Introduction

Many non-native English-speaking countries have either adopted or adapted the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) in their respective education systems (Franz & Teo, 2018; Nguyen & Hamid, 2020; Zhao et al., 2017). The CEFR was piloted in a draft version in 1996 by the Council of Europe and eventually published in 2001 with the aim of facilitating “transparency and coherence between curriculum, teaching and assessment within an institution and transparency and coherence between institutions, education sectors, regions, and countries” (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 25). The CEFR is viewed as an international standard that has been used in many countries as a performance benchmark in language learning (Don, 2015). An A1 level in one country should be equivalent to the same level in other countries that have adopted the CEFR in their language assessment. There are six basic levels of the CEFR, consisting of A1 and A2 for Basic, B1 and B2 for Independent, and C1 and C2 for Proficient users. This is all well but some organisations, and governments have interpreted the CEFR differently, to benefit only the key stakeholders involved in the implementation (Savski, 2022).

There have been numerous issues concerning the acceptance and rejection of the framework in the global context. For instance, a study by Nishimura-Sahi (2020) revealed that the adoption of the CEFR in Japan was due to educational and political agendas endorsed by different authorities such as academics, business associations, politicians, and the Ministry of Education. Meanwhile, the initial plan for adopting the global framework in Vietnam was based on the changes in English language policy, the need for economic and political developments, and the government’s inclination toward external solutions for local issues in Vietnam (Nguyen & Hamid, 2020). However, it eventually had to be replaced with a revised version because it was pointed out that the government’s language proficiency targets were “too ambitious” (Foley, 2019a). As in the case of Thailand, a revised version of the CEFR called the Framework of Reference for English Language Education in Thailand (FRELE-TH) was introduced as the CEFR did not provide solutions to the poor level of English in the country (Foley, 2019b). In addition, the contradicting policy agendas of the relevant Thai stakeholders at the national level had serious implications on how CEFR was implemented on the local scale (Savski, 2020).

In Malaysia, the CEFR was officially adopted in 2017. This implementation needs to be examined as it has been reported that the use of imported textbooks does not meet the country’s English language agenda (Rahim & Daghigh, 2020) and the teachers’ lack of training and their resistance towards the CEFR have been among the challenges towards the implementation (Uri & Aziz, 2018). The issues of teachers’ lack of training and limited knowledge of the current implementation of CEFR are tightly intertwined themes, which could be the causes of teachers’ struggles in accepting the newly adopted framework. Such situations could have caused the teachers’ only superficial familiarity with the CEFR. Therefore, Díez-Bedmar and Byram (2019) propose extensive relevant training to ensure their teaching, learning, and assessment are integrated with the philosophy of the CEFR.

In the specific context of rural schools, it is expected that there will be even more serious challenges on implementing CEFR (Ahamat & Kabilan, 2022). In rural areas, the cultures are different, and English is not part of those cultures, even though it could be the official second language. To illustrate, Mbali and Douglas (2012) describe teaching English in rural schools in South Africa to school children who…

….would not be exposed to much English at home or in the surrounding community. Even with TV and radio, families would be most likely to read media and listen to programmes in their own language. So, although English is one of the official languages of South Africa, the English experienced by many school students is more a foreign than second language. (p. 525)

The above scenario is very similar to many rural communities in non-English-speaking countries, especially when external factors further weigh down English language teaching. For example, in Indonesia, rural school students’ enthusiasm and internet connectivity crucially affect English language teachers (Kusuma, 2022), although the CEFR is merely adopted at the micro-level (Yusra et al., 2022). Thailand’s “socio-economic status of the community in which they are situated” (Hayes, 2017, p. 186) makes English less needed in national life than in international businesses and the tourism industry. Meanwhile, in Malaysia, a lack of interest, poor infrastructure, limited resources, and a lack of parental support (Renganathan, 2021) have put English language teachers at a disadvantage in executing the newly implemented English language curriculum, which consequently may also affect their self-efficacy beliefs. This case corresponds to the finding that students in remote and rural areas in Malaysia were found to perform “significantly worse” (Cambridge English, 2013, p. 16) than those in urban areas. These reported problems imply that teaching the English language in a rural school is challenging and demands extra effort and work from teachers, much more in executing a new curriculum that is completely new to them.

To successfully implement an innovative/new curriculum or change (in this case the CEFR), teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (TSEB), especially their acceptance, are integral (Cerit, 2013) and should be supported by careful planning that emphasises people, programs, and processes (Ornstein & Hunskins, 2018). Many new curricula fail when it comes to implementation because human resource factors are ignored, and the focus is only devoted to time and money for program and process modifications (Susilanas et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important to examine teachers’ level of beliefs of self-efficacy, as previous studies have shown that self-efficacious teachers are able to implement any educational policy introduced by the authorities despite unfavourable prevailing circumstances (Griful-Freixenet et al., 2020). Teachers with a high level of self-efficacy surmount challenges even with difficult students because they possess strong beliefs in their capabilities as well as those of their students, (DeCoito & Myszkal, 2018; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) and are “willing to experiment with new methods to better meet the needs of their student” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, p. 783). Hence, it can be implied that teachers’ level of self-efficacy beliefs could remarkably affect the way they implement the CEFR-aligned curriculum at their respective schools.

