Teachers and The Implementation of A New English Curriculum in Malaysia

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/285793116
Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia
Article in Language Culture and Curriculum · September 2014

DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.980826
CITATIONS READS
10 341
2 authors, including:
Jan Hardman
The University of York
9 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Educational dialogue View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jan Hardman on 07 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Language, Culture and Curriculum
ISSN: 0790-8318 (Print) 1747-7573 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20
Teachers and the implementation of a new English

curriculum in Malaysia
Jan Hardman & Norhaslynda A-Rahman
To cite this article: Jan Hardman & Norhaslynda A-Rahman (2014) Teachers and the
implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27:3,
260-277, DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.980826
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.980826
Published online: 20 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4125
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlcc20
Download by: [University of York] Date: 22 November 2017, At: 08:13

Language, Culture and Curriculum, 2014
Vol. 27, No. 3, 260–277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.980826
Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum

in Malaysia
Jan Hardman* and Norhaslynda A-Rahman
Department of Education, University of York, York, UK

(Received 6 May 2014; accepted 21 October 2014)
In the light of a recent curriculum reform to improve the teaching of English in primary
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:13 22 November 2017
schools in Malaysia, this study set out to investigate the extent to which teachers are
adopting a communicative language teaching (CLT) approach in their teaching. A
mixed-method approach incorporating systematic observation, stimulated recall and
interviews with teachers was used to study 32 English lessons at Standard 1. Despite
being urged to adopt CLT approaches, the data analysis revealed the underlying
pedagogy of the teachers was made up of rote, recitation, instruction and exposition,
and that it severely restricted opportunities for pupils to participate in dialogue and
discussion. Implications for improving the quality of English language teaching in
primary schools in Malaysia and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region are
considered.
Keywords: communicative language teaching; curriculum reform; English in primary
education; teacher–pupil talk; Malaysia
1. Introduction
Language policy in Malaysia over the last 10 years has undergone radical changes. In 2003,
the Malaysian government announced the policy of teaching English in content subjects,
mathematics and science, in primary and secondary schools to try to address concern
over the poor results that students were attaining in English language examinations and
to position Malaysia so it could compete in the global market (Heng & Tan, 2006; Ho,
2002; Yang & Ishak, 2012). English was promoted for its utilitarian value as a means for
gaining employment and for enabling access to the science and technology of the West.
However, the policy met with a great deal of resistance from both Malay nationalists and
Chinese educationists as it was seen as an attack on their culture and identity, and in
July 2009 the government announced a reversal of the policy starting from 2012. While
many political groups, Malay nationalists, Chinese and Tamil educationists welcomed
the move, many parents were unhappy with the decision. In response to the growing oppo-
sition to the policy shift, the government announced it was introducing a new English
language curriculum to improve the teaching of English in 2011.
Published under the title Malaysian English Language Curriculum for Primary
Schools, it was claimed that the new English curriculum would ‘equip pupils with basic
*Corresponding author. Email: jan.hardman@york.ac.uk
© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Language, Culture and Curriculum 261
language skills so as to enable them to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts’

