Malaysian ESL Teachers’ Instructional Planning in CEFR-Aligned Classroom Based Assessment

Malaysian ESL Teachers’ Instructional Planning in CEFR-Aligned Classroom Based Assessment | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Malaysian ESL Teachers’ Instructional Planning in CEFR-Aligned Classroom Based Assessment Anwar Farhan Mohamad Marzaini, Shahazwan Mat Yusoff This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7879588/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 15 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The integration of formative assessment into Malaysian ESL classrooms through the CEFR-aligned Classroom Based Assessment (CBA) initiative marks a significant shift from traditional exam-centric paradigms. This qualitative case study explores how Malaysian secondary school ESL teachers plan instructional activities within this reform climate. Drawing on semi-structured interviews and document analysis involving six ESL teachers from three public secondary schools in Penang, the study employs thematic analysis to elucidate core patterns in instructional planning. Three predominant themes emerged: establishing assessment objectives aligned with curriculum standards, organizing instructional methods and content through lesson planning, and designing contextually appropriate assessment tasks. While most teachers adhered to the Standard Based English Language Curriculum (SBELC) and the Scheme of Work (SOW), inconsistencies were noted in the depth of CEFR integration. While teachers demonstrated adaptive and learner-centered practices; some retain standardized, exam-oriented assessment modes. These discrepancies highlight a policy-practice gap, often attributed to limited assessment literacy and insufficient professional development. The findings highlight the imperative for sustained, targeted teacher training and the institutionalization of collaborative support systems such as Professional Learning Communities to facilitate effective instructional planning. This study sheds light on classroom-level ESL policy implementation, guiding future teacher support and policy improvements. CEFR Classroom-Based Assessment ESL Instruction Formative Assessment Instructional Planning Malaysian Education Reform Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 INTRODUCTION Malaysian education was highly criticized due to excessive focus on the exam-oriented culture (Chin et al., 2019 ). This archaic exam-oriented system has sparked a heated debate as it was claimed to be ineffective in producing students with the skills comparable to the international standards (Rashid, Abdul Rahman & Yunus, 2016). It is because the student’s mastery level was identified by high-stakes examinations such as Pentaksiran Tingakatan 3 (PT3) and Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) which was conducted during scheduled exam periods where Malaysian Examination Syndicate (MES) was responsible for preparing the exam papers. This approach was deemed ineffective as Yasmin, Farooq and Shah ( 2023 ) claimed that students were forced to attain high scores in single sittings of these examinations. Many scholars (Nguyen & Stracke, 2020 ; Al Amin & Greenwood, 2018 ; Mat Yusoff et al., 2025 ) claimed that the nature of exam-oriented culture has also disrupted teachers’ autonomy as they were considered as passive agents in monitoring students’ learning progress of the language skills. Their role was limited to making judgement based on students’ final performance at the end of the academic year through the standardized assessment instrument (Ishaq et al., 2020 ). Due to these contentious issues, the government started a reform plan in 2021 which resulted in the abolishment of the summative high-stake examinations at both primary and secondary school (Rethinasamy et al., 2021 ). Apparently, Malaysian students now must sit for only one high-stake examination which is Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) throughout their schooling years. Hence, the concept of formative assessment has been foregrounded at all levels through the introduction of Classroom Based Assessment (CBA). This new assessment climate is perceived to be beneficial in reducing the examination burden in the early years of schooling (Yates & Johnston, 2018), fostering an enjoyable learning culture (Arumugham, 2020 ), assisting teachers in assessing students’ holistically and creating equal learning opportunities for all students (Yeh, 2021 ). Teachers are now given such an important role as the execution of the CBA lays on their autonomy (Mohd Isa et al., 2022 ; Abdul Razak et al., 2023 ) to execute activities like presentations, group discussions, and project-based learning in the teaching and learning process. In this sense, Dlamini and Ramnarain ( 2023 ) affirmed that teachers’ instructional planning is deemed crucial to ensure the successful execution of the CBA. Without effective instructional planning, the implementation of CBA may become inconsistent. Leading to fragmented assessment practices that fail to provide meaningful insights into student learning. Despite the emphasis on teachers’ instructional planning, studies show many remain unfamiliar with the concept of classroom-based assessment (CBA), leading to rushed implementation (Arumugham, 2020 ; Suppian et al., 2020; Yeh, 2021 ; Mohamad Marzaini et al., 2023 ). Mat Yusoff et al. (2023) highlighted that teachers still rely heavily on standardized testing, reflecting limited proficiency in adapting to assessment reforms. This raises concerns about their readiness to implement formative, student-centered practices. Lokman et al. ( 2024 ) further emphasized that poor instructional planning is a major barrier to CBA integration. Effective CBA requires careful planning to ensure assessment activities are structured, purposeful, and aligned with learning goals. However, many teachers exhibit inadequate planning, resulting in fragmented and inconsistent assessments that offer little insight into student progress (Canavagh et al., 2019; Yan & Cheng, 2015 ). When instructional planning lacks coherence, assessment activities often become disconnected from teaching objectives, undermining their ability to measure student development meaningfully. As Bonner et al. ( 2018 ) noted, this disjointed approach perpetuates reliance on standardized tests, hindering the shift towards a more formative, student-centered evaluation system intended by educational policy reforms. Despite the policy emphasis on CBA to promote continuous and formative assessment in Malaysian classrooms, there remains a significant gap in understanding how ESL teachers plan and implement this approach in practice. While existing research highlights teachers’ literacy levels (Mohamad Marzaini et al., 2023 ) and readiness (Xin & Mohamad Nasri, 2024 ; Hajmi & Jamaludin, 2024) and assessment strategies (Roslan, 2024 ), there is limited empirical evidence on how teachers structure their instructional planning to align with policy requirements. In this context, (Mohamad Marzaini et al. ( 2024 ) suggested that little is known about the specific ways in which ESL teachers design their assessment strategies and the extent to which their planning aligns with the intended policy aims. Without a clearer understanding of these aspects, it remains uncertain whether teachers can effectively translate policy expectation into classroom practice. Therefore, addressing this gap is crucial for identifying the support and professional development needed to enhance teachers’ assessment literacy and ensure the successful implementation of CBA in Malaysian ESL classrooms. Thus, this research aims to address the following research questions: How do Malaysian ESL teachers plan their classroom-based assessment? How does their instructional planning align with the policy requirements? LITERATURE REVIEW The Implementation of Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) In Malaysian ESL Education The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was developed by the Council of Europe and launched in 2001. It provides a standardized framework for language learning, teaching, and assessment across educational systems (Council of Europe, 2001). It was introduced to promote transparency and comparability in language qualifications across Europe to serve as a common basis for curriculum development and learner assessment. Organized into six proficiency levels (A1–C2), CEFR describes what learners can do in listening, speaking, reading, and writing at each stage. Aiming to support communicative competence over rote memorization, it promotes plurilingualism in language education (Little, 2006 ). In curriculum and assessment design, CEFR fosters an outcome-based approach by aligning teaching activities with observable communicative functions. Educators use the descriptors to scaffold lessons and assess progress based on measurable competencies. International qualifications like Cambridge exams and IELTS rely on CEFR to enhance comparability across borders (O’Sullivan, 2012). However, effective application depends on teachers' ability to interpret the descriptors, and without sufficient training, implementation can become superficial, and this can result in inconsistent outcomes (Mohamad Marzaini et al., 2023 ). In Malaysia, CEFR was adopted through the Ministry of Education’s 2015–2025 English Language Reform Roadmap to align curricula, textbooks, and assessments to CEFR standards (Azman, 2016 ). Teachers were expected to structure lessons and assessments using “can-do” descriptors, promoting clearer learning outcomes across stages. However, the initial implementation revealed a gap between policy aspirations and classroom realities. Although teachers appreciated the clarity of common standards, many struggled to integrate CEFR descriptors into daily teaching and assessment (Jamain & Jamaludin, 2023 ). Designing authentic CEFR-aligned tasks remained challenging even after several years of practice (Noor Azli & Aini Akmar, 2019). A significant barrier was teacher preparedness. Transitioning from a content-heavy, summative assessment tradition to formative, communicative evaluation required enhanced assessment literacy. Yet, many teachers lacked confidence in interpreting “can-do” statements and applying CEFR bands accurately, especially in rural areas where access to training was limited (Mohamad Marzaini et al., 2024 ). Resource gap also impeded progress, with CEFR-aligned textbooks and materials inconsistently available (Nguyen et al., 2025 ). Additionally, some teachers’ own language proficiency levels, particularly at the primary stage, were insufficient to effectively model CEFR-based competencies (Sukri et al., 2025 ). Nevertheless, the CEFR reform has fostered positive shifts. Teachers increasingly recognize the value of internationally benchmarked and formative assessment practices (Muniandy et al., 2025 ). However, effective implementation requires continued professional development, resource support, and localized adaptation to fully realize CEFR’s potential in Malaysia’s multilingual education context (Jamain & Jamaludin, 2023 ). The Integration of CEFR Into Classroom-Based Assessment Although initially conceived as a pan-European framework, the CEFR has been widely adapted for English language teaching and now serves as a cornerstone for many ESL curricula and assessments globally. Prominent English examinations such as Cambridge English Qualifications and IELTS explicitly align their score scales with CEFR levels to standardize the description of learner achievements (Green, 2018 ). The CEFR’s action-oriented approach and “can-do” descriptors offer essential guidance for formative assessment, encouraging the articulation of learning goals in learner-friendly terms within classroom practice. Teachers can select descriptors aligned to lesson tasks that can enable the clear communication of objectives and consistent evaluation of student performance (Mat Yusoff et al., 2022 ). For example, an English teacher may utilize a B1-level descriptor such as the ability to “describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions,” to frame a speaking task and to assess learners' communicative competence accordingly. In this manner, the CEFR promotes assessment based on real-world communicative actions rather than isolated grammar points or test scores (Mohamad Marzaini et al., 2024 ). Research has shown that CEFR-based checklists and rating grids contribute to increased consistency in teacher assessments by providing shared benchmarks (Rundle & Figueras, 2024 ). While the CEFR’s flexibility allows adaptation to local curricula and cultural contexts, scholars highlight that its broad descriptors, lacking detailed classroom guidance, present challenges for implementation (de Boer et al., 2024 ). Teachers are thus required to interpret, adapt, and sometimes simplify descriptors to suit learner needs. Without adequate professional training, the framework’s broadness risks inconsistent application, as CEFR was “not written primarily as a framework for assessment and test development” (Mat Yusoff et al., 2022 ). Nevertheless, the CEFR has proven effective in guiding communicative task design and promoting learner reflection through tools like the European Language Portfolio (Apridayani et al., 2024 ), provided it is applied with pedagogical discernment. METHODOLOGY Research Design and Participants The present study adopts a qualitative approach to the data collection to discover teachers’ instructional planning in implementing CBA. In order to conduct this study, a case study design was utilized as it allows for the in-depth exploration of the phenomenon under investigation (Yin, 2018 ). Merriam and Tisdell ( 2015 ) further affirmed that the case study design is suitable to the context of the present study as it can facilitate a thorough exploration by discovering nuanced perspectives and intricacies associated with the subject being studied. Hence, this method can be considered a robust approach to gain the understanding on how teachers execute instructional planning in the implementation of assessment reform. Furthermore, Rahman (2014) supported that incorporating case study design in the study of education reform can offer an opportunity for the researchers to delve into the “lived experiences” of stakeholders. Hence, the present study collected data among the population of secondary school ESL teachers in Pulau Pinang state, Malaysia. A maximum variation sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was inculcated into the sampling procedures by searching the participants with a wide range of demographics. In this context, this study collects data among teachers who are different in ages, teach at different grade levels, have different levels of education, and have been teaching for different amounts of time. This method allows the researchers to explore various shared instructional patterns that transcend the sample’s diversity. Thus, there were 6 ESL teachers from three public secondary schools in Pulau Pinang state who were selected as the participants through the purposive sampling technique. These schools are different in numerous aspects. School A has approximately 80 classes, which is double the number of the classes at School B and C. School A was also accredited as the High-Performance School where the process of teaching, learning, assessment, and research were done rigorously. The participants of the study were also disseminated through the criterion-based selection method to ensure richer data pertaining to instructional planning in CBA can be yielded. Hence, these teachers must have at least a bachelor's degree with the minimum of three years of experience in the ELT (English Language Teaching) field. The teachers must have attended the workshop and received CBA training from the district trainers or through internal training at the school level known as Professional Learning Community (PLC). The tabulation of the demographic profiles of the selected participants are illustrated in Table 1 below. Table 1 Demographic Profile of the Participants Participants Gender Age Educational Background Major Teaching Experience (years) Teacher 1 Female 34 M.Ed TESL English 8 Teacher 2 Female 34 B.Ed TESL English 8 Teacher 3 Male 29 B.Ed TESL English 6 Teacher 4 Female 30 M.EdTESOL English 6 Teacher 5 Male 42 B.Ed TESOL English 15 Teacher 6 Female 37 B.Ed TESL English 10 Data Collection Methods In order to ensure a diverse range of data can be collected, the present study employed a multifaceted approach to the data collection. Therefore, the data were collected from the triangulation of semi-structured interviews and document analysis methods. In this context, the semi-structured interview served as the primary data collection method to explore the trends and patterns of instructional approaches employed by ESL teachers in planning their classroom-based assessment. The data collected from this method further compared to the recommendations from the CBA Guidebook which help in exploring the alignment of teachers practice to the policy mandates. Figure 1 below illustrates the triangulation procedures of the present study. In this study, the open-ended questions were incorporated in the semi-structured interview protocol. As this method served as the primary data collection method in exploring the patterns of teachers’ instructional planning, Creswell (2012) mentioned that the responses generated from the open-ended