The 3rd International Conference on Language Testing and Assessment and the 5th British Council New

Directions in Language Assessment Conference, 2 – 3 December 2017. Shanghai, China.

CEFR in Malaysia:
Current issues and challenges in the implementation of the framework
Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz drsallehhudin@gmail.com
Nurul Farehah Mohd Uri nfarehah@unikl.edu.my
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Universiti Kuala Lumpur
Abstract
The Common European Framework of Reference or CEFR is now acknowledged
internationally as the standard language proficiency framework to adopt. The framework
which was first intended to serve as a shared language framework in the EU to regulate its
language education system across several countries within the union has been embraced by
countries outside Europe such as Vietnam, Japan, and Indonesia. The framework has also
made its way to Malaysia and was officially introduced in 2013. Recent important documents
such as the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013 -2025 and English Language Education
Reforms 2015-2025 have shown that the government has agreed not only to incorporate
and align the framework into the present education system but accelerate its
implementation. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues that need to be dealt with first
before CEFR is fully implemented in the country. This paper therefore intends to highlight
some of these important issues that Malaysian ministry of education faces in implementing
CEFR. In order to understand the issues thoroughly, this paper will first provide some
historical background of the Malaysian education system and relevant issues associated to
it. Next, some studies on CEFR that have been conducted in Europe, Asia, and in Malaysia
will be thoroughly discussed. Then, it will highlight some of the challenges that may hinder
the implementation of the framework. Some possible solutions are also deliberated. This
paper will also suggests the need to critically evaluate these studies before the framework is
fully incorporated into the education system.
Introduction
Malaysia, a former British colony with a population of 32, million is home to multi ethnic
groups such as Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban, Bidayuh and Kadazan. Although English is
spoken widely among the educated and elitists, Bahasa Melayu or Malay is the national
language and language of the masses. Since the proclamation Malay as the national
language in 1968 and the medium of instruction in schools and universities, the standard of
English has mostly gone spiraling downwards. The majority of the people now use Malay for
their everyday communication.
After more than 60 years of post-independence and the worsening standards of English, the
Malaysian government has begun to realize the significance of English as the lingua franca
of the world and is now actively promoting and strengthening the English language again. It’s
a problem that the government is taking very seriously as illustrated in Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013-2025. According to the government, this is new assertiveness is necessary to
help Malaysia compete with other countries in attracting much needed tourists and foreign
direct investments. But thus far the government’s language policies of promoting the use of
English seem to have not produced any exemplary results as the standard of English
continues to drop among its students (Ranjit Singh Gill 2013).

1
In order to arrest the declining standards of English, the government decided to form a body
that is known as the English Language Standards and Quality Council (ELSQC). . The
members of the council consisted of experts appointed by the Ministry of Education which
also included the director of the ELTC or English Language Teaching Center. One of the
aims of the body is to advise the government on the appropriate of language policy. The
ELSQC was mainly set up to help elevate the standard of English in Malaysia. The council is
assisted by the English Language Teaching Center (ELTC) which is the leading agency to
elevate and improve English proficiency of Malaysian students (Nurul farehah & Mohd
Sallehhudin Aziz (2017).