The previous studies related to the CEFR merely focused on the teachers’ awareness and challenges (Uri & Aziz, 2018), assessment (Sidhu et al., 2018), knowledge and practice (Yin & Ahmad, 2021), and issues with teaching material (Ahamat & Kabilan, 2022). These studies, however, have missed a crucial part of an educational reform, which is to investigate the implementers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the execution of the newly introduced policy. The present study is, therefore, intended to fill in the gaps by discovering these research questions with special attention to rural primary school teachers:

1. What are the levels of self-efficacy beliefs of rural primary school English language teachers concerning the implementation of the CEFR-aligned syllabus?
2. Is there a significant relationship between the teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (TSEB) with the frequency of the CEFR training attended?
3. What are the issues that could affect rural primary school teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the implementation of the CEFR?

This study would provide insights into teacher’s self-efficacy, linked to the reforms of English language policy due to the CEFR, and teachers’ confidence and competency levels in implementing a CEFR-based curriculum. Kaygisiz et al. (2018) consider this as something substantial in the English language teaching (ELT) context that could be a determinant for a better language teaching experience in the classroom. Thus, it is hoped that this study is able to address the vacuum of teachers’ self-efficacy in terms of the CEFR (Mison & Jang, 2011) instead of merely focusing on the challenges in the implementation of the CEFR. It is hypothesised that TSEB is dependent on the CEFR-related training attended, as previous literature reported negative opinions about the newly implemented curriculum due to the superficial training provided to schoolteachers (Aziz et al., 2018).

CEFR as a new education policy

Ever since CEFR was introduced in Asia, researchers have examined the framework, especially when many countries have adopted it into the local English language policy. It has received numerous critiques from language practitioners for providing “significant leeway” and presenting “partial information and by extension require readers to fill in resultant gap” (Savski, 2022, p. 3) in its scales design. In a critical discourse analysis of language policy texts from Malaysia and Thailand, Savski (2020) perceives CEFR as a “vehicle of neoliberal ideology in language policy” (p. 543) that eventually gives more power to global institutions, such as Cambridge English and the British Council, from the implementation. The revelation is in line with Nishimura-Sahi’s (2020) finding in Japan, where the CEFR was selectively implemented to fulfil continuing educational and political agendas promoted by multiple institutions in the country. In sum, the CEFR could be adopted for many distinct reasons in different countries depending on their language policy and national interests.

In Malaysia, the CEFR was adopted to improve students’ as well as teachers’ English language proficiency in respect of teaching, learning, and assessment (Don, 2015). With the implementation, Cambridge English was appointed to conduct a baseline study to present an evidence-based report on the existing proficiency among students and teachers. Teachers were also sent out to various CEFR familiarisation workshops and imported learning materials are used as main references for teaching and learning (Afip et al., 2019). Unfortunately, only a few local experts were involved in the implementation, which explicitly illustrates Savski’s (2020) earlier paradox. Due to limited funding and time, a cascade training model was embraced and focused on (i) familiarisation, (ii) learning materials evaluation, adaptation, and design, (iii) curriculum induction, and (iv) item writing and formative assessment (Aziz et al., 2018). Clearly, the focus was only on CEFR-related topics per se, with no attention given to teachers as the real “implementers” of the new policy. Thus, an examination of TSEB of the rather limited training would be crucial in determining the direction and future of CEFR in the regional education system.

Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (TSEB)

Many of today’s theoretical frameworks related to self-efficacy beliefs which originated from its pioneer, Albert Bandura (1977), are defined as “people’s domain-specific perceptions of their ability to perform the actions necessary to achieve desired outcomes” (Gallagher, 2012, p. 314). This social cognitive concept is different from other self-conceptions like self-esteem and self-worth because it refers to a specific task. The theory of self-efficacy can be understood by having a closer look at Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which provides a model to comprehend human emotion, behaviour, cognition, and motivation (Gallagher, 2012). An individual could have low self-efficacy for an activity, but at the same time does not diminish his self-esteem because that person has not instilled his self-worth in doing that activity. The present study, nevertheless, follows Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998) definition of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs which are described as “beliefs in his or her own capability to organise and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (p. 233). This definition fits the context of the study because it is teacher-specific and meets the objectives of the study, in which it specifies “the knowledge and beliefs of teachers and not on the cultural meaning of efficacy” (p. 203) that can also contribute to the TSEB construction. If TSEB attainment is high, the prospect of the newly implemented curriculum continuation is also high because, according to Richards (2001), teachers’ skill and expertise, as well as beliefs and principles are among the determinants in the “successful implementation of curriculum change” (p. 99). In the present study, it can be inferred that the CEFR-aligned curriculum would prevail only if English language teachers, especially those who are underprivileged, possess high self-efficacy beliefs in executing the policy at the school level.

