive about learning English and see it as more important to their future.
However, these differences gradually disappear as students reach Form 6, which is not surprising as these
students are generally self-selecting.
Class specialisation profiles

Question 2e: How does overall and by-skill student performance at different school stages compare according to
class specialisation?
Class specialisation profiles: Secondary school

Form 5
The specialisation of Form 5 students into Arts, Science, Vocational and Religious classes presented an opportunity
to investigate the effect of this variable, which was not possible with the Form 3 classes. The distribution of CEFR
levels by class specialisation is given in Table 3.46. Students in Science classes consistently emerged as having
higher language proficiency a difference which was shown to be statistically significant.
Table 3.46 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by class specialisation: Form 5
Listening
Reading
Writing
Specialisation
CEFR level
A2
B1
A2
A1
A2
B1
A2
A2
A2
B1
A2
A2
A2
A2
B1
A1
Speaking
Note: A=Arts, S=Science, V=Vocational, R=Religious. Speaking for Vocational and Religious is based on a small number of learners (N=29
Vocational, N=49 Religious)
The distribution of CEFR levels across class specialisation is given in Table 3.47 and Figure 3.34, and the findings
indicate that a much larger proportion of Form 5 learners in Science classes achieved the higher B2 and above
levels, compared with learners from the other specialisations: 32% of Form 5 students in the Science classes were
found to be at CEFR level B2 and above, which can be considered the level at which operational proficiency is
displayed, compared to between 4% and 10% of learners at this level in the other three specialisations.
Table 3.47 Distribution of CEFR levels by class specialisation: Form 5
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
C1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
1%
0%
7%
4%
0%
0%
B2
12%
47%
12%
7%
6%
40%
7%
6%
3%
18%
3%
3%
9%
15%
10%
0%
B1
13%
23%
17%
13%
15%
33%
18%
16%
29%
65%
33%
51%
14%
21%
67%
2%
A2
25%
21%
31%
27%
51%
24%
56%
59%
34%
13%
37%
39%
27%
20%
24%
29%
A1
Below
A1
39%
9%
31%
40%
22%
2%
16%
16%
24%
31%
0%
69%
34%
1%
27%
7%
17%
8%
0%
0%
10%
1%
8%
13%
5%
1%
4%
3%

68
Overall
A
C2
0%
0%
0%
0%
C1
2%
2%
0%
0%
B2
8%
30%
8%
4%
B1
18%
35%
34%
20%
A2
34%
20%
37%
38%
38%
13%
21%
37%
A1
Below A1
Note: Speaking for Vocational and Religious is based on a small number of learners (N=29 Vocational, N=49 Religious). Percentages may
not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
Figure 3.34 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by class specialisation: Form 5

40%
35%
30%
A1 and below
25%
A2
20%
B1
15%
B2
10%
C1
5%
0%
Arts
Science
Vocational
Religious
Form 6
Class specialisation at Form 6 was investigated in terms of Arts/Science. The distribution of CEFR levels by class
specialisation (Table 3.48) indicates a marked difference in performance, with Science classes performing better
than Arts classes. This difference was found to be statistically significant and is in line with the findings observed at
Form 5.
Table 3.48 Overall CEFR proficiency levels by class specialisation: Form 6
Listening
Reading
Writing
CEFR level
Speaking
Arts
Science
Arts
Science
Arts
Science
Arts
Science
A2
B2
B1
B1
B1
B2
A2
B2
The distribution of CEFR levels across class specialisation at Form 6 is given in Table 3.49 and Figure 3.35, and the
findings indicate that a much larger proportion of learners in Science classes have achieved the higher levels,
compared with Arts students: 60% of Science students are at level B2 and above, compared to 19% of Arts
students. This is a striking difference, which signals very different learning gains for students in different
specialisations.

Table 3.49 Distribution of CEFR levels by class specialisation: Form 6

Listening
Reading
Writing
69
Speaking
Arts
Science
Arts
Science
Arts
Science
Arts
Science
C2
1%
14%
0%
2%
0%
6%
0%
2%
C1
4%
16%
1%
3%
2%
13%
0%
24%
B2
11%
26%
13%
32%
37%
64%
8%
39%
B1
17%
24%
43%
46%
45%
16%
22%
35%
A2
48%
19%
39%
16%
10%
1%
27%
0%
A1
15%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
4%
6%
20%
Below A1
24%
0%
Overall
Arts
Science
C2
0%
6%
C1
2%
14%
B2
17%
40%
B1
32%
30%
A2
31%
9%
18%
1%
A1
Below A1
Figure 3.35 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by class specialisation: Form 6

45%
40%
35%
A1 and below
30%
A2
25%
B1
20%
B2
15%
C1
10%
C2
5%
0%
Arts
Science
Attitudinal and background factors by specialisation: Secondary school

When questionnaire responses were analysed according to specialisation, the students who specialised in Science
were found to be much more positive about learning English and much more likely to use English both inside and
outside the learning environment than all other groups.
When asked whether learning English is important to them, 73% (Form 5) and 76% (Form 6) of students in Science
classes said it was very important whereas 50% (Form 5) and 62% (Form 6) of students in Arts classes, 55% of
Form 5 students in Vocational classes and between 34% and 49% of Form 5 and 6 students in Religious classes said
70

the same. Similarly, the parents of Science students are more likely to speak English very well (between 13% and
22%) compared to all other groups (between 5% and 14%). Large numbers of students in Science classes reported
watching TV or films in English very often (48%54%) compared to students in Arts classes (35%47%), Vocational
classes (40%) and Religious classes (32%35%). Between 20% and 28% of students in Form 5 and 6 Science classes
reported reading books in English very often while only 2% to 10% of the other groups indicated the same. The
students in Science classes are also more likely to use the internet in English very often (72%76%) compared to
students in Arts classes (59%70%), Vocational classes (61%) and Religious classes (54%59%).
Students in Form 5 and 6 Science classes are less likely to report that their classes are too hard (23%) than
students in Arts classes (712%), Vocational classes (11%) and Religious classes (611%). Students in Science
classes also tend to use English much more often in class. Although only 35% of students in Form 5 Science classes
reported speaking to their teacher in English very often, this jumps to 77% for Form 6 students. The students who
specialise in the other subjects who reported speaking very often to their teacher in English ranged between 4%
(Religious classes) to 27% (Arts classes). Students in Science classes are more likely to strongly agree that they
would like to study other subjects in English (Form 5: 56% and Form 6: 80%) than students in Arts and Vocational
classes (29%) and students in Religious classes (13%). This is a striking difference but as these students are more
proficient than the other groups, it is not that surprising.
High performing versus low performing learners

Finally, possible background and attitudinal factors which could account for the differences between high
performing students and low performing students in primary and secondary schools were investigated. High
performing students were defined as those who scored 1.5 standard deviations above the mean of each cohort in
the Listening and Reading tests; low performing students were defined as those who scored 1.5 standard
deviations below the mean of each cohort in both exams. Students were classified into two groups, high
performers and low performers, according to the above criteria, and the characteristics which make students
more likely to belong to the high performing group were investigated. (See the Cambridge Baseline 2013 Technical
Report for a detailed description of the analysis).
For Year 6 only, gender is linked to performance (see Figure 3.36). Females in Year 6 are more likely to be high
achievers in English than male students. As noted earlier, we found that girls tended to be more positive towards
English language learning in general which could account for the increased likelihood that they fall into the highachiever category. However, it is important to note that these findings do not suggest a cause-effect relationship.
That is, girls may be more positive about language learning because they are doing well or receiving positive
feedback on their performance or they may be more likely to be found in the high-achiever category because of
better literacy skills in their first language. Research suggests that girls tend to outperform boys in acquiring their
first language (Maccoby and Jacklin 1974) and these skills can support second language development.

71
Figure 3.36 High performing versus low performing Year 6 learners by gender
'What is your gender?'

100%
80%
60%
Lowest
40%
Highest
20%
0%
Male
Female
Parents knowledge of English was also found to be a factor that is associated with high achievement. However,
there are differences by grade and parent. Year 6 and Form 3 learners who reported that their mothers speak
English very well or moderately well were more likely to be high achievers (see Figure 3.37). Interestingly, for
secondary school students it was their fathers English language ability that was found to be statistically associated
with achievement rather than their mothers (see Figure 3.38). Although this difference is puzzling, it could be
related to parental roles within the household that change as the child gets older.
Figure 3.37 High performing versus low performing Year 6 and Form 3 learners by mothers English ability
'My mother is able to speak English'

50%
40%
30%
20%
Lowest
10%
Highest
0%
very well
moderately
well
not very
well
my mother
can't speak
English
not sure
Figure 3.38 High performing versus low performing secondary school learners by fathers English ability
'My father is able to speak English'

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lowest
Highest
very well
moderately
well
not very
well
my father
can't speak
English
not sure
The use of the internet in English was also associated with high-performing students but only for those in Year 6
and Form 5. Figures 3.39 and 3.40 show that learners who reported that they use the internet very often in English
were more likely to be in the high-achiever group. The role of technology in widening access to both information
and people could be seen as an important factor for learners who may not otherwise have opportunities to use
English in their immediate home environment. However, access to or use of the internet may be linked to socioeconomic status, which other international studies have found is positively associated with learning outcomes.

72
Using the internet to play video games has also been linked to cognitive development which could positively
impact language learning (Blumberg and Fisch (Eds) 2013).
Figure 3.39 High performing versus low performing Year 6 learners by internet use
'I use the internet in English.'

100%
80%
60%
Lowest
40%
Highest
20%
0%
Very often Sometimes
Not very
often
Never
Not sure
Figure 3.40 High performing versus low performing Form 5 learners by use of the internet in English
'I use the internet in English.'

100%
80%
60%
40%
Lowest
20%
Highest
0%
Not very
often
Sometimes
Not sure
Learners in all secondary grades who reported that they very often read books in English are more likely to be high
achievers (see Figure 3.41).
Figure 3.41 High performing versus low performing secondary school learners by frequency of reading in English
'I read books or comic books in English.'

100%
80%
60%
40%
Lowest
20%
Highest
0%
Not very
often
Sometimes
Not sure
Although not statistically significant, there was some variation for Year 6 learners in terms of reading frequency in
English (see Figure 3.42) and those in the high-performing category were more likely to read often in English. This
association should be interpreted cautiously, as it is likely that low performing learners are not reading in English
because they do not have the language ability to do so, rather than because they choose not to.

73
Figure 3.42 High performing versus low performing Year 6 learners by frequency of reading in English
'I read books or comic books in English.'

100%
80%
60%
Lowest
40%
Highest
20%
0%
Very Often
Never
The majority of the findings presented above reinforce the positive relationship between exposure to English,
opportunities to use English and learner outcomes. It is clear that schools need to maximise learners exposure to
English, their opportunities to use English and to better structure work done in and out of the class. These findings
also suggest that it may be beneficial to engage parents in English language learning, as their influence appears to
be quite significant.
Summary
Achievement gaps
In the previous part of this section we reported on the national profile of each school grade of interest and
provided a baseline as follows:
Pre-school

78% below A1, 22% at A1/A2
Year 6

32% below A1, 56% at A1/A2, 12% at B1/B2
Form 3

12% below A1, 57% at A1/A2, 30% at B1/B2, 1% at C1/C2
Form 5

Form 6

41% at A1/A2 and below, 53% at B1/B2, 6% at C1/C2.

74
Location
Further to this baseline, one of the most striking findings to emerge from the analysis was the achievement gap
across learners at the same school grade. The achievement gap was most pronounced in terms of location of the
school, with students in remote and rural areas and in states with a higher proportion of rural and remote schools
consistently performing significantly worse than their urban counterparts. This urban-rural divide was found in all
school grades, with the exception of Pre-school. Figures 3.43 and 3.44 provide an illustration of this gap for Form
5, chosen as an illustration here. These graphs clearly show the higher percentages of learners at levels B1 and
above in urban Form 5 classes and the lower percentage at levels A2 and below.
Several factors were identified from the questionnaire responses that could be contributing to this achievement
gap. In particular, rural school students tend to be less motivated to learn English which may be related to their
limited exposure to the language both within the school and at home, and parents who are less able to help them
with their English language education. Other factors such as instructional quality are also important to consider,
and these will be presented in the next section.
Figure 3.43 Distribution of CEFR levels B1 and above by location: Form 5
60%
50%
53%
40%
30%
34%
20%
24%
10%
11%
2%
1%
Urban
Rural
0%
Urban
Rural
Urban
B1 and above
Rural
B2 and above
C1 and above
Figure 3.44 Distribution of CEFR levels A2 and below by location: Form 5

80%
70%
67%
60%
50%
40%
47%
30%
35%
20%
20%
10%
0%
Urban
A2 and below
Rural
Urban
A1 and below
Rural

75
Gender
A further gap in achievement, which was especially pronounced in Forms 3 and 5, was based on gender, with
female students performing significantly better than their male classmates: in Form 3 26% of boys were found to
be independent users of English (i.e. at CEFR level B1 and above), compared to 35% of girls; in Form 5 39% of boys
were independent users, compared to 49% of girls. The gender difference for Form 5 male and female students
can be seen in Figures 3.45 and 3.46.
The questionnaire findings suggest that girls tend to be more positive about learning English than boys; however,
this difference in attitude narrows as learners get older. Helping boys from an early age to see the value of
learning English and develop linguistic self-confidence may be necessary in order to reduce this achievement gap.
Figure 3.45 Distribution of CEFR levels B1 and above by gender: Form 5

60%
50%
49%
40%
39%
30%
20%
17%
10%
20%
1%
2%
Male
Female
0%
Male
Female
Male
B1 and above
Female
B2 and above
C1 and above
Figure 3.46 Distribution of CEFR levels A2 and below by gender: Form 5

70%
60%
60%
50%
51%
40%
30%
32%
20%
22%
10%
0%
Male
Female
A2 and below
Male
Female
A1 and below

76
Class specialisation
A third factor contributing to an achievement gap was found to be class specialisation. In Forms 5 and 6 learners in
Science specialisation classes were found to perform significantly better than their classmates in Arts, Vocational
and Religious class specialisations. In Form 5, 67% of Science specialisation learners were found to be independent
users of English (at level B1 and above), compared to 28% in Arts classes, 42% in Vocational and 24% in Religious;
in Form 6 90% of Science learners were independent users, compared to 51% learners in Arts classes. The
difference by class specialisation for Form 5 Arts and Science students can be seen in Figures 3.47 and 3.48.
The questionnaire responses of learners in the different specialisations highlighted some striking differences. Not
only are learners specialising in Science much more positive about learning English than learners specialising in
other subjects, they appear to be using English much more frequently both within the learning and home
environment. Learners in Science classes seem to be much more prepared to study through the medium of
English, which is likely to be the next step in their education path.
Figure 3.47 Distribution of CEFR levels B1 and above by class specialisation: Form 5
80%
70%
67%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
32%
28%
10%
10%
2%
2%
Arts
Science
0%
Arts
Science
Arts
B1 and above
Science
B2 and above
C1 and above
Figure 3.48 Distribution of CEFR levels B1 and above by class specialisation: Form 5
80%
70%
72%
60%
50%
40%
38%
30%
33%
20%
10%
13%
0%
Arts
Science
A2 and below
Arts
Science
A1 and below

