Content uploaded by Farah Hussan Sahib
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Farah Hussan Sahib on Nov 13, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/publication-ethics
The Impact of Implementing the Common European
Framework of Reference on Language Education: A Critical
Review
Farah Hussan Sahib and Mahani Stapa
To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i11/11160 DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i11/11160
Received: 08 September 2021, Revised: 28 September 2021, Accepted: 15 October 2021
Published Online: 02 November 2021
In-Text Citation: (Sahib & Stapa, 2021)
To Cite this Article: Sahib, F. H., & Stapa, M. (2021). The Impact of Implementing the Common European
Framework of Reference on Language Education: A Critical Review. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(11), 644 – 660.
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute,
translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen
at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, Pg. 644 – 660
http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/IJARBSS
JOURNAL HOMEPAGE
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
The Impact of Implementing the Common
European Framework of Reference on Language
Education: A Critical Review
1Farah Hussan Sahib and 2Mahani Stapa
1,2Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 1Centre of
Fundamental and Continuing Education, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
Abstract
Since its inception in 2001, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR) has been employed worldwide as an international standard for teaching and learning
languages. The framework was established to provide a mutual basis for language proficiency
comprising language curriculum, reference materials, and assessments adopted globally.
Despite gaining fame in the contemporary teaching and learning arena, the depth of the
various dimensions of its impact on language classroom pedagogy at the school level is yet to
be explored. Thus, this systematic review is aimed to investigate the implementation of CEFR
in schools and its impact on language education. The review methodology involved the
identification of the relevant literature, the filtering of articles, and the evaluation of the
quality of the articles based on pre-determined criteria. The analysis revealed that teachers
and students perceive the CEFR positively. The framework had positive impacts on the
students' learning process but had more adverse effects on the teachers. The review
identified major themes such as the dynamics of teaching and learning of the language,
teachers’ understanding and reception, students’ achievements of learning outcomes, the
efficacy of classroom assessments and teachers’ professional development which are
critically discussed.
Keywords: Common European Framework of Reference, CEFR, Language Education, Impact,
Classroom Implementation.
Introduction
Since the twentieth century, scholars and language specialists have been striving to explain
the importance of learning languages and how they could be invoked and synthesised into
teaching, learning and assessment. The aftermath of the Second World War and the Korean
War that led to the rise of global disputes enabled people to learn foreign languages to
partake in human interactions such as financial activities and disseminating information
(Figueras, 2012). In today’s world, acquiring a new language has become a common trend
that is increasingly significant due to the pervasive role that language education holds
globally. Various approaches have been identified for people to learn foreign languages,
either through formal education, a classroom environment or informal education. However,
it is crucial to recognise a range of mastery levels along the learning spectrum for individuals
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
to be eligible for learning languages. Hence, to address a common and universal ground in
language education, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), a language
policy document initiated by the Council of Europe in the 1970s (Council of Europe, 2001), is
utilised. It was established as a coherent and comprehensive reference tool for teachers,
language testers, publishers and policymakers concerning language learning, teaching and
assessment.
Since its introduction in 2001, there has been an exponential increase in the adoption of the
framework in Europe, while also being prominently accepted in numerous countries
worldwide (Byram & Parmenter, 2012). To date, the CEFR policy document has been
translated into 40 languages, most of which are Indo-European, with the recent addition of
Chinese, Korean, and Japanese versions (Nguyen & Hamid, 2020). The assimilation of the
framework into many languages was due to its distinctive goal to stimulate reflection on
current language practises worldwide by providing a common reference level to facilitate
communication, compare courses and qualifications, and eventually improve personal
mobility as a result (North, 2014). Ultimately, the framework was employed to achieve a
mutual calibration of standards among all users that can be achieved through the use of its
universal scale. The framework proposes six consecutive levels of language proficiency to
mainly measure users’ language ability: A1 and A2 (Basic), BI and B2 (Independent), as well as
C1 and C2 (Proficient). Further, the CEFR level descriptors, also known as ‘Can Do’ descriptors,
define what learners can do in reading, listening, speaking, writing, and a wide range of
language abilities at different proficiency levels (Council of Europe, 2001). This illustrative
scale has become the most important feature of the CEFR (Little, 2007).
Although the CEFR does not prescribe specific pedagogical approaches with regards to
teaching and learning (Council of Europe, 2001), a study by Moonen et al. (2013) revealed
that it endorsed an action-oriented approach to foreign language education with precise
attention on what learners ’Can Do’ in the second language (L2). In this vein, teachers’
classroom instruction in language teaching is aligned towards a communicative and
competence-based approach. According to Little (2007), the process of embracing the
framework into any educational context involves a transmission of pedagogic routine to
transfer curriculum, teaching, learning, and assessment elements into a dynamic interface
with one another. Throughout this process, a substantial impact is produced in several
domains such as assessment, teacher education, curriculum design and pedagogy (Little,
2006). Though the impacts of CEFR have been documented by Figueras (2012), her review,
however, does not adequately address the use of CEFR by teachers and students and the
implication of the framework in language classroom instruction, especially at the school-
based level. Thus, this paper attempts to bridge this gap by critically reviewing the
implementation of the CEFR in language education to gain an in-depth understanding of the
real language instructional context. Additionally, it also investigates the potential and actual
impacts of embracing CEFR in the foreign language curriculum at the school level.