Sources of self-efficacy

Self-efficacy can be developed as it is rooted in different sources. According to Bandura (1995), self-efficacy beliefs are dependent on four main origins: (i) mastery experiences, (ii) vicarious experiences, (iii) social persuasion, and (iv) emotional and physical states. The first source of self-efficacy is mastery experiences, which are formed based on an individual’s appraisal of his previous successes or failures. After completing a task, a person interprets and evaluates the outcomes, since “...the results obtained, and judgments of competence are created or revised according to those interpretations” (Usher & Pajares, 2008, p. 752). In the school context, teachers who managed to overcome obstacles or accomplish challenging tasks (e.g., poor teaching facilities, a lack of communication, or managing unruly students) would perceive themselves not only as competent, but also confident of being successful in attending to comparable situations in the future. Alternatively, less capable teachers would feel less efficacious.

Apart from basing personal capability on the judgement of past actions or performance, self-efficacy beliefs also form through vicarious observation of others. This second source of self-efficacy beliefs comes in several forms. First, individuals can compare how they fare against people with similar abilities. Next, people may look for models with skills, competencies, or other traits that they aspire to have. The models, people of reputation, power, and prestige, could be social and professional acquaintances they interact with on a regular basis, or they may be people observed through social media. Third, individuals may make comparisons between current and past performances by engaging in self-evaluation activities. However, this form of vicarious information on self-efficacy overlaps with the judgement of self-efficacy resulting from mastery experiences (Bandura, 1997). Finally, vicarious information could also emanate from personal observations of others’ reactions or information received about self. For instance, a novice teacher informed by his students or superior that his teaching is as good as that of experienced colleagues would have his self-efficacy enhanced.

The third source of self-efficacy beliefs is social persuasion which refers to encouragement from the people around, especially those who possess a mastery of the given activity (Velthuis et al., 2013), family members, and close friends. Nonetheless, Gallagher (2012) added that the effectiveness of social persuasion may vary according to social factors like “closeness of the relationship” and “trustworthiness of the source” (p. 316). As for schoolteachers, encouragement can also come in the form of continuous training and resources provided by the authority to support their teaching in the classroom. Finally, varying emotional and physiological states such as lethargy, calm, and anxiety also serve as indicators of personal competence. Our bodies react differently to distinct situations and emotions. Positive emotion may boost an individual’s perceived self-efficacy and motivation, while a negative state of emotion can make someone insecure about himself or herself.

These sources of self-efficacy, which are rooted in social cognitive theory, provide a foundation for understanding the development of self-efficacy that continuously takes place in one’s own lifetime (Gallagher, 2012). A deliberate comprehension of the sources of self-efficacy and the level of TSEB would give wider insights to policymakers in constructing appropriate self-development training for teachers apart from merely providing them with task-oriented training that caters to the teaching and learning aspects of reform (Aziz et al., 2018). Since TSEB changes over time (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), continuous training is required so that TSEB can be enhanced, and the policy can be enacted and put into practice effectively.

Previous studies

Since the first year of implementation of the CEFR-aligned English language curriculum in Malaysia in 2017, there have been several studies conducted regarding the newly introduced policy, CEFR. Uri and Aziz (2018), for instance, examined teachers’ awareness and challenges and highlighted “teachers’ resistance, lack of training, and negative conception” (p. 168) as the biggest constraints in implementing the CEFR. The study was specific to secondary school teacher respondents but limited to three urban localities. Likewise, Yin and Ahmad (2021) also had secondary school teacher respondents in their study involving teachers’ knowledge and practice on CEFR-aligned curricula. The samples of the study, nonetheless, were restricted to teachers teaching in a northern state in Malaysia. In a different setting, Sidhu et al. (2018) conducted a mixed-method approach in investigating teachers’ practices in school-based assessments (SBA) as a result of the CEFR implementation, specifying primary school teachers.

Existing research has failed to account for the diversity of educational contexts in which primary school teachers operate. The previous studies’ samples primarily consisted of teachers from urban or well-resourced schools, neglecting the unique challenges faced by teachers in rural or underprivileged settings whose students are generally at a disadvantage (Ahamat & Kabilan, 2022). The present study may bridge these gaps by emphasizing TSEB in rural school contexts, in which the findings can be used by stakeholders to promote inclusive education by providing necessary support to rural schoolteachers in future educational reforms.

Methods

Design

This study adopted a mixed-methods design using a survey and semi-structured interviews. The mixed-methods design integrates both quantitative and qualitative data, enabling the researcher to qualitatively understand complex phenomena and obtain statistical data (Creswell, 1999). In this case, an explanatory approach was employed where the qualitative data was collected after the survey. Hence, the interview transcriptions work as a support to the numerical data and explain the statistical findings concerning TSEB in implementing the CEFR-aligned English language curriculum. The qualitative data was required as the initial quantitative finding revealed high TSEB scores, hence semi-structured interviews were required to disclose the details that affected TSEB due to the implementation of the CEFR.