(Ministry of Education, 2011, p. 3). In line with other countries in the region such as
China, Japan and Singapore, the curriculum was designed around a communicative
language teaching (CLT) approach promoting the language proficiency of young learners
(Ellis, 2008; He, Prater, & Steed, 2011; Richards, 2006). The curriculum places an empha-
sis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language; the introduction
of authentic texts into the classroom; the provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not
only on language but also on the learning process itself; the bringing in of the children’s
own personal experiences as an important element of classroom learning; and the linking
of classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom.
It was argued that the new curriculum would promote a more interactive and commu-
nicative approach to primary English language teaching in national schools.1 The curricu-
lum was structured round a modular approach, whereby each module would focus on the
development of the four main language modes (namely, writing, reading, listening and
speaking). The focus of the current study was on the listening and speaking module
aimed at developing, ‘pupils’ ability to listen and respond to stimuli, participate in daily
conversations, listen to and demonstrate understanding of text, talk about stories heard;
and listen to and follow instructions’ (Ministry of Education, 2011, p. 10). Through the
use of ‘active interactive learner-centred approaches’ to learning, children would be
exposed to the English language at the earliest possible age to develop their basic oral
skills and to lay a good foundation for the higher levels of competence required at second-
ary and higher education levels, and in employment. Teacher pedagogy would be
enhanced through the establishment of classroom situations involving ‘active approaches
to learning, including the use of games, songs and dialogues’ (Ministry of Education,
2011, p. 3).
It was also claimed the new curriculum would promote more of a dialogic pedagogy in
whole-class, group-based and one-to-one teaching to guide the co-construction of knowl-
edge and use of English (Hardman, 2008). In addition to rote (drilling, facts and routines
through repetition), recitation (using short question/answer sequences to recall or test
what is expected to be known), instruction (telling children what to do and how to do it)
and exposition (imparting information and explaining things), the classroom pedagogy
would promote discussion (open exchange of views and information and problem
solving) and dialogue (co-construction through open questions which allow for more
than one answer, probing and building on pupil answers) (Alexander, 2008).
The new English curriculum was to be rolled out nationally to all primary year groups,
starting with teachers of Standard 1 pupils (7–8 years of age) in 2011. It was to be supported
by an in-service training programme that was designed to build on the CLT approaches tea-
chers had been introduced to as part of their initial training (Kabilan & Veratharaju, 2013).
The training programme was designed to be cascaded down to schools to ensure national
coverage, starting with workshops at the national level for state-level trainers lasting five
days. The state-level trainers were in turn expected to train a teacher representative from
each primary school in their state over a three-day period. The trained teachers were then
expected to cascade the training back to all teachers of English in their school over a
three-hour period using a pack of resource materials provided at the state-level workshop.
Research into the implementation of a curriculum reform at the classroom level depends
largely on the extent to which teachers understand what the curriculum policy is intended to
achieve and whether they perceive the policy as relevant and feasible (Bantwini, 2010;
Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Smit, 2005; Wang & Cheng, 2008).
Shihiba (2011) suggests teacher perceptions and understanding of the curriculum can
262 J. Hardman and N. A-Rahman
greatly influence how teachers organise their classrooms, their choice of strategies or activi-
ties and their interaction with the pupils. Positive perceptions but limited understanding (or
vice versa) of what the curriculum requires will thus have implications for classroom learn-
ing. Recognising the key role that teachers will play in mediating implementation of the
reform is vital to its success as perceptions and beliefs can influence and shape the meanings
that the teachers eventually attach to the new reforms and their acceptance and classroom
implementation. Research suggests teacher willingness and readiness to engage in curricu-
lum reforms and achieve the desired results can only be achieved if adequate resources and
support are provided and assessment reforms implemented. If teachers are not provided
with enough support during the implementation phase to adapt to and accept the changes
it is more likely to cause disaffection and policy failure (Brain, Reid, & Boyes, 2006;
O’Donnell, 2005; Orafi & Borg, 2009).
Despite the official view that teachers are trained in the use of CLT at their initial stage
of training, the few studies of classroom interaction and discourse that have been carried out
in Malaysian primary and secondary schools suggest one kind of classroom talk: the so-
called teacher-led ‘recitation script’ made up of explanation and closed questions, brief
pupil answers often chorused and minimal feedback from the teacher (Hussin, 2006;
Martin, 2005).
For example, in a study of two primary English classes from two small rural schools
serving communities in Sarawak on the northern coast of Borneo where the teacher
code-switches between Malay, Kelabit and English during the lesson, the recitation script
is used simply to gloss words or statements taken from a textbook, and not in any commu-
nicative or exploratory way (Martin, 2005). Overall, it was found that the classroom talk is
tightly controlled with pupils positioned as recipients of teacher-mediated text. There was
little active participation from the pupils: the interaction was largely orchestrated and
managed by the teacher, with the pupils providing labels when requested, thereby limiting
any possibility of the use of exploratory talk. Similarly, Hussin (2006) found that the
majority of questions asked by teachers in secondary English and science lessons were
of a low cognitive level designed to funnel pupil responses towards a required answer.
Other studies of English teaching in the Asia-Pacific region also have found similar patterns
of classroom interaction and discourse (Chin, 2006; Hao & Liu, 2012; Hardman, Stoff,
Aung, & Eliot, 2014; Hu, 2004; Nunan, 2003; Tsui, 1985; Vaish, 2008).
Such findings point to the difficulties of initiating national curriculum initiatives using
communicative language approaches with teachers whose first language is not English and
who are unfamiliar with the pedagogical approaches being proposed as they are often bor-
rowed from Western educational and cultural contexts (Hu, 2002; Jin & Cortazzi, 2006).
Research into the implementation of curriculum innovations such as communicative
language approaches also suggests they often have a limited impact on classroom practice
due to a range of factors not being addressed. These include a failure on the part of curri-
culum designers to investigate teachers’ current classroom practices and professional devel-
opment needs. Furthermore, issues such as teacher’s beliefs and understanding of the new
curriculum initiative, the quality of their initial education and training, and the influence of
textbooks, class sizes and lack of learning resources on pedagogical practices are often not
addressed (Obaidul Hamid & Honan, 2012). In many cases, it is assumed by policy-makers
that curriculum policy is normative and that teaching practices will follow the policy
(Kırkögz, 2008).
While acknowledging there are a range of factors that impact on the successful
implementation of curriculum innovations, this study set out to address the following
research questions:
(1) To what extent are Standard 1 primary teachers adopting CLT approaches as set out
in the new Malaysian primary English curriculum?
(2) What do teachers understand about the theoretical principles underpinning the new
English curriculum and its implications for their pedagogical practices?
A key focus of the study therefore was the impact of the curriculum reform on the under-
lying pedagogic practices of the teachers as reflected in their interactive and discourse prac-
tices (Alexander, 2001).
2. Research design
In order to study Malaysian Standard 1 primary English teachers’ understanding of the
theoretical principles underpinning the new curriculum and whether they were incorporat-
ing a broader repertoire of interactive and discourse practices into their teaching as intended
by the curriculum planners, a mixed-method approach was used. The study made use of
lesson observations, systematic analysis of recorded lessons, discourse analysis of lesson
transcripts, stimulated recall of selected episodes from lessons, and teacher interviews.
The mixed-method approach allowed for the interplay of multiple analytic lenses and pro-
cedures, and for the lessons to be analysed at the macro and micro levels. Such methodo-
logical triangulation with the stimulated recall and teacher interviews also allowed for a
cross-checking of the reliability and validity of the classroom observation data.
2.1. Sample
For the study, a purposive sample of eight (seven female) Standard 1 primary English tea-
chers from a cohort of over 100 teachers attending the three-day in-service training in the
State of Malaka was selected. All eight teachers had volunteered to participate in the obser-
vation study and taught Standard 1 English in a cross-section of urban and suburban schools
from across the state. The average class size for the teachers in the sample was 35 students.
Each of the teachers was selected on the basis that they had been teaching for a minimum of
three years, with an average of seven years’ teaching experience, and had experience of
teaching both the old and new English curricula. All were Bachelor degree holders with
at least a Diploma in teaching English as a second language.
2.2. Lesson observations

Data collection was conducted over a period of 3 months, and each teacher was observed on
four occasions, giving a total of 32 hours of recording. The rationale for observing teachers
on four occasions over the three-month period was to minimise the observer’s paradox
whereby the observer affects what is being observed and to discourage one-off display
lessons not typical of the teacher’s approach (Carless, 2003). All 32 lessons were also
observed and recorded from the back of the class in their entirety to avoid unnecessary dis-
ruptions.2 Field notes were also taken to record class size, lesson length, class layout, teach-
ing and learning tasks and activities, and instructional materials.
2.3. Systematic observations