Research Questions
This paper aims to answer the following research questions:
1. How is the CEFR used for language education at the school level?
2. What are the impacts of adopting the CEFR at the school level?
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Methodology
An extensive literature review was performed to determine the impact of language teaching
and learning via the CEFR at the school level. This critical review focuses only on the
employment of CEFR in language education at school, thus only published papers that provide
original and empirical meta-analysis that focussed its implementation on school teachers and
students were selected. The terms [CEFR and impacts], [CEFR and implementation], [CEFR
and teaching practice], and [CEFR] were used to search in the title, abstracts or keywords. In
addition, various search engines were utilised to search for the documents, such as Google
Scholar, Scopus, ERIC, JSTOR, SAGE Journal, Science Direct, Taylor & Francis Online, and Web
of Science. The period selected for the literature search was from 2002 to 2021 so that the
dynamics that influenced the innovations in CEFR adoption can be identified. The researchers
chose papers produced in the indicated year as a result of the Council of Europe's creation of
the CEFR document, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment, in 2001. For the selection of the articles, the titles and the abstracts
were carefully read, and articles that were linked to the research questions were eventually
selected. The search revealed that the majority of the papers were classified under the
execution of CEFR in different domains such as university entrance policies and tests,
professional job demand, and citizenship requirements. Since this study's focus is to analyse
the implementation of CEFR in the sphere of language education for schools, the initial output
from the electronic search was further screened and filtered. Finally, thirty papers that
matched the requirements of this study, which is to review the execution of CEFR in language
teaching, learning, and assessment in the school curriculum, were chosen for a critical
analysis.
Results and Discussion
The findings from the critical review and analysis are elaborated in detail hereafter. Table 1
demonstrates the results of the critical review conducted. Analysis from Table 1 exhibits that
most studies show that teachers and students held positive views towards the use of CEFR,
but the impacts were greater on the teachers. Further analysis indicates that teachers
experienced more difficulties in embracing the framework since they are required to not only
familiarise themselves with the characteristics of the CEFR, but are accountable to
incorporate the framework into their everyday pedagogical routines. These reasons reflected
teachers’ need for continuous support and CEFR-related training to enhance their
understanding, instructional approach, and classroom assessment. Table 1 below
summarises the implementation of the CEFR at school level.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Table 1: The reviews on the implementation of the CEFR in schools
Author
Research Domain
Results
Jaakkola, Viita-
Leskelä, Sävy &
Komsi (2002)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Students had positive learning strategies and
attitudes, were aware of learning vocabulary,
and used self-directed lifelong learning.
Moe (2005)
CEFR standard setting
70% of students have a reading ability above B1
in English, and about 50% of them are expected
to have B2 ability.
Oscarson &
Oscarson (2010)
CEFR-related concepts
and materials
Students developed an increased awareness of
the curricular goals with enhanced learning
motivation.
Mison & Jang
(2011)
Classroom assessment
Teachers revealed the assessment format to the
students ahead of time.
Teachers avoided the use of L1 in the teaching of
the target language.
Faez, Majhanovic,
Taylor, Smith &
Crowley (2011)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Enhanced students’ autonomy, motivation, and
self-confidence.
Promoted real and authentic use of the language
in the classroom and developed oral language
ability.
Faez, Taylor
Majhanovich &
Brown (2011)
Task-based approach
Students abilities using task-based activities were
much higher which brought positive results in FSL
classrooms.
Celik (2013)
Plurilingualism and
pluriculturalism
Teachers possessed little knowledge.
Individual effort was noted as a key element in
promoting intercultural competence.
Hasselgreen
(2013)
Classroom assessment
A scale of descriptors adapted from the CEFR
plays a central role in written assessment.
The student understood the competency
criteria/standard.
Moonen et al.
(2013)
Teachers’ education
and assessment
practise
Teachers have a neutral or positive attitude
towards CEFR but cannot be readily put to use in
the classroom due to limited teaching resources
and teachers’ vague ideas of the CEFR.
Kir & Sulu (2014)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Teachers had positive views on adopting and
adapting the CEFR, but less attention was given
to the cultural aspects.
Simon & Copaerts
(2015)
Language testing
Teachers responded positively, but they viewed
practicality and the degree of detail as less
important.
Franz & Teo (2017)
Teacher Cognition
Teachers had limited English proficiency and
viewed CEFR as a test.
Instead of rejecting the CEFR, teachers showed
resentment.
CEFR had no impact on classroom teaching.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Author
Research Domain
Results
Rehner (2017)
Professional
development
Drastic improvements in the preparation and use
of action-oriented activities and authentic
contexts following training sessions for teachers.
Ishak & Mohamad
(2018)
Literacy skills in
reading and writing
Despite the application of CEFR to improve
students' language skills, the understanding of
the value of the language was still low, leading to
higher chances of failures.