The language council eventually put forward the idea of adopting Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) for the country. The proposed adoption of CEFR in the
development of the English education system in Malaysia is to meet the international
standard (Ministry of Education Malaysia Blueprint, 2015(b): 62). Recent documents and
plans released by the government such as the English Language Roadmap 2015-2025
which are part of the Malaysian Education plan have clearly indicated that the Malaysian
government is expediting the implementation of the framework into the current education
system. One of the ultimate aspirations of the education system is the development of a
bilingual proficiency mainly the dual language policy i.e. the policy to uphold “Bahasa
Malaysia and to strengthen the English language”. This policy aims to ensure that every
student in Malaysia has at least an operational proficiency with two other languages (which
includes English) by the time they have completed their 11 years of education. Key to the
elevated the standard of English in the country is the alignment of Malaysia’s English
language curriculum and assessments with the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages or CEFR.
The CEFR was introduced in 2001 by the Council of Europe with a view to provide “a
common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines,
examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe” (Council of Europe, 2001 p.1.)  The
Common European Framework of References or CEFR was essentially developed by the
Council of Europe more than two decades ago. Then, there was a greater need for language
education to promote free movement of people, information and ideas within Europe after
the Second World War and the birth of the Council of Europe and the EU （ Byram and
Parmentar 2012). Since then, the framework has grown in status not only in Europe but also
across the world. (Asian correspondent 2015). The framework is also beginning to be
accepted in this part of the region. The first country in South East Asian to officially adopt
CEFR is Vietnam. The country decided to implement the international standard framework
because a large number of Vietnamese students failed to meet the global standard
compared to its competitors (Nguyen & Hamid 2015).
The CEFR framework defines foreign language proficiency into six levels. They are
A1 and A2, B1 and B2, C1 and C2. It also distinguishes five communication skills, namely
listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing. Language proficiency
is measured in relation to the five skills on a scale beginning with A1, and progressing
through A2, B1, B2 and C1 to C2. Proficiency in each skill is defined at each level by a
series of “can do” statements (see Table 1).
 Table 1: CEFR Descriptors

A Basic user A1 Breakthrough  Can understand and use familiar

or beginner everyday expressions and very
basic phrases aimed at the
satisfaction of needs of a concrete
type.
 Can introduce themselves and
others and can ask and answer
questions about personal details
such as where he/she lives, people
they know and things they have.
 Can interact in a simple way
provided the other person talks
slowly and clearly and is prepared
to help.
A2 Waystage or  Can understand sentences and
elementary frequently used expressions related
to areas of most immediate
relevance (e.g. very basic personal
and family information, shopping,
local geography, employment).
 Can communicate in simple and
routine tasks requiring a simple and
direct exchange of information on
familiar and routine matters.
 Can describe in simple terms
aspects of their background,
immediate environment and matters
in areas of immediate need
B Independent B1 Threshold or  Can understand the main points of
user intermediate clear standard input on familiar
matters regularly encountered in
work, school, leisure, etc.
 Can deal with most situations likely
to arise while travelling in an area
where the language is spoken.
 Can produce simple connected text
on topics that are familiar or of
personal interest.
 Can describe experiences and
events, dreams, hopes and
ambitions and briefly give reasons
and explanations for opinions and
plans.
B2 Vantage or  Can understand the main ideas of
upper complex text on both concrete and
intermediate abstract topics, including technical
 discussions in their field of
specialization.
 Can interact with a degree of
fluency and spontaneity that makes
regular interaction with native
speakers quite possible without
strain for either party.
 Can produce clear, detailed text on
a wide range of subjects and
explain a viewpoint on a topical
issue giving the advantages and
disadvantages of various options.
C Proficient C1 Effective  Can understand a wide range of
user operational demanding, longer clauses, and
proficiency or recognize implicit meaning.
advanced  Can express ideas fluently and
spontaneously without much
obvious searching for expressions.
 Can use language flexibly and
effectively for social, academic and
professional purposes.
 Can produce clear, well-structured,
detailed text on complex subjects,
showing controlled use of
organizational patterns, connectors
and cohesive devices.
C2 Mastery or  Can understand with ease
proficiency virtually everything heard or
read.
 Can summarize information

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Language (Council of Europe,
2001)
English Language Education Reforms in Malaysia

The CEFR was publicly introduced in Malaysia in the year 2013 when the CEFR symposium
was held in Sepang just outside of Kuala Lumpur. The symposium was attended by key
teachers, lecturers and testing experts. According to the roadmap as highlighted in the
Malaysian Education Plan 2013-2015, CEFR in Malaysia would be fully developed in three
phases. The first phase should have been implemented between the year 2013 and 2015,
the second wave starts in 2016 and ends in 2020. While the third phase, which is the
assessment phase, starts from 2021 and ends in 2025.The MOE Malaysia has also set
targets for each stage of the English language programme. The targets set to be achieved
by the year 2025 for Malaysian students to reach as they progress through the English
language programme are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Malaysian CEFR Targets set For Each Stage