instrument can be a valuable approach for the researchers to gain insightful and precise information as it does not pose any controlled medium for the participants to respond in their own words and language. Additionally, Rahman (2014) further supported that the incorporation of open-ended questions into the interview protocols can also allow participants to express subjective ideas, emotions, thoughts, and perspective which inadvertently assist the researchers to shed light on how the instructional planning practices were implemented at the grassroot level. Therefore, to ensure the consistency of the data collection procedures, an interview guide (Patton, 2015) was used into the protocol. This interview guide facilitates researchers in keeping and sustaining attention on the predetermined subject of the study during the interview session (Merriam, 1998). Hence, the interview protocols consist of four main sections. Section A deals with the participants demographic profiles where they are required to describe their background which pertains to their teaching experiences and educational background. Section B of the protocol deals with the participants' knowledge on the theoretical underpinnings of the CBA. In this section, the participants are required to explain their understanding of the CBA which includes its conceptions and method of assessments. Additionally, Section C required teachers to describe their practices in planning their CBA. This includes the explanation on their instructional practices and approaches that they used prior to executing the assessment in the classroom. Lastly, Section D pertains to the participants’ challenges in planning their CBA. These insights can help further the researchers to shed light on the teachers’ lived experiences in the implementation of CBA. The interviews were conducted by using English medium as the participants were practitioners in the ESL field. The sessions lasted between 15 to 30 minutes, and it was tape-recorded for the purpose of data analysation. The patterns of teachers’ instructional planning practices identified through the interviews were then compared to the requirements of the curriculum. In this context, the CBA Guidebook which comprises the theoretical underpinnings of the CBA policy was collected and analysed via document analysis method. Additionally, several pertinent documents like teachers’ lesson plans were also collected to oversee their instructional planning at the grassroot level. In order to conduct the document analysis method, the researchers utilized a document summary form (Yin, 2014). This form consists of several fields like the document’s date, title, description, contents list, significance to the research field and researcher’s reflections. These elements assist researchers to extract pertinent information from the CBA Guidebook and also provide data that enhance the comprehension of the documents. By utilizing this form, researchers could obtain an overview of the CBA Guidebook and hence expedite the content analysis to discover teachers’ adherence with the policy mandates. Data Analysis This study employed thematic analysis, following the six-phase approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006), to analyse the qualitative data gained from semi-structured interviews and document analysis. This procedure was deemed appropriate as it offers a systematic yet flexible approach to identifying and interpreting patterns of meaning (themes) across the dataset, which aligns with the exploratory nature of the research. The thematic analysis procedures employed in this study is illustrated in Fig. 2 below. The procedures begin with the data familiarization phase. All the interviews were firstly transcribed verbatim and read multiple times to achieve immersion in the data. Initial notes and reflections were recorded to capture early impressions and emerging insights related to how teachers plan their instruction within the context of CBA. Next, the transcribed data were systematically coded using an inductive approach. Codes were created to label meaningful features of the data relevant to the research focus, such as references to instructional strategies, policy interpretation and constraints. At this stage, both semantic and latent codes were considered. After that, the codes were further examined for patterns and grouped into potential themes that captured significant aspects of the teachers’ experiences and perceptions. These preliminary themes reflected recurring ideas such as “policy-practice disconnect”, “teacher autonomy”, and “practical challenges in planning”. The emerging themes were reviewed against the coded data and the entire dataset to ensure coherence and internal consistency. Some themes were revised, merged, or split to better reflect the data’s meaning. Each theme was refined to capture its essence clearly. detailed definitions were then developed, ensuring that the themes addressed the research questions effectively. This phase clarified how each theme contributed to understanding ESL teachers’ instructional planning and alignment with CBA policy. The final themes were presented with illustrative extracts from the data and integrated with relevant literature to contextualize the findings. The analysis provided insights into the ways teachers interpreted and enacted formative assessment principles in their planning, highlighting both alignment and divergence from policy expectations. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This section presents the findings related to the teachers' instructional planning practices of CEFR-aligned CBA. Based on the thematic analysis conducted on the interview data, three main themes emerged which represent teachers’ practices in planning their assessment, as depicted in Fig. 3 below. Based on the responses gathered from the interview, assessment planning was viewed as a set of procedures teachers used to design their assessments. Teachers viewed the instructional planning of the classroom assessment as a holistic and iterative process rather than a series of discrete steps or procedures. This viewpoint suggests that the instructional planning of the classroom-based assessment involves various aspects, such as defining the targeted objectives, selecting appropriate instructional methods, designing the assessment task through establishing the evaluation criteria, and determining how the assessment results can inform the instruction. Hence, the subsequent sections describe in detail on the teachers’ instructional planning practices of the classroom assessment. Planning The Assessment Objectives Based on the interviews, a prevalent finding was that the initial step in planning the classroom assessments involved identifying the objectives. Teachers acknowledged relying on the curriculum standard document to define the goals and objectives they must adhere to when implementing the classroom assessment. They emphasised that adherence to the curriculum document is necessary for any actions taken to comply with the policy, as it aligns with the policymakers’ needs. For example, Teacher 2 explained that she turned to curriculum documents like SBELC (Standard Based English Language Curriculum) guidelines on CEFR-aligned CBA. For her, referring to the SBELC helped to prevent her from deviating from the reform needs. …it gives you erm… big guidelines hmm... you know…so that you won't really divert from what they expect you to do in the classroom. (T2) Specifically, in planning the assessment objectives, teachers said the SBELC served as a primary guide for them when determining the curriculum standards that must align with the assessment objectives. For instance, Teacher 2 and 4 stated they used SBELC as a reference point to decide what students should learn (curriculum standards) and how they should be assessed (assessment procedures) based on the assessment objectives. Essentially, it is related to ensuring that what students are taught aligns with what they are assessed, and SBELC helps guide that alignment. Their elucidation stemmed from the assertion that the SBELC stands alone as the singular repository, containing the curriculum standards that teachers must adhere to. Hence, this made the planning process of the classroom assessment easier for them. …prior of you assessing the students you need to have the lesson plan ready because you need to identify the content and learning standard that you want to focus on in the CBA. So, DSKP (SBELC) is always the most important document that helps me to delegate the CBA. (T2) For each form, the content and learning standards are different accordingly students’ level. So, I’ll make sure students are being assessed to what they should be assessed. So I refer to DSKP (SBELC) and SOW (Scheme of Work) to determine the standards for my students.. . (T4) Teacher 1 also utilized comparable procedures in the planning of his assessment. He believed that organizing his lessons with the use of the SBELC reference was helpful for him in determining the criteria and aim of assessment that he intended to attain in each of the lessons that he taught. …I plan by identifying the objective. I will refer to the DSKP (SBELC), looking into the Content and Learning Standard, and identify the objective that I want to achieve to my students. I mean for each skill…yeah…I will do that. Because for me, it’s easier to work that way because I can know what I will look for… (T1) Teacher 3 also perceived the reference to the curriculum document similarly. In her practice, she did not only refer to the curriculum document when planning assessment, but also received the annual scheme of work (SOW) provided by her panel, which also helped her organise the assessment and teaching practices. The main function of the SOW was to act as a mapping table which assisted her to plan and sequence the lessons in advance. In this way, she could ensure that all the materials are taught before the end of the school year and that the objectives of the national curriculum were covered. I mainly use the standard of curriculum, the DSKP (SBELC) that we are given with, and also the yearly scheme of work (SOW) we have that right. So, whenever I want to assess them in class, I would refer…what are the learning standard and content standard that I want… (T3) In this context, the utilization of SBELC only stemmed from the purpose of delineating the curriculum standards that teachers needed to fulfil in accessing the students. An excerpt from SBELC appears to support this claim. As embedded in the document, SBELC strives to ensure the mapping of English language curriculum standards can be aligned with the CEFR. The SBELC document incorporates a mapping of the English Language Content and Learning Standards as well as pedagogical approaches which are aligned with the CEFR. (Standard Based English Language Curriculum, 2017, p.18) While most teachers used the curriculum document to guide assessment, some, like Teacher 5, established lesson objectives by defining success criteria. These criteria, drawn from learning objectives but more specific, described what students should say, do, or create to show they had achieved the objectives (Rojon, McDowall, & Saunders, 2015 ). Teacher 5 preferred setting assessment objectives through success criteria rather than relying solely on the curriculum, believing it clarified student expectations during learning and assessment. Before assessments, she ensured that students clearly understood the success criteria they needed to meet, emphasizing transparency and goal alignment in her practice. I plan by determining the success criteria for my students to achieve…I wrote that on the whiteboard in front of the class. So, after I'm done teaching them, I refer back to the success criteria and ask the student whether they are able to do the success criteria… (T5) Yan et al. ( 2021 ) found that EFL teachers in China align classroom assessments closely with national curriculum standards. Teachers break down the standards into term, unit, and lesson objectives to facilitate effective classroom-based assessment (CBA). Unit- and lesson-level objectives detail the specific language skills, knowledge, and attitudes students should acquire, while term-level objectives remain broad, adhering to national requirements. Teachers reported that the curriculum standards helped clarify student goals during assessment planning. This demonstrates that identifying objectives from curriculum documents plays a central role in CBA implementation among stakeholders. Planning The Instructional Methods and Content The planning of teaching methods began once teachers identified the assessment objectives. This study found that teachers prioritized preparing lesson plans, integrating assessment activities into their instruction. A structured lesson—with an introduction, learning period, and review—is crucial for effective classroom assessment (Kopp et al., 2024 ). Lesson planning helps teachers clearly understand what to do and how to organize assessments. Teachers in this study emphasized the importance of planning to align lessons and assessments with learning goals. For instance, Teacher 3 noted that designing the lesson before applying assessments led to more effective implementation. He explained that planning provided an overview of the objectives he aimed to achieve in each session and helped ensure that assessment activities were meaningful and aligned with instructional goals. He also highlighted that lesson planning was vital for tracking student learning progress and making sure assessments supported students’ connections to the lesson content. …it should be started with lesson plan. The crucial part is lesson plan… erm… you know... how do I say...erm…would be the productivity of that lesson. It is achievable for all kinds of level or not… (T3) An analysis of the lesson plan document from Teacher 3 provided more insight into this matter. Figure 4 below illustrated that he planned the lesson by focusing on the type of content and learning standards that he wanted to achieve in each lesson he delegated to the students. The lesson plan was constructed by specifying the curriculum standards that he wanted to achieve and has helped him to ensure the assessment process is tailored to the students’ needs. Evidently, Teacher 6 holds a similar opinion regarding the development of lesson plans as part of the assessment planning process. She also believed that preparing the lesson prior to implementing the assessment could assist her in determining the objectives she wished to achieve when implementing the assessment. In addition, she believed that it is necessary for her to engage in this practice to develop assessment materials that complemented her devised lesson. Before implementing assessment in the classroom, she constructed her instruction using the supplementary materials provided by the panel head. She planned and developed the lesson and assessment by consulting the textbook's content and aligned it with the curriculum standards. She believed that these supplementary materials provided her with practical guidance on assessing students in the classroom assessment. First of all, I will design my lesson by looking at the textbook and the descriptors to identify the appropriate assessment materials that can best suit my students’ ability… (T6) Through this practice, she believed that the creation of lesson plans could serve as a valuable tool for structuring the classroom instruction in a manner that facilitates the integration of assessment within the teaching and learning process. A comprehensive examination was undertaken on her lesson plan, which further substantiated this scenario, as depicted in Fig. 5 below. Based on her lesson plan depicted in Fig. 5 above, she was able to incorporate distinct instructional sequences within the pre, while and post stages of the teaching and learning process. Through this practice, it was proven that the development of lesson plan in planning the classroom assessment is crucial in setting a milestone picture on how to integrate evaluation in the teaching and learning. This practice is also recommended by the CBA Guidebook as it stresses on the need for teachers to rely on the content and learning standard as part of the classroom instruction planning procedures. Teaching and learning by teachers is based on the Content Standards and Learning Standards, while the Performance Standards serve as indicators of students' levels of mastery. (CBA Guidebook, 2017; p. 16) Apparently, this practice is consistent with Xu ( 2016 ) assertion that the induction phase of assessment for learning should include the process of lesson planning. This includes how teachers should be able to create a lesson plan that accurately depicts the flow of the lesson and assessment during classroom instruction. The result of this study corroborates with Shen et al. ( 2007 ) research on the implementation of classroom-based assessment in China. The study revealed that Chinese educators view lesson preparation as a crucial responsibility. They have at least two planning periods per day, and secondary teachers typically have even more. Through this practice teachers can transform this content area of their teacher education (the "what") into a functional method of teaching and assessing in practice (the "how"). Planning The Assessment Tasks The final step in planning the classroom assessment is the preparation of assessment tasks. This procedure entailed how teachers determine