Lo (2018)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Teachers were familiar with the CEFR innovation
but focussed mainly on themselves and task-
related issues.
They were more geared towards planning
instructions and their routine of teaching and
learning.
Sidhu, Kaur & Lee
(2018)
Classroom assessment
Teachers had a limited understanding of the
CEFR-aligned ESL curriculum and showed a
preference for using traditional assessment tools.
There was little evidence of peer and self-
assessment required for developing autonomous
learners.
Uri & Abd Aziz
(2018)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Teachers’ poor understanding and inadequate
exposure to CEFR could be the reason for their
reluctance to embrace and integrate the
framework.
Johar & Aziz (2019)
English language
textbook
Pulse 2 has a good, catchy and attractive layout
and appearance.
Teachers could apply various methodologies in
English language teaching when using Pulse 2 to
vary the activities.
Krishnan & Yunus
(2019)
Blended learning
Blended learning in learning CEFR English among
low proficient students increased their
knowledge of terminology, language
components of understanding sentence
structures while encouraging autonomous
learning and empowering them to exploit their
ICT skills as well.
Kok & Aziz (2019)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Teachers were familiar with the CEFR-aligned
curriculum where it helped them to plan lessons
and set objectives effectively.
It created a positive, student-centred
environment that had a positive implication
towards their students’ learning process.
Diez-Bedmar &
Byram (2019)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Teachers had a poor understanding of the CEFR,
driven by their own experience as students and
their training as teachers.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Author
Research Domain
Results
Lee & Kassim
(2019)
CEFR-aligned
assessment tool
Teachers had an insufficient understanding of
assessment standards and types of CEFR-aligned
assessments that can be used (63.33%).
They had ample knowledge of ICT use for CEFR-
aligned assessments (73.33%).
However, 80% of the respondents still heavily
rely on a textbook when developing students’
proficiency.
Uri & Abd Aziz
(2019)
Assessment of reading
and writing
The teachers proved that they were aware of the
target level set by the ministry when they
suggested that the CEFR level that matches the
target CEFR level.
Yuci & Mirici
(2019)
Proficiency
descriptors and
educational principles
During implementations, the EFL programme
conforms to students' language levels and
demands, while teachers face challenges due to
course materials and insufficient class hours.
Alih, Md. Yusoff &
Abdul Raof (2020)
Assessment,
curriculum, teaching
and learning
Teachers had a sufficient understanding of the
CEFR level but did not comprehend its function
completely.
They needed more training and support in terms
of implementing the CEFR for assessment and
pedagogical approach.
Uri & Abd Aziz
(2020)
Reading syllabus
specifications
Teachers had a greater understanding of the
CEFR-alignment process since they could suggest
suitable CEFR level to reading syllabus
specifications.
Alih, Abdul Raof &
Md Yusof (2021)
CEFR in English
language policy
Although teachers were emotionally prepared to
accept change, the study found that their
cognitive preparation for change is influenced by
three key factors: time, collective effort, and
adequate materials.
Rehner, Lasan,
Popovich & Palta
(2021)
Teachers’ professional
development
Their professional development prompted them
to begin delivering language in speech acts and in
response to students' demands, to emphasise
not just linguistic but also sociolinguistics and
pragmatic competence, and to place a greater
emphasis on students' ability to interact in the
foreign language.
Shin & Yunus
(2021)
Speaking skills
Primary school students in a CEFR classroom
were enthusiastic about using Flipgrid to improve
their English-speaking skills.
Ng & Ahmad
(2021)
Teachers’ knowledge
and Practice
There was a strong relationship between
teachers’ knowledge and practice of the CEFR-
aligned English curriculum.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Author
Research Domain
Results
Teachers’ knowledge and practice were
moderate.
The Dynamic of Language Teaching and Learning
Generally, the CEFR does not stipulate any specific teaching approaches, but it advocates
communicative strategies in teaching and learning languages, specifically, an action-oriented
approach (Piccardo & North, 2019). This approach views learners and users of a language as
‘social agents’, or i.e., members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related)
to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment, and within a
particular field of action (Council of Europe, 2001, p.9). Little (2006) claims that the action-
oriented approach is comparable to a task-based approach where learners perform
communicative language activities through any task-specific mechanisms to obtain a
targetted objective or result. In this study, both teachers and students perceive the CEFR
positively and acknowledge its implications for the language classroom. This finding agrees
with a study conducted by Faez et al (2011) that explored secondary school teachers’
perspectives on CEFR task-based approaches for improving learning in French as a Second
Language (FSL) classroom in Canada. They revealed that the teachers were generally
optimistic about the communicative teaching and learner-centred instruction stimulated by
the task-based approach of the CEFR. Teachers also claimed that students’ abilities were
found to be significantly increased by using task-based activities, which offers positive
reinforcement at their language proficiency level.