Stage / Level Target

 Teacher Education C2

University B2/C1

Post-Secondary school B2

Secondary school B1/B2

Primary school A2

Pre-school A1

(Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2015)

In the context of English language proficiency, this means that between now and 2025, the
Ministry of Education expects an increasingly large proportion of Malaysian students from all
social backgrounds to attain the target proficiency level expressed in terms of the CEFR set for
each stage of education (English Language Education Reforms in Malaysia: The Roadmap
2015-2025, 2016, pp. 5-6). The Ministry also aspires that by the year 2016 all English language
teachers achieve a minimum level of C1, which is equivalent to a capable/expert user of the
English language according to the CEFR to enable them to continue to teach the subject.
The following section looks at the challenges that Malaysia faces in implementing CEFR in the
country .The implementation of the CEFR is seen as an important step forward, but one that will
be beset by numerable challenges. Below are the possible challenges that need to be
addressed by the relevant stakeholders in the country.
Majority of English teachers are not proficient in English

 It has been revealed that a large number of Malaysia English language teachers are ‘not
proficient’ to teach English. As stated in the earlier section, the minimal level that a teacher must
attain in Malaysia is level C1. According to the Deputy Education Minister P Kamalanathan,
about 15,000 of Malaysia’s 60,000 English teachers are not adequately equipped to teach the
subject. (The Star 2014). This is due to the fact that approximately two-thirds of the total number
of English teachers in the country failed to reach the minimal proficiency level in English
according to the baseline Cambridge English study. The relatively poor performance of the
teachers in the test is quite disconcerting as in any program they are the key players to the
success implementation of any program. The teachers are the main determinant of success of
any learning outcomes.

In the 2014 baseline project which was headed by Cambridge English, it attempted to obtain a
comprehensive profile of English language teachers’ proficiency levels. The main purpose of the
study was twofold. First, to map out the proficiency level of Malaysian English teachers to an
internationally recognized measure for describing language ability. Secondly, the objective of
the project was to develop a framework of continuous professional development based on
teachers’ needs and proficiency level. For that a Cambridge Placement Test (CPT),
questionnaires and even face-to-face interviews were administered to gauge the teachers’
English language proficiency. The standard set for teachers to achieve is C1. Below are the
detailed performance of the Malaysian teachers in the evaluation exercise.

Figure 2: Malaysian teachers’ performance in Cambridge Placement Test

Teachers A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

Primary 0.2 % 4.0 % 28.3 % 45.5 % 21.1 5 3.9 %

school
teachers

Secondary 0 % 0.9 % 11.7 % 36 % 36.7 % 14.7 %

School
teachers
As can be seen from the figure, only approximately 52 % of the English language teachers in
the secondary schools made the grade. Whilst those teaching in the primary schools only 25 %
are qualified to teach English. The majority of the teachers are in the B1 and B 2 categories.

 English is students’ weakest core subject in national assessments

The Ministry of Education quite recently has revealed that at least 23 per cent of the Primary 6
students who sat for the UPSR (year 6) failed the English language Writing paper (FMT
November 18, 2016.) Despite learning English language for six years at the primary school level
and another five years at the secondary level, Malaysian students’ English language proficiency
leaves much to be desired. In fact, the students’ performance in the national exams have shown
that, a quarter of the total number of students who took the English paper in the three national
exams failed the English paper. A total of 25 % failed the year 6 UPSR exam and 22 5% and 23
% failed the PMR and SPM exams respectively. The failure rate is much higher in the 1119
English exam (an International English paper taken by form 5 students) where more than 50 %
failed the English paper (Ranjit Singh 2013).

