EDU 5256 Abstract Nur Izzati Khairuddin

(10%) GS 48574
PERSONALISING LESSON PLANS WITHIN THE NATIONAL PRESCRIBED
CURRICULUM: CONSTRAINTS AND POSSIBILITIES

Nur Izzati binti Khairuddin

n.izzati.khairuddin@gmail.com

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Abstract

The nature of most prescribed curricula around the world has resulted to
numerous teachers being suppressed of their autonomy and creativity to conduct
their lessons. For that, many of them feel demotivated to stay within the
profession, hence, causing them to leave for good. The discussion in this paper is
divided into three sections. The first section summarises past literatures on the
general overview of prescribed curricula and their impacts on both teachers and
students. The second section puts the discussion of prescribed curriculum in
Malaysia’s setting, in which will be looking at the extent of how much the newly
implemented Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR)
is considered as prescribed curriculum and what Malaysian teachers’ perception
about it. The third section looks into two possible creative pedagogical stances
that could assist Malaysian teachers in producing personalised lesson plans within
the prescribed curriculum. This paper concludes with suggestions for Malaysian
teachers to not prevent themselves from exploring other options in designing their
lesson plans without the need to abandon the national curriculum prescribed to
them.

Keywords: Prescribed curriculum, described curriculum, Common European Framework

of Reference for Language (CEFR)

1
EDU 5256 Abstract
(10%)
Reference List
Agee, J. (2004). Negotiating a Teaching Identity: An
African American Teacher's Struggle to Teach
in Test-Driven Contexts. Teachers College
Record, 106(4), 747-774.
Anastopoulou, S., Baber, C., & Sharples, M. (2001).
Multimedia and multimodal systems:
commonalities and differences. In 5th Human
Centred Technology Postgraduate Workshop,
University of Sussex.
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (n.d.).
What is a liberal education? Retrieved from
https://www.aacu.org/leap/what-is-a-liberal-
education
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (2003). Education under
siege: The conservative, liberal and radical
debate over schooling. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Claxton, G. (1997). Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: Why
Intelligence Increases when you Think Less.
London: Fourth Estate.
Council, O. E. (2001). Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/fra
mework_en.pdf
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing
of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of
accountability urban educators speak
out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535.
Dornan, T., Boshuizen, H., King, N., & Scherpbier, A.
(2007). Experience‐based learning: a model
linking the processes and outcomes of medical
students' workplace learning. Medical
education, 41(1), 84-91.
Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of
ambiguity in second language learning. Affect
in language learning, 68-86.
Ezzati, M., & Farahian, M. (2016). Exploring the
Tolerance of Ambiguity and Grammar
Achievement of Advanced EFL
Learners. Journal for the Study of English
linguistics, 5(1), 1-12.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of
multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., &
Boschee, B. F. (2012). Curriculum leadership:
Strategies for development and
implementation. (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Goodwyn, A. (2012). One size fits all: The increasing
standardisation of English teachers' work in
England. English Teaching, 11(4), 36.
Grainger, T., & Barnes, J. (2006). Creativity in the
primary curriculum. Retrieved from
http://oro.open.ac.uk/12953/2/4C7A8273.pdf
Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from
curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new
2
Nur Izzati Khairuddin
GS 48574
teachers?. Teaching and teacher
education, 24(8), 2014-2026.
Hass, G. (1987). Curriculum planning: A new approach
(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’
professional identity and its relation to
dropping out of the profession. Teaching and
teacher Education, 26(8), 1530-1543.
Hopkins, L. T. (1941). Interaction: The democratic
process. Boston: D. C. Heath
Ingram, L. G. (2017). A Classroom Full of Risk Takers.
Retrieved from Edutopia:
https://www.edutopia.org/article/classroom-
full-risk-takers
Kaufmann, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., &
Peske, H. G. (2002). " Lost At Sea": New
Teachers' Experiences with Curriculum and
Assessment. Teachers College Record, 104(2),
273-300.
Maier, C., n.d.). Multimodal teaching strategies.
Classroom Retrieved from
https://classroom.synonym.com/multimodal-
teaching-strategies-12049345.html
Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. (1970). Systematic
instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Reeves, J. (2010). Teacher learning by script. Language
Teaching Research, 14(3), 241-258.
Ryumon, A. (2007). Washback of high-stakes
assessment. Learning Discourses and the
Discourses of Learning, 16. Retrieved from
http://books.publishing.monash.edu/apps/book
worm/view/Learning+Discourses+and+the+Di
scourses+of+Learning/134/xhtml/
chapter17.html
Sankey, M., Birch, D., & Gardiner, M. (2010). Engaging
students through multimodal learning
environments: The journey continues.
In Proceedings ASCILITE 2010: 27th Annual
Conference of the Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education:
Curriculum, Technology and Transformation
for an Unknown Future (pp. 852-863).
University of Queensland.
Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century
learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630.
Smagorinsky, P., Lakly, A., & Johnson, T. S. (2002).
Acquiescence, accommodation, and resistance
in learning to teach within a prescribed
curriculum. English Education, 34(3), 187-213.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum
development: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York:
Merrill.
EDU 5256 Abstract Nur Izzati Khairuddin
(10%) GS 48574