Nevertheless, teachers needed continuous support from all parties, such as colleagues and
educational authorities (Alih et al., 2020), and a coherent pedagogical standard for
implementing task-based approaches to improve their instructional practice. This is because
they often encounter challenges in understanding and applying the abstract principles of CEFR
without a concrete and lucid exemplar (Mison & Jang, 2011). The inclusion of specific
examples of teaching approaches and the actual use of teaching and learning materials should
be included as part of the CEFR-related training module for teachers to obtain greater insight
into the assimilation of the framework. Furthermore, it is advocated that teachers who
consistently attend umpteen continuous training will effectively enact the CEFR in their
language classroom instructions.
However, the enactment of the framework in foreign language education raises a huge
concern, particularly when it was reported to show no impact on classroom teaching (Franz
& Teo, 2017). As such, there is immense distress that the adoption of CEFR in language policy
will eventually disappear due to its ineffectiveness. This could possibly be prevented if
teachers’ coherent use of the CEFR in classroom pedagogy was accomplished with a sufficient
amount of training and appropriate teaching and learning materials. In relation to the
teaching and learning materials, a study by Johar and Aziz (2019) in the Malaysian secondary
education scene highlighted that the imported textbook that learners use in their English as
a second language (ESL) classroom was captivating and motivating due to its catchy and
interactive appearance. The textbook, Pulse 2, published by Cambridge University Press,
inspired teachers to be more resourceful in teaching language with various interactive
activities that engaged learners and encouraged their participation in classrooms. The
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
textbook was also noted to be aligned to the CEFR principles with careful consideration of the
writing, speaking, reading and listening activities.
Nevertheless, although employing the textbook prescribed by the Ministry of Education in
Malaysia is the safest way for teachers to comply with the CEFR-aligned curriculum (Alih et
al., 2020), the textbook's foreign elements have become the utmost concern in learners’
language acquisition, especially among the low achievers. While researchers agree that the
substance of the textbook should yield positive outcomes from learners, they also claim that
it incorporates unwarranted foreign culture and environment, the lexical items are perplexed
and the content arrangement of the textbook is mismatched with the applied curriculum and
scheme of work (Ishak & Mohamad, 2018). For instance, topics such as 'Halloween', the idea
of 'going to the bar after work' and other subjects that showcase the 'grandeur' of western
culture were considered inappropriate in the Asian context and not reflecting their national
identity (Star, 2018). Hence, the major concern posed by the teachers about the textbook
prescribed by the ministry is primarily about the contextualization (Nawawi et al., 2021). It is
imperative to state that the issue of contextualization in the CEFR teaching and learning
resources contributes to complexity between learners’ understanding of the content and
foreign language, which eventually generates more difficulties for them in the process of
acquiring the target language.
Teachers’ Understanding and Receptions
Undoubtedly, teachers play a significant role in any curriculum implementation effort as they
carry huge responsibilities to ensure a programme's efficacy. At the infancy stage of new
curriculum implementation, teachers are required to understand and become familiar with
the anticipated ideas, goals, and objectives to ensure that the expected result is achieved.
Ideally, teachers’ perspectives on the CEFR adoption may help shed light on the actual
scenario that fosters or hinders the implementation of the CEFR in a language classroom.
Their receptive response may also help to elucidate the hurdles, deficiencies or affirmative
implications associated with the enactment of CEFR. Since its introduction, teachers’
reception, knowledge and understanding of the nature of CEFR have substantially diverged.
The majority of them hold positive views on the employment of the framework (Kir & Sulu,
2014; Simon & Copaerts, 2015) because they are familiar with the CEFR innovation (Kok &
Aziz, 2019; Lo, 2018) and possess adequate knowledge of the CEFR levels (Alih et al., 2020).
On the other hand, some of them reported having indistinct ideas of the CEFR (Diez-Bedmar
& Byram, 2019; Moonen, 2013) that might lead to unfavourable situations such as resistance
and hesitation to incorporate CEFR into classroom pedagogy (Foley, 2021). In reality, teachers
also perceive CEFR as a type of ‘test’ and they strongly believe it will soon be eliminated from
the education system (Franz & Teo, 2017). However, in order to prevent refutations among
teachers and to avoid the rapid removal of the CEFR from the national curriculum, they should
receive constant support from educational authorities.
In the Malaysia English language education scene, Uri and Abd Aziz (2018) reported that
although at the introduction stage of CEFR, secondary school teachers generally had limited
understanding and minimum exposure to the framework, they eventually showed positive
progress. Within a short time, they proved to have gained a greater understanding of the
CEFR-alignment process as they were able to suggest suitable CEFR levels to reading and
writing syllabus specifications (Uri & Abd Aziz, 2020). It should be noted that eliciting voices
from language teachers may offer possible dogma and variables that lead to the resentment,
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
rejection or approval of the CEFR. Thus, this provides an increased understanding of the
outstanding impacts of the CEFR in classrooms.