Participants

The quantitative data were collected from 200 rural primary school teachers from all over Malaysia using purposive sampling (Table 1). The participants for the study had to be currently teaching English at any rural primary school in Malaysia and have experience dealing with CEFR-aligned English language curriculum. Schools in Malaysia are vaguely classified as either urban or rural with no specific criteria on the distinctions provided by the Ministry of Education (MoE) (Renganathan, 2021). Therefore, this study adopts the definition of ‘rural schools’ used by Supramaniyam (2015), where it is explained as “schools that are located more than six kilometres from the downtown area” (p. 15). Teachers in the study were aware of their school categories as the list of schools and the school category can be found on the MoE official website.

To obtain the participants’ consent, they were briefed on the objectives of the study and informed that their participations were on voluntary basis. Once agreed, the teachers then signed the ‘Letter of Informed Consent’ (Appendix 1). They were then provided with the link to the questionnaire on Google Forms. The same procedures worked for the semi-structured interview.

Table 1: Survey respondents’ profile

As can be seen in Table 1, gender distribution nearly represented the national percentage of primary school teachers in Malaysia where female teachers constituted 70 per cent of the whole population, and the remaining 30 per cent was male teachers (Ministry of Education, 2021)

Meanwhile, the qualitative data were collected from seven respondents, three male and four female who also participated in the quantitative study. A purposive sampling technique was employed in recruiting interview participants. The interview participants, as the other respondents were in-service teachers teaching at a rural primary school in Malaysia with experience using the CEFR-aligned textbooks and also were directly involved in the new English language curriculum. Direct involvement in the curriculum included having basic knowledge on the curriculum reforms, teaching the English language using the newly prescribed CEFR-aligned material, and assessing students using the CEFR assessment criteria. The seven respondents in this study had three to 15 years of teaching experience and participated voluntarily (Table 2).

Table 2: Interview participants’ profile

Instruments

The survey questionnaire was adapted from Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES, 2001) which contains 24 items (long form). The items were converted into short statements in the English language and reworded specifically to refer to the CEFR policy implementation. The Likert scales were also simplified from nine scales in the original form, to five in the adapted version, to get “absolute agreement” (Joshi et al., 2015) with the statements included in the questionnaire. The adapted questionnaire was validated by three experts in the field; one was an active researcher of English language teaching with more than 15 years of experience, and the other two were experienced English language teachers who had been in various expert panels related to the teaching and learning at the state level. From the validation process, there were only minor revisions required, mainly related to mechanics. Afterwards, a reliability test was conducted on 30 rural primary school English language teachers. From the pilot study, all dimensions of the questionnaire obtained .780 to .923 Cronbach’s Alpha values which are in the “good” to “excellent” range according to Hair et al. (2015). All items, therefore, were accepted to be used in the questionnaire. The finalised version of the questionnaire was then distributed to potential respondents using Google Forms (Appendix 2).

The qualitative data were gathered from semi-structured interviews via Google Meet, following phenomenological tradition, to understand participants’ experience with the subject matter (Moustakas, 1994). Prior to the interview, questions were set and validated by two experts in English language teaching. In the initial stage of the interview session, participants were briefed on a short operational definition of self-efficacy beliefs that was adopted from Tschannen-Moran et al.’s (1998). In the interview sessions, participants were asked about their experiences dealing with the new CEFR-aligned English language curriculum and issues that could affect their self-efficacy beliefs in the implementation of the said curriculum (Appendix 3).

Data collection and analysis

The data from the questionnaire were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive analysis was conducted to discover the mean score of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in all three dimensions. Pearson correlation analysis was executed to determine the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the frequency of training. Apart from obtaining good scores of Cronbach’s Alpha values prior to executing the study, the findings from the analysis were triangulated with the qualitative data obtained from the semi-structured interviews in ensuring the reliability of the data.

The responses from the interview were orthographically transcribed and thematically analysed. Orthographic transcription refers to verbatim record, where false starts, repetitions, hesitations were all recorded in written form. Meanwhile, thematic analysis, commonly used in qualitative analysis, is described as “a form of pattern recognition within the data, where emerging themes become the categories for analysis (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006, p. 82). In analysing the data, Braun and Clarke’s (2008) six phases of thematic analysis tradition were followed, consisting of (i) data familiarisation, (ii) codes generation, (iii) themes search, (iv) themes review, (v) themes naming, and (vi) reporting. At the end of the process, the recurrent themes were subsequently labelled and calculated. Some the responses and the themes assigned are in Table 3.

Table 3: Thematic analysis: Sample responses and themes

Several strategies were employed to ensure the validity and trustworthiness of the thematic analysis such as using verbatim quotes from the participants to support the themes (Eldh et al., 2020), triangulating the data sources by comparing different participants’ perspectives, and conducting member checking by asking participants to review and confirm the themes (Hsieh & Wang, 2020).