To study the extent to which the new curriculum was promoting a broader repertoire of talk
in the classrooms of the eight Standard 1 primary English teachers, the observation analysis
focused on the classroom interaction and discourse practices used because of their centrality
to the act of teaching (Hardman & Abd-Kadir, 2010). As discussed in the introductory
section, in response to the new English curriculum, teachers are expected to use a range of com-
municative language approaches that are interactive in nature and more likely to impact on
pupil learning and competence in the use of English and hence be more effective. They
include the use of games, songs and dialogues through pair and group work and, in addition
to teacher explanation, rote and recitation, dialogue and discussion in whole-class, group-
based and one-to-one teacher–pupil interactions. For example, in their interactions with
pupils, teachers are expected to use open questions (i.e. allowing for more than one answer),
probe pupil answers and build the answers into subsequent questions. Such dialogic
approaches should be used alongside the more traditional drilling, closed questioning and
telling, thereby raising pupil cognitive engagement and understanding (Alexander, 2008).
Having observed all 32 lesson recordings, a subset of 8 lessons focusing on the skills of
speaking and listening were selected for more detailed interaction analysis as it is here that
teachers were mainly expected to develop pupil competence in the use of spoken English.
Although teachers are meant to integrate the four skills of listening, reading, speaking and
writing through a thematic approach (i.e. classroom teaching is structured across a series of
language tasks in which the four language modes are used in turn), it was found they were
largely taught in isolation from each other, reflecting the modular structure of the new
curriculum.
The eight video recordings of the speaking and listening lessons were analysed at the
macro-level using a systematic observation schedule and at the micro-level using lesson
transcriptions. Both levels of analysis drew upon a three-part teaching exchange structure
that research suggests is central to teacher–pupil interaction (Sinclair & Coulthard,
1992). In its prototypical form a teaching exchange consists of three moves: an initiation,
usually in the form of a tutor question; a response, in which a student, or group of students,
attempts to answer the question; and a follow-up move, in which the tutor provides some
form of feedback (very often in the form of an evaluation) to the student’s response
(from now on referred to as IRF, that is, Initiation, Response, Follow-up move).
However, research into classroom interaction suggests that the IRF structure can take a
variety of forms and functions leading to different levels of student participation and
engagement, particularly through the use that is made of the follow-up move (Molinari,
Mameli, & Gnisci, 2013). By asking students to expand on their thinking, justify or
clarify their opinions, or make connections to their own experiences, the IRF pattern can
be said to take on a dialogic function being promoted.
For the systematic observation and transcript analysis six types of initiation moves were
coded building on the work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1992): (i) teacher inform, which
refers to a teacher’s exposition to pass on facts, opinions and ideas about a subject; (ii)
teacher open question, which calls for more than one answer; (iii) teacher closed question
calling for a single answer; (iv) teacher check on how the pupils are getting on, whether they
understand, whether they can hear; (v) teacher direct, used to get the class to do but not say
something; (vi) pupil question. Response moves were coded according to whether the
response was: (i) individual, (ii) group choral reply, (iii) whole class choral reply, (iv)
pupil demonstration of an answer. Follow-up moves were coded using the following cat-
egories: (i) no feedback, (ii) acceptance/affirming of an answer, (iii) praise, (iv) teacher
giving the answer, (v) teacher asking another pupil to answer, (vi) teacher probing an
answer, (vii) teacher comment on an answer.
Building on the above categories of moves, the systematic observation schedule sys-
tematically coded all of the IRF moves and the tallies were turned into percentage scores
to analyse the frequency of the moves. Lesson transcriptions were chosen to illustrate the
most common forms of teacher-–pupil interaction uncovered in the systematic observation
data, thereby providing a more nuanced understanding of the classroom talk used by tea-
chers and pupils.
2.4. Stimulated recalls of lesson recordings

In addition to the classroom observations, the eight teachers were invited to view the
recordings of their own lessons and to comment on ‘critical moments’ selected by the
researcher in discussion with the teachers as being typical of the teacher–pupil exchanges
occurring in the lesson and where innovations were occurring. Such moments were used to
investigate teacher understanding of the theoretical principles underpinning the new curri-
culum and their pedagogic implications for developing the pupils’ competence in spoken
English. Using prompts focusing on the IRF teaching exchanges to guide the discussion,
the stimulated recall sessions lasting between 20 and 30 minutes investigated the level of
teacher awareness of the patterns and functions of teacher–pupil talk in their classrooms.
Given that the new English curriculum guidelines make it clear that teachers should
promote communicative skills, and that pupils should take an active part in the learning
process, teachers were also asked about the extent to which they felt their patterns of inter-
actions with pupils were opening up space in the classroom discourse to allow for their
greater participation.
2.5. Teacher interviews

Semi-structured interviews to follow up the stimulated recall sessions were also conducted
with the eight teachers. The interviews, lasting between 45 minutes and 1 hour, were used to
elicit in greater depth teacher understanding of key concepts taken from the English primary
curriculum and their implications for developing pupil spoken competence in English. The
interview questions covered their understanding of communicative language approaches,
interactive teaching methods and learning through talk. Teachers were also asked about
the relevance of the three-day training for delivering the new curriculum changes and the
challenges they faced when implementing the new curriculum in the classroom. Illustrative
sections from the interviews were transcribed and analysed.
3. Findings
Lesson observation notes recording timeline activities across all 32 lessons showed
teachers spent relatively little of the lesson time interacting with pupils: on average it
occupied 25% of the time. Lessons normally started with action-based classroom activi-
ties such as songs and games followed by teacher-fronted talk and by individual seat work
based on tasks taken from the chalkboard or textbook. Although 5 of the 32 classes had
the children sitting in a group formation of six or eight pupils, no collaborative group
work was observed in any of the classes. Individual seat work on average occupied
31% of the lesson time, often ending with teacher supervision of the class or the
marking of work with little teacher–pupil interaction taking place. It was also rare for tea-
chers to share the learning objectives with the pupils and to use a discussion to draw the
whole class together at the end of the lesson to summarise, consolidate and extend what
had been covered, and direct pupils to the next stage of learning.
3.1. Systematic observation analysis

