ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN TIMES OF CHANGE

(1)

267

International Journal of Education and Pedagogy (IJEAP) eISSN: 2682-8464 | Vol. 4 No. 3 [September 2022]

Journal website: http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijeap

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN TIMES OF CHANGE:

A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN UNIVERSITIES

Collin Jerome^1*, Kriangkrai Vathanalaohoa², Patcharin Kangkha³, Boonyarit Omanee

⁴

, Lee Mei Ph’ng

⁵

, Esther John Perry

⁶

, Ting Su-Hie

⁷

, Malia Taibi

⁸

and Feona Albert

⁹

1 7 8 9 Faculty of Language and Communication, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, MALAYSIA

2 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Bangkok, THAILAND

3 4 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Songkhla, THAILAND

5 Centre for Language Learning, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, MALAYSIA

⁶School of Foundation Studies, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Kuching, MALAYSIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Article Information:

Article history:

Received date : 27 July 2022 Revised date : 27 September 2022 Accepted date : 28 September 2022 Published date : 28 September 2022

To cite this document:

Jerome, C.,Vathanalaohoa, K., Kangkha, P., Omanee, B., Lee, M. P., Perry, E. J., Ting, S. H., Taibi, M., &

Albert, F. (2022).ENGLISH

LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN TIMES OF CHANGE: A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN UNIVERSITIES. International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(3), 267- 281.

Abstract: English language education (ELE) has been extensively studied in various contexts and from various perspectives including histories, curricula, policies, and practices. However, in recent years there has been an increasing body of work examining ELE in times of dramatic socio-economic change. The study presented in this paper aimed to add to this body of work by investigating the implementation of ELE in Southeast Asian universities during these periods of transformation.

The study specifically investigated the major events that took place during such periods and how these events affected ELE, particularly English language teaching and learning practices within the respective universities. A survey with 47 English language educators from selected Southeast Asian universities revealed that COVID-19 was one of the major events that affected their ELE. A majority of the participants reported having similar experiences with such events and resorting to various common methods in their English language lessons. Such similarities are important as they help rethink the usual way ELE in the era of change has been discussed. More importantly, these similarities call attention to look beyond the differences to find commonalities in the implementation of ELE in times of change, which may open up much-needed conversations about how to support and strengthen the teaching and

(2)

268

1. Introduction

English language education (ELE) is not something ‘new’ or ‘unheard of’, particularly to those who have received English language instruction at various levels of their education and/or at different stages of their career progression. Some of the key components that make up the instruction include English language proficiency levels, and English language teaching and learning (ELTL) methods and approaches. ELE has been established and recognized as an academic discipline during the last decades in many countries where it continues to be implemented. As an academic discipline, ELE focuses on “the investigation of the what, how, why/what for and who of teaching and learning English as a second/foreign language (L2)” (Doff, 2018, p. 2). Indeed, there is an extensive body of research examining ELE from different perspectives including histories, curriculum, policies, and practices (Hyland & Wong, 2013; Wong

& Dubey-Jhaveri, 2015; Al-Issa & Mirhosseini, 2019; Tsui, 2020). Moreover, ELE has been studied by many researchers in terms of its different purposes and audiences as well as the different contexts and cultures in which it is formulated and enacted (Kirkpatrick, 2016; Park & Spolsky, 2017; Le, Nguyen, Nguyen, & Barnard, 2019).

However, in recent years there has been a rapidly growing interest in examining ELE during times of change. This comes as no surprise if one considers the COVID-19 crisis and its immense impact on ELE around the world at all levels of education (Ang & Sandaran, 2020; Irwandi, 2020;

Mahyob, 2020; Younesi & Khan, 2020). In their systematic review of empirical studies examining ELE during the COVID-19 pandemic, Moorhouse and Kohnke (2021) found that a majority of English language teachers across many countries - from the United States of America to China - transitioned from “in-person instruction to fully on-line modalities” that included among others the use of emergency remote learning (p. 270). These teachers, as Moorhouse and Kohnke (2021) maintained, were “generally inexperienced”, “ill-prepared”, and “struggled, at least initially, to reconceptualise language teaching online” (p. 270). Despite the obstacles, the teachers constantly