Results

Teachers’ level of self-efficacy belief (TSEB) in the adoption of the CEFR

The mean scores were categorised into three: low (1.00 - 2.33), moderate (2.34 - 3.67) and high (3.68 - 5.00). It was found that rural primary school English teachers in Malaysia possess a high level of TSEB in all dimensions; student engagement (M=3.75, SD=.63), instructional strategies (M=3.80, SD=.67) and classroom management (M=3.77, SD=.68). The overall teachers’ self-efficacy belief is also reported high (M=3.77, SD=.61) based on the mean score that responded to the first research question of the study (Table 4).

Table 4: Rural schoolteachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in relation to the implementation of the CEFR

Relationship between TSEB and the frequency of the CEFR training

The correlation matrix below shows no significant relationship between TSEB and the frequency of training attended, where all the p-values for each dimension are greater than 0.05 (Efficacy in student engagement, p-value=.655, efficacy in instructional strategies, p-value=.801 and efficacy in classroom management, p-value=.863) (Table 5). The p-value for overall TSEB is also reported to be larger than 0.05 (p=.758); hence the hypothesis that there is a relationship between TSEB and frequency of training is not supported in this study.

Note. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5: Relationship of TSEB wand the frequency of training sessions attended

Problems with the implementation of the CEFR that could affect TSEB

Based on the thematic analysis, there were three major recurrent themes that could affect teachers’ self-efficacy in CEFR mentioned by the participants throughout the interviews: training, teaching material, and assessment (Table 6).

Table 6: Recurrent themes in the interview sessions

Most respondents raised the issue of CEFR-related training as one of the factors that could affect their self-efficacy beliefs in the curriculum implementation. Respondent 7 (R7) for instance, was a novice teacher who had never attended any CEFR-related training on his own and had been relying on CEFR manuals since he began teaching at school in 2018. Due to the lack of training, teachers are “not completely ready” (R2) and are clueless about how CEFR should be “carried out in a classroom” (R6). R3, a CEFR trainer, reported that more training should be conducted because the CEFR-aligned syllabus is a major English language education reform. She described the CEFR training approach using the cascade model as inconvenient to district-level trainers because the information is “not well-disseminated” and only “benefits individuals who attended the training at the national and state level”. Another respondent, R4, with the most frequent CEFR training attendance, had no issue with the newly implemented curriculum, but raised the need to further improve the quality of training, as projected in the following excerpt:

I like the idea of aligning the curriculum with the CEFR, but I need more hands-on training on that, not on the theoretical part. I can read those CEFR documents on my own; I just want to know how the new syllabus should be executed and how the assessment should be carried out. We couldn’t find any of these in the training, which mostly cover only the basics. (R4)

Training aside, teaching material was also put forward as an issue that could possibly affect respondents’ self-efficacy beliefs in the curriculum implementation. Problems such as “insufficient supply of textbooks” (R2), and “absence of supplementary material” (R2, R5 R7) were among the major challenges, which clearly could affect classroom instruction. The CEFR-aligned textbooks, were not supplemented with student workbooks which the respondents found “very challenging” (R5) because they were expensive since the parents had to bear the cost and most of them were from low-income families and in fact “some of them were living in a slum” (R6). It was also mentioned that workbooks were essential in the classroom since the activities recommended in the textbooks could only be practiced by students in the workbook (R2, R5). Also very few reference books for teachers were provided, causing them having to share with each other (R7). Textbook contents also did not conform to students’ “prior knowledge” (R3) and “local practice” (R2) and hence, students considered the textbooks to be “quite boring” (R3). Foreign content of the textbooks provided the teachers with little option but to rely more on technology like YouTube as a source of reference to demonstrate the real-life situation related to the content of the textbooks to the students (R2, R3, R5, R6). However, considering their location in rural areas, internet connections (R3, R5) and access to other facilities like a projector (R2, R6) always had caused major setbacks for them.

Classroom assessment could also affect rural primary school teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Teachers reported to be “confused” (R6) and to have “self-conflict” (R3) when it came to grading their students according to the CEFR levels. Teachers received little guidance on how the assessment should be interpreted (R3, R6, R7) and they wished they had more assessment-related training that could aid in grading their students in classrooms. Different perspectives and understanding of the assessment made it even more challenging for teachers to evaluate their students in the school-based assessment because they tended to have a perception that “different teachers would have a different interpretation of the rubric” (R3) even though they were referring to the same assessment manual, Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran [Standard Document for Curriculum and Assessment]. For example, R7 believed that assessment based on the CEFR manuals had different techniques and did not merely focus on worksheets. However, he received negative remarks from an officer at the Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah [District Education Office] who during a school visit indicated that he had not adhered to the appropriate assessment procedures, as he had used oral-based assessment. This experience left him feeling confused and unmotivated.