Having systematically coded the subset of eight speaking and listening lessons using the
systematic analysis framework, the results were quantified and turned into percentage
scores to show the distribution of IRF moves occurring in teacher–pupil interactions.
3.1.1. Initiation moves

Altogether the study coded and analysed 1014 initiation moves within the eight speaking
and listening lessons. A percentage breakdown of the analysis of the I-moves is given in
Figure 1.
As Figure 1 shows, initiation moves were mainly made up of teacher questions, teacher
directs and teacher informs. Most of the questions asked by teachers were closed or were
repeat questions (62.4%), often cuing an elicitation from pupils in chorus. More thought-
provoking, open-ended questions, eliciting a range of responses, were rare, making up only
7.2% of the questions. Teacher directs occurred in nearly a fifth of the I-moves (19.3%),
reflecting a considerable use of action-based activities such as songs and games and indi-
vidual seat work. Teacher informs accounted for 9.4% of the I-moves as teaching mainly
revolved around asking pupils to repeat after the teacher and to read aloud from a chalk-
board or textbook. Teacher checks and pupil questions were very rare (less than 1.1%).
3.1.2. Response moves

In total 918 response moves were coded. A percentage breakdown of pupil responses is
given in Figure 2.
The analysis shows that the majority of the pupil responses were choral: a combi-
nation of whole class and choral few answers making up 67.6% of the exchanges.
Choral responses were often very brief, fast-paced and ritualised, requiring demonstration
of little understanding on the part of the pupils. On the other hand, individual pupil
responses that could be used to genuinely check on understanding through teacher
probes, whereby the teacher stays with the same pupil and asks for further elaboration
or explanation as to how they arrived at the answer, accounted for under a tenth
(8.5%) of the responses. Pupil demonstrations accounted for 21.3% of the responses,
further evidencing the activity-based nature of the lessons made up of songs and games.
Figure 1. Initiation moves.

Figure 2. Response moves.

Figure 3. Follow-up moves.
3.1.3. Follow-up moves

Of the 918 response moves coded, 423 were followed up with feedback. A percentage
breakdown of F-moves is provided in Figure 3.
Over half of all the teaching exchanges identified (54%) lacked feedback moves. This
was not surprising as a similar proportion of pupil responses (R-moves) were choral in the
form of fast-paced, brief answers, and the feedback could not be targeted at an individual.
Teacher feedback to an answer accounted for just over a third (33.1%) of the F-moves.
However, this kind of feedback was often of a low level, simply accepting or affirming
the answer by repeating it. Higher levels of feedback, through the use of probes to ask
for further elaboration or explanation, or comments to exemplify, expand, justify or
provide additional information on an answer, were rarely used, making up 2.4% of the feed-
back. Asking another pupil to answer a question and teacher praise (often phatic praise with
no comment on the quality of the answer) accounted for 4.6% and 4.7% of the feedback,
respectively.
3.2. Transcript analysis

The following transcript from a lesson exploring the topic of ‘My Family’ was typical of the
interactive patterns found in the classrooms of all eight teachers in the systematic obser-
vation of IRF moves. A third of the 60-minute lesson was spent on teacher-fronted inter-
action with the whole class, followed by individual seat work where the pupils mainly
worked from the textbooks used in the whole class interaction.
As can be seen in Table 1, the teacher rarely deviated from the strict IRF/IR pattern. The
teacher initiated all the exchanges and the pupils provided only brief answers, usually made
up of one or two words. Where the teacher offered feedback it was usually in the form of an
evaluation or an acknowledgement of the answer. It can also be seen in Table 1 that the pace
of the teacher’s questioning was very rapid, moving from one pupil to the next with hardly
any wait time for a response (see, e.g. Turn 24).3
Table 1 also shows that initiations and re-initiations, often cued by a rising intonation,
were a common feature of the teacher talk in the Malaysian primary English classroom, and
were found to play a dominant role in the unfolding of the lessons. They were used by the
teachers to elicit pupil responses by using a rising intonation at the end of an explanation, a
sentence, a phrase or a word, and from this cue, pupils replied with a brief response either
chorally as a whole class, in small groups or individually. The strategy often resembled slot
and filler language exercises commonly found in the audio-lingual method of language
teaching, in which the focus of the teaching is on language form and where the process
is highly controlled, mechanical and sentence-based (Stern, 1983). Here the teaching of
English is viewed as the transmitting and testing of vocabulary, phonological features
Table 1. IRF/IR pattern of discourse.

Exchange Move Act
1 T Boy use^ Initiation Elicit
2 P He (chorus) Response Reply
3 T He Feedback Accept
4 T Woman and girl use^ Initiation Elicit
5 P She (chorus) Response Reply
6 T She Feedback Accept
7 T Man and boy use^ Initiation Elicit
8 P He (chorus) Response Reply
9 T He Feedback Accept
10 T Ok, come Danish. Is he a boy or a man? Initiation Elicit
11 P Boy (chorus) Response Reply
12 T a^ … boy. Feedback Accept
Because he is small. Small we call boy Comment
13 T What about your father? Your father, Initiation Starter
is he a man or a boy? Elicit
14 P Man (chorus) Response Reply
15 T a^ … Re-initiation Elicit
17 T What about your grandfather? Initiation Elicit
18 P Father Response Reply
19 T Man or boy? Grandfather? Re-initiation Elicit
20 P Man Response Reply
21 T a^ … a^ … Re-initiation Elicit
23 T Man Feedback Accept
24 Aliya, what are you doing Aliya? Initiation Starter/
Ok Aliya, your grandmother, Nominate/elicit
a girl or a woman?
Keep your book. Keep. Direct
Ok Izat, your grandmother, she a woman Nominate/elicit
or a girl? Grandmother?
Who can tell me, grandmother is she a Elicit/nominate
woman or a girl? Ok Adriana?
Table 2. Teacher use of repetition.