“tried new technologies and pedagogies, reflected on them, developed competency and adjusted their practices” (Moorhouse and Kohnke, 2021, p. 270). The transition to fully on-line learning modalities may not be the only ‘event’ or ‘occurrence’ that affected ELE. Other ‘events’ or

‘occurrences’ in the form of pedagogical shifts in ELE may still survive and thrive in times of the global public health crisis. This is true if one considers the pedagogical transitions that the English language teaching community in many countries have undertaken long before the onslaught of COVID-19, which include naming a few the implementation of the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) (Foley, 2019, Kanchai, 2019, Mohd Don &

Abdullah, 2019) and the integration of Education 4.0 and 21^st-century skills in the English curricula (Park & Spolsky, 2017; Hariharasudan & Kot, 2018; Ahmad et al., 2019). Moreover, online learning modalities may not be the only methods used in English language instruction during the pandemic. Other methods and/or techniques may also be employed by English language teachers if one considers the existence of the previously mentioned pedagogical shifts during the coronavirus outbreak. The study presented in this paper aimed to analyse this situation further from the perspective of tertiary English language educators regarding ELE during times of change. More specifically, the study sought to examine the views of English educators regarding the pedagogical learning of English in today’s ever-changing and challenging world.

Keywords: English language education, Southeast Asia, university, COVID-19.

(3)

269

shifts that existed, survived, and thrived in/or at their respective institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the methods they utilized in response to those pedagogical shifts. The study focused on gathering the views of ELE educators from universities in two Southeast Asian countries - Malaysia and Thailand - to answer two key questions: (1) What were the pedagogical shifts that tertiary English language educators undertake in times of COVID-19? (2) What were the pedagogical methods that were used in response to those pedagogical shifts? Before proceeding further, a brief review of the literature on ELE in times of crisis, particularly within the context of Malaysian and Thai universities, is required.

2. Literature Review

As mentioned earlier, there has been a rapidly growing body of work examining ELE in times of change, more specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of the work has focused on the

‘event’ or ‘occurrence’ in the form of pedagogical shift that the English language community undertook, that is, from face-to-face instruction to fully learning modalities (Moorhouse &

Kohnke, 2021). Furthermore, many researchers have investigated the issues, problems, and challenges the English language community faced in dealing with this pedagogical shift and their impacts on ELE at various levels of education. A study by Arumugam et al. (2021), for instance, explored the challenges faced by English language educators at private universities in Malaysia in conducting online teaching. Findings from in-depth interviews with 20 English language educators revealed several key challenges such as “isolation, lack of motivation in online teaching, technical difficulties with online teaching tools, time-consuming resources, and work-life imbalance”

(Arumugam et al., 2021, p. 142). The findings also revealed that the educators’ work-life imbalance not only affected their professional lives but also their family and peer relations (Arumugam et al., 2021). The study further highlighted the need to provide English language educators with courses in online teaching, Internet training, and the integration of multimedia resources that can support ELE during the period of transformation (Arumugam et al., 2021).

Similar findings were also reported by Zulkifli, Hisham, and Razak (2022) in their study on ESL lecturers’ adaptation to the new norm of online teaching. Findings from in-depth interviews with four ESL lecturers at a public Malaysian university showed that various online learning tools and applications were used to support their English lessons, which include video-conferencing platforms such as Google Meet and Zoom, Kahoot! Quizizz and Padlets (Zulkifli et al., 2022). The findings further revealed some issues that the lecturers faced in conducting online learning such as internet connectivity, the paradigm shift from traditional to online classes, and the need to understand students’ needs and motivations as a result of this shift (Zulkifli et al., 2022). The study highlights the ramifications of the online learning of English at the tertiary level such as incentives, laptop rental, and mastering the applications of technology in education (Zulkifli et al., 2022). Two other studies provide further information about the adaptation to the new norm of online teaching among tertiary English language educators in the region. A study by Zimik and Kachchhap (2022) revealed several challenges that teachers at a Thai university faced in conducting online English as Foreign Language classes via remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. These include the lack of ICT skills and knowledge about application features among both teachers and students, inadequate IT infrastructure, and a lack of supportive environment for teaching and learning, which led to the lack of student engagement in the learning process (Zimik & Kachchhap, 2022). The study calls for concerted efforts to address these challenges so that all parties will be more prepared to deal with the urgent shift to online platforms in future pandemics (Zimik & Kachchhap, 2022).

