EDU702

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH PROPOSAL:

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK (CEFR):

INSIGHTS FROM EXCELLENT TEACHERS IN SELANGOR

NAME : MUHAMMAD SYAHID AIMAN BIN MUHAMMAD BAZLAN

STUDENT ID : 2019820488

GROUP : ED770 1A1

LECTURER : ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR. JOHAN @ EDDY LUARAN

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

According to Cambridge ESOL (2011), The Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) was created by the

Council of Europe to provide ‘a common basis for the elaboration of language

syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe’

(2001a:1). It was envisaged primarily as a planning tool whose aim was to promote

‘transparency and coherence’ in language education. CEFR has been integrated in our

national education system as a part of the English Language Education Reform in

Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025.

This chapter will introduce and provide an overview of the study. Background

of the study will discuss on the development of policies introduced for teaching and

learning of English up until the latest initiative which is the introduction of the Common

European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment

(CEFR). Next, statement of the problem will be discussed by identifying issues and gap

in research which lead the researcher to conduct this study. Then, the research

objectives and research questions will be put forth as the direction of this study. Next,

the significance of this study will serve as a statement on the importance and impacts

of this study. Apart from that, delimitations and limitations of this study will be

discussed in order to mark the boundary of this study. In addition, operational

definitions will provide the specific definitions for every term that is relevant to this

study. This chapter will finally be summarized by a conclusion.

1.2 Background of Study

The history of English Language teaching and learning in Malaysia had started

way back before we achieved our independence, since the British Occupation in 1786.

Ever since then, the government has been implementing numerous new policies on the

teaching and learning of English since English Language is the official second language

in Malaysia; in which the latest initiative is the implementation of Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR).

Although these changes are relevant as the educational infrastructure is

constantly changing, it is also affecting the instructional methods used in teaching and

learning of language. The implementation of a new policy would have impacts on the

method and amount of exposure received by students towards the targeted language;

thus, contributes to the overall level of English proficiency of the students in Malaysia.

Therefore, the selection of policy and the method of implementation is vital to ensure

the objectives of a policy is achieved. One of the criteria for the interpretation of

successful policy implementation is defined by the extent it delivers functionality to the

target audience (Giacchino and Kakabadse, 2003).

CEFR is one of the components under the MBMMBI policy. MBMMBI stands

for ‘Memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia Memperkukuh Bahasa Inggeris’ or in English,

it is termed as ‘To Uphold Malay Language To Strengthen English Language’ policy.

According to Malaysian Education Blueprint (2015), MBMMBI is in line with its’

second shift that focuses on ensuring that every child is proficient in Malay Language

and English Language. One mean to achieve that shift is by upskilling the English

Language of teachers and expanding opportunities for greater exposure to English

Language.
 Besides the introduction of CEFR as an assessment tool, there are few other

programs introduced under this policy which are the Highly Immersive Program (HIP)

and the Dual Language Program (DLP).

According to Ministry of Education (2016) HIP is meant to promote the

exposure and application of English Language in school, especially out of the

classroom. Activities conducted under this initiative are prone to be conducted in a fun

and learning environment to help builds the confidence level of students to use the

language more frequently. Schools are provided with a toolkit to guide them plan more

purposeful activities based on their local context and capabilities. The success of HIP

will not be measured by academic KPI but based on positive behavioral changes and

participation in the school community because HIP is not meant to encourage exam-

based learning.

DLP on the other hand is an effort from the Ministry of Education to cater the

needs for the continuation of previous PPSMI policy. According to Ashairi, Yusoff

and Melor (2017) DLP offers more flexibility for the usage of preferred language of

instruction. The objective of DLP is to increase students’ marketability in the working

field by enabling them the access and exploration of knowledge. DLP also emphasizes

on the students’ enthusiasm and increases English Language contact hours that will

strengthen their command of the targeted language.