Exchange Move Act
1 T Ok … what is the name of the duck? Initiation Elicit
2 P Dilly (chorus) Response Reply
3 T Ha? Re-initiation Elicit
5 T What is the name? Re-initiation Elicit
7 T Dilly ok Feedback Accept
8 T How does Dilly feel? Initiation Elicit
9 P Mad and sad Response Reply
10 T Alright good Feedback Evaluate
11 T Mad and^ Re-initiation Elicit
12 P Sad (chorus) Response Reply

and grammatical concepts rather than the development of communicative language skills
through oral practice.
It was also interesting to note from the stimulated recall and interviews with the teachers
that the use of cued elicitations was seen to perform a participatory function. The rising
intonation in the middle of a word (‘news^ … paper’, ‘foot^ … football’) or a phrase
(washes the^ … car) was viewed as a strategy for making pupils feel they were contributing
to the lesson and keeping them involved as a collective unit. It was also felt to compensate
for the perceived lack of proficiency and confidence in the use of English on the part of
pupils. However, the analysis of the transcripts suggested the use of cued elicitations,
through the completion of phrases, the repetition of words and choral affirmation of ‘under-
standing’, often prevented pupils from engaging in more creative and higher levels of
thinking.
The transcripts analysis also revealed the pervasive use of rote, whereby teachers would
repeat themselves over the course of a lesson with no incremental linguistic input or teach-
ing content provided for exposition or clarification purposes. This is illustrated in Table 2.
Similarly it was also found that teacher self-repetition frequently occurred in the
I-moves, as shown in Table 3. Here we see the teacher cuing and repeating the correct
response she wants from the children.
Overall the interactive analysis revealed that the most common methods employed by
the eight teachers were explaining, questioning, giving examples and using the board, and
that there was little variation in approach. In all eight lessons, the majority of the activities
were devoted to teaching the rules of the language, drilling and repetition, findings sup-
ported by discussion with the teachers during the stimulated video-recall sessions.
3.3. Teacher understanding of the curriculum

When asked during the interviews about the relevance of the new curriculum, all eight tea-
chers welcomed what they saw as a greater emphasis on developing the communicative
competence of pupils through the use of more interactive forms of teaching and learning.
As one of the teachers stated:
Table 3. Teacher use of self-repetition.