These results corroborate an earlier study by Thumvichit (2021) that revealed many tertiary English language teachers in Thailand’s higher learning institutions practiced their agency by adopting online learning tools and applications for their English lessons. These include

(4)

270

synchronous and remote teaching modes via group meeting applications and slides presentation with the combination of the Learning Management system (LMS) and social media platforms (Thumvichit, 2021). These tools and applications are some of the many teaching modes, methods, and platforms (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous teaching modes, project-based and research- based learning methods, Google Classroom and Cloud meeting video-conferencing platforms) that English language teachers at Thai universities across the country can choose from to support their lessons during the pandemic (Thumvichit, 2021). The study highlights the importance of developing learning activities and pedagogical methods that motivate students and providing training programs on online education to both teachers and students (Thumvichit, 2021).

While acknowledging the valuable contribution of the above-mentioned works (and others elsewhere) to our understanding of ELE in times of crisis, it is important to examine the phenomenon further because COVID-19 may not be the only catalyst for change in ELE. More specifically, the pedagogical shift that many English teachers undertook may not be the only

‘event’ or ‘occurrence’ that existed during the period. There were (and still are) many pedagogical shifts, especially those that existed and were undertaken long before the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. These pedagogical shifts were bolstered by the implementation of the CEFR, and the integration of Education 4.0 and 21^st-century skills in the English curricula. The implementation of the CEFR in ELE can be seen, for instance, in the Malaysian context. Hazita (2016) among other scholars maintained that the implementation is aligned with the country’s education reforms, namely, the Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025) and the English Language Education Roadmap for Malaysia (2015-2025). The roadmap, as Hazita (2016) posited “serves as a guide for English language curriculum developers and teachers to ensure that students achieve proficiency levels aligned to international standards, benchmarked against the Common European Framework of Reference or CEFR (which is) an element in the Malaysian Blueprint that aims to boost the level of education in the country to international standards” (p. 67).

The implementation of the CEFR in ELE can be observed in other countries within the region such as Thailand. According to Ketamon, Pomduang, Na Phayap, and Hanchayanon (2018), the CEFR was introduced in 2014 by the Thai Ministry of Education in its attempt to reform the teaching and learning of English across the country out of the urgent need “to handle the critical problem of English proficiency of Thai students and teachers” (p. 78). The implementation of the CEFR in the Thai education system encompasses “the curriculum, tests, evaluation, and teacher development”, with an emphasis on the “Communicative Language Teaching Approach that will play more crucial roles than the outdated grammatical-based teaching and learning methods”

(Ketamon et al., 2018, p. 80). The integration of Education 4.0 and 21^st-century skills in ELE is also evidenced in many countries within the region. Malaysian universities, for example, have incorporated such skills in the English language courses offered to students at different levels of tertiary education. A study by Mohd Adnan, Abd Karim, Mohd Tahir, Mustafa Kamal, and Yusof (2019) found that virtual reality technology was used to teach English for Business to undergraduate students from a Malaysian public university. This technology was used to enable students to “‘experience’ business-related situations, anytime, anywhere” (Mohd Adnan et al., 2019, p. 335). The study also revealed that smartphones and mobile technologies were used to teach English for Writing to diploma students at another Malaysian public university. The technologies aided the teaching of writing skills through “animated mind maps” and “writing trees” (Mohd Adnan, 2019, p. 335). It should be mentioned that Malaysia has implemented Education 4.0 at the tertiary level to meet the demands of the fourth industrial revolution (IR 4.0)