Previously, the policy implemented in our country was PPSMI which stands for

‘Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris’ or in

English, it is termed as ‘The Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in

English’. With the implementation of this policy, subjects such as Mathematics,

Science, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Modern Mathematics and Additional

Mathematics were taught in English. According to Nor and Aziz (2008), this policy was

introduced to enhance English Language proficiency of Malaysian Students by

increasing their exposure to English.

In 2009, MBMMBI was announced as the new policy replacing PPSMI which

was fully abolished in 2012. The implementation of PPSMI received a lot of feedbacks

and criticisms (Zaidi et al., 2011). According to Mohd Ayob (2010) the discrepancies

in the achievement of Science and Mathematics among the rural and urban students

were significantly different after the implementation of PPSMI. This is supported by

the findings of the study done by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (Kementerian

Pendidikan Malaysia, 2010). Therefore, MBMMBI was introduced to cater to these

shortcomings and as an effort to reform the educational system.

A new policy takes time to be fully implemented and considered successful.

Even if a policy implementation appears to be successful, Fullan (2000) points out that

there is no guarantee that success will last. In terms of the change process in schools,

there has been strong adoption and implementation, but not strong institutionalisation.

As any other policies, implementation is one vital factor in determining the success rate

of a policy. There are also teething issues that need to be dealt by the teachers and The

Ministry of Education. In order for MBMMBI to be successfully implemented, the

feedbacks from those affected by the policy need to be taken into consideration.

As the implementation of CEFR has begun to take place in 2018, there has been

numerous study on its implementation. Most of these studies were conducted to gain

teachers’ perspective as they are the one conducting the teaching and learning in

schools. In this study, the researcher attempts to gain insights from pre-service teachers

and figure out the challenges they faced with this new policy.
1.3 Statement of the Problem

According to English Language Roadmap 2015-2025 by the Ministry of

Education, the introduction of CEFR in Malaysia has started way back in 2013 with the

establishment of Language Standards and Quality Council (ELSQC) in 2013. ELSQC

has been working hand in hand with the English Language Teaching Center (ELTC) to

improve English Language proficiency of Malaysian students. ELSQC was the body

responsible for introducing CEFR to our national educational scene and they had

developed English Language Roadmap 2015-2025 for systematic reform of English

Language Education. The roadmap is a part of the implementation of Malaysian

Education Blueprint 2013-2025.

It took about five years for the council to prepare, reevaluate and refine

everything regarding the CEFR before it was officially implemented in 2018.

Concurrently, series of trainings and workshops related to CEFR are still conducted for

the teachers in order to ensure they are well-versed with the framework.

Since the introduction and implementation of CEFR is relatively new, it is

expected to have teething issues or unexpected issues along the process of its

implementation. Even ELSQC themselves addresses this issue. According to Zuraidah

and Mardziah (2019),

“Although the roadmap has been in the process of implementation for some
years, there have been some serious misunderstandings and much inaccurate
information about both it and the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR).”
 This is not surprising since CEFR is a top-down policy and according to the

statistics from Ministry of Education, there are approximately 41,676 English Language

option teachers in Malaysia. With the large number of teachers as the stakeholders,

misunderstandings and misconceptions are inevitable. Therefore, it is of utmost

important that a CEFR related study be conducted locally to address the awareness and

familiarity issues discussed earlier.

In the case of implementing CEFR, numerous researches have suggested that

teachers are not that well-versed with CEFR to use it as an assessment tool. Robinson,

et.all (2013) had carried out a study for Ministry of Education pertaining English

Language Educational Reform. In that study, the researchers find out that vast majority

of teachers achieved CEFR level B1 and above. Unfortunately, there is still a significant

number of teachers were found to be below minimum required level with speaking as

the weakest skill for most teachers. There is also a gap in performance between teachers

in urban and rural area. Therefore, there has been a proactive steps taken by the Ministry

of Education by making it compulsory for English teachers to achieve at least CEFR

level C1.