whether the instruments they designed aligned with the curriculum’s requirements. Therefore, based on the interviews conducted, the process of designing assessment instruments varies among teachers, suggesting that they exerted autonomy in implementing the classroom assessment. For instance, Teacher 1 depended on her student's proficiency level in choosing and planning the assessment task. She believed this practice was an important measure that needs to be taken so that students can achieve the objective of the lesson and assessment being conducted. She claimed that students could work with the assessment task that is aligned with their proficiency level hence constitutes a good quality of classroom assessment practice. I don't set the same target or goals for all students. Maybe for weaker classes, I target maybe at least B1 or B2, and then…erm… I prepare materials that are at their level. You know… I want my materials to be…mmm… suitable to each of my student's level of proficiency… (T1) In addition, teachers also consulted the supplementary materials (textbook and workbook) in designing the assessment. Most teachers adopted this method as they believed the supplementary materials provided them with the practical samples of the instrument they could employ when implementing the assessment. Additionally, teachers believed that by using this method, they could ensure that students could be assessed in accordance with the curriculum requirements, as these supplementary materials also adhered to the needs and aims outlined in the SBELC. Teacher 2 and Teacher 5 claims illustrated this matter. I choose the materials from the books because you know… there are books…erm… whereby you are given the exercises, will and they state the content standard and learning standard there… (T2) I used the textbooks and workbooks to prepare the materials for the students so that I won’t be scared if the assessment materials are not aligned with the CEFR… (T5) Teacher 3 also utilised the textbook's information and questions to assess his students' proficiency. He adopted the textbook sample questions and modified them to suit his students’ language proficiency. He confirmed that this was done to ensure that the questions matched the students’ level of knowledge and assessed what they "can do" based on the CEFR framework. I will look at the textbook at content points and questions and I will edit it and adapt it to fit my student’s proficiency level (T3) The findings lend support to the previous study conducted by Knight (2015). The survey found that Australian teachers recognised their textbooks for lesson and assessment planning because they contain verifiable information that advances students' knowledge of key ideas and is presented in "bite-size" pieces that helped students to progress in their learning. The same conclusion was made by Sievert et al. ( 2021 ) on the legitimacy of textbooks in influencing teaching and assessment practices of elementary schools in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. It was found that teachers placed a high value on using textbooks since different textbook choices have distinctly different effects on students' mathematical achievement. Additionally, there were indications that the impact of textbook selection accumulates over the course of the academic years. The results imply that textbooks should be considered as a significant covariate in educational research and selecting a textbook is an essential consideration for educational practice in planning their instructional practices. On the other hand, the findings also revealed that many teachers continued to rely heavily on an exam-oriented culture in planning for the assessment task. Some teachers perceived the CEFR-aligned CBA as a formal examination. Their practices to prepare instruments for the classroom assessment were geared towards developing standardised questions for all students. For example, Teacher 4 designed the assessment tasks that are generic across the variety of students’ language proficiency in the classroom. In this sense, all students in his classroom answered similar types of questions when the assessment was conducted, as shown in the excerpt below, …the way I plan is I have to make sure that all the materials that I used is general enough for all students can understand. That is my first step. (T4) Teachers advocated for the use of uniform questions to evaluate students, irrespective of their differing levels of proficiency. The purpose of this action was to ensure a fair evaluation process can be propelled and prevent any grievances from parents or other stakeholders regarding the “unfairness” of assessment conducted. I will prepare the assessment materials that are standardised according to the classes. So, it will be fair for all classes. If we are using the assessment materials without standardizing it throughout the whole class in the school, it will not be fair for other students for the other classes… (T4) This approach may inadvertently overlook students’ diverse abilities and skills in the classroom. This issue demonstrated that teachers lacked the capabilities to implement this policy in a manner that is consistent with the intended goals. Students who were considered ‘advanced' can perform well in the assessment because of their ability to perceive the questions provided as being below their level of proficiency. However, students who were classified as ‘low’ and ‘intermediate’ may face difficulties in completing the assigned task, since they may find the questions far beyond their skills and capabilities. This practice contradicts the statement included in the MOE CBA Guidebook (2019). According to this document, the classroom assessment should not be set in an exam-oriented culture because the CEFR-aligned CBA is not used to compare the students' abilities; rather, it is intended to give teachers information on how their students are learning in a way of diverting from the exam-oriented evaluation in the previous system. All information obtained from the assessment is not intended for comparison or competition between students. On the other hand, the information should be used to help the school and parents to plan follow-up actions to improve student mastery and achievement in learning. (CBA Guidebook, 2019, p.5) In general, this study indicated that half of the teachers could exhibit discerning planning procedures when implementing CEFR-aligned CBA. Although some of the teachers in this study were discovered to be heavily dependent on the exam-oriented culture when planning their assessments, most teachers could create connections by matching the requirements of their assessments with their instructional strategies. This was also aligned with the set of criteria in assessment planning practices based on the work by Shermis and Di Vesta (2014) who proposed that the planning of classroom assessment should encompass the specific learning goals, the teaching strategies and materials, and the assessment tasks and measures. These three components should be in balance while planning the assessment. Shermis and Di Vesta (2014) concluded that the instruction should be able to direct progress towards reaching the objectives. The teachers should understand how crucial it is to coordinate instructional strategies with learning objectives when preparing for classroom assessments. The practices described previously are comparable to Wiggins and McTighe's "backward design" approach (2005). The backward design method requires teachers to first consider the course's learning objectives. According to the backward design paradigm, before deciding how to teach the subject, teachers should consider these overarching learning objectives and how students will be evaluated. Therefore, compared to conventional methods, backward design is viewed as a significantly more deliberate approach to lesson planning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005 ). Graff ( 2011 ) conducted a study among K-12 teachers in California where the backward design was utilised in planning the teachers' curriculum instruction. The results of this study demonstrated the effectiveness of the teachers' backward design curriculum planning practices. Consequently, developing a lesson plan is a crucial step in organising the teaching, learning, and evaluation processes. A lesson plan provides the structure necessary for effective student learning. It ensures that each lesson contains an introduction, a learning period, and a review section. Lesson planning also makes teachers' jobs easier because they know precisely what to do and this includes the process of organising classroom-based assessment (Ganiyevna, 2022 ) CONCLUSION This study has explored how Malaysian secondary school ESL teachers plan their instructional strategies in executing CEFR-aligned CBA. This finding revealed that instructional planning generally involved three core processes: identifying assessment objectives, selecting instructional methods and content, and designing appropriate assessment tasks. While many teachers demonstrated procedural compliance by referring to curriculum documents such as the SBELC and utilizing structured lesson plans, variations in implementation revealed a significant gap between policy intent and classroom practice. In particular, the persistence of exam-oriented approaches and the use of standardizes tasks across diverse proficiency levels suggest an incomplete transition to truly formative, student-centered assessment practices. Despite the promising framework provided by the CEFR-aligned CBA, its success depends on how well teachers are supported and empowered to translate its principles into their daily planning. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen professional development programs that focus on practical strategies for interpreting CEFR descriptors, designing differentiated tasks, and integrating assessment meaningfully into instruction. These programs should be ongoing and collaborative, allowing teachers to trial, reflect, and refine their practices. Equally important is the institutionalization of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that promote shared planning, co-construction of assessment materials, and peer feedback. Such collaboration not only enhances consistency but also nurtures a community of practice that can drive continuous improvement. To support this, the Ministry of Education should provide contextualized exemplars of CEFR-aligned assessments including the differentiated success criteria and learner-opportunities materials that teachers can readily adapt. Monitoring and feedback mechanisms at the school level should also be enhanced to provide constructive guidance on instructional planning and assessment implementation. This would help bridge the policy-practice gap and ensure that teachers are not only compliant but also confident in their approach. At the same time, teacher autonomy in adapting assessments based on students’ proficiency levels must be supported rather than constrained by rigid standardization. This shift in mindset from uniformity to equity is essential for creating meaningful, inclusive learning experiences. Finally, future research should explore the long-term impact of CEFR-aligned instructional planning on student learning outcomes. Longitudinal studies can shed light on how well these practices foster language development, engagement, and assessment literacy among both teachers and learners. In sum, while the CEFR-aligned CBA initiative offers a transformative path forward, its full potential will only be realized through sustained, systemic efforts that prioritize teacher empowerment, contextual support, and evidence-based refinement. Declarations Acknowledgement The researchers would like to express sincere thanks to Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya, for the invaluable support and resources provided throughout the course of this research. Author’s Contributions Anwar Farhan Mohamad Marzaini wrote the main manuscript. Shahazwan Mat Yusoff supervised the research design, contributed to methodology refinement, and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Funding No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. Data availability Data will be made available upon request. Clinical Trial Number: Not applicable Ethical approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Education Policy Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education (Approval No. KPM.600-3/2/3-eras(13277)). All research was conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. The approval was granted on 24th Nov. 2023, and it covers all aspects of the research involving human participants. No modifications to the research protocol were made after the approval was obtained. Participants submitted a written informed consent. Consent for publication Written informed consent was obtained from all participants to publish the results of this study. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Abdul Razak, R., Mat Yusoff, S., Hai Leng, C., & Mohamadd Marzaini, A. F. (2023). Evaluating teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in implementing classroom-based assessment: A case study among ESL secondary school teachers in Selangor, Malaysia. Plos one , 18 (12), e0293325. Al Amin, M., & Greenwood, J. (2018). The examination system in Bangladesh and its impact: on curriculum, students, teachers and society. Language Testing in Asia , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0060-9 Apridayani, A., Han, W., & Sakkanayok, K. (2024). Enhancing English writing competence in higher education: A comparative study of teacher-only assessment versus teacher and student self-assessment approaches. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education , 9 (1), 37. Arumugham, K. S. (2020). Kurikulum, pengajaran dan pentaksiran dari perspektif pelaksanaan pentaksiran bilik darjah. Asian People Journal (APJ) , 3 (1), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.37231/apj.2020.3.1.175 Azli, N., & Akmar, A. (2019). Implementation of CEFR-aligned assessment tools in Malaysian ESL classroom. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences , 4 (2), 7-10. Azman, H. (2016). Implementation and Challenges of English Language Education Reform in Malaysian Primary Schools. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies , 22 (3). Bonner, S. M., Rivera, C. T., & Chen, P. P. (2018). Standards and assessment: coherence from the teacher’s perspective. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability , 30 (1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9272-2 Cavanagh, M., Barr, J., Moloney, R., Lane, R., Hay, I., & Chu, H.-E. (2019). Pre-service Teachers’ Impact on Student Learning: Planning, Teaching, and Assessing during Professional Practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 44 (2), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n2.5 Chin, H., Thien, L. M., & Chiew, C. M. (2019). The Reforms Of National Assessments In Malaysian Education System. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS) , 4 (1), 93. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol4iss1pp93-111 Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment . Cambridge University Press. de Boer, M. A. J., Leontjev, D., & North, B. (2024). Action-Oriented Approach and Academic Reading: Creating Tools to Guide Learner Development. In Putting the CEFR into Practice Through Action Research: Reflecting on Principles for Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 43-75). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Dlamini, T., & Ramnarain, U. (2023). Life Sciences Teachers’ Planning Of Lessons For Formative Assessment In Inquiry-Based Teaching. Education and New Developments . https://doi.org/10.36315/2023v1end128. Ganiyevna, X. N. (2022). The Importance of Lesson Plans in Teaching Process. Pedagogy and Psychology in the Modern World: Theoretical and Practical Research , 1 (10), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6320865 Graff, N. (2011). “An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn”: Backwards Design and New Teachers’ Preparation for Planning Curriculum. Teacher Education Quarterly , 38 (3), 151–168. Green, A. (2018). Linking tests of English for academic purposes to the CEFR: The score user’s perspective. Language Assessment Quarterly , 15 (1), 59-74. Hajmi, H., & Jamaludin, K. (2023). Kesediaan Guru Dalam Pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah Di Sekolah Rendah. Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan , 4 (4). https://doi.org/10.55057/jdpd.2022.4.4.10 Ishaq, K., Rana, A. M. K., & Zin, N. A. M. (2020). Exploring Summative Assessment and Effects: Primary to Higher Education. Bulletin of Education and Research , 42 (3), 23–50. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1291061 Jamain, S., & Jamaludin, K. (2023) Issues and Challenges in The Implementation of The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Malaysian Primary School. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13 (12), 5863-5877. Kopp, M. L., Witte, C. E., & Vernon, G. M. (2024). A lesson plan for planning lessons. Teaching and Learning in Nursing . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.07.024 Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching , 39 (3), 167-190. Lokman, H. F., Abdullah, N., Mustafa, M. C., Hanapi, M. H. M., Sembak, S., & Baskaran, V. L. (2024). The Impact of Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA) Implementation on the Performance of B40 Pre-School and Primary School Students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research , 23 (7), 435–460. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.7.22 Mat Yusoff, S., Arepin, M., & Mohd Marzaini, A. F. (2022). Secondary school teachers’ perspectives towards the implementation of CEFR-Aligned English Curriculum. Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT) , 10 (1), 32-48. Mat Yusoff, S., Marzaini, A. F. M., Zakaria, N., & Lijie, H. (2025). Exploring The Implementation of Classroom-Based Assessment in Malaysian Secondary Schools: Alignment with Policy and Teacher Practices. MOJEM: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management , 13 (1), 81-101. Mat Yusoff, S., Mohamad Marzaini, A. F., Mat Jusoh, A. M., Zynuddin, S. N., Basal, M. H., & Zakaria, N. (2025). Investigating the interrelationship between teachers' grading practices and classroom-based assessment strategies among Malaysian preservice teachers. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE) , 21 (1), 177-199. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: a Guide to Design and Implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Mohamad Marzaini, A. F., Sharil, W. N. E. H., Supramaniam, K., & Yusoff, S. M. (2023). Unravelling the Factors Impinging the Implementation of Classroom Based Assessment in Malaysian ESL Classrooms: Voice from Practitioners. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society , 5 (3), 370-393. Mohamad Marzaini, A. F., Yusoff, S. M., Zakaria, N., Basal, M. H., Sharil, W. N. E. H., & Supramaniam, K. (2024). A Discovery on Malaysian ESL Adherence to Policy Mandates in Classroom-Based Assessment Practices. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction , 21 (1), 249-284. Mohd Isa, A., Mydin, A.-A., & Abdullah, A. G. K. (2022). Autonomy in Classroom Assessment: Teachers’ Perceptions on the Abolition of Level 1 Biennials Examinations in Malaysian National Schools. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) , 7 (3), e001331. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v7i3.1331 Muniandy, S., Jain, J., & Nair, R. (2025). CEFR-Aligned Formative Assessment: Teachers’ Perception, Attitudes and Practices. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15( 01), 85-108. Nguyen, T. T. V., Hoang, T., Thi Tran, L., & Blackmore, J. (2025). Adapting a European standard to assess English foreign language pre-service teachers’ language proficiency in Vietnam: perspectives from universities and pre-service teachers. Current Issues in Language Planning , 1-22. Nguyen, V., & Stracke, E. (2020). Learning experiences in and outside class by successful Vietnamese tertiary students studying English as a foreign language. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1801692 O'sullivan, B. (2012). Assessment issues in languages for specific purposes. The Modern Language Journal , 96 , 71-88. Rahman, N. H. (2016). From Curriculum Reform to Classroom Practice: An Evaluation of the English Primary Curriculum in Malaysia. [PhD Thesis: University of York]. Rashid, R. A., Abdul Rahman, S. B., & Yunus, K. (2016). Reforms in the policy of English language teaching in Malaysia. Policy Futures in Education , 15 (1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316679069 Rethinasamy, S., Ramanair, J., & Chuah, K.-M. (2021). English Medium Instruction at Crossroads: Students’ Voice and Way Forward. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences , 11 (14), 109–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i14/8533 Rojon, C., McDowall, A., & Saunders, M. N. K. (2015). The Relationships Between Traditional Selection Assessments and Workplace Performance Criteria Specificity: A Comparative Meta-Analysis. Human Performance , 28 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.974757 Roslan, M. (2024). Kaedah Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah (PBD) dan Kesannya Kepada Murid Tahap Satu: Analisis Subjek Pendidikan Islam/ Classroom Assessment Method (PBD) And Its Impact On Level One Pupils: Analysis Of Islamic Education Subjects. UMRAN , 11 (1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.11113/umran2024.11n1.678 Rundle, C., & Figueras, N. (2024). Working with Teachers to Apply CEFR Can-Do Descriptors in the Classroom. In Putting the CEFR into Practice Through Action Research: Reflecting on Principles for Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 303-343). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Shen, J., Poppink, S., Cui, Y., & Fan, G. (2007). Lesson Planning: A Practice of Professional Responsibility and Development. Educational Horizons , 85 (4), 248–258. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42923698 Shermis, M., & Vesta, F. (2014). AN INTRODUCTION TO SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT. The American Journal of Psychology , 127 (2), 262. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.2.0262 Sievert, H., van den Ham, A.-K., & Heinze, A. (2021). The role of textbook quality in first graders’ ability to solve quantitative comparisons: a multilevel analysis. ZDM – Mathematics Education , 53 (6), 1417–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01266-x Sukri, S. I. A., Zubairi, A. M., Saad, M. A., & Preece, A. S. D. (2025). CEFR Implementation at The Post-Secondary Level: Receptivity. JuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik , 13 (1), 33-44. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Xin, K. K., & Mohamad Nasri, N. (2024). The Readiness Level of Primary School Teachers Towards the Implementation of Classroom-Based Assessment (PBD). International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development , 13 (4), 1788–1799. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i4/23224 Xu, Y. (2016). Assessment planning within the context of university English language teaching (ELT) in China. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics , 39 (3), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.3.02xu Yan, Q., Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Implementing Classroom-Based Assessment for Young EFL Learners in the Chinese Context: A Case Study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 30 (6), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00602-9 Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers’ attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education , 45 (1), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002 Yasmin, F., Farooq, M. U., & Shah, S. K. (2023). Impact of Exam-Oriented Education System on Undergraduate Students’ Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor Competencies. International Journal of Linguistics and Culture , 4 (1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.52700/ijlc.v4i1.180 Yates, A., & Johnston, M. (2017). The impact of school-based assessment for qualifications on teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 25 (6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2017.1295020 Yeh, L. H. (2021). Challenges faced by Visual Art Education with the Existence of Classroom Based Assessment in Primary School within District of Hilir Perak. KUPAS SENI , 9 (1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.37134/kupasseni.vol9.1.5.2021 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 05 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 04 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 31 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 29 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Nov, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 10 Nov, 2025 Editor invited by journal 29 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 16 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 16 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7879588","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":546310053,"identity":"b7c1b3d2-a743-401b-8f0e-2fefc01e43ce","order_by":0,"name":"Anwar Farhan Mohamad Marzaini","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Malaya","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anwar","middleName":"Farhan Mohamad","lastName":"Marzaini","suffix":""},{"id":546310054,"identity":"3233975c-fcdd-4dfa-9e2c-6f5c7a1bed65","order_by":1,"name":"Shahazwan Mat Yusoff","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Malaya","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shahazwan","middleName":"Mat","lastName":"Yusoff","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-16 16:08:28","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7879588/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7879588/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96377111,"identity":"7ed13a96-a847-404c-880c-571a2aed56c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1567776,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"DiscoverEducationformatted.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/59ce0d1b4acb7c4d5a6bb9ea.docx"},{"id":96377106,"identity":"b800e619-e660-4ea9-9ceb-491659705e38","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4524,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c99ad88bf90246818da389575fb3a4de.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/d374b6279823abed51b14c0a.json"},{"id":96452933,"identity":"773437a1-3af9-4ff4-8a78-2036d9adbba8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-21 09:55:08","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":129985,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c99ad88bf90246818da389575fb3a4de1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/13c2705ad80fe31c22809a38.xml"},{"id":96452909,"identity":"0d6964a9-f7e9-433e-b918-1098be9043a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-21 09:53:32","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":89251,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/d84e31fe16098fb635e0996d.jpeg"},{"id":96377114,"identity":"d7050cef-1ddf-456d-995e-0e8eca5d8228","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19855,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/cc30dade220a88f76a44e219.jpeg"},{"id":96377120,"identity":"eaaf5948-b3a7-4e00-ab5e-04ba912f53cd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":36482,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/be348676ffc006f581f86599.png"},{"id":96377116,"identity":"2d6a4ae6-ce58-47d2-a217-12c1803ebe65","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":726748,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/2d23fe20e54073f1e30d068a.png"},{"id":96453944,"identity":"b2480586-7cc8-4572-a03c-59f69f5aef2f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-21 10:02:07","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":730227,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/b254d453382fc41a3b675949.png"},{"id":96377112,"identity":"8525a0ee-2301-4489-a4cd-267bc4a5dc36","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/de43fce892ea5df92f4d053c.png"},{"id":96453632,"identity":"c8643590-2f6c-4f85-a7fa-2adf7533cd1f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-21 10:01:08","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7391,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/de458cf30f8c1c41b284ac70.png"},{"id":96453064,"identity":"1189731d-87e4-4405-9e3c-8115516bb70d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-21 09:57:53","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":31517,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/a3bd30bb308c16bec1f9b513.png"},{"id":96453351,"identity":"5774b321-5250-42ff-9f1e-21fef384fade","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-21 09:59:24","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":78224,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/b138d9ee687c2cf05b94609e.png"},{"id":96453019,"identity":"790dedde-ab50-404e-9e48-5563f3b31585","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-21 09:57:28","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":91206,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/3629ef21b66b09dbc3bbe459.png"},{"id":96377125,"identity":"5991f680-b29d-4d39-95ee-71580fe5950c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"xml","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":129633,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c99ad88bf90246818da389575fb3a4de1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/c20512ea4241f6a8ed6f235f.xml"},{"id":96377124,"identity":"8efa108f-cfc0-4a3a-a32f-3ccd3788eb32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"html","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":136953,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/25967c72ee34c3f2c3b1c668.html"},{"id":96377105,"identity":"b03a2d4b-4b38-498d-b1a8-2cc4298b7291","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17235,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Triangulation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/4fb550f7ce6ddc46bb313c52.png"},{"id":96377110,"identity":"6493eac2-c55d-415c-9a50-44bf15fde010","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":137582,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThematic Analysis Procedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/284c7f6de9de4e7e554e9598.png"},{"id":96377108,"identity":"be6a033e-686d-4b43-8f01-99d7e6a1ddc5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71481,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeachers’ Instructional Planning Practices of CEFR-aligned CBA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/e7a0b9af256e111c7406b069.png"},{"id":96377121,"identity":"9b35f4a6-f991-4775-86f6-78b23e4e648a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":778765,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher 3’s Sample Lesson Plan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/6d57f646b75665ce9d717cfe.png"},{"id":96377117,"identity":"7932ba16-96ca-4d9a-b94f-5491e2b31086","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-20 11:32:40","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":757936,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher 6’s Sample Lesson Plan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/835d0376f801784a227df158.png"},{"id":96708078,"identity":"73408887-e131-4fb9-85be-9179a42a8e22","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 09:55:46","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2190593,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7879588/v1/50ae1030-0c17-45e1-bc9e-708af6f090f8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Malaysian ESL Teachers’ Instructional Planning in CEFR-Aligned Classroom Based Assessment","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eMalaysian education was highly criticized due to excessive focus on the exam-oriented culture (Chin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This archaic exam-oriented system has sparked a heated debate as it was claimed to be ineffective in producing students with the skills comparable to the international standards (Rashid, Abdul Rahman \u0026amp; Yunus, 2016). It is because the student\u0026rsquo;s mastery level was identified by high-stakes examinations such as Pentaksiran Tingakatan 3 (PT3) and Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) which was conducted during scheduled exam periods where Malaysian Examination Syndicate (MES) was responsible for preparing the exam papers. This approach was deemed ineffective as Yasmin, Farooq and Shah (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) claimed that students were forced to attain high scores in single sittings of these examinations. Many scholars (Nguyen \u0026amp; Stracke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Al Amin \u0026amp; Greenwood, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Mat Yusoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) claimed that the nature of exam-oriented culture has also disrupted teachers\u0026rsquo; autonomy as they were considered as passive agents in monitoring students\u0026rsquo; learning progress of the language skills. Their role was limited to making judgement based on students\u0026rsquo; final performance at the end of the academic year through the standardized assessment instrument (Ishaq et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to these contentious issues, the government started a reform plan in 2021 which resulted in the abolishment of the summative high-stake examinations at both primary and secondary school (Rethinasamy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Apparently, Malaysian students now must sit for only one high-stake examination which is Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) throughout their schooling years. Hence, the concept of formative assessment has been foregrounded at all levels through the introduction of Classroom Based Assessment (CBA). This new assessment climate is perceived to be beneficial in reducing the examination burden in the early years of schooling (Yates \u0026amp; Johnston, 2018), fostering an enjoyable learning culture (Arumugham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), assisting teachers in assessing students\u0026rsquo; holistically and creating equal learning opportunities for all students (Yeh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers are now given such an important role as the execution of the CBA lays on their autonomy (Mohd Isa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Abdul