Encouraging Student Learning Outcome
Based on the review, the students were found to have a positive impact on their attitudes
towards learning English via the CEFR. Despite the huge impact it has on the processes, it has
also influenced students’ language performance. The establishment of CEFR was aimed at
students’ having the ability to learn the diverse components of a particular language, such as
‘language and communication awareness, general phonetic skills, study skills, and heuristic
skills’ (Council of Europe, 2001, pp.106-107). These components enable them to assimilate
more effectively with new language learning challenges and maximise their opportunities. In
regards to the learning outcomes, Waluyo (2020) conducted a study among Thai students
with English language proficiency below A1, B1, A2 and B2 level. The author discovered that
the incorporation of information and communications technology (ICT), an integrated-skills
approach, and formative assessment in English courses enhanced students’ academic
achievement. He concluded that teachers should be equipped with detailed guidelines and
instructions for their classroom practise to benefit the students’ language performance. In
this case, students would achieve encouraging results if they were exposed to an effective
language learning experience.
Past literature suggests that students’ learning outcomes can be influenced by multiple
factors. For instance, Don (2020) suggested that for students to speak English efficiently, they
have to listen to authentically spoken English all the time. Exposure to ‘real’ English language
communication and consistent listening allows learners to acquire the language quickly. She
adds that students can achieve a positive outcome in speaking English if teachers create a
classroom environment that is conducive to learn spoken English based on the indispensable
guidance of the CEFR. Similarly, Lee and Park (2020) asserted that it is highly recommended
to incorporate listening and speaking skills as much as possible in the classroom because
listening ability has proven to be an excellent indicator of verbal competence. Therefore,
students achieve impressive results in their speaking proficiency and genuine listening
practise through an encouraging classroom atmosphere.
Furthermore, this study also showed that students had better experiences in learning foreign
languages using CEFR-aligned syllabus as it fosters students’ autonomy, enhances their
vocabulary, creates awareness to language learning and most importantly, students develop
positive learning strategies, attitudes and motivation (Faez et al., 2011; Jaakkola et al., 2002;
Kok & Aziz, 2019; Krishnan & Yunus, 2019; Moe, 2005; Oscarson & Oscarson, 2010). For
example, teachers reported that the use of ‘Can Do’ statements in learning French promotes
students’ confidence and motivation and increases their awareness of their abilities (Faez et
al., 2011). Students are eager to try using the language more frequently and eventually, it
gives them an awareness of their language proficiency. In the case of aligning the CEFR into
the English language curriculum, teachers in Malaysian secondary schools mentioned that it
effectively creates a constructive, student-centred environment that positively impacts their
learning process (Kok & Aziz, 2019). Furthermore, Krishnan and Yunus (2019) observed that
learning English through CEFR with diverse learning methods may broaden students’
academic outcomes. They stated that the use of blended learning among students with low
language proficiency not only increases their knowledge but also enables them to explore
their ICT skills. Therefore, students obtain positive effects from the amalgamation of the CEFR
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
in the diverse sphere of language education such as grading system, teaching and learning
methods and resources, and classroom pedagogy.
It can be summarised that the CEFR inculcates many positive aspects into students’ learning
skills which are essential for developing language proficiency. However, studies on students’
reception of the CEFR-aligned curriculum are scarce and require intense consideration from
educational researchers. Thus, more attention should be given to the perspectives of students
as they should be explored concurrently with their roles to gain absolute evidence from their
learning experiences.
Paradigm Shift in Classroom Assessment
It is worth noting that since the existence of the CEFR, one of the crucial contributions of the
framework has been on language assessment. Despite the CEFR’s explicit emphasis on
planning and development of curriculum, it’s major impact in second language education has
been on assessment (Coste, 2007; Council of Europe, 2006; Fulcher, 2008; Little, 2007). Based
on the CEFR, many developing countries transformed educational assessment from a
traditional summative assessment culture towards formative assessment that permits
teachers to monitor students’ learning progress and accomplishment continuously. Formative
assessments are carried out based on the CEFR descriptors and scales that reflect students’
language proficiency, primarily in writing, reading, listening, and speaking skills. Thus, such an
assessment method provides students with more scope to demonstrate their abilities and
competencies.
From the review, the alignment of CEFR into classroom assessment varied substantially across
the specific realm of its employment. In the FSL context, Mison and Jang (2011) identified that
CEFR-aligned assessment promotes transparency throughout the assessment process
whereby Canadian teachers revealed the assessment structure to the students beforehand
to be aware of the expectations placed on them. This approach allows students to experience
the feasibility of CEFR assessment and the early exposure to the format was intended for
them to be completely prepared. Besides, the application of such an assessment method
offers all teachers and schools a common and consistent practice, understanding and
approach which certainly facilitate the evaluation of students’ knowledge and understanding.
In assessing writing skills, the adoption of CEFR in primary schools seems to play a significant
role in classroom assessment (Hasselgreen, 2013). Students achieve a detailed understanding
of their written assessments’ standard because the focus is on the task itself rather than the
students. The objective is not to pay much attention to the errors as a whole by highlighting
every mistake but rather to motivate students to improvise their writing skills.
