Framework to bridge teaching and learning
TEACHERS walk into class all armed with the skills and methodology so that students will go away with new learning that will help them cope with the real world. However, more often than not, students are not able to see how this may help them in the near or distant future. Instead, the oftenheard question that stirs more interest is “Teacher, what’s coming out for the exam?”
Examinations appear to drive students’ motivation to learn and this is good if what has been learnt has been internalised and the grades they obtain will be interpreted correctly and accurately. Students are more concerned about taking home as many As as possible. But what do these grades mean? How do the grades compare with As obtained in other exams in other parts of the world?
“So, what did you get for English?”
“I got an A-. That’s good isn’t it?”
“Not really.”
“Why not? I only got a C.”
“Well, anyway, the university I’m applying to wants me to provide evidence of my proficiency by taking a more internationally recognised exam.”
“Why? That doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t your A- mean you have scored high on your test?”
“Well, the university doesn’t seem to think so.”
“If an A- is not good enough, imagine getting a G!”
“A ‘G’? What is a ‘G’?”
According to Brown (2003) it is ironic that on the one hand, all our years of learning are reduced to letters of the alphabet and if that’s not bad enough, the letters do not appear to communicate the same meaning to all interested parties. This lack of standardisation in interpreting test scores has been problematic for both students and decision-makers. That is because the scores are not referenced against a common framework that is understood by all and interpreted in the same way.
At the end of 11 years of schooling, students’ achievement is reported in six letters of varying levels. Their results are reported as A*, A-, A, B, C, D, E, G. Traditionally an A has been interpreted as being better than C. How did we arrive at this conclusion? What is the frame of reference to suggest this?
Presently, despite the 1119/1 and 1119/2 papers being a collaborative effort with Cambridge, many institutions of higher learning still insist on students validating their English Language proficiency by producing results obtained in more internationally recognised high-stakes exams. Malaysia therefore needs to compete on the international platform and be recognised as having international standards and to do so would mean benchmarking current as- sessment procedures against world standards.
English Language in Malaysia is at the crossroads of reform and transformation. The Malaysia Education Blueprint 20132025 has clearly highlighted the need for every child to be proficient in at least two languages: Bahasa Malaysia and English. The blueprint is concerned with the development of Malaysian education as a whole with the aim of making it one of the top third education systems in the world. Therefore, it is only logical that we adopt international standards currently in practice and used the world over. One of the major decisions made then was to align the curriculum and assessment to the Common European Framework of References (CEFR).
The wheels of reform have been set in motion and all educational agencies under the purview of the Ministry of Education are working hand-in-hand to make this a success beginning with the change agents — the teachers. The ministry has organised professional development sessions ranging from Familiarisation to the CEFR, Materials Adaptation and Evaluation, Curriculum Induction and Building Test Items — all aligned with CEFR standards. However, with a CEFR-aligned curriculum, comes a CEFR-aligned assessment procedure. If the curriculum is defined as is the case in the Malaysian context through a sequence of educational experience, then a curriculum does not end with leaving school, but continues in some way or other thereafter in the process of lifelong learning. The aim of the curriculum is to develop in the learner “pluricultural competence” which may take the form of differentiated profiles. The framework as a resource for assessment helps to do this.
The English Language Teaching centre spearheads efforts to operationalise the blueprint in the form of initiatives. The operational plan to realise the aspirations of the blueprint are now aligned with the English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025. The roadmap has now become the reference for a concerted plan of action to reform Malaysia’s English Language Education system aligned to international standards.
Adopting the CEFR Standards allows for “greater mobility, more effective international communication combined with respect for identity and cultural diversity and better access to information”. It allows comparisons between different systems of qualification. Linking tests to international standards such as the CEFR is a way of establishing criterion referenced validity, which is an essential concern in test development.
How does the CEFR-aligned curriculum and assessment procedure contribute to reliability and validity? “If two different organisations or regions use criteria related to the same standards in order to inform their assessment decisions for the same skill, if the standards themselves are valid and appropriate for the two contexts
concerned, and if the standards are interpreted consistently in the design of the assessment tasks and the interpretation of the performances, the results in the two systems will correlate.” If we are to compare Malaysian standards with standards established on an international level, then the CEFR has already got these standards in place.
The CEFR has illustrative scales for each of these activities which make for a clear and accurate assessment of the competency being observed. The CEFR targets for each stage of education are as in the table titled CEFR Targets For Each Stage of
Education.
These levels can be used for children or adults and in connection with curriculum, teaching and learning, or testing and amongst others. Each level of learning comes with a set of “can do” descriptors which is very helpful towards self-directed learning and self-assessment.
The illustrative descriptors are “Can Do” statements provided for reception, interaction and production and an example of descriptors on a global scale is given in the table titled Can Do Statements.
The “Can Do” statements for each of the skills allow teachers to create a profile of a learner’s proficiency in much more detail than when using the more generic terms of Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced. Teachers will be able to describe learners using a common language that has been empirically validated and standardised.
The descriptors in the scales help to conceptualise language use, competencies and the process of teaching and learning in a practical way and help partners to operationalise the communicative language ability the curriculum wishes to promote. If we are to benchmark against international standards, let’s not re-invent the wheel when a framework of reference for a common understanding of language competencies is already in place.