Teacher English language proficiency, teaching knowledge and teaching practice
4.
Key findings
The key findings provide a snapshot of the established teacher language proficiency, teaching knowledge and teaching
practice baseline and also highlight the most salient and meaningful differences in performance which emerged across
certain variables as statistically significant, such as school type and location. In addition, the main interview, observation
and document review findings are summarised, as well as relevant attitudinal and background factors found to be
associated with teacher performance in terms of proficiency, teaching knowledge and teaching practice.
Teacher language proficiency
On average at CEFR level B2
Majority (84%) range between CEFR level B2 and C2; 2% are below B1, 45% are at B1/B2, 52% are at C1/C2
Teachers in Urban schools (vs. Rural and Remote) perform significantly better: average CEFR level for teachers
in Urban schools is C1, compared to B2 for teachers in Rural and Remote schools
Teachers in secondary schools (versus primary) perform better: average CEFR level is B2/C1, compared to B2
for primary school teachers
Teaching knowledge
Average at Band 3 (on the Teaching Knowledge Test 1-4 band scale), which represents teachers with generally
comprehensive knowledge of teaching concepts, terminology, practices and processes
Teaching practice
Average at Band 2 (on the Teaching Knowledge Test: Practical 1-4 band scale), which represents teachers who
are aware of and can plan and implement a range of appropriate teaching procedures and techniques, but need
to do so more consistently and effectively to maximise learner engagement and participation in the learning
process
Observers found teachers to be very good at establishing rapport with students, but they tended to dominate
lessons and there were few opportunities for learners to engage in meaningful communication
In some cases, teachers language proficiency limited their classroom effectiveness and they did not provide
learners with a good language model
Role of attitudinal and background variables
Although overall teachers enjoy teaching, new and non-optionist teachers were less positive about the
profession
New teachers and non-optionist teachers are less likely to be confident when adapting lessons or assessing
their learners progress
Document review: curriculum, textbooks and exams
The primary and secondary school curricula were found not to reflect international standards
Teachers report that the textbooks are outdated and that they tend to rely on additional resources that they
have prepared themselves
National exams are too narrowly focused on Reading and Writing at the expense of Listening and Speaking,
resulting in negative washback
In their current form, tests are not likely to be a valid and reliable indicator of student performance
77
78

Having presented student language proficiency across the grades, we now turn our attention to investigating
teacher language proficiency, teaching knowledge and teaching practice. Developing a wide-ranging profile of
teachers language proficiency, knowledge and practice is an important strand that will complement the student
data in identifying areas in need of further attention. The following chapter will provide an overview of overall
teacher language proficiency by skill against the CEFR and according to school stage (i.e. primary/secondary),
state/federal territory and location (i.e. urban, rural, remote). We will then provide the quantitative findings from
the teaching knowledge test and teaching practice assessment scale. Each section within this chapter will include a
discussion of the relevant information from the qualitative data strands (e.g. questionnaires, lesson observation
reports, curricula/textbooks/examinations review, etc.) that can shed light on the factors that may be influencing
the outcomes in language proficiency, teaching knowledge and practice.
Language proficiency: Teachers

National profile: Teachers
Research Question 3: How do teachers perform on a set of Cambridge English language tests overall and by skill
(Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking) against the CEFR?
Overall, teachers in the baseline project achieved a CEFR level B2, as seen in Table 4.1. It is worth noting that the
average scores for Listening and Reading were found to be just below the C1 level boundary, making the
performance in those skills a high B2 performance. Writing was found to be the strongest skill, with teachers
achieving C1.
Table 4.1 Average CEFR proficiency levels: Teachers
Listening
Reading
CEFR level
B2
B2
Writing
Speaking
C1
B2
The range of CEFR levels achieved by the majority of teachers (84%) spans CEFR levels B2 to C2, representing
independent to operational proficiency in a language (Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1). Amongst those teachers, 52% can
be considered to have operational proficiency (CEFR levels C1 and C2) and 32% can be considered to be
independent speakers of English (CEFR level B2).
Writing emerged as the strongest skill, and Speaking as the weakest. The strong performance in Writing and on
the test as a whole could potentially be a reflection of the high education and experience level of the teachers
who took the test (to be discussed later in this Section). The weakest performance in Speaking is worth noting, as
it is in line with the findings for students, who were also least strong in Speaking.
Table 4.2 Distribution of CEFR levels: Teachers
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Overall
C2
29%
18%
28%
7%
21%
C1
27%
26%
48%
24%
31%
B2
25%
43%
18%
43%
32%
B1
12%
12%
6%
24%
13%
Below B1
6%
1%
0%
2%
3%

79
Figure 4.1 Distribution of Overall CEFR level: Teachers

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Below B1
B1
B2
C1
C2
Understanding teacher language proficiency

As mentioned in the previous section, 52% of teachers achieved an overall CEFR level of C1 or above (see Figure
4.1 and Table 4.2). This finding was somewhat surprising because observers, Heads of Panel and even teachers
themselves raised concerns about the language proficiency of teachers. The following quotes are typical:
A lot of teachers have not mastered the language, thus not able to deliver lessons confidently and
accurately (Urban secondary school, Head of Panel, Melaka)
The teacher is held back by her language skills. Her poor grammar and vocabulary and control of prosodic
features lead to inaccurate examples and modelling (Urban secondary school, Form 3, Pahang,
Observer JL)
[We need] a teacher who is proficient in the language and can teach properly (Rural secondary school
teacher, Selangor)
It would appear that this divergence in findings could be explained when we consider the profile and number of
teachers who completed the test. In many cases, information on the selected teachers in the sample was not
available, so test forms with teacher names and IDs could not be pre-printed, and therefore it is was not possible
to ensure that the teacher whose class was selected was the same teacher taking the test. It may be that many
self-selected teachers took the test, and not the teachers in the sample. This conjecture is based on the fact that
within the cohort of teachers who took the test, 40% reported to have a Bachelor of Education degree and 10% a
Masters in Education. This is a considerably different profile from the education background of Malaysian
teachers in general, only 10% of whom have a Bachelors degree and only 1% a Masters degree, as indicated in
data supplied by the Ministry. In addition, the teachers reported having a significant amount of experience, as 60%
have been teaching for 11 years or more and the proportion of optionist teachers is slightly higher than in the
overall teaching population as reported in the Malaysia Educational Statistics: Quick Facts 2012 document. Finally,
we expected 943 teachers to take the test but in fact only 424 did so. These lower test numbers, when compared
to the 1,290 teachers who completed the questionnaire, do suggest that there was some deliberate nonparticipation in the test sessions. Therefore, we could conclude that the teachers who were selected/self-selected
to take the test were in fact the most proficient in English in the school or for that grade. However, as will be
80

explained in the next section, teacher proficiency varied significantly when one considers the other variables of
interest (i.e. state, location and school type).
State profiles: Teachers

Research Question 4: How do teachers perform on a set of Cambridge English language tests overall and by skill
(Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking) according to state?
Test performance by state for teachers showed some variation, as can be seen in Table 4.3 (which does not report
Speaking performance due to the small size of the Speaking sample by state). Teachers from Pulau Penang, WP
Kuala Lumpur and WP Putrajaya showed stronger than average performance and achieved C1/C2 levels in two or
three of the skills. Teachers from Sabah and Sarawak performed below the national average in Listening and
Reading (no Writing data was available).
Table 4.3 Average CEFR proficiency levels by State/Federal Territory: Teachers

Language skill
Listening
Reading
Writing
Malaysia overall
CEFR level
B2
CEFR level
B2
CEFR level
C1
JOHOR
B2
B2
C1
KEDAH
B2
B2
C1
MELAKA
B2
B2
C1
NEGERI SEMBILAN
B2
B2
C1
PAHANG
B2
B2
B2
PERAK
C1
B2
C1
PERLIS
C1
B2
PULAU PENANG
C1
C1
C1
SABAH
B2
B2
SARAWAK
B2
B2
SELANGOR
C1
B2
C1
TERENGGANU
B2
B2
C1
WP KUALA LUMPUR
C1
C1
C1
C2
C1
KELANTAN
WP LABUAN
WP PUTRAJAYA
Note: The missing data is due to late tests, which were not included in the analysis; Speaking is not reported by state due to the smaller size
of the Speaking sample in each state.
Location profiles: Teachers

Table 4.4 presents the findings by urban/rural/remote location of school and shows that in all four skills teachers
in rural and remote locations on average performed more weakly than their urban colleagues. A multilevel
regression analysis indicated that teachers from rural and remote areas performed significantly worse than
teachers from urban areas.

Table 4.4 Average CEFR proficiency levels by location: Teachers
Listening
Reading
Writing
81
Speaking
Location
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
CEFR Level
C1
B2
C1
B2
C1
C1
C1
B2
Note: Teachers from remote locations are not included in the table due to the very small numbers (N=4 for Listening and Reading, N=0 for
Writing and N=2 for Speaking in remote areas).
Table 4.5 and Figure 4.2 present the distribution of CEFR levels of teachers in the two location types. As can be
seen, teachers from urban schools performed consistently better in all four skills, compared to their colleagues in
rural and remote locations, by showing a higher proportion at the higher levels: overall, 63% of teachers in urban
areas were at CEFR levels C1/C2, compared to 42% of their rural colleagues achieving the same levels. A relatively
small proportion of teachers in both location types can be found at the low end of the scale (CEFR levels B1 and
below): 13% for urban locations and 18% for rural ones, which in essence means that 1 in 7 teachers and 1 in 5
teachers in urban and rural areas have basic or minimally operational proficiency in English.
Table 4.5 Distribution of CEFR levels by location: Teachers
Language skill
Location
Listening
Reading
C2
Urban
36%
Rural
21%
Urban
21%
Rural
15%
C1
26%
27%
29%
B2
23%
29%
B1
9%
Below B1
6%
Writing
Urban
Rural
Speaking
Overall
37%
19%
Urban
15%
Rural
0%
Urban
27%
Rural
14%
21%
49%
56%
40%
10%
36%
28%
38%
48%
12%
17%
20%
65%
23%
40%
16%
11%
13%
2%
7%
25%
20%
12%
14%
7%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
5%
1%
4%
Note: Teachers from remote locations are not included in the table due to the very small numbers (N=4 for Listening and Reading, N=0 for
Writing and N=2 for Speaking in remote areas). Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
Figure 4.2 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by location: Teachers

45%
40%
35%
30%
Below B1
25%
B1
20%
B2
15%
C1
C2
10%
5%
0%
Urban
Rural
Exploring teacher language proficiency by state and location

When considering teacher language proficiency by state and location, we found that rural schools and the
states/federal territories with more rural schools face challenges in attracting teachers who not only have strong
82

English language skills but are also highly trained. As one Head of Panel noted when asked how the teaching of
English could be improved in their school:
More excellent teachers should come and help pupils who live in rural areas like this school (Rural primary
school, Head of Panel, Selangor)
This sentiment was echoed by teachers in the questionnaire and during post-observation interviews. There is a
shortage of teachers trained to teach English and many generalist teachers get co-opted into teaching English. This
particularly seems to be the case in rural/remote schools as 25% of these teachers are non-optionists compared to
15% of urban school teachers. A concern frequently raised is that generalist teachers often do not have the
requisite training:
Have sufficient trained teachers and not teachers of other subjects conveniently reassigned to teach
English. Competent teachers are important as they provide knowledge (Urban secondary school teacher,
Terengganu)
Teachers and Heads of Panel were at pains to emphasise that this is not a criticism of generalist teachers as they
stressed that these teachers were working hard to do a good job, but that generally non-optionist teachers are not
as proficient in English or knowledgeable about second language learning as they could be:
At this time, there are only 2 English teachers with English teaching degrees/certificates. To have a better
result in performance, there is an urgent need for the right people doing the right job. In such cases,
teachers with the right specialisation will contribute their knowledge, experience as well as expertise
effectively and efficiently (Rural secondary school teacher, Kelantan)
The questionnaire findings do seem to suggest that there are differences between optionist and non-optionist
teachers in terms of frequency of language use and confidence in preparing lessons. Non-optionist teachers were
less likely to report in the questionnaire that they teach in English very often (52%) than optionist teachers (80%).
This finding may be attributable to their language level as 25% of non-optionist teachers agreed or strongly agreed
that they use the local language because they do not feel confident teaching in English, whereas only 4% of
optionist teachers said the same. Similarly, non-optionist teachers appear to be less confident in planning lessons
with only 15% strongly agreeing that they are confident in their lesson planning ability compared to 44% of
optionist teachers who indicated the same. It would appear that the differences between optionist and nonoptionist teachers may be impacting lesson quality. However, teacher shortages may not make it feasible to hire
only optionist teachers particularly in rural areas. Therefore, upskilling of current teachers by providing specialist
training becomes even more essential.
Primary/secondary school profiles: Teachers

The findings for teachers based on primary and secondary school (Table 4.6) indicate that secondary school
teachers (S) performed better than their primary school colleagues (P) in all four skills. The difference was only
found to be statistically significant for Listening and Reading, and not Speaking and Writing, possibly due to the
small number of observations for the latter two tests.
Table 4.6 Average CEFR proficiency levels by school type: Teachers
Language skill
Listening
Reading
Writing
Speaking
School type
CEFR level
B2
C1
B2
B2
B2
C1
B2
B2

83
Table 4.7 and Figure 4.3 present the distribution of CEFR levels of teachers by primary and secondary school and
show that the majority of primary school teachers span CEFR levels B1 to C1, whereas for secondary school
teachers that range is B2 to C2. This is an important finding, since it indicates that in primary schools a relatively
large proportion of teachers (in this case, 29%) are below level B2, which is typically considered to be the
minimum threshold for operational proficiency (Council of Europe 2001). This drops to 11% for secondary schools.
Table 4.7 Distribution of CEFR levels by school type: Teachers

Language skill
Listening
Reading
Writing
School type
Speaking
Overall
C2
16%
34%
11%
21%
10%
35%
0%
10%
9%
25%
C1
21%
29%
20%
28%
35%
53%
8%
31%
21%
35%
B2
28%
25%
49%
40%
41%
10%
46%
41%
41%
29%
B1
24%
7%
17%
10%
14%
3%
46%
14%
25%
8%
Below B1
11%
4%
3%
0%
0%
1%
0%
3%
3%
3%
Figure 4.3 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by school type: Teachers

45%
40%
35%
30%
Below B1
25%
B1
20%
B2
15%
C1
C2
10%
5%
0%
Primary
Secondary
Exploring teacher language proficiency by primary/secondary school

Analysis of the questionnaire data showed that primary school teachers were more likely to have less teaching
experience than their secondary colleagues. Twenty percent of primary school teachers have 3 years or less
experience (referred to as new teachers in the remainder of this document) whereas only 8% of secondary
school teachers reported the same. Primary school teachers were also more likely to be non-optionist/generalist
teachers (31%) than secondary school teachers (11%). Primary school teachers appear to be educated to a lesser
extent than the secondary school teachers: 32% of primary teachers compared to 66% of secondary teachers have
a Bachelors degree in Education or higher. One could conclude from the educational profiles and optionist status
of primary school teachers that they may have received less English language training, and that this could account
for their lower performance on the language proficiency tests.
A teachers language proficiency may influence the amount and quality of English used during lessons (Altinyelken
2010). When asked how often they teach in English, primary school teachers were less likely to indicate that they
teach in English very often (69%) than secondary teachers (80%). They were also more likely to report that they
speak the local language in class because their students cannot follow the lesson if it is taught in English (49%
strongly agree or agree) compared to secondary school teachers (37%). The use of the local language is not, of

84
course, taboo, and depends on whether the local language is used when seen as necessary, e.g. to make sure all
instructions are understood, or whether it is used when not justified. However, the questionnaire findings do
suggest that primary school teachers language proficiency may be negatively affecting their language use. That is,
primary school teachers were more likely to strongly agree or agree that they teach in the local language because
they do not feel confident teaching in English (13%) as compared to their secondary school counterparts (4%). This
is an important finding because research indicates that exposure to a foreign language within the learning
environment is positively associated with achievement (Jones 2013). The language proficiency of primary school
teachers could be a contributing factor to the variation in language levels found in Year 6.
Summary
Language proficiency
The range of CEFR levels achieved by 98% of teachers was found to span CEFR levels B1 to C2, representing lower
intermediate to advanced proficiency. The stronger than expected language performance observed in the teacher
sample was also inconsistent with the findings from the Cambridge English Placement Test (CEPT) and may be due
to the low rate of participating teachers (N=424), which represented less than half the expected participation, and
the possibility that more proficient and experienced teachers self-selected to do the test. This conjecture is based
on the fact that the cohort of teachers who took the test reported in the questionnaire that they were significantly
better qualified and experienced than the overall teaching population.
Language skills profile
Similar to the student findings, Speaking emerged as the weakest skill for teachers, with 31% achieving C1/C2
levels in Speaking, compared to 44% for Reading, 56% for Listening and 76% for Writing (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4 Distribution of CEFR levels by skill: Teachers
80%
70%
76%
60%
56%
50%
40%
44%
30%
31%
20%
10%
0%
Writing
Listening
Reading
Speaking
C1 and above
Achievement gaps
Location
Teachers from urban schools performed consistently better in all four skills, as compared to their colleagues in
rural and remote locations. The strongest distinguishing difference between rural and urban teachers is the
proportion at the highest C levels: overall, 63% of teachers in urban areas were at CEFR levels C1/C2, compared to
42% of their rural colleagues achieving the same levels (Figure 4.5). A relatively small proportion of teachers in
both locations were found at the low end of the scale (below level B1).