Additionally, Sidhu, Kaur and Lee (2018) carried out a study that investigated the
implementation of the CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in primary ESL classrooms. The
findings discovered that the process was considered less successful because the teachers
lacked full apprehension of the method. Besides, teachers admitted to having very restricted
knowledge and familiarity with the revised CEFR-aligned ESL curriculum and had a high
preference to utilise traditional assessment tools. Similarly, ESL teachers in secondary schools
also demonstrated an insufficient understanding of CEFR-aligned assessment types and
standards (Lee & Kassim, 2019) but possessed sufficient knowledge of ICT use for classroom
assessments. As such, many teachers are still relying on the conventional textbook exercises
as their standard practise and guide in developing students’ ESL proficiency although they
argued on its contextual suitability. Sadly, teachers are still stuck with the conventional
assessment tool that may harm students’ academic performance. This practise is
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
incongruence with the principles of CEFR which promotes formative assessment that allows
teachers to consistently monitor students’ progress.
Aspiration for Teachers’ Professional Development
As a global language and assessment policy tool, the CEFR has been adopted in many
countries such as Poland, China, Taiwan, New Zealand and others. Hence, the way it is
employed in the language education industry also differs across Europe and beyond. For
instance, some Asian countries adapted and designed CEFR-aligned curriculum policy into
local context such as CEFR-J in Japan and CEFR-V in Vietnam. Albeit a careful consideration of
language policy planning, teachers should get a sufficient amount of training and support on
how to deliver a CEFR-aligned curriculum into a language classroom to ensure the
effectiveness of the language policy (Alih et al., 2020).
From this review, it can be highlighted that teachers require more training as they realise the
importance of having adequate training may facilitate them to incorporate the CEFR into
instructional practices. Rehner (2017) researched how Canadian teachers’ professional
learning has developed their understanding of the CEFR and impacted their FSL instructional
planning. The results demonstrated that following professional training, the most drastic
effect noted involved the teachers’ planning for the use of action-oriented tasks, authentic
situations and self-assessment. They also utilised online resources, authentic documents and
action-oriented tasks, specific CEFR resources, and a wider array of reading materials and
other types of resources for this purpose. In terms of assessment practices, teachers focussed
more on students’ use of the language in purposeful and meaningful ways.
In contrast, Moonen et al (2013) reported that teachers at Dutch secondary education want
a more robust professional development programme to obtain additional examples of good
practises of CEFR usage in schools. The soaring demand also aims to educate teachers on the
accurate use of the level descriptors, specifically concerning the grading system, and using
CEFR in curriculum development. Teachers, after all, definitely agree that CEFR-related
training helps them in efficient language teaching, but the amount of training they gain is
minimal. Therefore, education authorities should establish effective training that exposes
teachers to the features of CEFR as a language framework and displays concise examples of a
classroom approach that applies to them.
Nevertheless, although a large amount of money spent on teachers’ professional
development, the reality is that they have to face unremitting barriers such as large class size
(Sidhu et al., 2018), time constraints (Faez, Majhanovic et al., 2011; Franz & Teo, 2017; Mison
& Jang, 2011), heavy workload (Alih et al., 2020), inadequate support (Celik, 2013; Moonen
et al., 2013; Uri & Aziz, 2018) and students poor learning abilities (Faez et al., 2011; Ishak &
Mohamad, 2018) which has hindered effective implementation of CEFR in language classroom
practice. As a result, teachers are persistently asking for more CEFR-related training (Alih et
al., 2020); Diez-Bedmar & Byram (2019); Faez, Taylor, et al (2011); Kir & Sulu (2014) to
enhance their knowledge and teaching skill. In this case, the pertinent education authorities
should revise the dissemination strategies and take the necessary steps to overcome these
obstacles. Additionally, they also encouraged distributing additional support in funding,
materials, and infrastructure throughout the stages of the teachers’ training programme (Aziz
et al., 2018). It is hoped that by executing this, there will be in-depth and not superficial
training for the teachers to successfully implement the CEFR accordingly.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Conclusions
CEFR has been widely implemented with on-going research in areas such as foreign language
pedagogy, classroom assessment, and teachers’ professional development. The final analysis
from this review demonstrates considerable impacts of the CEFR-aligned curriculum in
schools. On pedagogical practices, CEFR advocates for an action-oriented approach in which
learners’ language abilities of a targetted language are developed by the act of doing that is
achieved through action-based communicative activities. Teachers and students were
positive towards the communicative strategies used in the language classroom because it
gives positive reinforcements to student’s language proficiency levels. Teachers’ perceptions
towards the implementation of CEFR were encouraging that they did not reject the ideas of
CEFR, but in return, they required additional support and training. It is critical that teachers
need continuous training to get an in-depth understanding of the CEFR due to the fact that
the framework provided a complex feature which constitutes of the work of many decades
(Figueras, 2012). Moreover, professional development should be conducted to cater to the
teachers’ specific need to enhance the possibilities for changes in teachers' classroom practise
(Hayes, 2004) especially in teaching a target language using the CEFR. A constant
communication created through continuous professional development will hinder any
barriers to a successful implementation of the CEFR.