In a recent study conducted by Farehah (2018), it was revealed that most

teachers had very limited knowledge, minimum exposure and low level of awareness

on CEFR. On top of that, there are a few challenges identified by the researchers namely

teacher’s resistance, teachers’ English proficiency, usage of imported CEFR textbooks

and lack of adequate training.

 Another study conducted by Lo (2018) which involves of 200 secondary

schools English teachers showed that teachers have high level of concern and anxiety

towards the implementation of CEFR because of lack of information and uncertainty of

their roles in this newly introduced policy despite claiming they are familiar with the

concept of CEFR.

From these studies and reports, there are overlapping findings that proves that

there are still a lot of misconceptions and room for improvement in the implementation

of CEFR in Malaysia. Hence, the researcher had identified some gaps in the issue of

the implementation of CEFR. First, since CEFR is a new introduced policy, not much

research has been done on it especially in the local context. Therefore, more studies

need to be conducted in order to gain wider perspective regarding the issue of

implementation of CEFR. Second, most of the studies had identified issues in the

implementation of CEFR in their perspective context of studies but none had come out

with solid and inclusive means to overcome the issues.

Due to the gaps identified, it piques the researcher’s interest to study the

implementation of CEFR from a different perspective which is by gaining insights from

excellent teachers’ on the challenges faced in implementing CEFR and their approaches

used in overcoming it.

1.4 Research Objectives

1. To study the perception of excellent teachers on the implementation of CEFR.

2. To identify the approaches used by excellent teachers in implementing CEFR.

3. To identify the challenges faced by excellent teachers in implementing CEFR.

1.5 Research Questions

1. What ARE the perception of excellent teachers on the implementation of CEFR?

2. What are the approaches used by excellent teachers in implementing CEFR?

3. What are the challenges encountered by excellent teachers in implementing CEFR?

1.6 Significance of Study

The findings of this study will provide insights and challenges encountered by

teachers on the implementation of CEFR. Since our educational system is progressing

alongside the 21st century teaching and learning, various policies have been introduced

and implemented; which in this case, CEFR as an assessment tool.

Therefore, there is a demand for the teachers as the implementers of the policies

to be adaptive and familiar with the current educational policies. In the context of

Faculty of Education as one of the institution responsible for nurturing the future

teachers in the national educational field, the findings of the study will benefit the

faculty in term of revising the curriculum for courses related with CEFR such as

methodology courses. The management of the faculty can also take the data from this

study into account to improve the quality of the pre-service teachers when it comes to

the implementation of CEFR before they are sent to schools for practicum in order to

enhance their knowledge.

This study will also benefit the participants of this study which is the excellent

teachers as this study will provide them with a platform to share their approaches with

other English teachers within the area of the study. Nonetheless, it will benefit English

teachers who read this study as a supplementary reading because it will be sort of a

compilation of approaches used by excellent teachers in implementing CEFR.

1.7 Delimitations of Study

According to Simon (2011), the delimitations of study are the characteristics

that define the scope and boundaries of a study. Delimiting factors considered in this

study are the sample size and the location where this study was conducted.

As set by the researcher, the sample of this study is the excellent teachers due

to their experience and expertise. The specific and well-defined sampling method have

made it possible for the researcher to collect reliable data from the samples of study. In

order to provide deeper and meaningful insights, respondents will undergo semi-

structured interview sessions. This number is chosen by the researcher according to the

ability of the researcher to manage the complexity of the analytic task in conducting

and extracting information from the semi-structured interview sessions. This study will

be conducted in the Selangor which comprises ten districts. The location is chosen by

the researcher for the convenience of data collection process.

1.8 Limitations of Study

Limitations are the potential constraints or influences beyond the researcher’s

control (Simon, 2011). In this study, the researcher had identified two main limitations

which are resources and time constraints. In this section, these limitations will be

addressed and the measures taken by the researcher in order to deal with the limitations

will be discussed.

The first limitation is resources constraint. In the process of data collection, the

researcher need to conduct semi-structured interviews which requires the researcher to

distribute surveys and commute to the location of the respondents.