85
Figure 4.5 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by location: Teachers

100%
98%
80%
95%
86%
82%
60%
63%
40%
42%
20%
0%
Urban
Rural
B1 and above
Urban
Rural
B2 and above
Urban
Rural
C1 and above
School stage
Teachers in secondary schools performed better than their primary school colleagues: the majority of primary
school teachers were found to span CEFR levels B1 to C1, whereas for secondary school teachers that range was
B2 to C2. In primary schools 71% of teachers were found to be at B2, typically considered to be the minimum
threshold for operational proficiency in a work or academic environment, compared to 89% of secondary school
teachers. That difference was more pronounced at the higher C1 and above levels (Figure 4.6). This is perhaps not
surprising as the number of non-optionist teachers in primary schools is larger than in secondary schools. Nonoptionist teachers generally have less English language training, which was raised as a concern by Heads of Panel
and teachers who feel that primary school students are not being adequately prepared to teach English because of
this lack of training and language proficiency.
Figure 4.6 Distribution of overall CEFR levels by school type: Teachers

100%
97%
96%
89%
80%
71%
60%
60%
40%
30%
20%
0%
S
B1 and above
S=Secondary; P=Primary
B2 and above
C1 and above
86

Discussion
The aspiration of the Ministry policy planners is for all teachers to achieve a C2 level. The language test data shows
that almost 80% of teachers have not achieved this, with 47% of teachers at least 2 CEFR levels below target.
Although the language ability of teachers can have a direct impact on the quality of instruction (see Teaching
practice) and ultimately influence learner outcomes, it may not be feasible to expect all teachers to reach the C2
level.
Heads of Panel and teachers consistently mentioned teacher shortages as a persistent problem which could make
it difficult to find and retain teachers at this CEFR level, particularly for rural/remote schools. Research conducted
in other countries which face challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers in remote areas point out
that learning outcomes can be negatively impacted by high teacher turnover, as this is often linked to lower
quality instruction (Mueller, Carr-Stewart, Steeves and Marshall 2011). Therefore, it may be more justified to
consider a varied approach to teacher language proficiency, as opposed to one universal language proficiency
requirement for all teachers in all contexts. This would require a multi-tiered approach in that teachers who do
not have the desired English language proficiency are given additional support (i.e. English language assistants,
teaching mentors, intensive language provision, etc.) to ensure that learning outcomes are achieved.

87
Teaching knowledge
Question 5: How do teachers teaching at different school stages perform overall on a test of teaching
knowledge?
As mentioned in the Methodology section, part of the project focused on benchmarking the teaching knowledge
of the teachers in the sample. This was done with a multiple choice test of teaching knowledge, which focused on
concepts and terminology for describing language and language learning and teaching, lesson planning and use of
resources, and managing the teaching and learning process. Performance was reported on a four-band scale,
where Band 4 represents comprehensive and accurate knowledge of concepts, terminology, practices and
processes, and Band 1 represents restricted knowledge. The average performance on the test by the teachers in
the sample was Band 3, and the proportion of teachers in the four bands can be seen in Table 4.8. As can be seen,
approximately two thirds of the teachers (65%) were at that band, with 31% in the band below.
Table 4.8 Overall Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) level: Teachers
Band
Overall
1%
65%
31%
3%
The overall national-level performance of Malaysian teachers in this baseline project can also be compared to
performance on a Cambridge English test which focuses on teaching knowledge (Teaching Knowledge Test: TKT)
and is taken by teachers worldwide. The two tests are not identical, but the concepts and test format are very
similar, and the TKT population has a large proportion of state-school teachers, making a comparison justified. The
results can be seen in Figure 4.7, which shows that Malaysia is on a par with teachers from around the world: in
both groups the largest proportion of teachers achieved Band 3. Fewer Malaysian teachers, however, achieved the
top Band 4, compared with teachers from around the world.
Figure 4.7 Average Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) level: Comparison between Malaysia and TKT population
70%
60%
50%
40%
Malaysia
30%
Rest of the World
20%
10%
0%
1
88

Question 6: How do teachers teaching at different school stages compare according to location and
primary/secondary school on a test of teaching knowledge?
In terms of the remote/rural/urban distribution, teachers in both areas achieved an average of Band 3. The
distribution across the four bands (Table 4.9) shows that the vast majority of teachers in the different locations
were at Bands 2 and 3, with urban teachers showing a slightly larger proportion at the higher level.
Table 4.9 Overall Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) level by location: Teachers
Urban
Rural
Remote
Band
0%
1%
0%
71%
59%
67%
27%
34%
33%
2%
5%
0%
Note: Remote is based on a small sample (N=52). Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
A difference was found in the performance of teachers in primary and secondary schools (Table 4.10), where
primary school teachers achieved on average Band 2, and secondary school teachers a Band 3. This difference can
be seen in Table 4.10, which shows that a larger proportion of secondary school teachers achieved the higher
Band 3 (75% for secondary, compared to 49% for primary). This finding is in line with the teacher language
proficiency findings, which showed that secondary school teachers performed better. In English language
teaching, teacher language proficiency is both the medium of teaching and the subject of teaching, so a higher
level in one supports a higher level in the other.
Table 4.10 Overall Teaching Knowledge Test (TKT) level by Primary/Secondary school: Teachers
Band
Primary
Secondary
1%
1%
49%
75%
43%
24%
7%
1%
Teacher knowledge: The role of curriculum, teacher training and teacher beliefs
The success of any educational reform initiative will depend greatly on teachers willingness and ability to
implement or mediate change (Fullan 2001). Teachers current knowledge of how languages are learned and their
understanding of good practice in language learning is the foundation on which the Ministry will have to build in
order to achieve the intended changes in behaviours, beliefs and practices which could lead to improved learning
outcomes. This point was raised by several teachers in the questionnaire:
To improve teaching and learning in my school the most important factor is the role of the teacher. A
knowledgeable English teacher equipped with teaching skills would help in improving the students
performance in English (Rural primary school teacher, Perak)
In this section, we will start with a brief look at the suitability of the curriculum and teacher training and
professional development programme in terms of their role in influencing teacher knowledge. Related findings
from the questionnaire will also be presented. Then we will discuss findings which emerged during the
observations and post-observation discussions concerning teachers beliefs about learning and teaching, as they
provide insight into their knowledge and understanding of good practice.

89
The curriculum and lesson planning

In many school environments, the curriculum is an important document that communicates the educational aims,
describes the learning outcomes and identifies the pedagogical approaches that are valued. Our review of the
primary and secondary curricula indicated that they lack clarity and adequate exemplification of these expected
outcomes or the desired pedagogic practices to achieve them (see Section 5 for the full review of the curricula).
The quality and user-friendliness of the curricula is crucial as 50% of teachers strongly agreed with the statement
that they refer to them when preparing their English lessons. If the curricula are vague and imprecise in their
targeting of language and skills focus, it is not surprising that this may possibly be influencing the quality of
instruction.
The quality of the curriculum may also contribute to the finding that only 38% of teachers strongly agreed that
they feel confident in their ability to plan appropriate English lessons. Not surprisingly though, new teachers (less
than 3 years experience) and non-optionist teachers were less likely to strongly agree (18% and 15% respectively)
with this statement than their more experienced and optionist counterparts (27% for teachers with 4-10 years
experience and 47% for teachers with 11 or more years teaching experience and 44% for optionist teachers).
Teachers responded least positively when asked whether they find it easy to adapt lessons to cater for different
student abilities, with only 25% strongly agreeing. However, when we look at responses from non-optionist
teachers, only 16% strongly agreed with this statement. This is an important finding because many teachers
commented that their classes are comprised of learners with a range of language levels (and the test data tends to
support this). When faced with this situation, being able to modify lessons for stronger and weaker students
within the same class is essential.
Teaching becomes difficult when too many students with different levels of proficiency are grouped
together in a class (Urban secondary school teacher, Perak)
My students are comprised of some who have exceeded the required level of English for Primary levels,
some who are not fluent and some who are weak (Urban primary school teacher, Selangor)
If teachers are unable to cater for all levels within the class, they could be negatively impacting learner motivation,
confidence and outcomes. It would appear that only the secondary curricula for Grades 3 to 5 address the issue of
differentiated levels of achievement and provide guidance. Curricula at all levels would benefit from much greater
exemplification of differentiated outcomes in the different skills areas (see Section 5 for a full review of the
curricula).
Training and professional development
Teacher training and professional development activities are one way of disseminating good practice and ensuring
that teachers knowledge about language learning is current. Teacher training can also be an effective tool in
broadening teacher knowledge and encouraging them to try new approaches to teaching. Encouragingly, 75% of
teachers have reported attending training activities in the last 2 years. Teachers reported participating most often
in training activities that have primarily centred on teaching the skills Writing (12%), Reading (10%) and Speaking
(10%). When asked about the impact of the training activities on their practice or knowledge, 22% strongly agreed
that the training activities helped them improve their English language ability, 18% strongly agreed that they
discovered new ways of teaching as a result of the activities and 17% strongly agreed that the training improved
their knowledge of how foreign languages are learned (see Figure 4.8). However, 31% either agreed or strongly
agreed that they have found it difficult to use the ideas from the training activities in their lessons. This may
suggest that there could be a mismatch between teacher profiles and the type or content of training they have
been given.
90

Figure 4.8 Impact of training on teacher practice and knowledge
As a result of participating in training, ...

I have improved my English language
ability.
Strongly Agree
I have discovered new ways of

teaching English.
Agree
Disagree
I have improved my knowledge of

how foreign languages are learned.
Strongly disagree
Don't know
I have found it difficult to use the ideas

from training activities in my lessons.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The Heads of Panels were also asked about training and professional development in their schools and they
indicated that they greatly value continuing professional development opportunities in general and in-service
training in particular which focuses on practical teaching techniques. Some Heads of Panel and Head teachers
expressed an interest in sharing expertise and learning from peers. This was mentioned in two of the observers
reports, and is well illustrated by this remark:
Half of the Heads as well as some teachers talked at some length about sharing expertise, within the
school and more importantly with other (preferably better) schools. They would like to see a lot more visits
by expert teachers and sharing sessions between experienced teachers from different kinds of schools
(Observer DB)
However, despite the generally positive attitudes toward training, Heads of Panel also pointed out some problems
with the current system concerning the quality, focus and scope of training and/or professional development:
Due to time constraints, the training and professional development is carried out not as professionally and
adequately as it should (Urban secondary school, Head of Panel, Melaka)
[There is] too much training which is not related to English language subjects (Urban secondary school,
Head of Panel, WP Putrajaya)
I think that not only the English teachers should be given training development but we should include all
the administrators and other teachers as well as to show support to English language (Urban secondary
school, Head of Panel, Negeri Sembilan)
A concern raised by a policy planner when discussing training and professional development decisions was that it
is the state and the district English language officer who identifies the programme for the teacher rather than the
teacher identifying their own needs and asking for a programme. When Heads of Panel were asked a similar
question, this issue became clear. Very few Heads of Panel mentioned that teachers were involved in training
decisions which may explain why some felt that the benefits of training are not always visible and the aims of
training are not always being achieved:
There are a lot of courses offered for English teachers but the impact is quite slow (Rural school, Head of
Panel, Negeri Sembilan)

91
Some teachers have the attitude of not applying what they have learned after going on courses (Rural
primary school teacher, Perak)
The limited satisfaction with the current teacher training provision could partially be addressed by a more bottomup approach to professional development, where schools share good practice. In the questionnaire teachers
expressed such a desire to share ideas about teaching and learning with other teachers:
Educational trips to other schools to see and share our experience of teaching and learning English [to
improve teaching and learning within the school] (Rural primary school teacher, Pulau Pinang)
A teacher exchange programme between nearby schools for a week, for example, would introduce new
techniques of learning and answering [i.e. responding] to the students. Maybe good teaching practices
from other schools can be implemented in our school and vice versa (Rural primary school teacher, Kedah)
School exchanges may be more difficult to organise in rural and remote areas, but it seems to be a feasible and
useful possibility for consideration for ongoing teacher development.
As noted earlier, the success of any educational reform is directly dependent on the effectiveness of teachers in
implementing or mediating the proposed change, and professional development can play an integral part in
encouraging changes in behaviour and beliefs. The Ministry may need to review their training/professional
development programme in order to focus the offerings around the approaches to instructions that they are
trying to impact, as well as involve teachers more in training decisions.
Beliefs about learning and teaching