In addition, teachers also believe that CEFR encourages students’ achievement of learning
outcomes essential for their language proficiency level. This positive outcome resulted from
the incorporation of CEFR in multiple fields of language education such as curriculum design,
grading system, teaching and learning resources and pedagogical approaches. However, it is
imperative to highlight that CEFR-related studies from students’ perceptions are relatively
limited and scarce addressing the need for more studies to be conducted among students to
examine their voices on the framework's usefulness and effectiveness. It is worth mentioning
that most of the CEFR-related studies had focussed extensively on language classroom
assessment (Coste, 2007; Council of Europe, 2006; Fulcher, 2008; Little, 2007). This could be
attributed to the enormous use of reference level labels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2) in the
context of testing language proficiency (Figueras, 2012).
However, the practical implications of the framework are considerably limited by the fact that
most of the research on the CEFR does not involve teachers’ instructional strategies. Similarly,
a study by Moonen et al (2013) of the impact of the CEFR on teachers’ classroom practises
cites inadequate previous empirical work. Thus, studies on real classroom instructional
strategies and practises to understand how teachers employ CEFR in language classroom
context is a recommended area of future research. With this in mind, educational
stakeholders such as test designers, textbook developers, curriculum policymakers and
teachers would be able to address any potential strengths and weaknesses throughout the
teaching and learning process. Consequently, the results of such studies may facilitate the
further improvement of the curriculum. It is also worth noting that teachers are urged to use
the CEFR in the teaching of a foreign language to the paramount stage. In order to successfully
implement the framework at classroom level, teachers should be sending over for a
continuous CEFR-related training to get them familiar with the CEFR principles, goals and
associated teaching procedures. As a front liner in any curriculum implementation, teachers
should receive adequate support to move towards more purposeful teaching of the target
language.
In summary, it can be deduced that the halo effects of the CEFR are larger on the active users
of the framework which can be seen from the issues addressed in this study which focussed
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
more on the teachers and students. Therefore, based on the findings of this review paper, it
is recommended that research on the enactment of CEFR is undertaken for understanding
the extent of its implication at language classroom level. With the projection that the CEFR
will still exist and be of relevance in the next few decades, it is hoped that curriculum
designers and programme developers will take necessary actions to improvise the adoption
of CEFR in language education.
This study attempted to demonstrate that the usage of the CEFR as a framework in language
education had a far more diverse and nuanced impact on its users, particularly teachers and
students at the school level. Hence, from the present study, education stakeholder's
understanding of the CEFR and what is entailed in teaching a language using the framework
has increased. Additionally, this broadens research perspectives of how teachers and
students interpreted the CEFR, which is critical for determining its efficacy in language
instruction.
References
Alih, N. A. C., Abdul Raof, A. H., & Yusof, M. A. (2021). Policy Change Implementation: The
Case of the CEFR in Malaysian ESL Classrooms. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(2), 296-
317.
Alih, N. A. C., Yusoff, M. A., & Abdul Raof, A. H. (2020). Teachers’ Knowledge and Belief on the
CEFR Implementation in Malaysian ESL Classroom. Educational Research (IJMCER), 2(5),
126-134.
Aziz, A. H. A. 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.
Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference.
The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Çelik, S. (2013). Plurilingualism, Pluriculturalism, and the CEFR: Are Turkey's Foreign Language
Objectives Reflected in Classroom Instruction? Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 70, 1872-1879.
Coste, D. (2007). Contextualising Uses of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages. Paper presented at Council of Europe Policy Forum on use of the CEFR,
Strasbourg, France, 8 February 2007.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2006). Survey on the use of the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR), Synthesis of Results. Strasbourg, France: Council of
Europe.
Council of Europe. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages. Learning, Teaching, Assessment. CEFR: A
manual. Language Policy Division, Strasbourg.
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.
Don, Z. M. (2020). The CEFR and the production of spoken English: A challenge for
teachers. The English Teacher, 49(3), 77-88.
Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011). The power of “Can Do”
statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a second
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
language classrooms in Ontario. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14 (2), 1-
19.
Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S., & Brown, P. (2011). Teacher reactions to CEFR’s task-
based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies Europe, 6, 109-120.
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477–485.
Doi:10.1093/elt/ccs037
Foley, J. (2021). CLT using CEFR and EIL in Southeast Asia and East Asia in the English language
classroom. RELC Journal, 1-13.
Franz, J., & Teo, A. (2017). “A2 is normal” – Thai secondary school English teachers’
encounters with the CEFR. RELC Journal. 49(3), 1 – 7.
Fulcher, G. (2008). Criteria for evaluating language quality. In E. Shohamy (Ed.), Language
testing and assessment. Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, 7, 157-176.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.
Hasselgreen, A. (2013). Adapting the CEFR for the Classroom Assessment of Young Learners’
Writing. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(4), 415–
435. Doi:10.3138/cmlr.1705.415
Hayes, D. (2004). Inside INSET: trainers’ perceptions. Trainer development: Principles and
practice from language teacher training, 63-79.
