Putting the Plurilingual/Pluricultural back into CEFR: Reflecting on Policy Reform in Thailand and Malaysia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Language Policy, 2020
Since its publication in 2001, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has become a highly influential means of describing language proficiency. Its spread has, however, been marked by contradictions, since the framework has been appropriated in the service of a variety of different policy agendas. In this paper, I argue that such contradictions are indicative of broader ideological contrasts, which may impact how the Local problems and a global solution: examining the recontextualization of CEFR in Thai and Malaysian language policies
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR): A Review on Teachers’ Perception & Plurilingualism
Creative Education, 2021
Common Framework of Reference (CEFR) is a document produced by the council of Europe (CoE) to set a standard for teaching and learning English as the Second Language (ESL). Propelled by the need to situate Malaysia English language parallel to the standard of the European countries, the Ministry of Education Malaysia rushed the adaptation of CEFR framework into Malaysia education system. Teachers’ lack of training and understanding onCEFR as well as unsuitable content used in the textbook are among the main challenges faced by teachers to name a few. Nonetheless, the key concept of Plurilingualism which served as the principle in CEFR has been given very minimal focus in the syllabus. Considering Malaysia as a multilingual and multicultural country, there is a potential of English Second Language learners to benefit from the concept of plurilingualism given appropriate training and exposure given to the teachers as the gatekeeper of knowledge and information. In fact, plurilingualis...
CEFR as Language Policy: Opportunities and Challenges for Local Agency in a Global Era
The English Teacher, 2021
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has become one of the most widely cited documents in language education across the globe, its influence now felt far beyond the confines of Europe, the context for which it was originally produced. In Malaysia, CEFR was given particular prominence in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 and English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025, both of which positioned the framework as the primary yardstick by which curricula were to be developed and against which achievements (or lack thereof) were to be evaluated. This paper examines CEFR from the perspective of language policy, focussing particularly on the implications this document has for local agency in the Malaysian context. The paper begins by examining the constructs of language and language education underlying CEFR, pointing in particular to how these reflect the socio-political context for which the framework was developed. The next section examines how policy texts in the Malaysian context, in particular the 2015 Roadmap, have interpreted CEFR, highlighting in particular the way that these texts (as other policies across the globe) have tended to treat the CEFR reference levels as a global standard, with little scope for local agency. The final section considers alternative, localized models for using CEFR as language policy in Malaysia, in particular how the framework may be used in support of an inclusive agenda in which diversity and multilingualism are embraced.
Pluricultural Language Education and the CEFR
Pluricultural Language Education and the CEFR, 2021
To meet the needs of adult language learners in modern communicative contexts, pluralistic approaches to language education such as Pluricultural Language Education (PLE) are emerging. These approaches aim to recognise and build on individuals' full linguistic and cultural repertoires and trajectories throughout the language learning process. Based on the CEFR's perspectives on pluriculturalism, autonomous learning and the action-oriented approach to language use, this volume's interpretation of PLE involves enhancing language learners' knowledge and awareness of diversity and individual perspective in communicative situations, and developing mediation and autonomous learning skills.This volume mobilises teachers, managers, curriculum and materials developers, and other stakeholders to incorporate CEFR-informed pluriculturalism into language education practice in a flexible, stepwise and contextualised manner. http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/research-and-validation/published-research/ http://www.englishprofile.org/images/English\_Profile/Pluricultural-Language-Education-and-the-CEPR.pdf
Current Issues in Language Planning, 2019
This international handbook of language policy education provides a current analysis and assessment of the impact of language education policies in over 30 countries in Asia. In this monumental undertaking, Kirpatrick and Liddicoat, experts on language education and language policy, aim to provide a comparative lens through which to view the systemic impact (e.g. political, economic, cultural, historical, social) of language policies in different regions within Asia. These regions are East Asia, SouthEast Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia. Experts on the countries of these regions provide a historical glimpse into the language education policies enacted in the country, ideologies undergirding these decisions, the impact of these policies in practice in contemporary times, and considerations for future language policy decisions. Through an in-depth review of language policies within each country, each chapter examines ways in which language policy impacts national languages, indigenous languages, and other additional languages in the region, so that tensions between balance and competition among the different languages can be understood within the unique ecological context of each country and region as a whole. Part I begins with an overview by Kirpatrick and Liddicoat (2019) on the current trends and future prospects for language policy education in Asia. Bradley (2019) then provides an analysis of minority language learning in mainland SouthEast Asia where he concludes, 'indigenous ethnic minorities are in most cases greatly disadvantaged' particularly because they are not familiar with the national language of the language medium used in the schools (p. 26). This section ends with a look at first language based multilingual education in Asia and the Pacific Region and Benson (2019) delineates challenges and future directions based on current research into the value of first language literacy on academic achievement. Part II focuses on the historical and present implications of language education policy in countries in