 Since this study is not under any grant, the researcher has a financial resource

constraint. Therefore, in order to overcome this limitation, the researcher uses online

platform via Google Forms in order to distribute surveys. As for the semi-structured

interviews, the researcher had set the boundary for the number of interviewees up to 10

or until the data has achieved a point of saturation where there is no new theme or data

appeared.

The second limitation is time constraint. The method used for the study must be

carefully selected in order to ensure this study is completed within time. In order to do

that, the researcher attempts to overcome this limitation by using purposive sampling

method which make the sample size specific; enabling the researcher to achieve

optimum number of samples.

1.9 Operational Definitions

The following terms are defined below and will be used for the purpose of the study.

1.9.1 Implementing

Implementing is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary (4TH edition), as the

carrying out, execution, or practice of a plan, a method, or any design, idea, model,

specification, standard or policy for doing something. In this study, the context

implementing is narrowed down to the implementation of educational policy,

specifically CEFR.
1.9.2 Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)

As defined by the Council of Europe (2011), CEFR is a framework published

by the Council of Europe in 2001 which describes language learner’s ability in terms

of speaking, reading, listening and writing at six reference levels. The six levels are

divided into three types of users which are called the proficient user, the independent

user or the basic user. In the context of this study, CEFR is seen in the perspective of

its implementation in our national educational system.

1.9.3 Insights

According to Dalton (2016), insight generally refers to the capacity to gain

accurate and deep understanding of something. Insight is an abstract and vast concept

of idea. Therefore, in the context of this study, insights focus on the perception of the

excellent teachers on the implementation of CEFR. It also focuses on the selection of

approaches used in implementing CEFR. Then, the challenges will be detailed out in

order to find the root of the problem in implementation of CEFR.

1.9.4 Excellent teachers

Excellence Teachers technically refer to an entitlement awarded by the Ministry

of Education as a career promotion to the outstanding teachers who really specialized

in certain subjects without having to be submitted into administration posts. In Malay

Language, it is termed as ‘Guru Cemerlang’. The concept of Excellent Teacher came

from a memorandum endorsed by the Cabinet in 1994 entitled “Promotion System in

Educational Service: An Excellent Proposal” which was proposed in 1993. (Ministry

of Education, 1994)
 This is implemented as an effort to maintain highly motivated, expert and

experienced teachers in their specific subjects in order to strengthen the process of

teaching and learning in school. The implementation of Excellent Teachers also serves

as a catalyst for a school to boost their academic performance and set role models to

the teachers as well. In the context of this study, excellent teachers are referred to the

English Language Excellent Teachers whom are considered the experts in teaching

English Language subject. Therefore, they would be able to provide deeper and richer

insights on the subject-matter of this study.

1.10 Conclusion

This chapter highlights the important features of the study namely the

background of the study, problem statement, research objectives and questions,

significance, and limitations of the study. The operational terms are also defined in this

chapter as well.
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter will introduce and provide an overview of the CEFR. Then, introduction

of CEFR in our national educational system will be elaborated. In order to set

comparisons with other countries that implemented CEFR as well, literature study was

conducted to identify the process of implementation of these other countries. Next, a

literature review of previous studies pertaining CEFR is discussed. Finally, this chapter

is summarized by a conclusion.

2.2 Overview of CEFR

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages or CEFR was

formulated by Council of Europe in 2001 and designed to establish international

standards for foreign language education to cater to the needs of language learners as

well as academics and other professions related to assessment, teaching and learning

of languages. CEFR describes quite thoroughly what language learners are required to

accomplish to communicate using a language. Additionally, it provides a sound basis

for mutual recognition of language qualifications and assists learners, teachers, course

designers, examining bodies and educational administrators to situate and co-ordinate

their efforts by using this universally recognized framework.