“where human and technology are aligned to enable new possibilities” (Hussin, 2018, p. 92). The emphasis and focus of this higher education 4.0 are to equip students with 21^st-century skills (e.g.,

(5)

271

critical thinking, creativity, communication, collaboration) to produce among others

“entrepreneurial mindsets”, “technologies and innovations”, “life-long learners” and “future-ready talents” (Lieu, Duc, Gleason, Hai, & Tam, 2018). Universities in Thailand have also incorporated Education 4.0 and 21^st-century skills in the English language courses offered to students at different levels of tertiary education. A study by Wattanavorakijkul (2019) found that a majority of teachers who taught Foundation English to non-English major students at a Thai university in Bangkok developed class activities to support the teaching of 21^st-century skills. These activities include pair work, group discussion, group projects, presentations, and cooperative learning activities. The teachers also used ICT and technology in their lessons which include YouTube videos, Kahoot! Internet and websites, social media websites, and applications such as Facebook and Twitter (Wattanavorakijkul (2019). It should be noted that Thailand’s Education 4.0 is closely aligned with the country’s new development policy, namely, Thailand 4.0. The policy, which is developed to address the disparities and imbalances as a result of the country’s middle-income trap, puts a strong emphasis on creating “a creative economy based on creativity and innovation and the development of new technologies” (Buasuwan, 2018, p. 159). In line with this emphasis, the Ministry of Education through Thai Education 4.0 introduced educational reforms to “enhance graduate production as well as improve educational standards, curriculum, teaching-learning, language skills of teachers, and human resource development and research” (Wattanavorakijkul, 2019, p. 35).

2.1 Problem Statement

Based on the above-discussed literature, there has been an increasing body of work examining ELE in times of change as a result of COVID-19. However, most studies tended to focus on the

‘event’ or ‘occurrence’ in the form of the pedagogical shift to online learning modalities and the ensuing issues and problems. More needs to be known about other ‘events’ or ‘occurrences’ (i.e., pedagogical shifts) that may affect ELE during the global pandemic. The present study sought to address this knowledge gap by examining the views of tertiary English language educators from selected Southeast Asian universities regarding the ‘events’ that affected their respective ELE and the ELTL approaches and/or techniques they employed in response to those ‘events’. The results of this study may shed useful insights into the phenomenon of interest that could enact dialogues about how to support and strengthen ELE in the Southeast Asian region within the context of the ever-changing and challenging world.

(6)

272

3. Method

The study presented in this paper forms part of an ongoing regional research project that examines current developments affecting ELE at the tertiary level in Southeast Asia. The study gathered the views of English language educators from selected universities in Malaysia and universities in Thailand. The universities were selected because they were similarly affected by COVID-19 and have in the process utilized various ELTL methods to support their ELE during the pandemic. The study utilized an online survey as the main method of gathering the data. Such a method has been extensively used by many researchers because of “its ability to collect data with greater ease and faster speed compared to traditional methods” due to the government-imposed restrictions to contain the speared of the deadly virus (Singh & Sagar, 2021). The online survey in the present study was divided into four parts:

(1) the participant’s demographic information,

(2) the participants’ views regarding the events affecting ELE at their respective universities, and (3) the teaching and learning methods the participants used in their English language courses in response to those events, and

(4) other teaching and learning methods the participants used during the study.

In the first section, participants were asked to indicate their demographic characteristics such as gender and age. In the second section, respondents were asked to rate on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1: Not at all aware to 5 Extremely aware their awareness of the ‘events’ affecting ELE at their respective universities. The participants were also asked to provide brief information regarding the English language courses they were teaching during the period of the study (e.g., the name of the course). In the second section, the participants were asked to rate on a five Likert scale ranging from 1: none of the classes to 5: every class the frequency using teaching and learning methods in their English language lessons. These methods resembled those reported in the literature on ELTL methods used during the pandemic, and the implementation of CEFR, Education 4.0, and 21^st-century skills.