Exchange Move Act
1 T What is the colour of the bird? Initiation Starter
Colour?
What is the colour of the bird? Elicit
Maslizam, you want to try? Nominate
What is the colour of the bird? Elicit
What is the bird’s colour?
Is it green? Elicit
Is it green, class?
2 P Green (chorus) Response Reply
3 T Green Feedback Accept
Interactive teaching is very good … the students will have the chance to talk, speak and
perform their skills, perform what they have learned and present their ideas and provide the
chance to practise what they have learned.
However, when pressed to give details about what they meant by ‘communicative’ and
‘interactive learner-centred teaching’, explanations varied widely. While all eight teachers
discussed how it created opportunities for the practical use of the English language by
pupils, the concept of interactive learner-centred learning seemed somewhat limited. The
teaching approach was generally defined in terms of encouraging pupils’ participation
and contributions in communicative activities such as singing, role playing, language
games, reading a big book, storytelling, jazz chanting, and question and answer sessions,
as stated by the following teacher:
They will do some fun activities maybe some craft art, they will sing, do some group activities,
only one day. So the pupils will be excited on this day because no teacher’s talking, they don’t
have to speak, no writing but they will do something fun and interesting.
While two teachers discussed how it required a greater emphasis on cooperative rather than
teacher-fronted interaction and individualistic approaches to learning, observation of their
lessons suggested group work was not followed through into classroom practice.
When asked about the challenges of implementing such activities in the classroom most
spoke about the problems of having to manage large classes of pupils with mixed learning
abilities, low levels of proficiency in the English language, the need to get through specified
content in the curriculum and the pressures to prepare the children for end of year assess-
ments. All eight teachers also expressed the view that there was not enough support
provided to aid the implementation of the communicative approach and that there was a
mismatch between the curriculum and how it was assessed. The teachers discussed how
the assessments tested pupils on discrete items, notably writing, reading and grammar
exercises. As one teacher stated:
We have to realise here in Malaysia all the pupils evaluate using exams … examination … they
have to write … so we focus on writing … because here we have tests … monthly test, mid-
year exam … all the tests and exams are on writing so we have to teach students how to
write … not on communication.
The video-stimulated recall discussions with the teachers also revealed the teachers were
unsure of what the term interactive learner-centred teaching meant in practice. When
viewing their interactions with the pupils in the critical moments selected from the
lessons, all of the teachers were surprised about the lack of fit between their perceptions of
how they teach and their actual classroom practice. Prior to taking part in the study, they
believed that the speaking and listening lessons were providing for the more active involve-
ment of pupils through the use of games, songs and dialogues, and that they were encoura-
ging more exploratory forms of discussion to allow for an interchange of ideas as suggested
by the new curriculum. They also reported they were disturbed by the tight control they
were exercising over the classroom talk through closed questions, cued elicitations and
repeat questions in situations where they thought they were creating opportunities for the
pupils to play a more active part in their learning.
Despite the stated policy of the new curriculum promoting communicative approaches
in the teaching of English to young learners, the interactive analysis found that much of the
classroom talk between teacher and pupils was of a restrictive, often monotonous nature and
highly ritualised, creating a semblance of curriculum coverage, knowledge and understand-
ing. Such discourse patterns have been labelled as ‘safe talk’ for both teacher and pupils as
neither party is challenged in their use of English due to the predictable nature of the unfold-
ing discourse, resulting in low levels of linguistic and cognitive engagement. By resorting
to such forms of talk it allows for ‘participation’ without loss of face for both teachers and
pupils, whether through language errors or lack of understanding (Hornberger & Chick,
2001). Teachers agreed in the interviews that their frequent use of cued elicitations, rep-
etition and the chorusing of responses was to encourage participation but that it was
rarely challenging the pupils’ communicative competence in English.
When asked why they use such a restrictive discourse style, all eight teachers felt it
compensated for the pupils’ low level of proficiency in English and that it allowed them
to maintain control of the pedagogic agenda in order to cover the syllabus and meet the
assessment requirements. As one of the teachers stated:
During the listening and speaking, they must speak but they don’t have the language to speak
so every time in the classroom what I do for my students, I drill them, I drill them the language,
I drill them the words, I drill them, drill, drill …
However, many admitted they were not aware of the extent to which they used closed ques-
tions, cued elicitations and repetition, and agreed it was highly entrenched in their discourse
practices. They also agreed that a heavy reliance on the use of such discourse moves
restricted the use of genuine and meaningful interaction in the classroom, and denied the
pupils opportunities to engage in genuine dialogue where exploratory talk is encouraged
and valued. The following comments were typical when the teachers were asked about
this finding. One teacher commented:
I should have asked more general questions related to the pupils’ experience. I realised that I
need to provide more opportunities for the students to speak and use the language more during
the lessons.
Another stated:
They don’t share their ideas. They just answer for my questions. They don’t elaborate and
explain. I should give more general questions so they can share what they know, what are
their experiences.
All eight teachers reported they were relatively unaware of the patterns and function of
teacher–pupil interaction in the classroom. Most reported they had not been taught specific
strategies as part of their initial and in-service education and training, and felt there was a
need for teachers to develop a deeper understanding of the role of talk in the development of
pupils’ communicative competence.
The interviews also explored teacher views on the relevance of the three-day in-service
education and training (INSET) and the role it had played in developing their understanding
and supporting their implementation of the new English curriculum. All eight teachers felt
too much emphasis had been placed on curriculum content and teaching according to the
textbook, and that not enough time had been spent on modelling how to embed communi-
cative language approaches into their teaching. The following comments were typical of
this view:
Three days is a very compact course. In 3 days we have to cover a lot of things and there were
over 100 teachers. So how can we focus in a very large crowd, right!
I think the training … it should be another training aside from that one major training. There
should be a progressive one … professional development …
While all eight teachers felt the inclusion of songs, games and dialogues were enjoyable
activities, there was general agreement that in the training teachers were not being asked
to think through how they could integrate such activities into the learning outcomes of
the lesson to facilitate pupil understanding and use of new language structures, a view
summed up in the following statement from one of the teachers:
It should be err … give us some time to what … to digest the training, the input so that we can
think, reflect and try before we can implement …
The modular approach adopted in the training materials, whereby the teaching and learning
of each language mode, covering speaking, listening, reading and writing, was presented
separately, was also adding to the pedagogical confusion experienced by the teachers.
All eight teachers interpreted the modular approach as requiring lessons with an emphasis
on one of the language skills, thereby discouraging an integrated approach in the teaching of
English.
4. Discussion
The findings of the systematic observations, stimulated recall and interviews show there
was little understanding of the CLT principles underpinning the new curriculum and of
the pedagogic approaches required for its effective implementation in the classroom
across the whole sample of lessons in both urban and suburban schools. Teacher use of
the tightly controlled IR(F) structure led to the domination of rote, recitation, instruction
and exposition, and severely restricted opportunities for dialogue and discussion which
are seen as being fundamental to a communication-orientated curriculum (Alexander,
2008).
On the surface, the activity-based approaches such as the use of songs, games and dia-
logues appeared to suggest a more active approach to learning. However, a closer look at
how the activities were structured suggested they were not providing real opportunities
for creating meaningful and purposeful interaction with the teacher and with pupil peers
inasmuch as there was little in the way of the exchanging of knowledge, ideas, information,
opinions or feelings. The language activities were mainly confined to singing or choral
chanting for rote and memorisation purposes or prescribed dialogues for the pupils to prac-
tise rather than asking them to create their own dialogues.
In teacher–pupil interaction often only the first two parts of the IRF exchange structure
were being used due to the ubiquitous use of cued elicitations and teacher repetition. Where
questions were used they were often closed, requiring recall of memorised information, and
where feedback on an answer did occur, it was often affirmed or evaluated for its accept-
ability within the teacher’s frame of reference. The discourse practices closely resemble
those observed in Timorese classrooms and Chinese classrooms and suggest teachers
were not using CLT approaches in their teaching repertoire as intended by the English cur-
riculum designers (Quinn, 2013; Rui & Chew, 2013). The stimulated recall and interviews
also indicated that all eight teachers were relatively unaware of the theoretical principles of
communicative language approaches and of the patterns and functions of teacher–pupil talk
in their classrooms. All agreed that education and training in communicative language
approaches at the initial and in-service stages of training should be a major priority for suc-
cessful implementation of the new curriculum.