Table 3: Percentage of students failing national exams 2013

Percentage of failure National Exam Year

25% UPSR Year 6

23% PMR Year 9

22% SPM Year 11

In terms of language ability of the students, Iber G (2014) in his study maintained that in
Malaysia, students occupy all three circles of Kachru’s Concentric Model with a significant
majority belonging to the lower level (English as a third or Foreign language) and ESL due to
the difference of the exposure to English between urban and rural areas. He further argues that
the students make up all the 3 stages of the Kachru’s model in terms of English ability. What
this means is that students in some parts of Malaysia especially in the rural areas see English
as a third or foreign language while in places like Kelantan and Sabah and it does not appear in
their daily lives. Most of these students are only exposed to the language during English
classroom sessions.

To make matters worse, the English classroom allocation in schools and other education
facilities for English education exposes the students to the language on average of 210 -240
minutes of English lessons a week. This compares to 5840 hours of English annually for native
speakers and around 2000 hours for ESL learners. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to
expect students who have so little exposure to English in comparison to compete with those
who are exposed to it regularly. Although the roadmap intends to address this concerns by
increasing the time students spend on learning English , to expect students to reach C1 level by
the time they reach tertiary education with only 800 hours of cumulative CEFR based English
instructions from primary level would be a challenge (Yunus & Sukri, 2017)
Lack of Political will

The so-called standard of English proficiency in Malaysia has reached a serious level as evident

in students’ poor performance not only in the national exams but also at the international one.
This kind of deterioration should have triggered alarm amongst the people and the stakeholders
to actually engage in a structural reform to improve the standards of English. Unfortunately, the
political will stands in the way of many concerned Malaysians and that the standard of English
has deteriorated to such a large degree as shown by the large number of unemployed youth
(The Star 24 Jan 2014) .To demonstrate that the government is taking a strong stance in
upgrading the standard of English, the Minister of Education 2014 enthusiastically announced
that a pass in English would be made compulsory. According to the plan, the English language
would be made a compulsory pass subject in Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination which
is an 0 level examination in line with the implementation of the second phase of the National
Education Development Blueprint.

Unfortunately the government backtracked on its plan and has decided that a pass in
English would not be enforced. According to P Kamalanathan deputy education minister,   "If
English was a compulsory subject this year, 2015, we would have had about 25 per cent of the
students failing SPM,” “We have about 400,000 students sitting for the examination. 25 per cent
rate failure would give us about 100,000 of students not being able to get certificates. That's a
concern." (Channel News Asia 2017). In short, with a large number of students especially those
in the rural areas like in Terengganu, Kelantan and Sabah would have failed the SPM
examination the government tumbled under pressure. Such a drastic move would make the
ruling party very unpopular.

Teachers still not adequately trained

Malaysia still lacks qualified local English teachers who are capable of implementing the
Education Ministry’s new Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
aligned curriculum and assessment system. Most of them are still not sufficiently trained and to
make matters worse, in some schools, English teachers are selected to attend CEFR
workshops because they know a little more English than their peers, not because they are
specifically trained in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) or possessed similar
qualifications. In fact, most of these teachers in schools are still unaware of exactly what exactly
CEFR is. The teachers may also show the lack of interest in learning in adopting the framework.
Most of the teacher in Malaysia are still not aware of the framework (Nurul Farehah and Mohd
Sallehhudin (2017).  Although the ministry of education has produced 300 master trainers and
trained thousands of teachers using the cascading method. Relying on cascade training as its
central training paradigm might help cascading to the big numbers of teachers, as its principle is
that you train a trainer to train other trainers who then train others
Lack of studies done on the implementation of CEFR in the Malaysian context.

There are dozens of studies on CEFR that have been completed outside Malaysia such as by
Nguyen and Hamid (2015) and Judith Runnels (2013), however a review of the literature
pertaining to CEFR in Malaysia shows that they have not been many studies done on CEFR in
the country. There are nonetheless a number of small scale studies completed which include
Razianna Abdul Rahman (2013). Her study however focuses on the instructor’s proficiency in
English and she highlights the importance of CEFR in improving the overall quality of
Malaysian’s teachers as it provides an international standard to benchmark the country’s
educators. She pointed out the Malaysian Education Plan needs and aspirations for a fully
proficient English teaching force by 2016 in order to implement the CEFR. In another related
study,George Iber (2014) looked at the Malaysian Education Blueprint and its plans for the
current education system moving forward to 2025. He argues that the implementation of CEFR
onto the Malaysian education system would not be appropriate without a proper preparation to
aid in the transition.