Discussion

Self-efficacy beliefs of rural primary school English language teachers concerning the implementation of the CEFR-aligned syllabus

The present study revealed a high level of overall TSEB among rural primary school teachers in implementing the CEFR in the English language curriculum based on the mean score in the descriptive analysis. Klassen and Chiu (2010) reported that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are connected to job satisfaction. It may imply that the respondents are content with their current job, which could be measured by different clusters, including salary, working conditions, co-workers, promotion, workload, and supervision (Abdullah et al., 2009). In Malaysia, the teaching profession, especially at government schools, is considered a stable job with a good salary and annual raises. These factors may indirectly contribute to job satisfaction, which determines the level of self-efficacy beliefs among rural schoolteachers in this study. Additionally, Bandura’s (1995) sources of self-efficacy, including mastery experiences, vicarious experiences provided by social models, social persuasion, and emotional states in judging their capabilities, could also be reasons for the present findings. The mastery experience is reflected in the present study, where 118 (59%) respondents have more than ten years experience teaching the English language, which implies they have adequate knowledge and experience in handling the classroom as well as the subject matter. Although years of experience in teaching is not the only measure of mastery, in this case, it may be implied that these teachers have faced various policy changes throughout their years of service, which made them able to surmount challenges. This could also be a justification for a high level of overall TSEB in the implementation of CEFR in the English language curriculum.

Relationship between TSEB with the frequency of the CEFR training attended

The present findings also show no relationship between TSEB and the frequency of CEFR-related training attended by teachers, implying that the frequency of training alone does not contribute to the level of TSEB. Personal factors such as length of teacher’s tenure, level of education and experience, as well as contextual factors like features of the classroom, student socioeconomic status, and student behaviour could also be contributing factors (von Suchodoletz et al., 2018). While the quantitative findings show no relationship between TSEB and the frequency of training attended by teachers, most of the interview participants highlighted the insufficiency of training as one of the constituents that can affect TSEB in the execution of the CEFR in their respective classrooms. These findings may suggest the previous CEFR training sessions were not properly planned, had irrelevant content, or were based on an outdated approach to conducting training (Kabilan & Veratharaju, 2013). For example, training using the cascade training method throughout the process of introducing and implementing the CEFR has been shown to be ineffective (Aziz et al., 2018; Yin & Ahmad, 2021). Yin and Ahmad reported cases in which district trainers were perceived as incompetent due to insufficient curriculum knowledge, partly resulting from gaps in the training they had received. Consequently, inaccurate information was then conveyed to the teachers in the local districts. In this case, an online platform could communicate the information related to the CEFR evenly to all teachers (Aziz et al., 2018) and suit teachers’ flexibility and convenience (Sakulprasertsri et al., 2021).

Issues affecting rural primary school teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the implementation of the CEFR

Apart from issues related to training, respondents were also found to have difficulty with the teaching materials provided by the MOE. The prescribed materials were all imported from the international publishers and not specifically designed for Malaysian students. This utilisation of teaching materials from other cultures conflicts with the findings of many research and theory-driven practices, i.e., materials should be based on the context of learning-teaching and teachers’ and students’ needs (Daghigh & Rahim, 2021; Ulla & Perales, 2021). Much research has suggested that language learning materials should follow local criteria specific to a particular learning context (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2017) so that students could respond “personally to a text”, develop “a related text themselves”, make “discoveries about how language was used in the core text”, and then revise “their own text” (Tomlinson, 2020, p. 7). Furthermore, students’ motivation levels could be boosted with authentic materials that contain local cultures and knowledge with which students could easily identify and associate (Zohoorian, 2015). The decision to prescribe imported textbooks to local students was made by the MOE and was then followed by the adaption of the CEFR material to the courses for English language teachers (Afip et al., 2019). The courses, however, failed to reach the target as teachers were not given full autonomy by school inspectors to adapt the material to their respective classrooms (Aziz et al., 2018). This shows a gap between theory and practice (what the teachers were taught during the courses and what at they were allowed to do in their classroom).

Finally, respondents pointed out assessment was one of the challenges in the newly implemented curriculum. The CEFR-aligned syllabus brought changes in assessment, from traditional assessment to school-based assessment (SBA), which shifted the traditional stance of assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Sidhu et al. (2018) reported similar issues where teachers were found to have little understanding of SBA, the core element in the new curriculum. In fact, they also possessed little knowledge of the revised English language curriculum. The reasons cited were time constraints, classroom enrolment, heavy workloads, and a lack of training, making it difficult for them to cope with the changes. The original idea of introducing SBA was to lessen students’ pressure in high-stakes testing (Ho, 2013), but the situation was not ideal for teachers burdened with unnecessary heavy workloads. In Malaysia, teachers do not only have to teach, but also have non-teaching assignments, such as overseeing school canteen operations, managing textbooks, and ensuring school cleanliness, apart from participating in committee boards for special events (Krishnan & Gan, 2022). These additional tasks leave them with a minimum of hours to spend on attending professional development training.

The findings of the current paper highlight three main issues; training, teaching material, and assessment that could affect TSEB in the implementation of the CEFR despite the high score of the overall TSEB among rural primary school English language teachers. This would help stakeholders understand that Malaysian TSEB could be improved if the three main issues were properly addressed. The present study offers new insights into the rural school context, covering gaps from the previous literature (Sidhu et al., 2018; Yin & Ahmad, 2021).