Overall, the findings raise questions about the extent to which the pedagogical strategies
and practices as envisaged by the new primary English curriculum reforms are currently
being implemented in the classroom. They suggest the need for teachers of English in
Malaysian primary schools to broaden their pedagogic repertoire beyond the use of rote,
recitation, instruction and exposition, to include high-quality dialogue and discussion in
whole class, group-based and individual activities, where pupils are expected to play an
active role by asking questions, contributing ideas and explaining and demonstrating
their thinking to the teacher and peers.
If such pedagogical innovations are to be successfully implemented in the teaching of
English to young learners in Malaysia, teachers will need to understand the underlying prin-
ciples of the new curriculum and be trained in dialogic teaching approaches (Kırkögz,
2008). Teachers will require additional guidance and support in interactive and discourse
approaches that develop their ability to ask thought-provoking questions, and provide
high-quality feedback through the use of probes, comments or questions which build on
pupil answers to encourage more sustained contributions. It will also require training in
the effective promotion and management of paired and group work and formative
approaches to assessment.
Research into professional learning has started to explore the link between discourse
patterns and teachers’ theories of learning, arguing that the use of particular discourse strat-
egies reflects certain pedagogical epistemologies (Mercer, 2010). It is suggested that the
choices teachers make about the kinds of discourse patterns and pedagogical strategies
they use in their classrooms are linked to their pedagogical beliefs, and that the most effec-
tive teachers are those who can theorise their teaching so as to make confident and profes-
sionally informed pedagogic decisions (Timperley, 2011).
The findings of the current study suggest that the new primary English curriculum in
Malaysia has been introduced with insufficient consideration being paid by policy-
makers to the key role of teachers in enacting curriculum reforms and to the major shifts
in beliefs and classroom practices that have to be brought about for their successful
implementation in the classroom. Changing teachers’ current pedagogical practices will
require professional development courses based on the actual needs and existing practices
of teachers as revealed in the current study. It will also require a move away from a centra-
lised teacher training programme of in-service training, cascaded down to schools through
workshops, and strengthening of initial teacher education through school-based training
that brings together theory and practice.
Such school-based teacher development will have to be aligned with teacher needs,
have the support of the head teacher and involve teachers working together at school and
cluster level, with follow-up in the classroom involving observation, coaching and feedback
(Kabilan & Veratharaju, 2013; Kennedy, 2005). This will bring Malaysia in line with other
countries in the Asia-Pacific region. For example, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and
Shanghai have moved towards school-based models of training at the initial and in-service
stages by building enhanced partnership arrangements between higher education and
schools (Suzuki & Howe, 2010).
Such developments will also be in line with the international research into teacher
development and support. In its most recent review of teacher education covering 65
countries from around the world, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (OECD, 2011) reported that in the high-performing education systems teachers
have a central role to play in improving educational outcomes, and are also at the centre
of the improvement efforts themselves. Such high-performing systems are not driven by
top-down reforms but by teachers embracing and leading on reform, taking responsibility
as professionals, thereby developing a wider repertoire of pedagogic strategies for use in the
classroom (Quinn, 2013).
The OECD study also found that the most effective professional development pro-
grammes upgrade pedagogic knowledge and skills over a sustained period of time rather
than through disjointed one-off courses. They bring together initial teacher education,
induction and continuing professional development so as to create a lifelong framework
for teachers. In this way, professional development programmes provide opportunities
for teachers to work together on issues of instructional planning, to learn from one
another through mentoring or peer coaching and by conducting research on the outcomes
of classroom practices to collectively guide curriculum, assessment and professional learn-
ing decisions (Darling-Hammond, Chung Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).
Teacher education reforms in Malaysia also need to recognise that quality education is
unlikely to be achieved through focusing on single initiatives like teacher education alone
and that it will require a systemic approach that addresses the capacity and training needs of
those charged with organising and providing the training, mentoring and coaching, such as
teacher educators, district officials and quality assurance officers, and the creation of incen-
tives for those teachers who will be taking part in the INSET (O’Sullivan, 2010). It will also
require curriculum, assessment and governance reforms to build an enabling framework
and environment, and an effective communication and advocacy strategy, and ongoing
appraisal, monitoring and evaluation (Hardman, Ackers, O’Sullivan, & Abrishamian,
2011).
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, the findings of this study support the view that teachers are key players in
successful curriculum implementation and that such innovations require major shifts in
the beliefs, understanding and pedagogical practices of teachers. Curriculum innovation
cannot be enacted unless teachers are supported in developing their pedagogical content
knowledge and finding new ways of presenting subject content and interacting with their
pupils in whole class, group-based and one-to-one situations. This in turn will require a
major investment in education and training at the initial and in-service stages, and a realistic
timeframe that reflects the preparedness of teachers to implement the curriculum inno-
vation, and provides sufficient time for them to try out new ideas and adapt them to the rea-
lities of the classroom.
Given the small scale and exploratory nature of the study, further research is needed to
find out what works in helping teachers to implement curriculum reforms to develop pupil
communicative competence through the use of interactive, learner-centred teaching
approaches. In addition to the provision of more powerful professional development pro-
grammes in schools, there is the need for experimental and longitudinal research to inves-
tigate how different forms of classroom talk impact on learning outcomes. More large-scale
studies which use systematic quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis to conduct
impact and process evaluations to consolidate and extend the evidence base are needed.
Such rigorous evaluation approaches will provide comprehensive evidence, for both tea-
chers and policy-makers, that a communicative language approach can promote greater
pupil engagement and produce significant gains in learning and social and emotional
well-being.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their helpful feedback on an earlier
draft of the paper.
Notes
1. In Malaysia, public primary schools are divided into two categories based on the medium of
instruction: Malay-medium national schools and non-Malay-medium national-type schools
known as ‘vernacular schools’ in which children are taught through the medium of Mandarin
or Tamil.
2. When interviewed, the teachers admitted that they were initially conscious of the observer’s pres-
ence but soon forgot they were there once the lessons were in full flow.
3. The moves, Initiation, Response, Feedback, make up the three-part teaching exchange and in turn
are made up of acts: elicit (teacher question); nominate; prompt; reply; starter; accept; comment;
direct; evaluation. Boundaries between teaching exchanges are indicated by a marker (m) to show
a change in lesson topic; ^ indicates rising intonation; T = teacher; P = student(s).
References
Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Alexander, R. (2008). Education for all, the quality imperative and the problem of pedagogy. London:
Institute of Education.
Bantwini, B. D. (2010). How teachers perceive the new curriculum reform: Lessons from a school
district in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. International Journal of Educational
Development, 30, 83–90.
Brain, K., Reid, I., & Boyes, L. C. (2006). Teachers as mediators between educational policy and prac-
tice. Educational Studies, 32(4), 411–423.
Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools.
System, 31(4), 485–500.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’
responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A report on teacher development in the
United States and abroad. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, National Staff Development
Council.
Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Hao, W., & Liu, Y. (2012). The discourse of English reading lessons in Chinese middle schools: A
sociocultural perspective. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 212–228.
Hardman, F. (2008). The guided co-construction of knowledge. In M. Martin-Jones, A. de Mejia, &