Ramiada et al (2017) study aims to understand English language teachers’ views on the English
language proficiency courses in a local university, in Malaysia, based on CEFR scales. Data
shows there are variations in teachers’ views towards English language proficiency courses,
and this may not necessarily fit into the CEFR standards targeted for university learners. The
result of this study acts as preliminary data for further research on the link between English
language course content and CEFR standards, as well as expected English language
proficiency of university learners.

Nurul Farehah and Mohd Sallehhudin’s (2017) study seeks to investigate Ministry of Education
officials and teachers’ perspectives on the interpretation and implementation of CEFR in
secondary schools in Malaysia. It also aims to explore the challenges encountered by the
stakeholders in the process of adopting CEFR onto the English syllabus and assessments.

Overall, there are only a handful of studies that have been conducted here and these studies
are mostly small scale studies with minimal impact to be used as a guide to help the authorities
with the implementation of CEFR.
Some solutions

One of the most effective ways of upgrading the standard of English is to make it compulsory to
pass the English language paper in all the national exams. Malaysia once decided to make it a
ruling that it is compulsory for students to pass English for Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM)
Certification from 2016 in order to get a certificate but this was later reversed due to pressure
from some of the stakeholders. This step could have been viewed as a motivation for both
students and teachers in achieving higher standards in the teaching and learning of English.
However, it seems that there no appetite on the part of the relevant authorities to enforce the
ruling because of the fear of losing votes in view of the upcoming general elections expected to
be run latest by early next year.
However as a note of advice, before this plan is implemented the relevant ministries would have
to put in place a proper plan. This would have to include plans to train sufficiently qualified
English teachers and to make sure that upon graduation these teachers are sent to the rural
areas where they are needed the most. At the moment a lot of the trained English teachers in
Malaysia opted to teach in urban areas as they shy away from servicing in the rural areas. For
any program to succeed, skillful and knowledgeable teachers are of utmost importance. They
are the people that would ensure the success of any program.

Another measure to dramatically increase the chances of success of the approach is to have a
very good training system and adequate support and training for English language teachers.
This is needed to strengthen English teaching and learning in Primary and Secondary Schools
across Malaysia. In Malaysia, the Ministry has rightly put in place a program called Professional
Up-skilling of English Language Teachers (Pro-ELT) initiative run by British Council. The
justification for Pro – ELT is based on two main principles: 

 Quality of teachers is the single most important determinant of student outcomes

 English proficiency is a prerequisite to good teaching of the language

Pro-ELT program is based on a blended learning approach which covers 240 hours of face to
face classroom training and 240 hours of online learning session. So far the ministry has trained
more than 14,000 English language teachers, it is hoped that at least 85 per cent of these
teachers would improve by at least one proficiency band under Common European Framework
of Reference. The Ministry of Education has formulated a plan that by 2025, it aims to meet the
following targets: ▪ 90% students achieve a minimum Credit in Bahasa Malaysia at SPM level; ▪
70% students achieve Cambridge 1119-equivalent minimum Credit in English at SPM level; and
▪ 30% students achieve independent proficiency in an additional language (Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013-2025).
Conclusion
The move by the Education Ministry Malaysia to implement the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages by means of Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2015 and
Roadmap for English Language Education 2015-2025 which is a step-by-step plan that aims to
improve teaching and learning, examination results, and the overall English proficiency of
school-leavers and graduates and teachers is seen as a positive move. However, there are
numerous challenges that would make the implementation of the framework difficult to achieve
such as the competency of the teachers, and the diverse proficiency levels of the students
among others. Nonetheless, there is general consensus among the stakeholders in the country
that the adoption of the framework is a vital step towards achieving its language goals and
raising the standards of English. It is hoped that the adoption of the framework is the first of
many other steps towards the raising of the standards of English in the country.