The framework has six levels of descriptors which are used to categorize learners’

ability to use a language. Language users are clustered into three main groups:

Proficient users (levels C1 & C2), Independent users (levels B1 & B2) and Basic users

(levels A1 &

A2). Detailed descriptors of what learners are able to do are known as the “can do”

statements for listening, writing, readings and speaking skills.

Table 1: CEFR descriptors

2.3 Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia

Encapsulating the implementation of CEFR in Malaysian Education Blueprint

is the tremendous effort made by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to achieve optimum

delivery of CEFR-aligned English curriculum. A series of initiatives are prompted to

match the quintessence of the English Language Education Reform in Malaysia, The

Roadmap 2015-2025. Towards attaining a compatible and internationally aligned

curriculum, a number of significant key points are inextricably linked such as the

teaching and learning materials, pedagogy and assessment.

It takes a gradual change to put CEFR into practice. A study by Mohamad Uri

and Abd Aziz (2018) outlines the presence of CEFR in Malaysia chronologically, with

the establishment of ELSQC, the English Language Standards and Quality Council in

2013, followed by a Roadmap developed in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-

2025. To add, the Roadmap entails a development program of three phases in which

the Phase 1 had taken place from 2013 to 2015 primarily addressing the preparation to

develop CEFR descriptors, distinctive educational level target and the role building.

Phase 2, dated 2015 to 2017 presents the efforts made in the continuation of the setting

changes ranging from the pre-school and even to the teacher education. The last phase

is subjected for the review, revision and the evaluation of CEFR in previous phases by

the Council.

Adopting CEFR in Malaysia could offer the English education in Malaysia a

formidable excellency. Based on the Roadmap 2015-2025, it confirms that the

relevancy of employing the framework reference is justifiable due to “the need for

international standards, benchmarking and alignment” (English Language Standards

and Quality Council, 2013, p.62)

 The endorsement of CEFR has been announced by the Ministry of Education

Malaysia through “Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia Bil. 6

Tahun 2017”. This marks the beginning of the implementation of CEFR in Malaysian

education system.

In addition, according to CEFR English Language Handbook for Secondary

School Teachers, it is apparent that the obligation is on the teachers to align and adapt

their resources at hand to the CEFR. The usage of existing resources available which

are developed to support the implementation of English curriculum will now be further

expanded to exercise their capacity in CEFR-aligned teaching and learning. In light of

the gist of the handbook which is the English Form One Textbook, the implementation

of CEFR in local education setting are seen in pertinent insights included in the

textbook which are the “Note for Teachers”, “Suggested Activities” and competency

key sets as in the “Can Do Descriptor”. Hence, these illustrate some of the

commendable efforts proving the significant presence of the framework reference in

our education system.

2.4 Previous Studies on the Implementation of CEFR in Other Countries

Common European Framework Reference for languages or CEFR has been

adopted in many countries and there are lots of CEFR related studies that have been

conducted by scholars covering many areas. Some studies involved in seeking out

views on the acceptance and responses on the use of CEFR. Others were more

interested in investigating teachers’ awareness and there were also studies pertaining

to textbooks, curricula, and teaching practices.

 Celik (2013) for example investigated the views of Turkish teachers concerning

plura-lingual and plura-cultural competence related to CEFR. This study focuses on

determining whether foreign language teachers in Turkish schools were aware of these

issues, understood the implications and made efforts to incorporate them in their

teachings.

There are also studies which attempt to describe language teachers’ as well as

students’ views on the use of CEFR in Australia and other countries (Ilin 2014,

Marconnet & Bianco 2013, Kir & Sulu 2014). A review of related literature indicates

there are also studies related to CEFR based programs and curricula. For instance, there

was a study to investigate whether the new ELTE curriculum promotes prospective

EFL teachers’ awareness of CEFR by Hismanoglu (2013). In Canada, Faez, Taylor,

Brown and

Majhanovich (2011) were keen in examining teachers’ perspectives of the role

that CEFR might play in improving language learning outcomes related to French

programs.