N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education (pp. 253–264). New York,
NY: Springer.
Hardman, F., & Abd-Kadir, J. (2010). Classroom discourse: Towards a dialogic pedagogy. In
D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The international handbook of English, language
and literacy teaching (pp. 254–264). London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Hardman, F., Ackers, J., O’Sullivan, M., & Abrishamian, N. (2011). Developing a systematic
approach to teacher education in sub-Saharan Africa: Emerging lessons from Kenya, Tanzania
and Uganda. Compare, 41(5), 669–683.
Hardman, F., Stoff, C., Aung, W., & Elliot, L. (2014). Developing pedagogical practices in Myanmar
primary schools: Possibilities and constraints. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. doi:10.1080/
02188791.2014.906387
He, Y., Prater, K., & Steed, T. (2011). Moving beyond ‘just good teaching’: ESL professional devel-
opment for all teachers. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 7–18.
Heng, C. S., & Tan, H. (2006). English for mathematics and science: Current Malaysian language-in-
education policies and practices. Language and Education, 20(4), 306–321.
Ho, W. K. (2002). English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 22(2), 1–22.
Hornberger, N., & Chick, K. (2001). Co-constructing school safetime: Safetalk practices in Peruvian
and South African classrooms. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority:
Education and linguistic difference (pp. 31–55). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative
language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93–105.
Hu, Q. Q. (2004). A survey on the questioning pattern of college English teachers. Foreign Language
World, 6, 22–27.
Hussin, H. (2006). Dimensions of questioning: A qualitative study of current classroom practice in
Malaysia. TESL-EJ, Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 10(2), 1–18.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 19(1), 5–20.
Kabilan, M. K., & Veratharaju, K. (2013). Professional development needs of primary school English-
language teachers in Malaysia. Professional Development in Education, 39(3), 330–351.
Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of CPD: A framework for analysis. Journal of In-service Education,
31(2), 235–250.
Kırkögz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovations in English
language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7),
1859–1875.
Martin, P. (2005). Safe language practices in two rural schools in Malaysia: Tensions between policy
and practice. In A. M. Y. Lin & P. W. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-
education policy and practice (pp. 74–97). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 1–14.
Ministry of Education. (2011). Malaysian English language curriculum for primary schools. Kuala
Lumpur: Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of Education.
Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian
primary schools. The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(3), 414–430.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in
the Asia Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613.
Obaidul Hamid, M., & Honan, E. (2012). Communicative English in the primary classroom:
Implications for English-in-education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 25(2), 139–156.
O’Donnell, K. (2005). Japanese secondary English teachers: Negotiation of educational roles in the
face of curricular reform. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(3), 300–315.
OECD. (2011). Building a high quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world. Paris:
Author.
Orafi, S. M. S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum
reform. System, 37, 243–253.
O’Sullivan, M. C. (2010). Educating the teacher educator: A Ugandan case study. International
Journal of Educational Development, 30, 377–387.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional
development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American
Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Quinn, M. (2013). Talking to learn in Timorese classrooms. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26
(2), 179–196.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rui, T., & Chew, P. G.-L. (2013). Pedagogical use of two languages in a Chinese elementary school.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(3), 317–331.
Shihiba, S. E. S. (2011). An investigation of Libyan EFL teachers’ conceptions of the communicative
learner-centred approach in relation to their implementation of an English language curriculum
innovation in secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Durham,
Durham, UK.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),
Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1–34). London: Routledge.

Smit, B. (2005). Teachers, local knowledge, and policy implementation: A qualitative policy-practice
inquiry. Education and Urban Society, 37(3), 292–306.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, S., & Howe, E. R. (2010). Asian perspectives on teacher education. London: Routledge.
Timperley, H. (2011). Realising the power of professional learning. London: Open University Press.
Tsui, A. B. (1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC Journal,
16(1), 8–30.
Vaish, V. (2008). Interactional patterns in Singapore’s English classrooms. Linguistics and Education,
19, 366–377.
Wang, H., & Cheng, L. (2008). The impact of curriculum innovation on the cultures of teaching. The
Chinese English Foreign Language Journal, 1(1), 5–30.
Yang, L. F., & Ishak, S. A. (2012). Framing controversy over language policy in Malaysia: The cover-
age of PPSMI reversal (teaching of mathematics and science in English) by Malaysian newspa-
pers. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(5), 449–473.
View publication stats

Teachers and The Implementation of A New English Curriculum in Malaysia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachers and The Implementation of A New English Curriculum in Malaysia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum in Malaysia

Article in Language Culture and Curriculum · September 2014

Educational dialogue View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 0790-8318 (Print) 1747-7573 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlcc20

Teachers and the implementation of a new English

Jan Hardman & Norhaslynda A-Rahman

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.980826

Published online: 20 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4125

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of York] Date: 22 November 2017, At: 08:13

Teachers and the implementation of a new English curriculum

Department of Education, University of York, York, UK

*Corresponding author. Email: jan.hardman@york.ac.uk

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

language skills so as to enable them to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts’

2.2. Lesson observations

2.3. Systematic observations

2.4. Stimulated recalls of lesson recordings

2.5. Teacher interviews

3.1. Systematic observation analysis

3.1.1. Initiation moves

3.1.2. Response moves

Figure 1. Initiation moves.

Figure 2. Response moves.

Figure 3. Follow-up moves.

3.1.3. Follow-up moves

3.2. Transcript analysis

Table 1. IRF/IR pattern of discourse.

Table 2. Teacher use of repetition.

13 T Mad and^ Re-initiation Elicit

3.3. Teacher understanding of the curriculum

Table 3. Teacher use of self-repetition.

should be a progressive one … professional development …

cessful implementation of the new curriculum.

Hardman, F. (2008). The guided co-construction of knowledge. In M. Martin-Jones, A. de Mejia, &

Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1–34). London: Routledge.

View publication stats

You might also like