Conclusion

This study studied the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale (TSEB) in relation to a newly implemented educational policy in which the English language curriculum in Malaysia was aligned to an international standard, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The English language teachers in this study, who were directly involved with the new policy, reported high self-efficacy beliefs in implementing the educational reform. One finding based on the interviews that is worth highlighting is that English language teachers in rural areas still had problems with training, teaching materials, and assessment regarding CEFR, despite the fact there was no relationship between TSEB and frequency of training reported in the quantitative data.

Based on the three main issues derived from the thematic analysis, there are two recommendations that may be of relevance for future improvement. First, it is recommended that the Ministry of Education review the existing training approach. As many teachers were not given the opportunity to attend any of the CEFR training, they showed less TSEB on implementing the new curriculum. Perhaps online professional development should be considered in the future. It could be a far more effective medium for conducting teachers’ training, especially with the aspect of teachers’ engagement and satisfaction (Sakulprasertsri et al., 2021) and gaining relevant competency skills (Kabilan, 2005).

Second, greater autonomy should be granted to teachers in terms of curriculum development (teaching methods) and materials selection, so that they could actively involve learners in the material selection and development process. This could increase TSEB and simultaneously bring enjoyment to students in the language learning process. However, larger issues with teachers’ workloads should first be resolved so that teachers could commit themselves to teaching-related responsibilities. In solving such problems, more teachers could be recruited and serve according to their field of expertise, not untrained teachers. In this study, researchers identified teachers who never specialised in English, yet had to teach the subject due to the lack of English language teachers available.

With the above two recommendations, it is hoped that the Ministry of Education could provide more autonomy to teachers in aspects of professional development and materials selection without putting an extra burden on them with non-teaching workloads. Teachers’ autonomy is required because they are the ones who implement the national educational policy, and most importantly, they those who are aware of the classroom situations and know their students best. Once teachers are granted more power related to teaching practices, TSEB could be positively affected, and eventually, better language teaching and learning experiences in the classroom could also be provided, especially in the CEFR-aligned curriculum.

Since this study is based on a small number of teachers from rural primary schools, future studies should investigate larger numbers of teachers from both urban and rural schools in different countries where the CEFR has been adopted in the national curriculum. A comparison of the sociological differences of these teachers combined with an analysis of the ranges of experience may also provide different perspectives since novice and experienced teachers from different localities may have different strategies for dealing with self-efficacy beliefs. Comparing the experiences of teachers from different countries would also be beneficial in gaining an overall understanding of TSEB in the context of teaching English in the CEFR environment. Findings from all these suggested studies would guide educational authorities to develop policies and design appropriate educational strategies to ensure effective teaching and learning of English in a CEFR-based curriculum.

References

Abdullah, M. M., Uli, J., & Parasuraman, B. (2009). Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers. Jurnal Kemanusiaan,13, 11-18.

Afip, L. A., Hamid, M. O., & Renshaw, P. (2019). Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR): insights into global policy borrowing in Malaysian higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(3), 378-393.https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1578195

Ahamat, M. I., & Kabilan, M. K. (2022). Material adaptation among rural primary school English language teachers. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 28(1), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2022-2801-07

Aziz, A. H. A., Rashid, R. A., & Zainudin, W. Z. W. (2018). The enactment of the Malaysian common European framework of reference (CEFR): National master trainer’s reflection. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 409-417. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13307

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cambridge English. (2013). Results report Cambridge baseline 2013 English language in Malaysian schools. Cambridge English Internal Report.

Cerit, Y. (2013). Relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their willingness to implement curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Reform, 22(2), 252-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791302200304

Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume with new descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989

Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In G. J Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455-472). Elsevier.

Daghigh, A. J., & Rahim, H. A. (2021). Neoliberalism in ELT textbooks: An analysis of locally developed and imported textbooks used in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 29(3), 493-512. http://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1755888

DeCoito, I., & Myszkal, P. (2018). Connecting science instruction and teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs in STEM education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(6), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1473748

Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Byram, M. (2019). The current influence of the CEFR in secondary education: Teachers’ perceptions.Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), 1-15. http://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1493492

Don, Z. M. (2015). English language education reform in Malaysia: The roadmap 2015-2025. Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Eldh, A. C., Arestedt, L., & Barterö, C. (2020). Quotations in qualitative studies: Reflections in constituents, customs, and purpose. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920969268

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

Foley, J. A. (2019a). Adapting CEFR for English language education in ASEA, Japan and China. The New English Teacher, 13(2), 101-117. https://core.ac.uk/reader/233618790

Foley, J (2019b). Issues on the initial impact of CEFR in Thailand and the region. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 359-370. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i2.20233

Franz, J., & Teo, A. (2018). “A2 is normal” – Thai secondary school English teachers’ encounters with the CEFR. RELC Journal,49(3), 322-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217738816

Gallagher, M. W. (2012). Self-efficacy. In V. C. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2^nd ed., pp. 314-320). Elsevier.

Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., & Vantieghem, W. (2020). Toward more inclusive education: An empirical test of the universal design for learning conceptual model among preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120965525

Hair, J. F. Jr., Celsi, M., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2015). The essentials of business research methods. Routledge.