Ishak, W. I. W., & Mohamad, M. (2018). The Implementation of Common European
Framework of References (CEFR): What Are the Effects Towards LINUS Students’
Achievements? Creative Education, 9, 2714-2731.
Jaakkola, H., Viita-Leskelä, U., Sävy, S., & Komsi, K. (2002). How to promote learning to learn
in first foreign language classes in Finland. I Council of Europe. Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment; Case Studies,
40-49.
Johar, N. A. I. N., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). Teachers’ Perceptions on Using the Pulse 2 Textbook.
Journal of Educational Research & Indegenous Studies, 2(1), 1-15
Kır, E., & Sülü, A. (2014). Language teachers’ views on CEFR. International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching (IOJET), 1(5). 358-364.
Kok, N. M., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). English Language Teachers’ Perceptions on the
Implementation of CEFR-Aligned Curriculum among Primary Schools in Malaysia. Paper
presented at Seminar Wacana Pendidikan 2019 (SWAPEN 2.0)
Krishnan, P. D., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Blended CEFR in Enhancing Vocabulary among Low
Proficiency Students. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL (5). 141-
153. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/call5.11
Lee, N. A. A., & Kassim, A. A. M. (2019). Implementation of CEFR-aligned Assessment Tools in
Malaysian ESL Classroom. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 4(2), 7-10.
Lee, O. S., & Park, J. (2020). Understanding L2 Speech Production: Implications for Teaching
Speaking in EFL Classroom. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(3), 808-823.
Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: content,
purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching. 39(3): 167–90.
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives
on the making of supranational language education policy. Modern Language Journal,
91, 645–655.
Lo, Y. Y. (2018). English Teachers’ Concern on Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR): An Application of CBAM. Jurnal Kurikulum dan Pengajaran Asia
Pasifik. 6(1), 46 -58.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
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.
Moe, E. (2008). Juggling numbers and opinions: An attempt to set CEFR standards in Norway
for a test of reading in English. In Taylor, L., & Weir, C. J. (2008). Multilingualism and
Assessment: Achieving transparency, assuring quality, sustaining diversity (pp. 67-78).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moonen, M., Stoutjesdijk, E., de Graaf, R., & Corda, A. (2013). Implementing CEFR in
Secondary education: Impact on FL Teachers’ Educational and Assessment Practice.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 226–246.
Nagai, N., & O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The Actual and Potential Impacts of the CEFR on Language
Education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 6, 141–152.
Ng, H. Y., & 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.
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, Doi: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1715416.
North, B. (2014). Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to Good Use.
Language Teaching, 47(2), 228–249. Doi:10.1017/S0261444811000206.
Oscarson, A. D., & Oscarson, M. (2010). Using the CEFR in the Foreign Language Classroom.
Putting the CEFR to Good Use, 83-91.
Piccardo, A. P. E., & North, B. (2019). The action-oriented approach: A dynamic vision of
language education. Multilingual Matters.
Rehner, K. (2017). The CEFR in Ontario: Transforming Classroom Practice. Toronto: Ontario
Ministry of Education and Curriculum Services Canada.
Rehner, K., Lasan, I., Popovich, A., & Palta, Z. (2021). The Impact of CEFR-Related Professional
Learning on Second-Language Teachers’ Classroom Practice: The Case of French in
Canada. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique
appliquée, 24(1), 26–53.
Savski, K. (2020). Local Problems and a Global Solution: Examining the Recontextualization Of
CEFR in Thai and Malaysian Language Policies. Language Policy, 1-21.
Shin, J. L. K., & Yunus, M. M. (2021). The Attitudes of Pupils towards using Flipgrid in Learning
English Speaking Skills. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 20(3).
Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., & Lee, J.C. (2018). CEFR-aligned School-Based Assessment in the
Malaysian Primary ESL Classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 8(2), 452-
463.
Simons, M., & Colpaert, J. (2015). Judgmental Evaluation of the CEFR by Stakeholders in
Language Testing. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 10(1), 66-77.
The Star Online. (2018). Let’s have our own textbooks. The Star Education. Kuala Lumpur.
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2018/02/04/lets-have-our-own-
textbooks/
Uri, N. F. M., & Abd Aziz, M. S. (2018). Implementation of CEFR in Malaysia: Teachers’
awareness and the Challenges. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 24(3), 168-183.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 11, No. 11, 2021, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2021 HRMARS
Uri, N. F. M., & Abd Aziz, M. S. (2019). Teachers’ evaluation of the suitability of reading
syllabus specifications to the CEFR. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics, 1(1), 32-44.
Uri, N. F. M., & Abd Aziz, M. S. (2020). The Appropriacy and Applicability of English Assessment
Against CEFR Global Scale: Teachers’ Judgment. 3L: Language, Linguistics,
Literature®, 26(3).
Waluyo, B. (2020). Learning Outcomes of a General English Course Implementing Multiple E-
Learning Technologies and Active Learning Concepts. Journal of Asia TEFL, 17(1), 160-
181.
Yüce, E., & Mirici, I. H. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into the application of 9th grade EFL
program in terms of the CEFR. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(3), 1171-
1187.