The observations and post-observation interviews provided an opportunity to better understand teachers beliefs
about learning and teaching. The predominant view of learning in the lessons observed appeared to be that of a
transmissive input-output model. In this model, teachers are the owners of knowledge, and explain what they
know. The learners role is largely to receive, file, and store the information they receive. While it is true that some
learning can occur in this way, and that views of learning may be culturally mediated and dependent on context
(Bax 2003, Holliday 1994), the view of learning apparent from lesson observations does not reflect current views
of learning, which stress that learners construct meaning through supported social interaction, and supported
problem-solving (Maybin et al 1992, Fisher 2005).
This view of learning often results in teacher-dominated lessons which were observed during the observations:
Lesson was completely teacher-led, no pairs or groups. It was teacher-dominated, formal, no rapport.
(Rural secondary school, Form 5, Johor, Observer RC)
The preference for teacher-dominated lessons may also be linked to teachers language proficiency as this
approach allows teachers with limited proficiency to avoid being pushed out of their linguistic comfort zone
(Altinyelken 2010).
A related finding from discussions with teachers concerning regular teaching practices is that teachers generally
appeared to have a limited understanding of the concept of teacher and learner roles. A common view was that
the teachers role is to facilitate by explaining, with the learners role being to understand and/or learn from their
mistakes. This view of teaching and learning tallies with the classroom practices observers noticed when observing
lessons.
In most instances where educational reform fails, there is a lack of coordination between the intentions of the
curriculum, the focus of teacher training and instructional realities (Orafi and Borg 2009). Any modifications to the
92

curricula will need to carefully take into consideration teachers current knowledge and practice in order to
increase adoption of new teaching approaches as well as the beliefs that are associated with these approaches.
Teaching practice
Research Question 7: How do teachers teaching at different school stages perform in terms of teaching practice?
A further strand in the project involved classroom observations. The observations gathered both qualitative and
quantitative data on teaching practices. The quantitative data was based on a four-band assessment scale of
various aspects of teaching practice (e.g. learning atmosphere, focus on language and systems), with Band 4
representing a teacher who demonstrates a good range of procedures and techniques supporting the delivery of a
very effective lesson, which provides for learner interaction and challenges and engages the learners. Band 1
represents a teacher who displays awareness of some appropriate procedures and techniques but is unable to
implement them consistently, and there is little evidence of learner engagement and participation in the learning
process to achieve learning outcomes. The qualitative data was derived through open-ended observer comments
about the classroom observations, teacher questionnaire feedback and interviews with teachers and Heads of
Panel/Head Teachers.
The observed teachers were mostly distributed in the Band 2 and 3 range, as can be seen in Table 4.11. This
distribution was seen overall and throughout the specific observation criteria, with the exception of Learning
atmosphere, where the highest proportion of teachers achieved a Band 4 (30%, compared to 12%19% for the
other assessment categories). The higher performance in terms of learning atmosphere is supported by the
qualitative data from the classroom observations, which indicated that teachers were generally seen by the
observers to try to provide a learning environment where they want learners to be successful and where the
teacher-learner relationships are friendly and respectful:
The teachers almost all viewed their strengths as their connection to or relationship with the students.
They viewed their ability to relate to the students as friends or parent figures as very important
(Observer DL)
Table 4.11 Teaching Practice level Bands: Teachers
Use of English
Monitoring,
Feedback and
Correction
Overall
18%
19%
16%
18%
32%
33%
33%
32%
35%
29%
46%
40%
40%
44%
42%
3%
10%
9%
8%
8%
5%
Learning
atmosphere
Language and
Systems
Classroom
management
30%
12%
39%
2
1
Band
The classroom performance of Malaysian teachers can also be compared to worldwide teacher performance on
the Cambridge English TKT: Practical test, which focuses on practical teaching and is taken by teachers
worldwide. The conditions of the Malaysia observations and the above-mentioned test were not identical, but the
scale used to assess teaching practice was identical in both cases, making a comparison possible. The results can
be seen in Figure 4.9, which indicates that Malaysian teachers appear to be slightly weaker in terms of teaching
practice in comparison with teachers from around the world, as seen in the higher proportion of Malaysian
teachers achieving Band 2 and a smaller proportion than their worldwide colleagues achieving Band 3 and 4. Such

93
a comparison is useful, as it provides a broader international metric. However, as it is based on a small sample of
78 Malaysian teachers only, this comparison should be viewed with caution.
Figure 4.9 Overall Teaching Practice level: Comparison between Malaysia and TKT Practical population
60%
50%
40%
Malaysia
30%
Rest of the World

20%
10%
0%
1
Research Question 8: How do teachers teaching at different school stages perform in terms of teaching practice
according to location and primary/secondary school?
It is also useful to look at the distribution of bands in the teacher cohort by urban/rural/remote location and by
primary/secondary school, although the small sample size has to be kept in mind. Table 4.12 presents a summary
of the findings by location and shows that in all categories, teachers in urban schools performed better, with a
larger proportion achieving Band 4, compared to rural and remote teachers. However, it is important to note that
excellent, effective classes were observed in all three locations, as seen in the Band 4 marks for all three.
Table 4.12 Teaching Practice Bands by location: Teachers
Learning atmosphere
Band
Language and systems
Classroom management
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
37%
24%
25%
17%
9%
0%
23%
14%
13%
40%
38%
38%
40%
20%
50%
34%
29%
50%
20%
35%
38%
37%
60%
25%
31%
51%
25%
3%
3%
0%
6%
11%
25%
11%
6%
13%
Use of English
Band
Monitoring, feedback and

correction
Overall
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
Urban
Rural
Remote
23%
14%
25%
18%
14%
13%
23%
14%
13%
29%
40%
25%
41%
29%
13%
43%
26%
38%
46%
37%
25%
38%
49%
50%
31%
54%
38%
3%
9%
25%
3%
9%
25%
3%
6%
13%
The performance of primary and secondary school teachers is given in Table 4.13, and the results indicate that
overall, primary and secondary school teachers were comparable in terms of classroom practice. Some interesting
differences do emerge, such as the higher performance of secondary school teachers in terms of Use of English,
94

i.e. the teachers appropriate and effective use of English throughout the lesson: 61% of secondary school
teachers achieved Bands 3 and 4, compared to 36% for primary school teachers.
Table 4.13 Teaching Practice Bands by Primary/Secondary school: Teachers
Learning atmosphere
Language and systems
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
24%
33%
16%
9%
24%
15%
40%
38%
32%
32%
28%
36%
36%
25%
40%
49%
36%
42%
0%
4%
12%
9%
12%
8%
Band
Use of English
Band
Monitoring, feedback and

correction
Overall
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
8%
25%
8%
19%
16%
19%
28%
36%
48%
25%
36%
34%
48%
36%
36%
48%
40%
43%
16%
4%
8%
8%
8%
4%
Exploring teaching practice

The section will provide a more detailed discussion of the qualitative findings from the teacher observations,
including observer/teacher post-observation discussions, interviews with Heads of Panel and teacher
questionnaire responses. Observer comments given to explain the observation score awarded will illustrate some
of the excellent classroom practices which were observed, and will also provide insights into areas which some
teachers find challenging and which can provide guidance for any future educational transformational
programme.
Learning atmosphere
This construct relates to teachers ability to create a positive learning atmosphere by establishing rapport with
learners and ensuring they are fully engaged in activities. The majority of teachers performed well on this aspect
of teaching practice as 39% achieved a Band 3 and 30% a Band 4. Many teachers stressed the importance of
rapport with learners. Observers noted that most teachers clearly want learners to be successful, and they make
every effort to create an inclusive and secure classroom atmosphere as a result. The quote below tallies with the
tenor and content of feedback in most of the observers reports:
Without exception, teachers claimed to love the lesson and love their students. This seemed entirely
genuine (Observer RC)
The questionnaire findings support these observations. In general, teachers are positive about teaching English, as
56% of them strongly agreed that they like teaching English (see Figure 4.10). However, further analysis of the
data showed that teachers responded differently to the statement I like teaching English depending on their
teaching experience, the grade they primarily teach, their level of education and their optionist status. New
teachers (i.e. with 3 years or less experience) were less likely to strongly agree with this statement (37%) than the
other two groups (47% teacher with between 4 and 10 years experience referred to as teachers with some
experience in the remainder of this document, and 64% teachers with 11 or more years experience referred to
as experienced teachers from this point forward). Teachers who teach Pre-school (who are more likely to be

95
newer teachers) were also less likely to strongly agree (17%) than teachers who teach the other grades (between
53% and 74%). Teachers with a Masters degree in Education were much more likely to strongly agree (72%) that
they like teaching English than the rest (Bachelors of Education: 63%; Diploma in Education: 47% and Certificate in
Teaching: 43%). Optionist teachers were more likely to strongly agree that they like teaching English (64%) than
non-optionist teachers (24%).
Figure 4.10 Teachers attitude toward teaching by experience
I like teaching English.
Experienced teachers
Strongly Agree
Some experience
Agree
Disagree
New teachers
Strongly disagree
Don't know
All teachers
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
There seems to be an association between teachers experience and education, including specialist training, and
their enjoyment of teaching, which could influence the extent to which a positive learning environment is created.
It may be necessary to investigate further why new teachers and non-optionist teachers are less positive about
teaching English, in order to ensure that they are given the support they may need to be successful and remain in
the profession if appropriate.
Despite the findings that a positive learning atmosphere was created there were examples of teachers who failed
to involve learners fully in the lesson, even though they exhibited a good rapport with learners, and thereby
limited opportunities to learn:
Teacher's presence was reasonable, bit too dominant. Learner engagement was off and on. Unequal
attention to individual learners (Rural primary school, Pre-school, Sarawak, Observer JL)
Decent rapport, but too dominant throughout. Asked many questions but generally answered them
herself. Students were given time to complete tasks on their own, but no time was allowed for practising
language in context or real sentences. No pair or group work (Rural secondary school, Form 5, Pahang,
Observer JL)
Clearly, establishing good rapport is only one element of supporting learning and more attention may need to be
paid in teacher development programmes to learner engagement. This is particularly important because teachers
consistently commented that they did not think learners were motivated:
The students are not interested in learning English (Urban primary school teacher, Melaka)
This viewpoint, when considered alongside other comments by the observers and by teachers relating to teachers
beliefs in their students capacity to learn is somewhat worrisome. Observers noted that there were examples of
teachers who may have been limiting their students learning opportunities because they had already determined
that students were not able to accomplish particular tasks:
96

In some cases, teachers had already decided that students were not capable of doing well in some sections
of the upcoming exams so they focused only on the sections which they could gain marks in (Observer DB)
Research has shown that teachers who believe their students are unable to learn a subject may inadvertently
adjust teaching behaviour, resulting in this expectation being met (Jussim and Harber 2005). If teachers do not
believe their students are capable of learning, it is possible that this belief could affect learners linguistic selfconfidence.
Another related issue that emerged from the data is that some teachers left comments in the questionnaire that
seem to suggest they may believe that students bear sole responsibility for ensuring they have a positive attitude
and are motivated to learn English:
To improve teaching and learning, students need to show a positive attitude in class (Urban secondary
school teacher, Selangor)
Students dont make an effort to remember the meaning of words which affects understanding and
interest in this subject (Rural, secondary school teacher, Pahang)
They [students] are lazy to try and always dependent on teachers to help them (Secondary school
teacher, Melaka)
Students choose to remain silent during lessons (Rural, secondary school teacher from Sabah)
These attitudes could indicate that teachers do not fully appreciate their role in motivating students. This
characteristic is often linked to a teachers low sense of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to a belief in ones own
ability to achieve a desired outcome (Bandura 1977). In the case of teachers, self-efficacy often manifests itself in
the belief that one can change students behaviours and help them learn. Teachers with a low sense of selfefficacy are less likely to accept responsibility for motivating learners and may attribute learner failure to faults
with the learner rather than their own teaching methods (Dembo and Gibson 1985). As a result, they are less likely
to adjust their teaching practices and may be less willing to change their behaviours in response to educational
initiatives. Identifying and addressing this issue will be an important aspect of any reform initiative.
Physical features of classrooms
The physical features of the classrooms observed are also related to the learning atmosphere. Observers
commented that the primary and secondary classrooms which they visited were generally large, light, and in good
condition. All had boards, while some had laptops and projectors. In many cases, the laptop in class was the
teachers own. Owing to the heat and humidity, doors and windows were open in order to provide ventilation.
This meant that noise from traffic, the school corridor or in some cases fans sometimes made it difficult to hear
the voices of individual learners or a quiet teacher in plenary interaction. One observer wondered if the tendency
for teachers to elicit choral responses from learners was a direct consequence of the prevalence of ambient noise.
Observers remarked that each class generally has its own designated classroom, and so for each lesson subject
teachers move to the classroom of the learners they are going to teach. Desks were generally in rows. Some
observers commented on the possibility of using a different classroom layout from the traditional format of desks
in rows. This would facilitate more pair/group interaction but may require classroom furniture that is lightweight
and allows easy switching between more traditional rows and nests of desks.
All observers noticed the absence of visual display (e.g. examples of learners work, classroom English phrases) on
most classroom walls. Some observers felt that there might be scope to put up posters in English and samples of
learners work on classroom walls to support learning and motivation. In contrast, observers noticed a marked
difference in Pre-school classrooms. One observer commented:

97
The walls were universally covered in childrens artwork and colourful child-friendly displays, usually
including quite a bit of English (Observer RC)
Another observer remarked of Pre-schools classrooms:
Their dedicated rooms and resources were really impressive (Observer BO)
The difference with Pre-school classrooms in terms of classroom displays is worth noting, since such a multisensory approach to the physical features of classrooms could possibly be carried over into other primary and
secondary classes. This may, of course, be difficult if teachers do not have dedicated classrooms, but is worth
considering in any future transformational programmes.
In general, the observations revealed a harmonious learning atmosphere in which teachers generally want
learners to be successful. However, teachers need to ensure that they are utilising techniques to engage all of
their learners and not just those that are already motivated to learn. The physical features of the classroom are
also an area that may need further consideration, as the ability to display students English work can help learner
motivation. In addition, the ability to move the desks could encourage the use of different interactional patterns
and increase the amount of communicative interaction within the classroom (see Classroom management for
more on this point).
Focus on language and/or skills
The discussion now turns to a focus on language in terms of form, meaning and phonology and on the
development of language skills. The language or skills focused on should be at an appropriate level for learners
and linked back to curricular aims. The majority of teachers (42%) achieved Band 2 for this aspect which may be
accounted for by the influence of the exams and limited competence in providing learners with appropriate
activities that give them sufficient opportunity for communicative practice.
A consistent comment by observers and the teachers in the questionnaires was the role of exams in determining
the lesson focus. Observers noted that in Form 5 and 6, exams had a negative washback effect on learning, as
lesson time was devoted more to passing the exam than to learning English:
most teachers reported they stopped using course books 3-6 months before the exam. In Form 6 there is
no curriculum/course book so exam prep work seems to predominate (Observer BO)
Nearly half the lessons observed were dominated by formal exams. Teachers reported that schools,
parents and students expected this exam focus, which reduced the time they could devote to fluency
activities (Observer NU)
Clearly, learners want and need to do well in exams. The strong focus on exams is pragmatic and understandable
but it is of very limited educational benefit, as it reduces learners opportunities to use and develop skills for
English. This is particularly relevant when the exams are not based on a communicative approach to assessment
and/or do not include all four skills. In such a case, the skill(s) not included in the exam will likely not receive much
attention during lessons, as this comment highlights:
One teacher told me that of late she has been required to do more speaking and listening in her lessons,
but that the students dont need it in the exam, So Im frightened to have students who can chatter but
dont know anything (Observer RC)
Teachers comments supported the observers impression about the central role played by exams during the
interviews and in the questionnaires:
98

Teachers would prefer a more communicative approach to teaching and learning, but they understand the
conundrum that if they dont prepare the students adequately for the state exams they would be doing the
students a disservice, despite the fact that it [sic] is ineffective in helping the students master the language
(Observer JL)
The system of teaching and learning only focuses on students to do well for the exam. The assessment
only looks at the percentage of passes and good results. It does not take into consideration whether
students really understand it or not. Teachers are forced to teach students how to answer the questions
rather than ensuring they really understand it (Rural primary school teacher, Perlis)
It would appear that current exams are narrowing the language focus in the classroom which is a concern that was
raised by policy planners during interviews. Policy planners pointed out that teaching to the test is very
widespread, which affects the quality of teaching and learning. Because all the current exams, with the exception
of MUET, focus only on Reading and Writing, the other skills (i.e. Listening and Speaking) are not receiving the
attention they deserve during class time (see Section 5 for the full review of exams). The format of these exams,
which rely heavily on multiple-choice items, may also limit the extent to which teachers focus on interactive
language instruction. Not surprisingly, the test data confirms that Speaking is the learners weakest skill, as
discussed in Section 3. (It is worth noting that the language exam ELSA, due for release in late 2014, does include
all four language skills and is likely to be a positive influence on the development of Speaking skills.)
Turning now to the opportunities given to students to practise the language focus of the lesson, only 20% of
teachers reported that students speak to them in English very often and even fewer indicated that students speak
to each other very often in English (5%). In the questionnaire, teachers commented on some of the reasons for
this, which primarily relate to confidence and lack of exposure to English outside the classroom:
Students in rural areas are shy in speaking English with their friends and teachers. Their confidence needs
to be built up (Rural, primary school teacher, Selangor)
Students are afraid to speak in fear of being laughed at by peers (Urban secondary teacher, Selangor)
Students can understand teachers instructions but are reluctant to respond in fear of making mistakes
(Urban secondary teacher, Johor)
The exposure to English is confined to the four walls of the classroom (Rural secondary teacher, Selangor)
However, as students have very little exposure or opportunity to use English outside the classroom, it is important
that teachers create activities that both encourage learners to use English in a meaningful way and ensure that the
input is at the appropriate level. Unfortunately, observers pointed out that some teachers were not necessarily
selecting a language focus at an appropriate difficulty for learners. Some observers noticed that there was an
absence of challenge for learners in the classroom learning tasks: they felt these were well within learners
capabilities for the most part. One observer commented:
Of the lessons I saw, none were too difficult and many were too easy for the mid-level of the class
(Observer NU)
In other instances, learners were kept busy throughout the lesson but the observers questioned the pedagogical
value of the tasks, as they felt that they were insufficiently challenging. Interestingly, during some interviews,
teachers themselves seemed to agree as they were not always sure about the learning value of the tasks they
provided learners with. Some of their comments suggested that they are aware intellectually of the need for
differentiation of tasks according to learners level, but arent sure about how to do this in class. These comments