Hayes, D. (2017). Fallacies affecting policy and practice in the teaching of English as a foreign language in state primary schools in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(2), 172-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1240660

Ho, E. S.-c. (2013). Asia-Pacific educational system review series, 5: Student learning assessment. UNESCO.

Hsieh, J. K.-T., & Wang, L.-Y. (2020). Three Taiwanese students’ identity transformations: Complexity within a cohort of international students. Journal of College Student Development, 61(5), 624-636. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0059

Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 7(4), 396-403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

Kabilan, M. K. (2005). Online professional development: A literature analysis of teacher competency. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(2), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2004.10784511

Kabilan, M. K., & Veratharaju, K. (2013). Professional development needs of primary school English-language teachers in Malaysia. Professional Development in Education, 39(3), 330-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.762418

Kaygisiz, S., Anagun, S. S., & Karahan, E. (2018). The predictive relationship between self-efficacy levels of English teachers and language teaching methods. Eurasian Journal of Education Research, 78, 183-202. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.78.9

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741-756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237

Krishnan, D. B., & Gan, C. (2022, March 31). ‘Non-teaching duties a major concern’. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2022/04/785041/non-teaching-duties-major-concern

Kusuma, I. P. I. (2022). EFL teachers’ online teaching in rural schools during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(1), 203-221. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21239

Mbali, C., & Douglas, J. (2012). Implementing a speaking test at Grade 6 (primary school) in South Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 30(4), 525-537. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2012.750825

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2021). Malaysia educational statistics 2021. Educational Macro Data Planning Sector.

Mison, S., & Jang, I. C. (2011). Canadian FSL teachers’ assessment practices and needs: Implications for the adoption of the CEFR in a Canadian context. Synergies Europe, 6, 99-108. https://gerflint.fr/Base/Europe6/mison.pdf

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.

Nguyen, V.H., & Hamid, M. O. (2020). The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: Insights from a sociogenetic analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(7), 650-662.https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1715416

Nishimura-Sahi, O. (2020). Policy borrowing of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in Japan: An analysis of the interplay between global education trends and national policymaking. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(3, 574-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1844145

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunskins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Pearson.

Renganathan, S. (2021). English language education in rural schools in Malaysia: A systematic review of research. Educational Review, 75(4), 787-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931041

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Savski, K. (2020). Local problems and a global solution: Examining the recontextualisation of CEFR in Thai and Malaysian language policies. Language Policy, 19(4), 527-547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-019-09539-8

Savski, K. (2022). CEFR and ELT practitioner: Empowerment or enforcement? ELT Journal, 77(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac013

Sakulprasertsri, K., Tangkiengsirin, S., Phoocharoensil, S., Kanokpermpoon, M., & Koowuttayakorn, S. (2021). Online English teacher training during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Thai contexts. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education,36(2), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2021.36.2.15

Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., & Lee, C. J. (2018). CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 452-463. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311

Supramaniyam, V. (2015). Pengguanaan teknologi maklumat dan komunikasi (TMK) dalam kalangan guru-guru mata pelajaran kemahiran hidup di sekolah rendah luar bandar negeri [The use of information and communication technology (ICT) among life skills teachers in rural primary schools, unpublished master’s thesis], Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.

Susilanas, R., Asra, A., & Herlina, H. (2018). The contribution of the self-efficacy of curriculum development team and curriculum document quality to the implementation of diversified curriculum in Indonesia. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 2(3), 31-40. https://mojes.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJES/article/view/12838/8232

Tomlinson, B. (2020). Is materials development progressing?. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 15, 1-20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1270211.pdf

Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2017). The complete guide to the theory and practice of materials development for language learning. Wiley-Blackwell.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

Ulla, M. B., & Perales Jr., W. F. (2021). Developing an English language teaching textbook in a Thai university: Classroom language teachers as writers. English Teaching & Learning, 45(4), 461-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-021-00078-2

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

Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions.Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456

Velthuis, C., Fisser, P., & Pieters, J. (2013). Teacher training and pre-service primary teachers’ self-efficacy for science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9363-y

von Suchodoletz, A., Jamil, F. M., Larsen, R. A. A. A., & Hamre, B. K. (2018). Personal and contextual factors associated with growth in preschool teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs during a longitudinal professional development study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 278-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.009

Yin, N. H., & Ahmad, M. Z. (2021). Secondary school English teachers’ knowledge and practice on CEFR-aligned English curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 36(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2021.36.1.5

Yusra, K., Lestari, Y. B., & Hamid, M. O. (2022). Teacher agency and the implementation of CEFR-like policies for English for tourism and hospitality: Insight from local vocational high schools in Indonesia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 23(3), 233-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1965739

Zhao, W., Wang, B., Coniam, D., & Xie, B. (2017). Calibrating the CEFR against the China standards of English for college English vocabulary education in China. Language Testing in Asia, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-017-0036-1

Zohoorian, Z. (2015). Motivation level: A study on the effect of an authentic context. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.003