East Asia, namely the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan, North and South Korea, Mongolia and Taiwan. To highlight an example from South Korea on the political and historical influences on the Korean language, Jeon (2019) asserts, 'Due to the dark period for the Korean language during 36 years of Japanese colonization, Koreans have a special affection for the Korean language' (p. 124). The Korean language is seen as part of preservation of identity in South Korea, but in North Korea, the Korean language education goals focus on the preservation of political ideologies (p. 128). Within countries, power dynamics also operate in the marginalization of minoritized languages and people such as the Ainu in Japan. In its unification efforts and initiatives to improve literacy rates in developing areas within China, Putonghua, the standard Chinese language, has been strongly promoted 'at the expense of local languages and dialects' (p. 54). The role of foreign languages in globalization efforts is recognized as vital in this region. Part III includes a discussion of language education policies in countries in SouthEast Asia including the Philippines,
Language education policy and practice in East and Southeast Asia
Language Teaching
East and Southeast Asia represents a linguistically and culturally diverse region. For example, more than 700 languages are spoken in Indonesia alone. It is against this backdrop of diversity that the ten countries that comprise Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have recently signed the ASEAN Charter which, while calling for respect for the region's languages, cultures and religions also officially nominates English as ASEAN's working language. In this article, we examine the language education policies of the region and consider the implications of these policies for the maintenance of linguistic and cultural diversity on the one hand and the promotion of English and the respective national languages on the other. As ASEAN is closely connected to the three major countries of China, Japan and South Korea, as indicated by the ‘ASEAN + 3’ forum, we also include these countries here. We stress that, as space forbids an in-depth treatment of the language education ...
Plurilingualism in University English Classes: A Case Study from Timor-Leste
2011
Codeswitching between languages in English language classrooms has been disparaged by textbook writers, methodologists and educational policymakers in many countries. This paper reports an action research project which examined language use in English classes in Timor-Leste. The first aim was to identify the extent of codeswitching by audio-recording four lessons and the second to explore the teachers' attitudes in follow-up interviews. Transcript examples of codeswitching show that while one teacher used only English throughout the lesson, the others used varying amounts of Tetum, Portuguese, and Bahasa Indonesia. Extracts from interviews will report the teachers' views. The data suggests that plurilingualism rather than multilingualism is a more appropriate term for the use of different languages in the increasingly complex linguistic context in which English is taught in many Asian classrooms. The findings also support recent published arguments (e.g., Cook, 2010) for a more positive attitude towards plurilingual use in English language classrooms. The paper begins with an explanation of the difference between multilingualism and plurilingualism (Canagarajah, 2009), and the implications this distinction has for plurilingual use in language classes. This is followed by a brief review of recent literature outlining reasons for rejecting a monolingual approach to foreign language teaching, and outlining arguments and evidence in favour of the use of language alternation in language classes where plurilingual usage is a common social and educational phenomenon. The linguistic context Research ! Barnard, Robinson, da Costa, and da Silva Sarmento-Page 44 and the aims and procedures of the present study are then explained before the presentation and discussion of examples of transcript data from audio-recordings of English language lessons. A quantitative analysis of the observational data of this study shows that in this particular context, the extent of plurilingual usage by English language instructors varies from zero to more than 50% of the lesson. Moreover, in some cases, elements of three or four languages were incorporated, even within one utterance. Some of the views of the teachers expressed in semi-structured interviews are provided to indicate the range of beliefs about the value of mono-or plurilinguistic practices held by teaching staff within one department. Evidence from these interviews suggests very strongly that the extent of plurilingualism depends on the beliefs of the teachers concerned, rather than on national language policies or decisions made by senior management. The paper concludes with recommendations for teachers to undertake action research projects to explore their own classrooms in order to develop a principled approach to language use. Plurilingualism and English Language Teaching Multilingualism may be seen as the distinct use of different languages within a speech community; an example of this is the diglossic situation found in Eastern Malaysia, where speakers often use an indigenous language such as Bidayuh in complementary distribution to the national language, Bahasa Melayu (Dealwis, 2007; Dealwis & David, 2009). Such multilingual competence may be regarded as additive or subtractive; in the latter case, one language dominates another to the linguistic and sociocultural detriment of the dominated language and its users. By contrast, plurilinguistic competence is perceived as where two or more languages are integrated into an individual's personal repertoire. Thus, "[i]n plurilingual communication, English may find accommodation in the repertoire of a South Asian, combining with his or her proficiency in one or more local language" (Canagarajah, 2009, p. 7) and each language influences the other's development. Canagarajah also distinguishes plurilingualism from codeswitching, arguing that the latter "assumes bilingual competence, displaying considerable rhetorical control by the speaker" (2009, p. 8), whereas plurilingualism can be practised without bilingual competence.
2018
In the last 15 years, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) has become very influential for the design of language curriculum and assessment of the language learning outcomes around the world. This article presents a basic introduction to the CEFR that has arisen by Thai government and educational authorities have set out to apply the framework in the education in Thailand; especially in Thai university students.