99
link back to the finding that some teachers do not feel confident in adapting materials to cater for different
learner abilities.
Classroom management refers to a teachers ability to set up, manage and pace whole-class and individual, pair or
group activities including the appropriate use of materials, so that the lesson aims are achieved. This is another
important aspect of teaching practice. Most teachers felt that they were able to keep learners busy in class and to
get learners to engage with content but as mentioned previously, the classroom observers noted that the value of
some of the learning tasks was questionable.
Most teachers found it hard to identify lesson aims, with a tendency to view them as being synonymous with
completion of lesson activities. Observers reported that some teachers measured success in a lesson by quantity
of output from learners rather than quality of output. This analysis is consistent with the absence of supportive
teacher talk such as reformulation of learners responses or corrective feedback (see Monitoring, feedback and
correction in this Section).
Some observers commented that lessons were dominated by the teacher:
Lesson is 98% Teacher language. Lesson is basically a complete recitation of about 20 rules relating to use
of English articles. Explanations for too disjointed, numerous and complex and go completely over
students heads (Rural secondary school, Form 3, Kedah, Observer BO)
And, in general, observers noted that teachers used a limited range of techniques:
Lesson had promise but opportunities to provide useful practice were missed as language produced in
lengthy elicitation sequence not focused on, practised, corrected or consolidated to any discernible
purpose (Urban primary school in Perak, Year 6, Observer BO)
Lesson included some useful activities, but was at times ineffective. Learner engagement and participation
in the learning process was minimal. Opportunities were missed to include all learners, elicit, encourage
and praise learners (Urban secondary school, Form 5, Pahang, Observer JL)
Students got controlled practice in the grammar rules but no chance to produce full sentences themselves,
either written or spoken (Rural secondary school, Form 3, Selangor, Observer DB)
Much higher levels of student engagement and participation could be generated by working context and
exploring student answers and probing their experiences (Urban secondary school, Form 6, Kedah,
Observer BO)
Being comfortable with using a bigger toolkit of techniques is important, since it allows greater opportunities for
language to be used in meaningful and interactional tasks in the classroom which go beyond a limited focus on
language form and controlled practice. Such useful practice of the language would increase learner engagement
and support learning.
Use of English
Findings from the attitudinal questionnaires suggest that learners have little exposure to English outside the
classroom, which implies that teachers are the main language model. Therefore, the language used in lessons
needs to be both accurate and appropriate.
100

When teachers were asked how often they teach in English, 75% said they do this very often and observers found
this to be case. However, observers noted that some teachers English was not accurate or fluent, and that some
had unclear pronunciation at times. It was also noted that teachers generally did not use audio recordings to
provide learners with an accurate model of dialogues or other input from the textbooks. The following comments
reflect this point:
Teacher does not always model words clearly and repeat sufficiently to ensure all learners are producing
correctly. Teacher explanations and corrections sometimes above learner level (Remote primary school,
Pre-school, Perak, Observer BO)
The teacher used some nice visuals, strong drilling and matching to teach the words market, hospital,
garden, police station meaning, pronunciation and written form. But the lesson stopped here with very
little teacher language apart from single words and short phrases such as ok good, this one, you, up
your hand (Rural primary school, Pre-school, Selangor, Observer DB)
The teacher is held back by her language skills. Her poor grammar and vocabulary and control of prosodic
features lead to inaccurate examples and modelling (Urban secondary school, Form 3, Pahang,
Observer JL)
Teachers command of English is an important aspect of their competence, alongside their pedagogic knowledge,
since English is both the medium of instruction and the subject of instruction in English lessons. A good teacher
does not necessarily need advanced proficiency in English, but the appropriate use of English in the classroom is
essential, since learners learn from good language models. It is important, therefore, to ensure not just suitable
English language proficiency of teachers, but also to provide training which raises teachers skill in and awareness
of the importance of grading their language in the classroom so that it is comprehensible for learners.
Monitoring, feedback and correction

Research suggests that it is important for learners to receive appropriate and comprehensible feedback as it helps
to increase noticing, which can lead to self-correction (Lyster and Ranta 1997). In other words, if learners do not
notice aspects of a language, they will be less likely to learn them. Knowing when to intervene in a learning activity
to provide feedback and the use of a variety of correction techniques are important characteristics of good
practice. In many primary and secondary classes supportive teacher talk was absent. For instance, teachers often
did not provide learners with feedback on their contributions, or correct learner utterances when appropriate.
Most observers commented on the premium placed on avoiding errors at all costs in class. Though an interest in
success orientation is laudable, this view of error is also not congruent with current views of learning which stress
that learners generally achieve linguistic accuracy at the end of a process which may involve trial and error rather
than at once (Lightbown and Spada 2013). The following comment from an observer highlights this issue:
Teacher uses a limited range of correction techniques, preferring to jump in and correct rather than elicit a
corrected response (Rural primary school, Pre-school, Perak, Observer BO)
In addition, some teachers mentioned a fear of mistakes in their lessons, due to concerns about learner selfesteem and the potential effect on the atmosphere of the class.
One teacher said that much of what she does in the classroom is coloured by the fear that her students
will make mistakes. When this occurs she feels that she had let her students down badly and exposed them
to a negative learning outcome and the possibility of humiliation (Smith 2013)

101
In general, teachers were missing opportunities to provide feedback and ultimately missing opportunities for
learning to take place:
More feedback needed on the language produced by the students, both during group work and during
moments of individual production (Urban secondary school, Form 3, Pahang, Observer JL)
Teacher explanations too lengthy and opportunities are missed to question, probe, elicit and to write key
language on the board (Urban secondary school, Form 6, Kedah, Observer BO)
The observation findings suggest that teachers lack skill in and awareness of supportive teacher talk. A teachers
ability to monitor learner language as well as provide appropriate and timely feedback is important for the
linguistic development of their learners. Not only does the learner who receives the feedback learn, but also the
other learners in the class. The ability to use a range of corrective techniques was also found to be lacking. If
teachers are able to develop their repertoire of corrective techniques, this will help learners to notice errors and
to begin self-correcting, which could improve learning.
Monitoring instructional quality
One issue that directly influences the extent to which changes in teaching practices are likely to occur relates to
how schools evaluate instructional quality. This issue was discussed both with teachers and Heads of Panel. Some
interviewees claimed that lesson observation for professional development within school is generally carried out
by a senior administrator rather than a teacher. This suggests that lesson observations may be viewed more as a
duty which complies with administrative procedures than as a potential means of professional learning. More
troubling is that in some schools the only measure of teacher quality is student performance in exams. This may
be exacerbating the finding that teachers appear to be overemphasising exam preparation. This, in turn, may be
leading to potentially negative washback on classroom teaching practice:
I monitor English teaching quality based on the students performance in examinations (Rural secondary
school, Head of Panel, Melaka)
Good English teaching quality can be monitored by the achievement of examination results (Rural
secondary school, Head of Panel, Kelantan)
These comments suggest that the current approach to monitoring instructional quality may need further attention
to ensure that a range of activities is used to evaluate teaching performance and that a well-designed
observational programme which focuses on supporting learning is included.
However, one challenge to implementing an observation programme is that most teachers found it difficult to
reflect on their lessons. Observers commented that in part this seemed due to unfamiliarity with the concept of
reflection, the unusual circumstances of discussing a lesson with an unknown observer, and to low levels of
English when an interpreter was not available. There was a tendency instead for teachers to talk more about their
general teaching practices. Reflection is considered an important feature of successful professional development
programmes (Richards and Lockhart 1994); therefore, this professional skill will need to be developed and
nurtured in training programmes in order to achieve the transformative change that is described in the Education
Blueprint.
Challenges to improving teaching
Although teachers were very positive about teaching, there was a great deal of concern raised by them in the
questionnaire and during post-observation interviews about large class sizes, the range of levels within a class and
the fact that they are feeling overburdened by administrative paperwork, all of which have an impact on their
lesson planning:
102

Large class sizes

Our classes have too many students, averaging 35-38 students (Urban secondary school teacher,
Kelantan)
Range of language levels in classes
The weaker students must be helped; the better ones should be given opportunities to excel (Rural
secondary school teacher, Kedah)
My students are comprised of some who have exceeded the required level of English for Primary levels,
some who are not fluent and some who are weak (Urban primary school teacher, Selangor)
Non-teaching responsibilities
Give teachers less paperwork so they can focus on teaching English properly (Urban secondary school
teacher, Terengganu)
Teachers are trying their best to improve the quality of teaching and learning but their workload is
increasing and it is affecting the effectiveness of teaching and learning in class (Urban secondary school
teacher, Johor)
Reduce teachers workload so that they can focus on preparing lesson plans Preparation of materials is
important. Under pressure, the teacher might choose unsuitable/inappropriate materials. Materials from
professionals would very much assist teachers (Rural secondary school teacher, Kelantan)
Reduce non-English related workload of English teachers so they can focus more on preparing and
teaching students effectively (Urban primary school teacher, Selangor)
During times of educational reform, teachers need to be given the opportunity to reflect on changes so that they
have a thorough understanding of the principles and practices underpinning those changes (Richards and Lockhart
1994). Large class sizes which also contain a wide range of language levels within them can make it challenging to
teach appropriate lessons for all students in the class. However, this situation is not unusual and can be overcome
if teachers have the necessary skills to prepare differentiated lessons and the time to design these lessons. The
last challenge mentioned above related to non-teaching responsibilities may be the one area in which the Ministry
can affect the most change. If the amount of administrative paperwork is reduced for teachers then they can focus
on improving their lessons and the quality of instruction.
Examples of teaching excellence

Having presented the findings concerning teacher practice, we would now like to end this section by showing
examples of teachers performing to a high level in terms of international standards in communicative language
teaching. Teachers at all five school grades of interest achieved high marks, and they can be seen as excellent
models of teaching and learning. Indeed, a similar point was also made in the Education Blueprint regarding
education in Malaysia in general, which noted that excellent examples exist across the system (2012:E7). Some of
the observer comments are reproduced below:

Pre-school
This was a lively class in which students were very
motivated, enjoyed reading together, increased
their range of vocab (relating to Deepavali), revised
some other common words and phrases. The
teacher managed the class very well (Urban school
in Selangor, Pre-school, Observer DB)
This was an action-packed lesson that had a hyper

group of five-year-olds happily and productively
performing a range of tasks in English. Effective
learning was in evidence and learners performed a
range of 'Starters' type tasks [a Cambridge English
test for young learners] with good results (Rural
school in Pulau Penang, Pre-school, Observer BO)
Year 6
Teacher monitored well enough, although the
noisiness of the class made this hard. She used some
good correction techniques, highlighting the wrong
word or the kind of error made, in order to get the
students or a classmate to correct themselves
(Urban school in Selangor, Year 6, Observer DB)
Excellent learning atmosphere, use of humour,

good rapport. Good and varied eliciting. Close
monitoring and immediate feedback to students.
(Urban school in Melaka, Year 6, Observer RC)
Form 3
Effective range of procedures and techniques used
to deliver a lesson which engaged and challenged
the learners. Clearly a well-planned lesson (Urban
secondary school, Form 3, Sarawak, Observer JL)
Language was well-graded. Difficult concepts were

simply explained using examples directly related to
students. Frequent random comprehension checks.
Continual feedback provided on language, concepts,
material, understanding. Attention given to
individual students. Very encouraging [teacher]
(Rural secondary school, Form 3, Pahang, Observer
JL)
Form 5
Teacher language was clear, simple and
enthusiastic. Teacher spent a lot of time checking,
eliciting, modelling, joking. Clear model and diction,
well-modulated. Teacher monitored and interacted
selectively as well as correcting during pair work.
Engaged and debated with students; tried to draw
them out rather than just correct or give answers
(Urban secondary school, Form 5, Kelantan,
Observer NU)
This was a very useful lesson for students to

prepare them fully for an exam question (and
related questions) which is very likely to come up.
Not only this, but the students gained valuable
practice in presentation skills, fielding questions,
interacting and discussing controversial subjects.
The teacher encouraged them in a natural and
appropriate way, allowing all to shine The teacher
stood back to allow a free open class discussion,
with just the right amount of intervention to
encourage quiet students to speak up, stop verbose
ones, and generate discussion on key points related
to tolerance and acceptance (Urban secondary
school, Form 5, WP Kuala Lumpur, Observer DB)
103
104

Form 6
Teacher and students thoroughly engaged
throughout. Teacher is a very positive presence and
gives appropriate attention to group/individual
learners at all times. A good range of activities and
techniques for an effective lesson. Learners are
engaged and challenged throughout. Effective
learning and language practice achieved
competently (Urban secondary school, Form 6,
Negeri Sembilan, Observer JL)
Excellent working atmosphere, teaching wellgeared to learners' ability and students fully
engaged. Teacher monitors constantly and provides
appropriate feedback and correction, including selfand peer-correction (Rural secondary school, Form
6, Terengganu, Observer NU)
Discussion
Although teacher knowledge and practice were comparable to the rest of the world and there were examples of
excellent practice, the observations highlighted some areas that are in need of support and further development.
In particular, teachers beliefs about learning could be influencing their choice of a teacher-dominated approach
to their lessons. The curricula and training provided may not adequately encourage teachers to reconsider these
beliefs or equip them with the skills or strategies to try other approaches.
The lesson observations provided an opportunity to better understand teaching practices in order to identify both
their strengths and weaknesses. Teachers were uniformly strong in establishing good rapport with students but
they were generally much weaker in planning, managing and monitoring learning. In some cases, their limited
language ability and/or limited skill in using graded language suitable for their learners was negatively impacting
their effectiveness. In general, teachers used a limited range of techniques and tended to keep learners busy
without considering the value of the activities used. This finding is directly relevant to the finding that in general
teachers lack the ability to reflect on their practice and to the general lack of observation for formative purposes.
Teachers attitudes to training are very positive and they do seem to want to improve their knowledge and
practice. The Ministry can capitalise on this desire for training and sharing good practice by facilitating and
encouraging schools to engage in collaborative activities with other schools. They can also support the
introduction of a more bottom-up approach to sharing good practice where schools feel empowered to
collaborate in teacher development.