Similarly, there is also a study to determine opinions, expectations and

suggestions of secondary school teachers on a program developed based on CEFR

(Yuksel & Demiral 2013). Papageorgiou (2010) on the other hand did a study with a

different objective. Instead of asking teachers’ views, he was more interested in

exploring the teachers or referred to as the judges in decision- making process in the

CEFR standard setting context.

 Researchers also go beyond teachers’ and students’ views on CEFR, a study by

Nagai and O’Dwyer (2011) conducted in Japan focuses on examining how CEFR has

been applied in language education, demonstrating positive impacts as well as

difficulties and potential problems.

Three years later, O’ Dwyer conducted another study in 2014 with the objective

of providing critical but constructive assessment and discusses principles as well as

practices on the implementation of CEFR in textbooks, curricula and teaching

practices. Gaynor et al. (2011) conducted a study to find out the reasons behind

materials use, how these materials are assessed and also the creation of an e- learning

system using CEFR.

CEFR is now a familiar concept to many leading Asia countries such as Japan,

Taiwan, Hong Kong, China and Korea because these countries have adopted this

framework years ago. In Taiwan, CEFR was mapped against several English

proficiency tests such as General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). IELTS, TOEFL

and TOEIC. Japan has used CEFR comprehensively in teaching and learning,

curriculum development as well assessments. It has also modified the CEFR global

scale known as CEFR-J quite extensively to ensure that the framework fits its local

contexts.

In another study by Bucar et al. (2014), the objective was to review the reception

and applications of CEFR by Japanese linguists, language- education specialists and

institutions. Wu and Wu (2012) conducted a study in the Taiwanese context with three

main objectives: 1) to review how English language tests have been applied in CEFR

contexts, 2) to describe new challenges and responsibilities faced by local exam boards

in helping to improve stakeholders’ understanding of tests and CEFR, 3) to present a

report on the experience of GEPT exam boards in aligning the test with CEFR.
 CEFR influence has also reached South East Asian nations with Vietnam being

the first South East Asian country to adopt it in its education system. A study conducted

by Nguyen and Hamid (2015) attempted to understand the reception, interpretation and

response of key stakeholders in the process of enacting CEFR in Vietnam public

universities. According to Maxwell (2015) the adoption of CEFR into the teaching of

English is given enormous attention and investment by the Thai government who wants

to improve the level of English proficiency among the Thais.

2.5 Previous Studies related the Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia

Since the introduction and implementation of CEFR is relatively new, it is

expected to have teething issues or unexpected issues along the process of its

implementation. Even ELQC themselves addresses this issue. According to Zuraidah

and Mardziah (2019),

“Although the roadmap has been in the process of implementation for some years, there

have been some serious misunderstandings and much inaccurate information about

both it and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).”

This is not surprising since CEFR is a top-down policy and according to the

statistics from Ministry of Education, there are approximately 41,676 English

Language option teachers in Malaysia. With the large number of teachers as the

stakeholders, misunderstandings and misconceptions are inevitable. Therefore, it is of

utmost important that a CEFR related study be conducted locally to address the

awareness and familiarity issues discussed earlier.

 In the case of implementing CEFR, numerous researches have suggested that

teachers are not that well-versed with CEFR to use it as an assessment tool. Robinson,

et.all (2013) had carried out a study for Ministry of Education pertaining English

Language Educational Reform. In that study, the researchers find out that vast majority

of teachers achieved CEFR level B1 and above. Unfortunately, there is still a significant

number of teachers were found to be below minimum required level with speaking as

the weakest skill for most teachers. There is also a gap in performance between teachers

in urban and rural area. Therefore, there has been a proactive steps taken by the

Ministry of Education by making it compulsory for English teachers to achieve at least

CEFR level C1.

In a recent study conducted by Farehah (2018), it was revealed that most

teachers had very limited knowledge, minimum exposure and low level of awareness

on CEFR. On top of that, there are a few challenges identified by the researchers

namely teacher’s resistance, teachers’ English proficiency, usage of imported CEFR

textbooks and lack of

adequate training.