Razak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) to execute activities like presentations, group discussions, and project-based learning in the teaching and learning process. In this sense, Dlamini and Ramnarain (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) affirmed that teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional planning is deemed crucial to ensure the successful execution of the CBA. Without effective instructional planning, the implementation of CBA may become inconsistent. Leading to fragmented assessment practices that fail to provide meaningful insights into student learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the emphasis on teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional planning, studies show many remain unfamiliar with the concept of classroom-based assessment (CBA), leading to rushed implementation (Arumugham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Suppian et al., 2020; Yeh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mohamad Marzaini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Mat Yusoff et al. (2023) highlighted that teachers still rely heavily on standardized testing, reflecting limited proficiency in adapting to assessment reforms. This raises concerns about their readiness to implement formative, student-centered practices. Lokman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) further emphasized that poor instructional planning is a major barrier to CBA integration. Effective CBA requires careful planning to ensure assessment activities are structured, purposeful, and aligned with learning goals. However, many teachers exhibit inadequate planning, resulting in fragmented and inconsistent assessments that offer little insight into student progress (Canavagh et al., 2019; Yan \u0026amp; Cheng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). When instructional planning lacks coherence, assessment activities often become disconnected from teaching objectives, undermining their ability to measure student development meaningfully. As Bonner et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) noted, this disjointed approach perpetuates reliance on standardized tests, hindering the shift towards a more formative, student-centered evaluation system intended by educational policy reforms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the policy emphasis on CBA to promote continuous and formative assessment in Malaysian classrooms, there remains a significant gap in understanding how ESL teachers plan and implement this approach in practice. While existing research highlights teachers\u0026rsquo; literacy levels (Mohamad Marzaini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and readiness (Xin \u0026amp; Mohamad Nasri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hajmi \u0026amp; Jamaludin, 2024) and assessment strategies (Roslan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), there is limited empirical evidence on how teachers structure their instructional planning to align with policy requirements. In this context, (Mohamad Marzaini et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that little is known about the specific ways in which ESL teachers design their assessment strategies and the extent to which their planning aligns with the intended policy aims. Without a clearer understanding of these aspects, it remains uncertain whether teachers can effectively translate policy expectation into classroom practice. Therefore, addressing this gap is crucial for identifying the support and professional development needed to enhance teachers\u0026rsquo; assessment literacy and ensure the successful implementation of CBA in Malaysian ESL classrooms. Thus, this research aims to address the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do Malaysian ESL teachers plan their classroom-based assessment?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does their instructional planning align with the policy requirements?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"LITERATURE REVIEW","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Implementation of Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) In Malaysian ESL Education\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was developed by the Council of Europe and launched in 2001. It provides a standardized framework for language learning, teaching, and assessment across educational systems (Council of Europe, 2001). It was introduced to promote transparency and comparability in language qualifications across Europe to serve as a common basis for curriculum development and learner assessment. Organized into six proficiency levels (A1\u0026ndash;C2), CEFR describes what learners can do in listening, speaking, reading, and writing at each stage. Aiming to support communicative competence over rote memorization, it promotes plurilingualism in language education (Little, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn curriculum and assessment design, CEFR fosters an outcome-based approach by aligning teaching activities with observable communicative functions. Educators use the descriptors to scaffold lessons and assess progress based on measurable competencies. International qualifications like Cambridge exams and IELTS rely on CEFR to enhance comparability across borders (O\u0026rsquo;Sullivan, 2012). However, effective application depends on teachers' ability to interpret the descriptors, and without sufficient training, implementation can become superficial, and this can result in inconsistent outcomes (Mohamad Marzaini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Malaysia, CEFR was adopted through the Ministry of Education\u0026rsquo;s 2015\u0026ndash;2025 English Language Reform Roadmap to align curricula, textbooks, and assessments to CEFR standards (Azman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers were expected to structure lessons and assessments using \u0026ldquo;can-do\u0026rdquo; descriptors, promoting clearer learning outcomes across stages. However, the initial implementation revealed a gap between policy aspirations and classroom realities. Although teachers appreciated the clarity of common standards, many struggled to integrate CEFR descriptors into daily teaching and assessment (Jamain \u0026amp; Jamaludin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Designing authentic CEFR-aligned tasks remained challenging even after several years of practice (Noor Azli \u0026amp; Aini Akmar, 2019). A significant barrier was teacher preparedness. Transitioning from a content-heavy, summative assessment tradition to formative, communicative evaluation required enhanced assessment literacy. Yet, many teachers lacked confidence in interpreting \u0026ldquo;can-do\u0026rdquo; statements and applying CEFR bands accurately, especially in rural areas where access to training was limited (Mohamad Marzaini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Resource gap also impeded progress, with CEFR-aligned textbooks and materials inconsistently available (Nguyen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, some teachers\u0026rsquo; own language proficiency levels, particularly at the primary stage, were insufficient to effectively model CEFR-based competencies (Sukri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, the CEFR reform has fostered positive shifts. Teachers increasingly recognize the value of internationally benchmarked and formative assessment practices (Muniandy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, effective implementation requires continued professional development, resource support, and localized adaptation to fully realize CEFR\u0026rsquo;s potential in Malaysia\u0026rsquo;s multilingual education context (Jamain \u0026amp; Jamaludin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Integration of CEFR Into Classroom-Based Assessment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough initially conceived as a pan-European framework, the CEFR has been widely adapted for English language teaching and now serves as a cornerstone for many ESL curricula and assessments globally. Prominent English examinations such as Cambridge English Qualifications and IELTS explicitly align their score scales with CEFR levels to standardize the description of learner achievements (Green, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The CEFR\u0026rsquo;s action-oriented approach and \u0026ldquo;can-do\u0026rdquo; descriptors offer essential guidance for formative assessment, encouraging the articulation of learning goals in learner-friendly terms within classroom practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers can select descriptors aligned to lesson tasks that can enable the clear communication of objectives and consistent evaluation of student performance (Mat Yusoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). For example, an English teacher may utilize a B1-level descriptor such as the ability to \u0026ldquo;describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes \u0026amp; ambitions,\u0026rdquo; to frame a speaking task and to assess learners' communicative competence accordingly. In this manner, the CEFR promotes assessment based on real-world communicative actions rather than isolated grammar points or test scores (Mohamad Marzaini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch has shown that CEFR-based checklists and rating grids contribute to increased consistency in teacher assessments by providing shared benchmarks (Rundle \u0026amp; Figueras, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While the CEFR\u0026rsquo;s flexibility allows adaptation to local curricula and cultural contexts, scholars highlight that its broad descriptors, lacking detailed classroom guidance, present challenges for implementation (de Boer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers are thus required to interpret, adapt, and sometimes simplify descriptors to suit learner needs. Without adequate professional training, the framework\u0026rsquo;s broadness risks inconsistent application, as CEFR was \u0026ldquo;not written primarily as a framework for assessment and test development\u0026rdquo; (Mat Yusoff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, the CEFR has proven effective in guiding communicative task design and promoting learner reflection through tools like the European Language Portfolio (Apridayani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), provided it is applied with pedagogical discernment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResearch Design and Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present study adopts a qualitative approach to the data collection to discover teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional planning in implementing CBA. In order to conduct this study, a case study design was utilized as it allows for the in-depth exploration of the phenomenon under investigation (Yin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Merriam and Tisdell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) further affirmed that the case study design is suitable to the context of the present study as it can facilitate a thorough exploration by discovering nuanced perspectives and intricacies associated with the subject being studied. Hence, this method can be considered a robust approach to gain the understanding on how teachers execute instructional planning in the implementation of assessment reform. Furthermore, Rahman (2014) supported that incorporating case study design in the study of education reform can offer an opportunity for the researchers to delve into the \u0026ldquo;lived experiences\u0026rdquo; of stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHence, the present study collected data among the population of secondary school ESL teachers in Pulau Pinang state, Malaysia. A maximum variation sampling (Merriam \u0026amp; Tisdell, 2016) was inculcated into the sampling procedures by searching the participants with a wide range of demographics. In this context, this study collects data among teachers who are different in ages, teach at different grade levels, have different levels of education, and have been teaching for different amounts of time. This method allows the researchers to explore various shared instructional patterns that transcend the sample\u0026rsquo;s diversity. Thus, there were 6 ESL teachers from three public secondary schools in Pulau Pinang state who were selected as the participants through the purposive sampling technique. These schools are different in numerous aspects. School A has approximately 80 classes, which is double the number of the classes at School B and C. School A was also accredited as the High-Performance School where the process of teaching, learning, assessment, and research were done rigorously. The participants of the study were also disseminated through the criterion-based selection method to ensure richer data pertaining to instructional planning in CBA can be yielded. Hence, these teachers must have at least a bachelor's degree with the minimum of three years of experience in the ELT (English Language Teaching) field. The teachers must have attended the workshop and received CBA training from the district trainers or through internal training at the school level known as Professional Learning Community (PLC). The tabulation of the demographic profiles of the selected participants are illustrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic Profile of the Participants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducational Background\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMajor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching Experience (years)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM.Ed TESL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB.Ed TESL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB.Ed TESL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM.EdTESOL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB.Ed TESOL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB.Ed TESL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection Methods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to ensure a diverse range of data can be collected, the present study employed a multifaceted approach to the data collection. Therefore, the data were collected from the triangulation of semi-structured interviews and document analysis methods. In this context, the semi-structured interview served as the primary data collection method to explore the trends and patterns of instructional approaches employed by ESL teachers in planning their classroom-based assessment. The data collected from this method further compared to the recommendations from the CBA Guidebook which help in exploring the alignment of teachers practice to the policy mandates. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below illustrates the triangulation procedures of the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the open-ended questions were incorporated in the semi-structured interview protocol. As this method served as the primary data collection method in exploring the patterns of teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional planning, Creswell (2012) mentioned that the responses generated from the open-ended instrument can be a valuable approach for the researchers to gain insightful and precise information as it does not pose any controlled medium for the participants to respond in their own words and language. Additionally, Rahman (2014) further supported that the incorporation of open-ended questions into the interview protocols can also allow participants to express subjective ideas, emotions, thoughts, and perspective which inadvertently assist the researchers to shed light on how the instructional planning practices were implemented at the grassroot level. Therefore, to ensure the consistency of the data collection procedures, an interview guide (Patton, 2015) was used into the protocol. This interview guide facilitates researchers in keeping and sustaining attention on the predetermined subject of the study during the interview session (Merriam, 1998). Hence, the interview protocols consist of four main sections. Section A deals with the participants demographic profiles where they are required to describe their background which pertains to their teaching experiences and educational background. Section B of the protocol deals with the participants' knowledge on the theoretical underpinnings of the CBA. In this section, the participants are required to explain their understanding of the CBA which includes its conceptions and method of assessments. Additionally, Section C required teachers to describe their practices in planning their CBA. This includes the explanation on their instructional practices and approaches that they used prior to executing the assessment in the classroom. Lastly, Section D pertains to the participants\u0026rsquo; challenges in planning their CBA. These insights can help further the researchers to shed light on the teachers\u0026rsquo; lived experiences in the implementation of CBA. The interviews were conducted by using English medium as the participants were practitioners in the ESL field. The sessions lasted between 15 to 30 minutes, and it was tape-recorded for the purpose of data analysation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe patterns of teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional planning practices identified through the interviews were then compared to the requirements of the curriculum. In this context, the CBA Guidebook which comprises the theoretical underpinnings of the CBA policy was collected and analysed via document analysis method. Additionally, several pertinent documents like teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson plans were also collected to oversee their instructional planning at the grassroot level. In order to conduct the document analysis method, the researchers utilized a document summary form (Yin, 2014). This form consists of several fields like the document\u0026rsquo;s date, title, description, contents list, significance to the research field and researcher\u0026rsquo;s reflections. These elements assist researchers to extract pertinent information from the CBA Guidebook and also provide data that enhance the comprehension of the documents. By utilizing this form, researchers could obtain an overview of the CBA Guidebook and hence expedite the content analysis to discover teachers\u0026rsquo; adherence with the policy mandates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study employed thematic analysis, following the six-phase approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006), to analyse the qualitative data gained from semi-structured interviews and document analysis. This procedure was deemed appropriate as it offers a systematic yet flexible approach to identifying and interpreting patterns of meaning (themes) across the dataset, which aligns with the exploratory nature of the research. The thematic analysis procedures employed in this study is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe procedures begin with the data familiarization phase. All the interviews were firstly transcribed verbatim and read multiple times to achieve immersion in the data. Initial notes and reflections were recorded to capture early impressions and emerging insights related to how teachers plan their instruction within the context of CBA. Next, the transcribed data were systematically coded using an inductive approach. Codes were created to label meaningful features of the data relevant to the research focus, such as references to instructional strategies, policy interpretation and constraints. At this stage, both semantic and latent codes were considered. After that, the codes were further examined for patterns and grouped into potential themes that captured significant aspects of the teachers\u0026rsquo; experiences and perceptions. These preliminary themes reflected recurring ideas such as \u0026ldquo;policy-practice disconnect\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;teacher autonomy\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;practical challenges in planning\u0026rdquo;. The emerging themes were reviewed against the coded data and the entire dataset to ensure coherence and internal consistency. Some themes were revised, merged, or split to better reflect the data\u0026rsquo;s meaning. Each theme was refined to capture its essence clearly. detailed definitions were then developed, ensuring that the themes addressed the research questions effectively. This phase clarified how each theme contributed to understanding ESL teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional planning and alignment with CBA policy. The final themes were presented with illustrative extracts from the data and integrated with relevant literature to contextualize the findings. The analysis provided insights into the ways teachers interpreted and enacted formative assessment principles in their planning, highlighting both alignment and divergence from policy expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents the findings related to the teachers' instructional planning practices of CEFR-aligned CBA. Based on the thematic analysis conducted on the interview data, three main themes emerged which represent teachers\u0026rsquo; practices in planning their assessment, as depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the responses gathered from the interview, assessment planning was viewed as a set of procedures teachers used to design their assessments. Teachers viewed the instructional planning of the classroom assessment as a holistic and iterative process rather than a series of discrete steps or procedures. This viewpoint suggests that the instructional planning of the classroom-based assessment involves various aspects, such as defining the targeted objectives, selecting appropriate instructional methods, designing the assessment task through establishing the evaluation criteria, and determining how the assessment results can inform the instruction. Hence, the subsequent sections describe in detail on the teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional planning practices of the classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePlanning The Assessment Objectives\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the interviews, a prevalent finding was that the initial step in planning the classroom assessments involved identifying the objectives. Teachers acknowledged relying on the curriculum standard document to define the goals and objectives they must adhere to when implementing the classroom assessment. They emphasised that adherence to the curriculum document is necessary for any actions taken to comply with the policy, as it aligns with the policymakers\u0026rsquo; needs. For example, Teacher 2 explained that she turned to curriculum documents like SBELC (Standard Based English Language Curriculum) guidelines on CEFR-aligned CBA. For her, referring to the SBELC helped to prevent her from deviating from the reform needs.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;it gives you erm\u0026hellip; big guidelines hmm... you know\u0026hellip;so that you won't really divert from what they expect you to do in the classroom.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T2)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, in planning the assessment objectives, teachers said the SBELC served as a primary guide for them when determining the curriculum standards that must align with the assessment objectives. For instance, Teacher 2 and 4 stated they used SBELC as a reference point to decide what students should learn (curriculum standards) and how they should be assessed (assessment procedures) based on the assessment objectives. Essentially, it is related to ensuring that what students are taught aligns with what they are assessed, and SBELC helps guide that alignment. Their elucidation stemmed from the assertion that the SBELC stands alone as the singular repository, containing the curriculum standards that teachers must adhere to. Hence, this made the planning process of the classroom assessment easier for them.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;prior of you assessing the students you need to have the lesson plan ready because you need to identify the content and learning standard that you want to focus on in the CBA. So, DSKP (SBELC) is always the most important document that helps me to delegate the CBA.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T2)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFor each form, the content and learning standards are different accordingly students\u0026rsquo; level. So, I\u0026rsquo;ll make sure students are being assessed to what they should be assessed. So I refer to DSKP (SBELC) and SOW (Scheme of Work) to determine the standards for my students..\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cb\u003e(T4)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 1 also utilized comparable procedures in the planning of his assessment. He believed that organizing his lessons with the use of the SBELC reference was helpful for him in determining the criteria and aim of assessment that he intended to attain in each of the lessons that he taught.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;I plan by identifying the objective. I will refer to the DSKP (SBELC), looking into the Content and Learning Standard, and identify the objective that I want to achieve to my students. I mean for each skill\u0026hellip;yeah\u0026hellip;I will do that. Because for me, it\u0026rsquo;s easier to work that way because I can know what I will look for\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T1)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 3 also perceived the reference to the curriculum document similarly. In her practice, she did not only refer to the curriculum document when planning assessment, but also received the annual scheme of work (SOW) provided by her panel, which also helped her organise the assessment and teaching practices. The main function of the SOW was to act as a mapping table which assisted her to plan and sequence the lessons in advance. In this way, she could ensure that all the materials are taught before the end of the school year and that the objectives of the national curriculum were covered.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI mainly use the standard of curriculum, the DSKP (SBELC) that we are given with, and also the yearly scheme of work (SOW) we have that right. So, whenever I want to assess them in class, I would refer\u0026hellip;what are the learning standard and content standard that I want\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T3)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this context, the utilization of SBELC only stemmed from the purpose of delineating the curriculum standards that teachers needed to fulfil in accessing the students. An excerpt from SBELC appears to support this claim. As embedded in the document, SBELC strives to ensure the mapping of English language curriculum standards can be aligned with the CEFR.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe SBELC document incorporates a mapping of the English Language Content and Learning Standards as well as pedagogical approaches which are aligned with the CEFR.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(Standard Based English Language Curriculum, 2017, p.18)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile most teachers used the curriculum document to guide assessment, some, like Teacher 5, established lesson objectives by defining success criteria. These criteria, drawn from learning objectives but more specific, described what students should say, do, or create to show they had achieved the objectives (Rojon, McDowall, \u0026amp; Saunders, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Teacher 5 preferred setting assessment objectives through success criteria rather than relying solely on the curriculum, believing it clarified student expectations during learning and assessment. Before assessments, she ensured that students clearly understood the success criteria they needed to meet, emphasizing transparency and goal alignment in her practice.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI plan by determining the success criteria for my students to achieve\u0026hellip;I wrote that on the whiteboard in front of the class. So, after I'm done teaching them, I refer back to the success criteria and ask the student whether they are able to do the success criteria\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T5)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found that EFL teachers in China align classroom assessments closely with national curriculum standards. Teachers break down the standards into term, unit, and lesson objectives to facilitate effective classroom-based assessment (CBA). Unit- and lesson-level objectives detail the specific language skills, knowledge, and attitudes students should acquire, while term-level objectives remain broad, adhering to national requirements. Teachers reported that the curriculum standards helped clarify student goals during assessment planning. This demonstrates that identifying objectives from curriculum documents plays a central role in CBA implementation among stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePlanning The Instructional Methods and Content\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe planning of teaching methods began once teachers identified the assessment objectives. This study found that teachers prioritized preparing lesson plans, integrating assessment activities into their instruction. A structured lesson\u0026mdash;with an introduction, learning period, and review\u0026mdash;is crucial for effective classroom assessment (Kopp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Lesson planning helps teachers clearly understand what to do and how to organize assessments. Teachers in this study emphasized the importance of planning to align lessons and assessments with learning goals. For instance, Teacher 3 noted that designing the lesson before applying assessments led to more effective implementation. He explained that planning provided an overview of the objectives he aimed to achieve in each session and helped ensure that assessment activities were meaningful and aligned with instructional goals. He also highlighted that lesson planning was vital for tracking student learning progress and making sure assessments supported students\u0026rsquo; connections to the lesson content.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;it should be started with lesson plan. The crucial part is lesson plan\u0026hellip; erm\u0026hellip; you know... how do I say...erm\u0026hellip;would be the productivity of that lesson. It is achievable for all kinds of level or not\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T3)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn analysis of the lesson plan document from Teacher 3 provided more insight into this matter. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e below illustrated that he planned the lesson by focusing on the type of content and learning standards that he wanted to achieve in each lesson he delegated to the students. The lesson plan was constructed by specifying the curriculum standards that he wanted to achieve and has helped him to ensure the assessment process is tailored to the students\u0026rsquo; needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvidently, Teacher 6 holds a similar opinion regarding the development of lesson plans as part of the assessment planning process. She also believed that preparing the lesson prior to implementing the assessment could assist her in determining the objectives she wished to achieve when implementing the assessment. In addition, she believed that it is necessary for her to engage in this practice to develop assessment materials that complemented her devised lesson. Before implementing assessment in the classroom, she constructed her instruction using the supplementary materials provided by the panel head. She planned and developed the lesson and assessment by consulting the textbook's content and aligned it with the curriculum standards. She believed that these supplementary materials provided her with practical guidance on assessing students in the classroom assessment.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFirst of all, I will design my lesson by looking at the textbook and the descriptors to identify the appropriate assessment materials that can best suit my students\u0026rsquo; ability\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T6)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough this practice, she believed that the creation of lesson plans could serve as a valuable tool for structuring the classroom instruction in a manner that facilitates the integration of assessment within the teaching and learning process. A comprehensive examination was undertaken on her lesson plan, which further substantiated this scenario, as depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on her lesson plan depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e above, she was able to incorporate distinct instructional sequences within the pre, while and post stages of the teaching and learning process. Through this practice, it was proven that the development of lesson plan in planning the classroom assessment is crucial in setting a milestone picture on how to integrate evaluation in the teaching and learning. This practice is also recommended by the CBA Guidebook as it stresses on the need for teachers to rely on the content and learning standard as part of the classroom instruction planning procedures.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeaching and learning by teachers is based on the Content Standards and Learning Standards, while the Performance Standards serve as indicators of students' levels of mastery.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(CBA Guidebook, 2017; p. 16)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eApparently, this practice is consistent with Xu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) assertion that the induction phase of assessment for learning should include the process of lesson planning. This includes how teachers should be able to create a lesson plan that accurately depicts the flow of the lesson and assessment during classroom instruction. The result of this study corroborates with Shen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) research on the implementation of classroom-based assessment in China. The study revealed that Chinese educators view lesson preparation as a crucial responsibility. They have at least two planning periods per day, and secondary teachers typically have even more. Through this practice teachers can transform this content area of their teacher education (the \"what\") into a functional method of teaching and assessing in practice (the \"how\").