105
The role of assessment in learning and teaching

It is widely accepted that teachers play an important role in learner achievement through the provision of quality
instruction (Mashburn et al 2008). However, as seen in the previous sections, many factors such as curricula,
school culture, teacher training and professional development, teaching resources and examinations can shape
the learning environment which in turn can influence both the quality and focus of instruction. In this section, we
will investigate the role of assessment in learning and teaching by presenting the relevant findings from
interviews, observations and questionnaires.
Assessment
Assessment has multiple functions in education, including the measurement of achievement, public accountability
and providing feedback to learners, and it also tells learners what we value or what they should pay attention to
(Boud 2000). Therefore, assessment plays an important role in education. Teachers attitudes towards assessment,
confidence in assessing learners and their assessment practices were investigated in the questionnaire and during
post-observation interviews.
Teachers recognise the importance and need for assessment as they frequently made comments about this in the
questionnaire:
Assessment is important to test the command of the language (Rural primary school teacher, Sabah)
Without exams, students are not motivated to study English (Rural secondary school teacher, Pahang)
I can identify the strengths and weaknesses of my students from their exam results (Urban primary school
teacher, Sarawak)
During interviews they indicated that they design their own informal tests regularly. Some teachers reported
carrying out formative assessment, although not using that terminology. One Cambridge observer (Observer NU)
wondered whether this may partly account for the systematic use he saw of reading aloud and feeding back on
discussion or written tasks, so that teachers could collect an adequate sample of each learners language for the
purpose of informal assessment. This observer went on to explain, however, that the extensive collection of
information from classroom data formed the basis for only generalised judgements of class performance against
lesson aims. In most instances, he claims, this information was not then translated into specific formative
assessment feedback for individual learners.
It is not surprising that the observers found teachers informal assessment practices were limited, because when
asked in the questionnaire about their confidence in assessing their learners, teachers did not indicate strongly
that they were confident (see Table 4.14). Differences in confidence were also based on teaching experience and
school location. New teachers are much less confident assessing their students English language ability across all
skills and systems than the most experienced teachers (see Table 4.14). This difference in confidence level was
also found when comparing teachers who work in urban schools versus those in rural/remote schools. Teachers
from urban schools reported being more confident assessing their students English (average of 27% across all
skills and systems for strongly agree) than their colleagues who work in rural/remote schools (average of 17%
across all skills and systems). Both findings are statistically significant.
106

Table 4.14 Teachers confidence in assessing learners by teaching experience

Confidence in assessing learners
Years of
experience
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know
I feel confident in my ability to

develop an appropriate classroom
test for my students.
3 or less
9%
76%
12%
0%
3%
4-10
13%
76%
11%
0%
1%
11 or more
18%
75%
7%
0%
0%
I feel confident assessing my

students' reading ability.
3 or less
10%
83%
5%
0%
1%
4-10
18%
79%
3%
0%
0%
11 or more
28%
71%
1%
0%
0%
3 or less
12%
77%
8%
2%
1%
4-10
11 or more
17%
76%
7%
0%
0%
28%
70%
1%
0%
0%
3 or less
12%
78%
7%
1%
2%
4-10
18%
74%
7%
0%
0%
11 or more
26%
71%
3%
0%
0%
3 or less
13%
70%
14%
1%
1%
4-10
16%
75%
9%
0%
0%
11 or more
26%
71%
3%
0%
0%
3 or less
14%
71%
13%
1%
1%
4-10
16%
76%
7%
0%
0%
11 or more
26%
71%
3%
0%
0%
3 or less
13%
72%
13%
1%
2%
4-10
11 or more
15%
74%
10%
0%
0%
27%
70%
3%
0%
0%

students' writing ability.
students' listening ability.

students' speaking ability.
students' vocabulary knowledge.

students' grammatical knowledge.
Learning oriented assessment

Learning oriented assessment (LOA) represents an approach that recognises that the main function of assessment,
whether formative or summative in nature, is that it should improve learning (Carless 2009). LOA involves the
collection and interpretation of evidence about performance so that judgements can be made about further
language development (Purpura 2004:236). This approach to assessment requires learners to be involved in
assessment through self/peer-assessment as well as by using the feedback they receive from different sources
(e.g. teachers, peers, tests) to decide on what they need to do next. LOA practices have the potential to increase
learner autonomy, motivation and engagement, and as such the use of LOA practices was investigated in the
questionnaire.
Table 4.15 shows the extent to which primary and secondary school teachers engage in LOA practices. Although
teachers frequently indicated that they believe learners are responsible for their own learning, they are less likely
to report engaging in practices that will equip their learners to actively take responsibility for their learning. For
example, learners will find it difficult to set appropriate language learning goals if they do not fully understand the
learning objectives or the criteria on which they will be evaluated. Similarly, learners need appropriate feedback in
order to understand their learning needs and be more autonomous. The observation data indicated that teachers
often did not take advantage of opportunities to provide correction and the corrective techniques that they did
use tended towards explicit correction.

Table 4.15 Learning oriented assessment practices reported by teachers
Learning oriented assessment
Strongly
School level
Agree
practices
Agree
I believe students have a
Primary
41%
52%
responsibility for their own
Secondary
54%
43%
learning.
I discuss learning objectives and/or Primary
16%
69%
learning outcomes with my
Secondary
17%
71%
students.
I tell my students about the criteria Primary
28%
65%
on which they will be evaluated.
Secondary
38%
61%
I collect information about my
Primary
32%
66%
students' progress in English from
their work (e.g. exercise books,
Secondary
29%
69%
homework, projects, etc.)
I assess my students using methods Primary
18%
73%
other than tests.
Secondary
13%
80%
After my students take a test, I give
them feedback on their strengths
and weaknesses.
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know
6%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
11%
1%
0%
6%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
8%
0%
1%
7%
0%
0%
Primary
34%
61%
4%
0%
1%
Secondary
40%
58%
1%
0%
0%
107
Finally, LOA recognises that teachers can monitor learner progress from both informal and formal assessment
activities. In addition, learners can use the feedback from both to decide, in collaboration with their teacher, what
learning activities they should pursue next. Teacher and Head of Panel comments indicated that in some cases,
students do not receive their results from exams. This prevents assessments, which have the potential to be
important learning events, from feeding back into learning:
Results from the assessment should be given to the students so that they can improve their weaknesses
(Urban secondary school teacher, Selangor)
Parents complain that their children do not have tests that they can see the score (Urban school, Head of
Panel, Selangor)
Assessment practices
Table 4.16 shows teachers responses to statements related to their assessment practices and their attitudes
towards national/international tests. Students were also asked similar questions and their responses indicate that
despite teacher reports that the education system is heavily exam focused, they do not have negative views about
assessment. Only 20% of students strongly agreed that they worry about taking tests while 34% strongly agreed
that they work harder in class when preparing for a test. In addition, 51% of students strongly agreed that tests
help them understand their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, 25% of students strongly agreed that they like
taking tests while 30% strongly agreed that they would like to take an international test of English. These findings
suggest that tests could be used to motivate and support learning, as students are not reporting high levels of
anxiety and appear to recognise their value as a source of feedback.
108

Table 4.16 Teachers attitudes to assessment by school level

Strongly
Attitudes to assessment
School level
Agree
I regularly give my students tests to Primary
19%
monitor their progress in English
Secondary
13%
(e.g. weekly/monthly).
I only test my students' English at
Primary
6%
the end of term.
Secondary
4%
When my students are preparing
for a test, I have noticed that they
work harder in class.
My students worry about taking
English tests.
The national English tests my
students take (e.g. UPSR, PMR,
SPM) are at an appropriate level of
difficulty for my students.
International tests are important to
show that my students have
achieved an internationally
recognised level of English.
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know
66%
14%
1%
0%
68%
20%
0%
0%
19%
65%
11%
0%
28%
61%
8%
1%
Primary
18%
64%
16%
1%
1%
Secondary
24%
61%
13%
1%
1%
Primary
12%
55%
27%
3%
3%
Secondary
23%
58%
16%
1%
2%
Primary
21%
70%
6%
1%
2%
Secondary
20%
69%
11%
0%
0%
Primary
18%
51%
26%
3%
2%
Secondary
24%
61%
14%
0%
1%
When teachers were given the opportunity to comment on their own assessment practices or school-based
assessment in the questionnaire, the majority of their comments focused on the following four points:
1. The importance of continuous assessment:
Assessment needs to be done from time to time so that students are ready at all times (Urban secondary
Continuous assessment is needed to measure students progress consistently (Urban secondary school
teacher, Johor)
Assessment should be done regularly to assess ongoing progress of students (Rural primary school
teacher, Sabah)
2. Challenges to assessing learners time:
A good and effective test instrument needs adequate time to prepare. Teachers nowadays are burdened
with too much other unnecessary paperwork (Rural primary school teacher, Sarawak)
Written and oral testing takes too much time (Urban secondary school teacher, Pahang)
3. Challenges to assessing learners school-based assessment:
PBS assessment is not accurate in determining the students abilities and is very burdensome for the
teachers (Urban secondary school teacher, Pulau Pinang)
PBS online is very troublesome for teachers (Rural primary school teacher, Selangor)

109
4. Negative washback of exams:

Teaching and learning is too exam-focused (Urban primary school teacher from Pahang)
The system of teaching and learning only focuses on students to do well for the exam. The assessment
only looks at the percentage of passes and good results. It does not take into consideration whether
students really understand it or not. Teachers are forced to teach students how to answer the questions
rather than ensuring they really understand it (Rural primary school teacher, Perlis)
Although teachers understand the role of assessment, they face challenges in terms of time, resources and
confidence in their own assessment practices. They did also make comments concerning the validity, reliability
and fairness of the national exams which will be discussed in Section 5.
Discussion
Assessment appears to have a prominent role in Malaysian classrooms. Despite the fact that the current exams
seem to be narrowing the curriculum, both teachers and learners recognise the importance of assessment in
learning. Students appear to be motivated by taking exams and understand that they can use their results to help
them understand their current level. However, teachers, especially new teachers and non-optionist teachers, do
not feel overly confident in assessing their students and feel overburdened by the current school-based
assessment programme. The observations found that although teachers value formative assessment, they do not
seem to be adept at implementing it or using the information collected to provide learners with feedback.
If exams are based on a communicative approach, then it is likely that they would have a positive washback effect
on classroom practices. Teachers, students, and it would appear, parents are already focused on exam results, so
providing better exams may be a first step in creating the changes in behaviour outlined in the Education
Blueprint.
110

Curricula, learning materials and national examinations
5.
Question 9: What are the features of currently used learning, teaching and assessment materials (e.g. curricula,
textbooks, national tests) according to international standards, e.g. the Common European Framework of
Reference, and according to current trends in teaching practice?
Key findings
Curricula
Some good recent improvements but uneven design across all curricula
Poor alignment with international standards
A need for delineation between learning outcomes and more precise targeting of language and skills focuses
Speaking and Listening need more emphasis
Learning materials
Poor grading and targeting of grammatical and functional focuses
Little opportunity for guided discovery
Limited opportunities for integrated task and project work
Assessments
Poor alignment with international standards
An emphasis on Reading and Writing over Speaking and Listening
Many design problems
Current exams are having a negative impact on teaching and learning
Curricula
The curriculum defines the key pedagogical principles that are meant to inform teaching practice. As such, the
curriculum fundamentally tells teachers what is important and what they should focus on. It can help shape their
thinking about language learning and pedagogy. Research also suggests that learner achievement is linked to the
quality of the curriculum in terms of exemplifying a clear progression of instruction and materials from one grade
to the next (Kennedy, Mullis, Martin and Trong 2007). Therefore, a key strand of this project was to review the
primary and secondary curricula to determine to what extent they are fit for purpose. In addition, the review
focused on whether the curricula provided teachers with the necessary information and guidance they need to be
effective teachers of English.
Cambridge English reviewed curricula for Pre-school, Primary Levels 1 and 2 and Secondary school Forms 1 to 5.
The review also included Teacher Guides produced for primary Years 1 to 3.
Primary curricula
Teachers in Malaysian primary schools said during post-observation interviews and in the questionnaire, that they
make regular reference to curricula documents for planning purposes and rely more on such documents than

111
textbooks for an overview of the teaching content for the year. However, our reviews showed that in general, the
primary curricula lacked clarity and precision. For example, the Pre-school curriculum lacks a clear overview
section and Primary Level 1 and 2 curricula do not successfully set out the key pedagogic principles that inform the
delivery of English instruction for these grades. However, there were some positive features identified in the
review. These included a generally accessible layout allowing some teachers to do some cross-referencing, and
topics that were on the whole educational and age-appropriate for learners.
Reflecting international standards
Generally, the curricula are not strongly consistent with international standards and they do not seem to have a
clear perspective on fundamental issues in primary second language pedagogy. These issues include:
the role of teacher talk
the relationship between first and second language literacy development
the extent to which the instructional focus should be balanced between meaning and accuracy-focused
work
approaches to teaching grammar in the early years course programmes
methods of reading instruction
the integration of digital forms of literacy.
Learning outcomes
The curricula do not seem to have a very clear delineation between different learning outcomes within and across
each school year. In addition, there does not seem to be a clear specification of the communicative purpose and
content of the learning objectives. Early primary learning appears to be based largely on look and say say it
right, say-spell-say and chanting activities with limited opportunity for meaning-based focuses related to real
language use.
Within each school year learning objectives are not clearly situated in relation to age-appropriate, cross curricular,
meaning-focused forms of activity. The general pitching of literacy objectives seem more appropriate to an L1
rather than an L2 learning context. In addition, the purposes of Listening and Reading comprehension are not
always made clear in the curricula. For example, comprehension tasks could cater for the development of Higher
Order Thinking Skills but this is not sufficiently exploited in the existing curricula.
Progression
Across levels within these curricula there are some instances of progression indicators. However, this approach is
not a consistent one. There are considerable areas of overlap when comparing one curriculum to another. Some
learning outcomes also seem to be introduced randomly in a particular school year rather than evolve out of or
into a related outcome in previous or subsequent school years. One example of this is in Year 5, where learners
are expected to identify idioms. This does not seem to link clearly to Year 4 or Year 6 learning outcomes. In other
cases, the introduction of objectives seems rather late in the learning cycle. For example, in the Level 2 grammar
module, children are expected to construct imperative sentences correctly, and use present continuous verbs
correctly and appropriately, yet the Pre-school and Level 1 curricula are based around activity contexts in which
the use of such structures is implicit.
Transparency and user-friendliness
The review found that the overall organisation of the curricula would benefit from a clearer, shared organisation.
For example the Level 1 and Level 2 curricula do not have a clear reference progression from the objectives of the
previous curriculum document as their starting point. Similarly, Content Standards and Learning Standards do
not reference learning outcomes within the same time frame, which means teachers cannot see the objectives in
mind for the short and medium as well as the longer term.
112

The documents are not as user-friendly as they could be because they were found to lack detail in the
specification of learning objectives, the exemplification of teacher input and the expected learner language. Finally
the wordlists for Pre-school and Primary levels lacked a coherent, unifying organisation.
Teacher guides
Cambridge English also reviewed teacher guides designed to support the implementation of the curriculum for
Years 1, 2 and 3. The findings of this review can be broadly summarised as follows:
While providing clear support on planning processes and sample lesson plans, there is very little
guidance on the ways teachers might enact the curriculum through exemplification of classroom
processes and activity types relating to creative activities, bringing the real world into the classroom
and developing childrens thinking skills.
There is currently no section relating to the rationale of the wordlists and how reference to such
appendices might usefully inform classroom practice, the selection of course material and the design of
formative and summative assessments.
While there is quite a clear structure in the guides, the user-friendliness of these documents could be
improved, with improvements including more signposting, a more direct authorial voice, and improved
proofreading.
Secondary curricula: Forms 1 and 2

It is difficult to assess the curricula for Forms 12 and Forms 35 as a whole as they were clearly developed at very
different times and from very different perspectives as to what a curriculum document should encompass. For this
reason, we present our findings in terms of Form 1 and 2 curricula and Forms 3 to 5 curricula.
The Forms 1 and 2 secondary school curricula appear to predate the CEFR and, as such, do not reflect international
standards and are outdated in terms of current beliefs about learning and teaching. They also do not provide any
meaningful exemplification of learning outcomes, standards or pedagogical practices in the classroom.
Learning outcomes
The Forms 1 and 2 curricula lack meaningful exemplification of learning outcomes and have a rather narrow
thematic focus for the age group for a whole year, e.g. Community, Town and Village. This does not reflect the
desire in the Education Blueprint for English teaching to provide a window on the world. In addition, they have
content focuses which are dated and not age-appropriate, e.g. fill in banking and order forms. There is also a lack
of specification of comprehension purposes when engaging with different types of Listening and Reading texts and
the related, differentiated skills development outcomes.
There is insufficient scope for meaningful and challenging integrated task and project work. This is important
because this type of work can support the cross-curricular attainment, leadership and ICT goals targeted in the
Education Blueprint.
The fact that these curricula have not been recently reviewed means that they make no reference to the
development of digital literacy in and through English, nor do they reference the integration of digital media into
learning processes.