References
Asian Correspondent (2015). https://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/04/thai-schools-adopt-
european- framework-to-boost-english-language-proficiency/#9bRDEjS291IpdY2i.99.
Accessed: October 16, 2017.
Byram, M. & Parmenter, J. (Ed) (2012):The Common European Framework of
Reference- The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Languages for Inter‐
cultural Communication and Education CEFR（２００１）Common European
Framework of Reference.
Council of Europe (2001), The Common European Framework of Reference For Language
Learning Teaching Assessment, Cambridge University Publisher , Cambridge. (Google
Scholar)English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2025,
2016, pp. 5-6).
Free Malaysia Today: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/11/18/ministry-
admits-to-poor-level-of-english-among-students/
Language Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge University
Publisher, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]

Harith Hela Ladin Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz (2017) THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CEFR IN
MALAYSIA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES The 6th International Conference on Social
Sciences and Humanities 4-6 April 2017, Malaysia

IBER, G. 2014. English language teaching in Malaysia: The case for a dual track English
Curriculum [Short Communication]. Advances in Language and Literacy Studies. 5(4):
68-71. Date of access:
01/01/2017.http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/428/366
Khairiah Othman The assessment of writing within the cefr scale: A Malaysian context
Article in Advanced Science Letters 23(5):4944-4947 · May 2017 DOI:
10.1166/asl.2017.8968

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA. 2012. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025.

Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Date of access: 1/6/2016
http://www.moe.gov.my/userfiles/file/PPP/Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng.pdf

Ministry of Education Malaysia 2013. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Preschool to

PostSecondary Education). Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Available
online at: http://www.moe.gov.my/cms/upload_files/articlefile/2013/articlefile_file_
003108.pdf. Accessed: October 3, 2013

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA. 2015. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 Higher

Education. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Date of access: 1/6/2016
http://www.moe.gov.my/cms/upload_files/files/3_%20Malaysia%20Education
%20Blueprint%202015-2025%20(Higher%20Education).pdf
Nguyen, V.H. & Hamid, M.O. (2015). Educational Policy Borrowing in a Globalized World: A
Case Study of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in a
Vietnamese University. Journal of English Teaching, Practice & Critique ,14(1), 60 – 74.
doi:10.1108/ETPC-02-2015-0014

Nurul Farehah and Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz (2017) Unpublished doctoral Thesis

Raziana Abdul Rahman Chapter 2.3 Developing Teachers in Meeting Students’ Needs:
Malaysia’s Current English Language Policy
The Star 2014 .http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/01/24/study-37-of-malaysian-
teachers-very-good-in-english/#ziPxH3i8KAPPWZtg.99. Accessed: October Accessed Oct
162017

Ramiaida Darmi1 *, Noor Saazai Mat Saad2 , Norhana Abdullah3 , Fariza Puteh-Behak4 ,
Zarina
Ashikin Zakaria5 , Juliana Niza Ismail Adnan6 (2017) . TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON
ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY COURSES VIA COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE SCALES, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, MALAYSIA,
ramiaida@usim.edProceedings of SOCIOINT 2017- 4th International Conference on
Education, Social Sciences and Humanities 10-12 July 2017- Dubai, UAE
GILL, R. S. 2013. Enhancing English Teacher Language Proficiency: The Malaysian
Experience. British Council, Date of access: 12/03/2017
https://www.britishcouncil.or.th/sites/default/files/dr.ranjit.pdf
Channel News Asia (2017): http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/english-a-failing-
subject-for-malaysia-despite-national-push-8246744

Nguyen, V.H. & Hamid, M.O. (2015). Educational Policy Borrowing in a Globalized World: A
Case Study of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in a
Vietnamese University. Journal of English Teaching, Practice & Critique, 14(1), 60 – 74.
doi:10.1108/ETPC-02-2015-0014
Yunus, M. M. & Sukri, S.I.A. (2017). The use of English in teaching Mathematics and Science:
The PPSMI policy vis- à-vis the DLP. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(1):
133-142. doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.1p.133