Another study conducted by Lo (2018) which involves of 200 secondary

schools English teachers showed that teachers have high level of concern and anxiety

towards the implementation of CEFR because of lack of information and uncertainty

of their roles in this newly introduced policy despite claiming they are familiar with the

concept of CEFR.
 From these studies and reports, there are overlapping findings that shows there

are still a lot of misconceptions and room for improvement in the implementation of

CEFR in Malaysia. Therefore, more studies need to be conducted in order to gain wider

perspective regarding the issue of implementation of CEFR.

2.6 Conclusion

This chapter had reviewed numerous literature and provided grounds for

discussions of the findings. By reading the literature review, it helped the readers to

grasp the idea and concept of CEFR. The method of this study will be stated and

discussed in the next chapter.

 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter will provide an overview of the method used to conduct this study.

The Research Design section will discuss on the approach taken in this study which is

the mixed method approach. Next, the selection of target population and the sampling

procedure will be justified in Research Population and Sample. Then, the Research

Instrumentation will describe the instruments used in this study and how it was

developed. Furthermore, a detailed description of the exact steps taken to contact

participants, obtain cooperation and administer instruments will be given in the Data

Collection. After that, Data Analysis will cover on how the data is analyzed. The Ethics

section will briefly deliberate on how the consent and secrecy of samples are protected.

Finally, this chapter will be summarized by a conclusion.

3.2 Research Design

This study applied qualitative study design.

3.3 Research Population and Sampling

Population English language excellence teacher

15

Sampling method
3.4 Research Instrumentation

There are two instruments used in this study which are semi-structured

interview and classroom observation.

3.4.2 Semi-structured Interviews

According to Bernard (1998), semi-structured interviews provide clear sets of

instruction for the interviewers and able to provide reliable data. It is less rigid and

provide the opportunity to identify new perspective of seeing and understanding an

issue.

In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the excellence

teachers in order to gain deeper insights on the implementation of CEFR and the

challenges faced in implementing CEFR during their practicum period. 7 pre-services

teachers were chosen randomly for this semi-structured interviews. This number is

equivalent to 10% of the overall research population. It was chosen by the researcher

according to the ability of the researcher to manage the complexity of the analytic task

in conducting and extracting information from the semi-structured interview sessions.

This semi-structured interviews will be conducted until it fulfills the targeted number

of interviewees or until the data has achieved a point of saturation where there is no

new theme or data appeared.

3.5 Reliability and Validity

In order to gain comprehensive findings in this study, it is vital for the

researcher to ensure the validity and reliability of the instruments used in this study.

According to Bollen (1989), validity refers to the capability of the instrument to

measure what is intended to be measured and reliability refers to the consistency of

what is measures by the instrument.

For the questionnaire, it was adapted from a few sources which has been

obtained with the consent of the questionnaire developers. All of the questionnaires

chosen to be adapted has been validated by the respective researchers. After the

adaptation process, the questionnaire is reviewed by a content expert which is a senior

lecturer from Faculty of Education of UiTM. After the questionnaire has been

reviewed, necessary changes have been made according to the feedback received by

the content expert before it was endorsed. Then only the questionnaire was distributed

to the respondents.

The same approach was used for the questions for the semi-structured

interviews. The questions have been thoroughly refined in order to ensure the data from

the semi-structured interviews is in line with the research objectives and able to answer

the research objectives. The interview questions are the extension of the questionnaire

and it has been validated by a content expert who is a TESL senior lecturer in the

Faculty of Education UiTM. After the questions were endorsed, then only the

researcher proceeded with the semi-structured interview sessions.

3.6 Data Collection

This study applied both quantitative and qualitative method. Therefore,

different instruments were used and so does the administration process. In order to gain

quantitative data, questionnaire was used. The distribution of questionnaires was

carried out using online platform, which is Survey Monkey.