113
Progression
As with the primary curricula, there is a clear absence of links with adjacent grades and there is no clear indication
of learning progression. There are a number of instances of duplication from previous curricula.
The curricula for Forms 1 and 2 are not teacher-friendly because they consist of extensive lists. These make it
cumbersome to cross-reference indicators within a particular curriculum and with previous (Level 2) and
subsequent (Form 3) curricula in the school system. Finally, there are no teacher guides to assist teachers with
using the curricula as a planning tool.
Secondary curricula: Forms 3 to 5

The curricula for Forms 3 to 5 on the other hand, are consistent in some respects with good pedagogic practice
and international standards in that they focus on areas of language use, specify learning outcomes, state
differentiated levels of achievement and provide exemplification of activities to be worked on in relation to broad
topic domains. However, the absence of skills increments for Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking means that
descriptions of progression across levels and across years are somewhat arbitrary.
Learning outcomes
Learning outcomes are divided into three areas of language use: the interpersonal, the informational, and the
aesthetic. This gives learning outcomes a more communicative and purposeful feel. This is clearly reflected in
examples of teaching activities given within the curricula and reflected in the organisation and activities in
textbooks provided for evaluation.
Within the Form 3 to 5 curricula, the learning outcomes are expressed as a mixture of broad functional, topic,
activity and skill focuses but level attainment specifications are very hard to discern. Thus, level specifications (1,
2, 3) relating to the attainment of particular learning outcomes often appear random in how they are set across
levels. For example, in the Form 3 curriculum the taking part in social interaction specifications are given as Level
1: expressing hope, Level 2: writing notes, Level 3: discussing plans. At other times, level attainment specifications
do not provide specific standards for differentiation. In the Form 4 curriculum the specification for obtain
information for different purposes for all 3 levels is simply given as Listening to and understanding a variety of
texts.
Progression
There are a number of instances of overlap between these and preceding curricula. As mentioned above, the
arbitrary nature of level specifications relating to attainment of outcomes leads to a lack of clear progression,
evident within and across the curricula. In addition, it is difficult to perceive progression because some learning
outcomes are worded more like descriptions of activities rather than statements of what students will have
learned.
These curricula share a more accessible format with an introduction which sets out the objectives and contexts for
teaching. The body of each curriculum is divided up into Learning Outcomes and Specifications for the curriculum.
The format is, therefore, far more user-friendly than curricula in earlier school years. However, there are no
teacher guides to assist teachers with using the curricula as a planning tool.
114

Teacher perceptions of the curriculum

In Section 4 we looked at teachers use and perceptions of the curricula through their questionnaire responses.
We found that 50% of teachers strongly agreed with the statement that they refer to the curriculum when
preparing their English lessons. However, only 38% of them strongly agreed that they feel confident in their ability
to plan appropriate English lessons. Therefore, the quality of the curricula is crucial. Teachers left comments in the
questionnaire that they felt the curricula needed to be improved:
Teachers need a syllabus which is suitable and of an appropriate length (Urban secondary school
teacher, Kelantan)
Syllabi are one-size-fits-all, therefore weaker students do not benefit from the teaching and learning
process because the material is too difficult (Rural secondary school teacher, Sarawak)
The test data indicates that there is a large amount of variation in learner ability in each grade and class (see
Section 3), so it is important that the curriculum provides information on differentiation strategies. This is
particularly important because only 25% of teachers strongly agreed that they feel confident in their ability to
adapt lessons to cater for different student abilities. With the exception of the curricula for Forms 3 to 5, the
curricula do not seem to help teachers address the issue of differentiated levels of achievement within a class.
Learning materials
In many language classrooms, the learning resources may determine the focus and structure of lessons (Allwright
1990). Textbooks are the most common resources used in language classrooms and they may provide the main
source of language input for learners in many contexts. New teachers often rely on the textbook to guide lesson
planning as they use it to determine the grammatical structures, skills or activities to focus on (Richards 2014).
Therefore, it is crucial that textbooks and other learning resources accurately and coherently reflect the curricular
aims, otherwise teachers will need to find or create materials to bridge this gap, which takes skill as well as time.
An important strand of this project was to review the learning resources produced by the Ministry such as
textbooks in order to determine their fitness for purpose.
Although 87% of teachers indicated in the questionnaires that they use an English textbook in lessons, only 13%
strongly agreed that it is the main focus of most lessons. 41% of primary school teachers and 21% of secondary
school teachers strongly agreed that the textbook was useful. However, only 19% of primary teachers and 4% of
secondary teachers strongly agreed that students like the textbook. Students were given the same question and
were slightly more positive: 36% of Year 6 students strongly agreed that they like the textbook and 15% of
secondary school students said the same. When asked about the level of difficulty of the textbook, 71% of primary
school teachers said it was at the right level for their students but only 56% of secondary school teachers said the
same, with 24% of them saying that the material is too difficult for their students.
Although some teachers made positive comments about the textbooks, the majority of comments focused on
textbooks being outdated, too difficult and lacking appropriate activities/exercises:
Some of the contents in the textbooks are outdated especially reading comprehension and not up to the
level of students nowadays (Urban secondary school teacher, Johor)
The contents of XXX textbook is too challenging. It is not applicable to the students level (Rural secondary
The textbook does not contain enough exercises (Primary school teacher, Pahang)

115
The textbook is not comprehensive because it does not have exercises that are in line with the exam
(Rural secondary school teacher, Pulau Pinang)
Similar comments were made during the post-observation interviews:
The teachers generally dislike the state textbooks and use them sparingly (Observer JL)
In order to understand the strengths and weakness of the textbooks, several of them were reviewed. In general,
the textbooks reflected good features of organisation and activity focus; however, overall there is considerable
misalignment of appropriately graded skills work and language development focuses across years.
Primary textbooks
The Cambridge English review of primary course books found the materials to be:
characterised by the use and modelling of inauthentic language
populated predominantly by lower order types of activity such as reciting, chanting, matching and
specific information comprehension tasks
based heavily on narrow phonic approaches which limit learner engagement with texts
context-poor in that contexts chosen to explore language largely ignore the immediate environment,
what children know of the world from other school subjects and learner input
imbalanced in that they target accuracy-focused outcomes at the expense of more meaning-focused
outcomes.
Secondary textbooks
The secondary textbooks reviewed exhibit some good features in the following areas:
well-staged reading and listening work
a variety of focus in vocabulary work
well-integrated project work features
writing skills work guided by process approaches
some opportunities for pair and group work
a good degree of learner input into activities
the emergence of guided discovery approaches to grammar from Form 4
some effective exploitation of theme and context.
However, they were generally weaker in the following areas:
the inauthentic nature of the texts and dialogues in a lot of the material which lends the discourse a
stilted feel
the simplistic treatment of some topics e.g. technology where far more creative and challenging forms
of learner engagement could be targeted
poor grading and targeting of grammatical and functional focuses, particularly in Forms 1 to 3
materials, where there is little opportunity for guided discovery or discussion about forms and
meanings, and almost no tasks requiring creative use of the forms which have been studied
a limited range of topics at each school grade leading to a lack of challenge.
The perception that textbooks do not meet the needs of teachers and students was reflected in questionnaire
responses. Nearly 50% of teachers strongly agreed that they use additional materials to supplement the textbook
for most lessons and many teachers echoed this in the post-observation interviews. Teachers clearly see the need
for more up-to-date, relevant and learner friendly material. However, only 33% strongly agreed in the
116

questionnaire that they feel confident creating these materials themselves. This suggests that they may need
more support in this area. In fact, teachers strongly agreed that they would find it easier to plan lessons if they had
a teaching guide (53%). The need for more resources was something that was raised by teachers in their
comments: they do not feel they have time to create materials and would like to be provided with more materials
and resources:
I am confident the teaching of English will be more effective with the help of teaching aids that are
interesting and suitable (Urban primary school teacher, Sarawak)
Relevant teaching aids need to be provided to English teachers. For teachers who teach 5 different levels,
looking for materials is not easy and is time-consuming. Reference books, additional questions and
activities should be provided (Rural primary school teacher, Melaka)
Teachers need additional modules other than textbooks (Urban secondary school teacher, Selangor)
In addition to teaching aids, teachers expressed a desire for improved access to technology in the questionnaire
and during interviews:
Teaching and learning of English can be made more interesting, efficient and effective if schools are given
the budget to build more language labs specifically for this language alone. Right now, day schools like
ours have only 2 computer labs that have to be shared with about 30 classes which, is clearly not enough
to go around. A language lab is very important to the teaching and learning of a foreign language because
students nowadays remember and understand better via ICT tools (Urban secondary school teacher,
Kelantan)
If the school has the infrastructure and ICT tools that are sufficient and in good condition, it will help
English teachers in their teaching by showing online content to the students to improve their English. A
proper language lab (not a makeshift computer lab) will help English teachers (Rural secondary school
teacher, Sarawak)
The consistency of feedback from teachers on the need for more resources and improved textbooks suggests that
this is a high priority issue. This finding represents both a threat in the short-term, and an opportunity in the
longer term. The threat relates clearly to the fact that many teachers see the textbooks as not being fit for
purpose. Scrutiny of the data observers have collected does suggest that the learning materials do not reflect
international standards, and so may restrict learning. This in turn has implications for the quality, equity, unity and
efficiency aspirations set out in the Education Blueprint. The opportunity is represented by the fact that the
Education Blueprint sets out new aspirations for the educational system and for young Malaysians. New English
language learning materials could contribute significantly towards motivating learners and teachers to achieve
these aspirations.
It is clear that a review is needed to align materials at all levels further to good practice in terms of learning focus
and task selection, and international standards in terms of learning outcome, in line with the aspirations of the
Education Blueprint.
National exams
As discussed in previous sections, English language instruction in Malaysia appears to be exam-oriented in that the
content and structure of the national exams are often determining the content of lessons and influencing teaching

117
practices (see Section 4). Although national standardised exams may be necessary to ensure that curricular aims
are being achieved across a disparate educational landscape, it is important to investigate the extent to which
these tests are fit for purpose (Cambridge English 2013). That is, are the tests consistent with international
standards such as the CEFR and do they exhibit the essential test qualities of validity, reliability, and fairness as
well as promoting a positive impact on learning and teaching? Therefore, the national exams were reviewed in
order to evaluate their fitness for purpose.
The review involved an analysis of past papers supplied by the Ministry of Education of the UPSR, PMR, SPM and
MUET national exams. The review was limited to analysing sample question papers provided by the Ministry of
Education. Cambridge English did not receive important statistical data about item and test performance which
would have allowed a far more in-depth analysis to be carried out. The review found that there is generally a high
degree of congruence between text and topic focus in the tests and the aspirations that are laid out in the
Education Blueprint: knowledge, ethics and spirituality, leadership skills and in MUET, thinking skills. However,
with the exception of MUET, Listening and Speaking skills are not assessed. There may be good practical reasons
for this, but the absence of a Listening or Speaking assessment reduces the overall validity of assessment as it
relates to the wider range of skills covered in the English curriculum. Moreover, as many teachers pointed out in
the questionnaire and during post-observation interviews, they believe that the national exams need to test all
skills:
Oral skills should be tested formally. Students should not be tested solely on writing (Urban secondary
school teacher, Melaka)
As the national tests primarily focused on Writing and Reading, we will now look at how each of these constructs
are tested. The Writing test constructs, which vary across tests, generally reflect the range of skills detailed in the
curricula, whereas the exclusive reliance on multiple-choice items in the Reading test construct in all exams limits
their content validity and fitness for purpose.
On closer inspection of the Reading papers, there are a significant number of technical problems and
inconsistencies which would directly affect the validity and reliability of the tests. These included double keys, the
targeting of above-level vocabulary, answers that could be deduced from world knowledge or word spotting, and
a number of editing errors in the tests.
Overall the review of the sample tests makes it clear that they generally lack the following key features:
reliability and validity
assessment based on communicative achievement
clear alignment to international standards
opportunities for accurate monitoring of learner language outcomes.
118

Teacher perceptions of the national exams

Teachers were given the opportunity to comment on the current national exams and assessment in general. As
mentioned in Section 4, teachers recognise the importance of assessment; however, only 20% of the teachers
strongly agreed that the national exams were at an appropriate level for their students. They also left comments
raising concerns about the effectiveness of these exams:
Year-end exams do not fully reflect students abilities. A more holistic assessment is needed (Rural
secondary school teacher, Selangor)
Assessments do not prepare students to use English in their daily life (Urban secondary school teacher,
Pahang)
The same assessment is given to students of all levels. It is like the same test for the monkey and elephant.
And the task is to climb the tree. Of course the monkey can do it. The elephant cant (Rural primary school
teacher, Pahang)
Some aspects of exam assessment are unfair to students from rural areas (Urban secondary school
teacher, Negeri Sembilan)
Teachers feel that the current approach to assessment needs to be more systematic and standardised to maximise
the benefit to students:
Validity and reliability type of assessment needs to be carried out (Rural secondary school teacher, Pulau
Pinang)
The passing mark should be standardised and not changed on a whim (Rural secondary school teacher,
Negeri Sembilan)
There should be more standardised tests in all levels to have a clearer picture of all levels (Urban
secondary school teacher, Pulau Pinang)
Assessment should be set at an international standard (Urban secondary school teacher, Selangor)
The Education Ministry especially the Language Unit should prepare standardised tests for all schools so
teachers can judge students performance in other schools and districts (city vs rural) (Rural primary
school teacher, Melaka)
All of these comments, coupled with the Cambridge English findings, make it clear that a revision of all the
national exams is required. The revision process must ensure that a robustly designed suite of tests is produced.
These tests can ensure that teachers and the Ministry of Education can accurately determine the extent to which
students are able to meet targets that are set and to achieve the broader aspirations of the Education Blueprint.
They must also play a positive role in the learning process.