\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePlanning The Assessment Tasks\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe final step in planning the classroom assessment is the preparation of assessment tasks. This procedure entailed how teachers determine whether the instruments they designed aligned with the curriculum\u0026rsquo;s requirements. Therefore, based on the interviews conducted, the process of designing assessment instruments varies among teachers, suggesting that they exerted autonomy in implementing the classroom assessment. For instance, Teacher 1 depended on her student's proficiency level in choosing and planning the assessment task. She believed this practice was an important measure that needs to be taken so that students can achieve the objective of the lesson and assessment being conducted. She claimed that students could work with the assessment task that is aligned with their proficiency level hence constitutes a good quality of classroom assessment practice.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI don't set the same target or goals for all students. Maybe for weaker classes, I target maybe at least B1 or B2, and then\u0026hellip;erm\u0026hellip; I prepare materials that are at their level. You know\u0026hellip; I want my materials to be\u0026hellip;mmm\u0026hellip; suitable to each of my student's level of proficiency\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T1)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, teachers also consulted the supplementary materials (textbook and workbook) in designing the assessment. Most teachers adopted this method as they believed the supplementary materials provided them with the practical samples of the instrument they could employ when implementing the assessment. Additionally, teachers believed that by using this method, they could ensure that students could be assessed in accordance with the curriculum requirements, as these supplementary materials also adhered to the needs and aims outlined in the SBELC. Teacher 2 and Teacher 5 claims illustrated this matter.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI choose the materials from the books because you know\u0026hellip; there are books\u0026hellip;erm\u0026hellip; whereby you are given the exercises, will and they state the content standard and learning standard there\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T2)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI used the textbooks and workbooks to prepare the materials for the students so that I won\u0026rsquo;t be scared if the assessment materials are not aligned with the CEFR\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T5)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher 3 also utilised the textbook's information and questions to assess his students' proficiency. He adopted the textbook sample questions and modified them to suit his students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency. He confirmed that this was done to ensure that the questions matched the students\u0026rsquo; level of knowledge and assessed what they \"can do\" based on the CEFR framework.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI will look at the textbook at content points and questions and I will edit it and adapt it to fit my student\u0026rsquo;s proficiency level\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T3)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings lend support to the previous study conducted by Knight (2015). The survey found that Australian teachers recognised their textbooks for lesson and assessment planning because they contain verifiable information that advances students' knowledge of key ideas and is presented in \"bite-size\" pieces that helped students to progress in their learning. The same conclusion was made by Sievert et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) on the legitimacy of textbooks in influencing teaching and assessment practices of elementary schools in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. It was found that teachers placed a high value on using textbooks since different textbook choices have distinctly different effects on students' mathematical achievement. Additionally, there were indications that the impact of textbook selection accumulates over the course of the academic years. The results imply that textbooks should be considered as a significant covariate in educational research and selecting a textbook is an essential consideration for educational practice in planning their instructional practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the findings also revealed that many teachers continued to rely heavily on an exam-oriented culture in planning for the assessment task. Some teachers perceived the CEFR-aligned CBA as a formal examination. Their practices to prepare instruments for the classroom assessment were geared towards developing standardised questions for all students. For example, Teacher 4 designed the assessment tasks that are generic across the variety of students\u0026rsquo; language proficiency in the classroom. In this sense, all students in his classroom answered similar types of questions when the assessment was conducted, as shown in the excerpt below,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;the way I plan is I have to make sure that all the materials that I used is general enough for all students can understand. That is my first step.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e(T4)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers advocated for the use of uniform questions to evaluate students, irrespective of their differing levels of proficiency. The purpose of this action was to ensure a fair evaluation process can be propelled and prevent any grievances from parents or other stakeholders regarding the \u0026ldquo;unfairness\u0026rdquo; of assessment conducted.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI will prepare the assessment materials that are standardised according to the classes. So, it will be fair for all classes. If we are using the assessment materials without standardizing it throughout the whole class in the school, it will not be fair for other students for the other classes\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003e(T4)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis approach may inadvertently overlook students\u0026rsquo; diverse abilities and skills in the classroom. This issue demonstrated that teachers lacked the capabilities to implement this policy in a manner that is consistent with the intended goals. Students who were considered \u0026lsquo;advanced' can perform well in the assessment because of their ability to perceive the questions provided as being below their level of proficiency. However, students who were classified as \u0026lsquo;low\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;intermediate\u0026rsquo; may face difficulties in completing the assigned task, since they may find the questions far beyond their skills and capabilities. This practice contradicts the statement included in the MOE CBA Guidebook (2019). According to this document, the classroom assessment should not be set in an exam-oriented culture because the CEFR-aligned CBA is not used to compare the students' abilities; rather, it is intended to give teachers information on how their students are learning in a way of diverting from the exam-oriented evaluation in the previous system.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAll information obtained from the assessment is not intended for comparison or competition between students. On the other hand, the information should be used to help the school and parents to plan follow-up actions to improve student mastery and achievement in learning.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e(CBA Guidebook, 2019, p.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn general, this study indicated that half of the teachers could exhibit discerning planning procedures when implementing CEFR-aligned CBA. Although some of the teachers in this study were discovered to be heavily dependent on the exam-oriented culture when planning their assessments, most teachers could create connections by matching the requirements of their assessments with their instructional strategies. This was also aligned with the set of criteria in assessment planning practices based on the work by Shermis and Di Vesta (2014) who proposed that the planning of classroom assessment should encompass the specific learning goals, the teaching strategies and materials, and the assessment tasks and measures. These three components should be in balance while planning the assessment. Shermis and Di Vesta (2014) concluded that the instruction should be able to direct progress towards reaching the objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe teachers should understand how crucial it is to coordinate instructional strategies with learning objectives when preparing for classroom assessments. The practices described previously are comparable to Wiggins and McTighe's \"backward design\" approach (2005). The backward design method requires teachers to first consider the course's learning objectives. According to the backward design paradigm, before deciding how to teach the subject, teachers should consider these overarching learning objectives and how students will be evaluated. Therefore, compared to conventional methods, backward design is viewed as a significantly more deliberate approach to lesson planning (Wiggins \u0026amp; McTighe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Graff (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a study among K-12 teachers in California where the backward design was utilised in planning the teachers' curriculum instruction. The results of this study demonstrated the effectiveness of the teachers' backward design curriculum planning practices. Consequently, developing a lesson plan is a crucial step in organising the teaching, learning, and evaluation processes. A lesson plan provides the structure necessary for effective student learning. It ensures that each lesson contains an introduction, a learning period, and a review section. Lesson planning also makes teachers' jobs easier because they know precisely what to do and this includes the process of organising classroom-based assessment (Ganiyevna, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has explored how Malaysian secondary school ESL teachers plan their instructional strategies in executing CEFR-aligned CBA. This finding revealed that instructional planning generally involved three core processes: identifying assessment objectives, selecting instructional methods and content, and designing appropriate assessment tasks. While many teachers demonstrated procedural compliance by referring to curriculum documents such as the SBELC and utilizing structured lesson plans, variations in implementation revealed a significant gap between policy intent and classroom practice. In particular, the persistence of exam-oriented approaches and the use of standardizes tasks across diverse proficiency levels suggest an incomplete transition to truly formative, student-centered assessment practices. Despite the promising framework provided by the CEFR-aligned CBA, its success depends on how well teachers are supported and empowered to translate its principles into their daily planning. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen professional development programs that focus on practical strategies for interpreting CEFR descriptors, designing differentiated tasks, and integrating assessment meaningfully into instruction. These programs should be ongoing and collaborative, allowing teachers to trial, reflect, and refine their practices. Equally important is the institutionalization of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that promote shared planning, co-construction of assessment materials, and peer feedback. Such collaboration not only enhances consistency but also nurtures a community of practice that can drive continuous improvement. To support this, the Ministry of Education should provide contextualized exemplars of CEFR-aligned assessments including the differentiated success criteria and learner-opportunities materials that teachers can readily adapt. Monitoring and feedback mechanisms at the school level should also be enhanced to provide constructive guidance on instructional planning and assessment implementation. This would help bridge the policy-practice gap and ensure that teachers are not only compliant but also confident in their approach. At the same time, teacher autonomy in adapting assessments based on students\u0026rsquo; proficiency levels must be supported rather than constrained by rigid standardization. This shift in mindset from uniformity to equity is essential for creating meaningful, inclusive learning experiences. Finally, future research should explore the long-term impact of CEFR-aligned instructional planning on student learning outcomes. Longitudinal studies can shed light on how well these practices foster language development, engagement, and assessment literacy among both teachers and learners. In sum, while the CEFR-aligned CBA initiative offers a transformative path forward, its full potential will only be realized through sustained, systemic efforts that prioritize teacher empowerment, contextual support, and evidence-based refinement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researchers would like to express sincere thanks to Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya, for the invaluable support and resources provided throughout the course of this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnwar Farhan Mohamad Marzaini wrote the main manuscript. Shahazwan Mat Yusoff supervised the research design, contributed to methodology refinement, and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData will be made available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Education Policy Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education (Approval No. KPM.600-3/2/3-eras(13277)). All research was conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. The approval was granted on 24th Nov. 2023, and it covers all aspects of the research involving human participants. No modifications to the research protocol were made after the approval was obtained. Participants submitted a written informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants to publish the results of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbdul Razak, R., Mat Yusoff, S., Hai Leng, C., \u0026amp; Mohamadd Marzaini, A. F. (2023). Evaluating teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical content knowledge in implementing classroom-based assessment: A case study among ESL secondary school teachers in Selangor, Malaysia. \u003cem\u003ePlos one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(12), e0293325.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl Amin, M., \u0026amp; Greenwood, J. (2018). The examination system in Bangladesh and its impact: on curriculum, students, teachers and society. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Testing in Asia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0060-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApridayani, A., Han, W., \u0026amp; Sakkanayok, K. (2024). Enhancing English writing competence in higher education: A comparative study of teacher-only assessment versus teacher and student self-assessment approaches. \u003cem\u003eAsian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArumugham, K. S. (2020). Kurikulum, pengajaran dan pentaksiran dari perspektif pelaksanaan pentaksiran bilik darjah. \u003cem\u003eAsian People Journal (APJ)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 152\u0026ndash;161. https://doi.org/10.37231/apj.2020.3.1.175\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzli, N., \u0026amp; Akmar, A. (2019). Implementation of CEFR-aligned assessment tools in Malaysian ESL classroom. \u003cem\u003eAsia Proceedings of Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 7-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzman, H. (2016). Implementation and Challenges of English Language Education Reform in Malaysian Primary Schools. \u003cem\u003e3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonner, S. M., Rivera, C. T., \u0026amp; Chen, P. P. (2018). Standards and assessment: coherence from the teacher\u0026rsquo;s perspective. \u003cem\u003eEducational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9272-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCavanagh, M., Barr, J., Moloney, R., Lane, R., Hay, I., \u0026amp; Chu, H.-E. (2019). Pre-service Teachers\u0026rsquo; Impact on Student Learning: Planning, Teaching, and Assessing during Professional Practice. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(2), 66\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n2.5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChin, H., Thien, L. M., \u0026amp; Chiew, C. M. (2019). The Reforms Of National Assessments In Malaysian Education System. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol4iss1pp93-111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCouncil of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). \u003cem\u003eCommon European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Boer, M. A. J., Leontjev, D., \u0026amp; North, B. (2024). Action-Oriented Approach and Academic Reading: Creating Tools to Guide Learner Development. In \u003cem\u003ePutting the CEFR into Practice Through Action Research: Reflecting on Principles for Foreign Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 43-75). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDlamini, T., \u0026amp; Ramnarain, U. (2023). Life Sciences Teachers\u0026rsquo; Planning Of Lessons For Formative Assessment In Inquiry-Based Teaching. \u003cem\u003eEducation and New Developments\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.36315/2023v1end128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaniyevna, X. N. (2022). The Importance of Lesson Plans in Teaching Process. \u003cem\u003ePedagogy and Psychology in the Modern World: Theoretical and Practical Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(10), 68\u0026ndash;70. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6320865\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraff, N. (2011). \u0026ldquo;An Effective and Agonizing Way to Learn\u0026rdquo;: Backwards Design and New Teachers\u0026rsquo; Preparation for Planning Curriculum. \u003cem\u003eTeacher Education Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 151\u0026ndash;168. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen, A. (2018). Linking tests of English for academic purposes to the CEFR: The score user\u0026rsquo;s perspective. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Assessment Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 59-74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHajmi, H., \u0026amp; Jamaludin, K. (2023). Kesediaan Guru Dalam Pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah Di Sekolah Rendah. \u003cem\u003eJurnal Dunia Pendidikan\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(4). https://doi.org/10.55057/jdpd.2022.4.4.10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIshaq, K., Rana, A. M. K., \u0026amp; Zin, N. A. M. (2020). Exploring Summative Assessment and Effects: Primary to Higher Education. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of Education and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 23\u0026ndash;50. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1291061\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJamain, S., \u0026amp; Jamaludin, K. (2023) Issues and Challenges in The Implementation of The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Malaysian Primary School. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13\u003c/em\u003e(12), 5863-5877.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKopp, M. L., Witte, C. E., \u0026amp; Vernon, G. M. (2024). A lesson plan for planning lessons. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Learning in Nursing\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.07.024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLittle, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(3), 167-190.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLokman, H. F., Abdullah, N., Mustafa, M. C., Hanapi, M. H. M., Sembak, S., \u0026amp; Baskaran, V. L. (2024). The Impact of Classroom-Based Assessment (CBA) Implementation on the Performance of B40 Pre-School and Primary School Students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(7), 435\u0026ndash;460. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.7.22\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMat Yusoff, S., Arepin, M., \u0026amp; Mohd Marzaini, A. F. (2022). Secondary school teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives towards the implementation of CEFR-Aligned English Curriculum. \u003cem\u003eCreative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMat Yusoff, S., Marzaini, A. F. M., Zakaria, N., \u0026amp; Lijie, H. (2025). Exploring The Implementation of Classroom-Based Assessment in Malaysian Secondary Schools: Alignment with Policy and Teacher Practices. \u003cem\u003eMOJEM: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMat Yusoff, S., Mohamad Marzaini, A. F., Mat Jusoh, A. M., Zynuddin, S. N., Basal, M. H., \u0026amp; Zakaria, N. (2025). Investigating the interrelationship between teachers\u0026apos; grading practices and classroom-based assessment strategies among Malaysian preservice teachers. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of University Education (AJUE)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 177-199.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerriam, S. B., \u0026amp; Tisdell, E. J. (2015). \u003cem\u003eQualitative research: a Guide to Design and Implementation\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohamad Marzaini, A. F., Sharil, W. N. E. H., Supramaniam, K., \u0026amp; Yusoff, S. M. (2023). Unravelling the Factors Impinging the Implementation of Classroom Based Assessment in Malaysian ESL Classrooms: Voice from Practitioners. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 370-393.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohamad Marzaini, A. F., Yusoff, S. M., Zakaria, N., Basal, M. H., Sharil, W. N. E. H., \u0026amp; Supramaniam, K. (2024). A Discovery on Malaysian ESL Adherence to Policy Mandates in Classroom-Based Assessment Practices. \u003cem\u003eMalaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 249-284.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohd Isa, A., Mydin, A.-A., \u0026amp; Abdullah, A. G. K. (2022). Autonomy in Classroom Assessment: Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions on the Abolition of Level 1 Biennials Examinations in Malaysian National Schools. \u003cem\u003eMalaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), e001331. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v7i3.1331\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuniandy, S., Jain, J., \u0026amp; Nair, R. (2025). CEFR-Aligned Formative Assessment: Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perception, Attitudes and Practices. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(\u003c/em\u003e01), 85-108.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, T. T. V., Hoang, T., Thi Tran, L., \u0026amp; Blackmore, J. (2025). Adapting a European standard to assess English foreign language pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; language proficiency in Vietnam: perspectives from universities and pre-service teachers. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Issues in Language Planning\u003c/em\u003e, 1-22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, V., \u0026amp; Stracke, E. (2020). Learning experiences in and outside class by successful Vietnamese tertiary students studying English as a foreign language. \u003cem\u003eInnovation in Language Learning and Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1801692\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;sullivan, B. (2012). Assessment issues in languages for specific purposes. \u003cem\u003eThe Modern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e, 71-88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, N. H. (2016). \u003cem\u003eFrom Curriculum Reform to Classroom Practice: An Evaluation of the English Primary Curriculum in Malaysia.\u003c/em\u003e [PhD Thesis: University of York].\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRashid, R. A., Abdul Rahman, S. B., \u0026amp; Yunus, K. (2016). Reforms in the policy of English language teaching in Malaysia. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Futures in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 100\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316679069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRethinasamy, S., Ramanair, J., \u0026amp; Chuah, K.-M. (2021). English Medium Instruction at Crossroads: Students\u0026rsquo; Voice and Way Forward. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(14), 109\u0026ndash;123. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i14/8533\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRojon, C., McDowall, A., \u0026amp; Saunders, M. N. K. (2015). The Relationships Between Traditional Selection Assessments and Workplace Performance Criteria Specificity: A Comparative Meta-Analysis. \u003cem\u003eHuman Performance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.974757\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoslan, M. (2024). Kaedah Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah (PBD) dan Kesannya Kepada Murid Tahap Satu: Analisis Subjek Pendidikan Islam/ Classroom Assessment Method (PBD) And Its Impact On Level One Pupils: Analysis Of Islamic Education Subjects. \u003cem\u003eUMRAN\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 63\u0026ndash;78. https://doi.org/10.11113/umran2024.11n1.678\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRundle, C., \u0026amp; Figueras, N. (2024). Working with Teachers to Apply CEFR Can-Do Descriptors in the Classroom. In \u003cem\u003ePutting the CEFR into Practice Through Action Research: Reflecting on Principles for Foreign Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 303-343). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShen, J., Poppink, S., Cui, Y., \u0026amp; Fan, G. (2007). Lesson Planning: A Practice of Professional Responsibility and Development. \u003cem\u003eEducational Horizons\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e85\u003c/em\u003e(4), 248\u0026ndash;258. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42923698\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShermis, M., \u0026amp; Vesta, F. (2014). AN INTRODUCTION TO SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT. \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e127\u003c/em\u003e(2), 262. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.2.0262\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSievert, H., van den Ham, A.-K., \u0026amp; Heinze, A. (2021). The role of textbook quality in first graders\u0026rsquo; ability to solve quantitative comparisons: a multilevel analysis. \u003cem\u003eZDM \u0026ndash; Mathematics Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1417\u0026ndash;1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01266-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSukri, S. I. A., Zubairi, A. M., Saad, M. A., \u0026amp; Preece, A. S. D. (2025). CEFR Implementation at The Post-Secondary Level: Receptivity. \u003cem\u003eJuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum \u0026amp; Pengajaran Asia Pasifik\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33-44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWiggins, G., \u0026amp; McTighe, J. (2005). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding by design\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXin, K. K., \u0026amp; Mohamad Nasri, N. (2024). The Readiness Level of Primary School Teachers Towards the Implementation of Classroom-Based Assessment (PBD). \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1788\u0026ndash;1799. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i4/23224\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, Y. (2016). Assessment planning within the context of university English language teaching (ELT) in China. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Review of Applied Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233\u0026ndash;254. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.3.02xu\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYan, Q., Zhang, L. J., \u0026amp; Cheng, X. (2021). Implementing Classroom-Based Assessment for Young EFL Learners in the Chinese Context: A Case Study. \u003cem\u003eThe Asia-Pacific Education Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(6), 541\u0026ndash;552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00602-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYan, Z., \u0026amp; Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assessment. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 128\u0026ndash;136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYasmin, F., Farooq, M. U., \u0026amp; Shah, S. K. (2023). Impact of Exam-Oriented Education System on Undergraduate Students\u0026rsquo; Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor Competencies. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Linguistics and Culture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 109\u0026ndash;125. https://doi.org/10.52700/ijlc.v4i1.180\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYates, A., \u0026amp; Johnston, M. (2017). The impact of school-based assessment for qualifications on teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions of assessment. \u003cem\u003eAssessment in Education: Principles, Policy \u0026amp; Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2017.1295020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYeh, L. H. (2021). Challenges faced by Visual Art Education with the Existence of Classroom Based Assessment in Primary School within District of Hilir Perak. \u003cem\u003eKUPAS SENI\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 46\u0026ndash;57. https://doi.org/10.37134/kupasseni.vol9.1.5.2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin, R. K. (2018). \u003cem\u003eCase Study Research and Applications\u003c/em\u003e (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"CEFR, Classroom-Based Assessment, ESL Instruction, Formative Assessment, Instructional Planning, Malaysian Education Reform","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7879588/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7879588/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe integration of formative assessment into Malaysian ESL classrooms through the CEFR-aligned Classroom Based Assessment (CBA) initiative marks a significant shift from traditional exam-centric paradigms. This qualitative case study explores how Malaysian secondary school ESL teachers plan instructional activities within this reform climate. Drawing on semi-structured interviews and document analysis involving six ESL teachers from three public secondary schools in Penang, the study employs thematic analysis to elucidate core patterns in instructional planning. Three predominant themes emerged: establishing assessment objectives aligned with curriculum standards, organizing instructional methods and content through lesson planning, and designing contextually appropriate assessment tasks. While most teachers adhered to the Standard Based English Language Curriculum (SBELC) and the Scheme of Work (SOW), inconsistencies were noted in the depth of CEFR integration. While teachers demonstrated adaptive and learner-centered practices; some retain standardized, exam-oriented assessment modes. These discrepancies highlight a policy-practice gap, often attributed to limited assessment literacy and insufficient professional development. The findings highlight the imperative for sustained, targeted teacher training and the institutionalization of collaborative support systems such as Professional Learning Communities to facilitate effective instructional planning. This study sheds light on classroom-level ESL policy implementation, guiding future teacher support and policy improvements.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Malaysian ESL Teachers’ Instructional Planning in CEFR-Aligned Classroom Based Assessment","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-20 11:32:35","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7879588/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-05T08:11:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-05T04:44:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"123067087088574623055963691359813961692","date":"2026-01-05T03:52:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"49081426042482187739001012930598932159","date":"2026-01-01T07:01:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-01T04:40:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"209038079838838021587920236673446662821","date":"2025-12-31T23:29:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"326027064694041430768439681281414137356","date":"2025-12-31T18:48:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-29T13:58:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"62387294016443034508106253370764413768","date":"2025-11-17T13:04:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"183022004372702930006912919673828081846","date":"2025-11-16T08:36:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-10T22:05:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-29T14:23:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-17T03:55:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-17T03:52:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-10-16T16:06:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"68490a08-d394-41c8-b96e-ebc39b1dee62","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-08T00:38:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-20 11:32:35","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7879588","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7879588","identity":"rs-7879588","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}