The reason the researcher chose Survey Monkey to distribute questionnaires are

justified due to its convenience features for both the respondents and the researcher.
Survey Monkey enables the questionnaires to be distributed online and the respondents

can answer them anywhere via their smartphones or gadget; thus making it easy and

promote better responds from the audience. In addition, Survey Monkey enables the

researcher to transfer the results into statistical data which counters the drawback of

printed questionnaire which requires laborious process in distributing the questionnaire

and analyzing the data.

Meanwhile, in order to gain qualitative data, semi-structured interviews were

conducted with 7 respondents who answered the questionnaire. The number of

respondents chosen for the semi-structured interviews justified 10% of the samples of

this study. The researcher contacted the interviewees via phone calls to set up the

interview sessions. The interviews were then conducted face-to-face.

The researcher decided to conduct the semi-structured interviews despite the

constraints of resources and availability of other method due to the fact that there are

some non-verbal cues that can only be captured in a face-to-face interview (Steber,

2016).

3.7 Data Analysis

The data collected from the questionnaire in this study was analyzed via Survey

Monkey. The research questions will be answered using the descriptive statistics gained

from the data. Descriptive statistics is used to summarize the data for different purposes

such as finding out the mean, mode, median, standard deviation or percentage of the

samples in the study. The questionnaire has been arranged according to research

questions to make analysis easier.

 The data collected from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed using

thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is the process of identifying patterns or themes

within qualitative data. Unlike many qualitative methodologies, it is not tied to a

particular epistemological or theoretical perspective. This makes it a very flexible

method, a considerable advantage given the diversity of work in learning and teaching.

(Braun & Clarke 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2013). The process of analyzing the data is

further explained in the diagram below:

Diagram 1: Data Collection Process

Data Collection

Semi-structured interview sessions were conducted.

Data Analysis

Data was being reviewed immediately for themes or pattern.

Data Reduction

Identify and focus on meaningful data only to reduce

and transform raw data.

Data Grouping

Data is grouped directly into themes evolved from the research questions
 as pre-set by the researcher before the data collection began.

Data Display

Data is assembled, organized and compressed into a display

that facilitates conclusion drawing

Drawing Conclusion

Researcher take a step back and interpret what all the findings mean

to determine how it will help to answer research question.

Lastly, in order to integrate the data from both methods, a convergent design is used.

According to Creswell (2015), a convergent design requires the researcher to collect

both quantitative and qualitative data, analyze both sets of data and then merge the

results of both data with the purpose of comparing or validating the results. This way,

the researcher is able to identify pattern or contradiction better which allows for further

synthetization of findings. The procedures of using this design is further explained in

the diagram below:

Diagram 2: Convergent Design

3.8 Ethics

The participation for this study is completely voluntary but since the sample population

is very specific, the researcher was able to approach and reach the targeted respondents.

For the questionnaire, the respondents were required to click on the beginning of the

questionnaire, a section of informed consent stating the information given in the

questionnaire will be used for academic purposes only. The respondents will remain

anonymous as no identification is required. In Part A of the questionnaire which is the

Demographic Information, the information asked only to be used as a measure to make

sure the respondents adhere to the criteria of respondents set by the researcher.

As for the semi-structured interviews, the researcher would explain to the interviewees

that the interview session would be voice recorded and then the findings would be used

for academic purposes only. After the interviewees had given his or her verbal consent,

then only the researcher would proceed with the interview session. This was done in

order to gain permission from the interviewee and to ensure all the information given

by the interviewee is legitimate to be used and published. After the interview session,

the transcription from the interviews were shown the interviewees. Pseudonyms such

as Respondent 1 and Lecturer 2 are used as a substitution for interviewees’ name in

order to preserve the identity of the respondents.

3.9 Conclusion

This chapter had discussed and justified the research methodology used by the

researcher to conduct the study. All the data from both questionnaire and semi-

structured interviews will be presented in the next chapter.