Recommendations and next steps
119
6.
The findings and recommendations connected to the three areas of the project students, teachers and
curricula, textbooks and exams are inevitably linked in a common ecological system, where changes to one
affect the others. It is, therefore, not always easy to separate recommendations into discrete categories. We
have endeavoured to do this, for the sake of clarity for the readers and users of the report, and have
presented the recommendations for improving student success and for upskilling teachers separately from the
recommendations based on our review of curricula, examinations and textbook. Each set of recommendations
has been linked to the most relevant transformational Shifts in the Education Blueprint. It must be kept in
mind, however, that the different categories under which the recommendations are discussed are not
mutually exclusive.
As instructional quality has been shown to increase the likelihood of learner achievement (Anderson, Greene
and Loewen 1988; Justice, Mashburn, Hamre and Pianta 2008), the following recommendations are made with
the goal of improving teaching quality and ultimately creating the best possible conditions for learning to
occur. Support for teachers and learners needs to be systematic and sustained rather than one-off. All new
initiatives should be evaluated in the short term based on their impact on teaching behaviour and beliefs, and
in the long term based on learning outcomes. It is important to keep in mind that changing teacher and/or
learner behaviours and beliefs takes time and significant improvements in performance are unlikely to be
witnessed immediately. In reality, learner achievement is likely to go down during the initial period of a new
initiative that involves changing fundamental beliefs about teaching and/or learning.
All the recommendations to follow have emerged as a result of the findings on teacher performance, and
lesson observations as well as attitudinal and background factors. They address the final question guiding the
project:
Question 10: What recommendations can be made, based on the benchmarking of teachers/students and
the evaluation of teaching/assessment materials, to enable the achievement of the envisioned education
transformation by the Malaysia Ministry of Education?
Shift 1: Provide equal access to quality in education of an international standard

Benchmark the learning of languages to international standards
Set realistic language proficiency targets, which take into consideration the baselines established in this
review project and the achievement gaps related to location, gender, school type and specialisation.
Targets need to be benchmarked to international standards, i.e. the CEFR, staged and phased in a
differentiated approach according to cohort characteristics and systematically monitored. Setting
realistic goals which are evidence-based will lead to more fit-for-purpose solutions.
120

Launch new revised primary and secondary curriculum

Link the curricula reliably to international standards. This will provide clearer pathways of progression
and attainment in terms of specificity of target skills development, depth in language focus and
challenge in topic and thinking skills treatment.
Carry out a root-and-branch review of teaching and learning materials and the revision of in-service
and pre-service teacher training and pedagogical support programmes that will reflect the shift in
educational emphases in the curricula.
Define English learning outcomes clearly in order to set clear and attainable curriculum-defined
standards and to enable teachers to utilise a range of appropriate teaching strategies in achieving
differentiated goals.
Update textbook materials for English to ensure they reflect the values and aspirations of the
Education Blueprint, complement the aims of the new curricula and meet the needs of the students.
Ongoing teacher support must be planned to accompany any introduction of new learning materials.
Explore options to give teachers access to a much wider resource base with particular emphasis on
audio-visual material that can be efficiently shared digitally.
Revamp examinations and assessments

Redesign national English examinations to align to international standards and the CEFR in line with the
aspirations and attributes highlighted in the Education Blueprint.
Redesign English examinations to espouse a communicative approach, incorporate Speaking and
maintain an equal focus on the four skills.
Redesign the content and format of English examinations to deliver both greater reliability and validity.
Valid, reliable exams based on a communicative approach are great motivators for learning, and it is
therefore recommended to introduce exams which are based on a state-of-the-art view of teaching
and assessment.
Build on the progress made so far with school-based assessment (SBA) to focus on teachers
understanding of principles underlying SBA. Effective SBA needs to allow for an appropriate
administrative workload and the teachers ability to take action on what their assessments tell them
about their students learning.
Shift 2: Ensure every child is proficient in Bahasa Malaysia and English language
Upskill English language teachers and expand opportunities for greater exposure to English language
Provide suitable English language provision for teachers. As levels of English vary considerably within
the sample of teachers observed, this provision should be targeted first at those teachers who have
been identified as having the lowest levels of proficiency (CEFR levels B1 and below).
Develop the pedagogic and practical teaching competence of teachers. Both the quantitative and
qualitative data gathered from classroom observations suggest that many teachers are in need of

121
immediate professional development.

Provide training for a differentiated approach to learning and assessment. The large variation in
language proficiency within the same school grade, especially at Year 6, Forms 3 and 5 necessitates the
need for differentiated strategies for teaching and assessment.
Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of upskilling programmes to ensure quality, transparency and
accountability.
Reward teachers with internationally-recognised qualifications for both English language proficiency
and teaching knowledge and practice.
Encourage every child to learn an additional language by 2025

Use the new English curriculum as a model for mapping the content, progression in language and skills
development and assessment processes when introducing additional languages into the curriculum.
Shift 3: Develop values-driven Malaysians

Build on the existing focus on values through the inclusion of themes or topics in order to foster the
learners value base through the revised curriculum in terms of its skills development framework.
Shift 4: Transform teaching into the profession of choice

Upgrade the quality and personalisation of CPD with greater emphasis on school-based
training
Raise the entry bar to the teaching profession by making internationally-recognised Cambridge English
assessments the required language qualifications for entry to teacher training programmes.
Benchmark the teaching of languages to international standards. During the planning of the schoolbased professional development programme, ensure that content reflects the principles of the
internationally recognised teaching qualifications for both language proficiency and teaching produced
by Cambridge English.
Develop a context-sensitive programme of school-based professional development with SMART
objectives linked to both language needs (e.g. classroom language proficiency and intelligible
pronunciation), and pedagogical needs (e.g. differentiation, supportive teacher talk, continuous
assessment). As contexts and needs differ, variety is essential. This programme should therefore
consist of a portfolio of opportunities including bottom-up CPD initiatives within or between schools. It
should also contain a strong practical component so that teachers are able to apply ideas to their own
contexts.
Link the following processes into a unified yet flexible professional development programme for
teachers, so that each element is not seen in isolation: teacher training, curricula and examination
revision, the integration of ICT into day-to-day learning and tailed on the ground teacher coaching.
122

Develop the format and content of PRESET (pre-service training) and INSET (in-service training)
education for English in particular and for other content subjects in general, as any change made is
likely to need to be applicable across the curriculum. The efficiency and effectiveness of current
training models, the coherence between course content, and the capacity and quality of training
providers must be taken into account in the development process.
Develop a peer-led culture of excellence and certification process

Identify master practitioners teaching in schools across Malaysia to act as coaches and mentors both
within their own schools and within the broader teaching community. Their expertise should also be
considered when revising the curriculum, textbooks and teaching resources. Fellow teachers will value
the mentors familiarity with the realities of their classrooms and be open to adopting new approaches.
Introduce a teacher observation programme that is holistic in nature and not just based on providing
an assessment of teacher performance. Lesson observations are an effective method to encourage
teacher reflection, identify areas in need of further development and share good practice. As such,
they are an important component of any CPD programme.
Focus teachers on their core function of teaching by reducing administration burdens
Provide practical teaching resources or guides that teachers can use on a day-to-day basis while they
are adjusting to the new teaching and learning approach.
Shift 7: Leverage ICT to scale up quality learning across Malaysia

Develop teacher support programmes which promote technology as a learning tool rather than as a
simple solution to complex challenges in the education system.
Place ICT and media modules involving ICT at the heart of English language teacher training and
upskilling programmes. Creative ways should be explored to optimise the use of media within current
classroom constraints.
Expand the newly launched global teacher support web platform and use it as a vehicle for bottom-up
teacher development initiatives, to share good practice as well as to provide a channel to share more
media-rich material not currently exploited in classroom contexts. This platform could then be
expanded to include a portal for students, to increase their engagement, and for parents, to increase
their involvement in their childrens education.
Next steps
As a critical next step, Cambridge English recommends collaborating closely with the Ministry to develop a
detailed, integrated language policy that includes the setting of achievable, staged targets for both students
and teachers and coordinates the end of secondary school language targets with the entrance requirements for
tertiary education. The development of this language policy should result in a strategy plan specifying realistic
timescales that tie in with the sequence of transformation outlined in the Education Blueprint. An
implementation plan and an evaluation and impact analysis plan should then be created to ensure full
achievement of the goals set out in the Education Blueprint.

References
123
References
Allwright, R L (1990) What do we want teaching materials for? In Rossner, R and Bolitho, R, (Eds), Currents in
Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Altinyelken, H (2010) Curriculum change in Uganda: Teacher perspectives on the new thematic curriculum,
International Journal of Educational Development 30, 151-161.
Anderson, R, Greene, M and Loewen, P (1988) Relationship among teachers and students thinking skills, sense of
efficacy and student achievement, Alberta Journal of Educational Research 34, 148-165.
Bachman, L F and Palmer, A S (1982) The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency.
TESOL Quarterly 16 (4), 449-65.
Bandura, A (1977) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: W H Freeman.
Bangert-Drowns, R L, Hurley, M and Wilkinson, B (2004) The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions
on academic achievement, Review of Educational Research 74, 29-58.
Bax, S (2003) The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching, ELT Journal 57 (3), 278-287.
Blumberg, F C and Fisch, S M (Eds) (2013) Digital games: A context for cognitive development, New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development 139, 41-50.
Borgers, N, Leeuw, E D and Hox, J (2000) Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and
response quality 1, Bulletin de Mthodologie Sociologique 66, 60-75.
Boud (2000) Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society, Studies in Continuing
Education 22 (2), 151-167.
Cambridge English Language Assessment (2013) Principles of Good Practice: Quality Management and Validation
in Language Assessment, Cambridge: UCLES, available online:
http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/22695-principles-of-good-practice.pdf
Canale, M and Swain, M (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing, Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 1-47.
Carless, D (2009) Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 34 (1), 79-89.
Chapman, D W, Weidman, J, Cohen, M and Mercer, M (2005) The search for quality: A five country study of
national strategies to improve educational quality in Central Asia, International Journal of Educational
Development 25, 514-530.
Clment, R, Drnyei, Z and Noels, K (1994), Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion in the foreign
language classroom, Language Learning 44, 417-448.
Clment, R, Gardner, R C and Smythe, P C (1977) Motivational variables in second language acquisition: A study of
francophones learning English, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 9, 123-133.
Colletta, S P, Clment, R and Edwards, H P (1983) Community and Parental Influence: Effects on Student
Motivation and French Second Language Proficiency, Quebec: International Center for Research on
Bilingualism.
124

References
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J W (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd Edition),
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Csizr, K and Drnyei, Z (2005) The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with
language choice and learning effort, The Modern Language Journal 89, 19-36.
Dembo, M and Gibson, S (1985) Teachers sense of efficacy: An important factor in school achievement,
Elementary School Journal 86, 173-184.
Eurydice (2012) Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe, available online:
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/key-data-on-teaching-languages-at-school-in-europe-pbECXA12001/
Fisher R. (2005) Teaching Children to Think (2nd Edition), Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Fullan, M (2001) The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd Edition), New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Fuller, B and Kapakasa, A (1991) What factors shape teacher quality? Evidence from Malawi, International Journal
of Educational Development 11 (2), 119-127.
Gardner, R C (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation,
Baltimore: Edward Arnold.
Holliday, A (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, N (2013) The European Survey on Language Competences and its significance for Cambridge English
Language Assessment, Research Notes 52, 2-6.
Jussim, L and Harber, K D (2005) Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Knowns and Unknowns,
Resolved and Unresolved Controversies, Personality and Social Psychology Review 9 (2), 131-155.
Justice, L M, Mashburn, A J, Hamre, B K and Pianta, R C (2008) Quality of language and literacy instruction in
preschool classroom serving at-risk pupils, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23, 51-58.
Kennedy, A M, Mullis, I V S, Martin, M O, and Trong, K (Eds) (2007) PIRLS 2006 Encyclopedia: A Guide to Reading
Education in the Forty PIRLS 2006 Countries, Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston
College.
Lightbown, P M and Spada, N (2013) How Languages are Learned (4th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R and Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19
(1), 37-66.
Maccoby, E E and Jacklin, C N (1974) The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mashburn, A J, Pianta, R C, Hamre, B K, Downer, J T, Barbarin, O A, Bryant, D, Burchinal, M, Early, D M and Howes,
C (2008) Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and childrens development of academic,
language, and social skills, Child Development 79, 732-749.
Maybin J, Mercer N and Stierer B (1992) Scaffolding learning in the classroom, in Norman, K (Ed.) Thinking Voices:
The Work of the National Curriculum Project, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 186-195.

References
125
McAleavy, T, Hamilton, A, and Latham, M (no date) CfBT Education Trust commentary on the Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013-2025, available online: http://www.cfbt.com.my/file/CfBT_Blueprint_Report_Malaysia.pdf
Mills, N, Pajares, F and Herron, C (2006) A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self-efficacy, anxiety and their
relation to reading and listening proficiency, Foreign Language Annals 39, 276-295.
Mueller, R, Carr-Stewart, S, Steeves, L and Marshall, J (2011) Teacher recruitment and retention in select First
Nations schools, in education 17 (3), available online:
http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/72/553
Multon, K D, Brown, S D, and Lent, R W (1991) Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A metaanalytic investigation, Journal of Counseling Psychology 18, 3038.
Negishi, M, Takada, T and Tono, Y (2013) A progress report on the development of the CEFR-J, in Galaczi E D and
Weir, C J (Eds) Exploring Language Frameworks: Proceedings of the ALTE Krakw Conference, July 2011,
Studies in Language Testing volume 36, Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press, 135-163.
Orafi, S M S and Borg, S (2009) Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform, System
37, 243-253.
Oxford, R L and Ehrman, M E (1993) Second language research on individual differences. In Grabe, W (Ed.), Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics XIII, Issues in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 188-205.
Purpura, J E (2004) Assessing Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J C (2014) The Role of Textbooks in A Language Program, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
available online: http://www.cambridge.org.br/authors-articles/articles?id=337
Richards, J C and Lockhart, C (1994) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
UNESCO (2013) Malaysia Education Policy Review: Abridged Report, May 2013, available online:
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/M_EPR-abridged-report-Annex24052013.pdf
Wagner, T, Kegan, R, Lahey, L, Lemons, R W, Garnier, J, Helsing, D, Howell, A, Thurber Rasmussen, H (2006)
Change Leadership: A Practical Guide to Transforming our Schools, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Wesely, P (2012) Learner attitudes, perceptions and beliefs in language learning, Foreign Language Annals 45,
98-117.
126

References

References
127
Contact us
Cambridge English Language Assessment
1 Hills Road
Cambridge CB1 2EU
United Kingdom
consultancy@cambridgeenglish.org
www.cambridgeenglish.org/consultancy
UCLES 2014 | CE/2437/4Y01/May12

Cambridge Baseline Study 2013

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cambridge Baseline Study 2013

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge English expertise

Structure of the report

Data collection instruments

3. STUDENT ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Summary: National profile

National profile: Comparison with other countries

School type profiles

Class specialisation profiles

High performing versus low performing learners

4. TEACHER ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY, TEACHING KNOWLEDGE AND TEACHING PRACTICE

The role of assessment in learning and teaching

5. CURRICULA, LEARNING MATERIALS AND NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS

6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge English expertise

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read.

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Students: Language proficiency

Teachers: Language proficiency, teaching knowledge and teaching practice

Curricula, national textbooks and examinations

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Structure of the report

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Research design: Convergent parallel mixed-method design

Cambridge Baseline 2013

QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION

QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Table 2.1 Participants: by data collection instruments

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Data collection instruments

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge English proposal for the baseline project

Gathering of relevant data from the Ministry of

February September 2013

Development of assessment and questionnaire

February April 2013

Review and analysis of curricula, teaching

February October 2013

Visits to schools for classroom/teacher observations,

18 October 1 November 2013

Administration of paper-based benchmarking tests

29 October 5 November 2013

Receipt and processing of results

November December 2013

Analysis of data and production of reports

January 2014 March 2014

Presentation of findings and recommendations

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Role of attitudinal and background variables

Overall national profile

Language proficiency: Primary school

Cambridge Baseline 2013

Figure 3.1 Distribution of overall CEFR levels: Pre-school

Cambridge Baseline 2013