The survey was administered via Google Forms, an online survey tool, from a sample of English language educators from the selected universities. The participants were recruited through the researchers’ personal and professional networks and they fulfilled certain key criteria: they were primarily trained as tertiary English language educators; they were affiliated with the selected universities during the study; they were relatively experienced in teaching English at the tertiary level (at least two years). Before conducting the survey, the participants were informed of the purpose of the study, and their consent was obtained before the data collection. A draft survey was developed and pilot tested for validity and reliability, and the revised survey was then administered to the participants via Google Form over 12 weeks (e.g. from January until March 2022).

Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the collected data, using the percentage of key responses to describe the participants’ views regarding the phenomenon under study.

(7)

273

4. Results and Discussion

A total of 47 participants took part in the survey, with 11 from Malaysian universities (23.4%) and 36 from Thai universities (76.6%). The sample consisted of 15 males (31.9%), 31 females (66%), and 1 Other (2.1%). Most participants were aged between 35 and 44 years old (48.9%), held a Master’s degree (63.8%), and had between 10 and 15 years of service with their current universities (40.4%). Table 1 presents the demographic information of the participants who took part in the study.

Table 1: Participants’ Demographic Information

Demographic Characteristics Number (n = x) Percentage

Age

25-34 years old 35-44 years old 45-54 years old 55-64 years old

9 23 13 2

19.1%

48.9%

27.7%

4.3%

Gender Female Male Other

31 15 1

66%

31.9%

2.1%

Current Affiliation Malaysian universities Thai universities

11 36

23.4%

76.6%

Years of Service at Current Affiliation Less than 5 years

5-9 years 10-15 years 16-19 years 20-25 years Above 25 years

11 9 19 3 2 3

23.4%

19.1%

40.4%

6.4%

4.3%

6.4%

Highest Level of Education Bachelor's degree

Master’s degree PhD

4 30 13

8.5%

63.8%

27.7%

Level of English Language Taught Foundational Studies

Diploma Studies Bachelor's Degree Postgraduate Degree

11 1 32 3

23.4%

2.1%

68.1%

6.4%

The above also shows that a majority of the participants taught English language courses at the Bachelor’s degree level (n=32 or 68.1%). These courses include English Academic English, English for Professional Communication, and English for Occupational Purposes at Malaysian universities and English for Work, English for Daily Life, English for Communication Skills, English for University Life, English for Marketing, and English for Finance and Banking at Thai universities.

(8)

274

When asked about the ‘event’ that affected their respective ELE, a majority of participants from Malaysian and Thai universities cited COVID-19, particularly the transition from in-person instruction to online learning modalities (n= 44 or 93.6% Extremely Aware). The participants also cited two other ‘events’ that affected their ELE, namely, the implementation of CEFR (n=26 or 55.3% Extremely Aware) and the implementation of Internet and multimedia technology (n=35 or 74.5% Extremely Aware). The participants reported using various teaching and learning methods the participants used in their English language courses in response to the above-mentioned

‘events’. Table 2 shows the participants’ views based on the key frequencies of usage.

(9)

275

Table 2: Participants’ Views Regarding the Teaching and Learning Methods Used in Response to the Events Affecting Their ELE Teaching and Learning

Methods

Malaysian Universities Thai Universities

Event 1*

● Synchronous

● Asynchronous

● Video Conferencing

● Remote Learning

● Hybrid Learning

● Distance Learning

In every class (n=5 or 45.5%)

In every class (n=4 or 36.4%); In half of the classes (n=4; 36.4%) In every class (n=8 or 72.7%)

In every class (n=6 or 54.5%) In every class (n=6 or 54.5%) In every class (n=9 or 81.8%)

In every class (n=16 or 44.4%); Few of the classes (n=10 or 27.8%) In a few of the classes (n=10 or 27.8%)

In every class (n =35 or 97.2%) In every class (n=19 or 52.7%)

None of the class (n=13 or 36.1%); Few of the classes (n=11 or 30.5%)

In every class (n=18 or 50%) Event 1*

● CEFR elements

● CEFR textbooks

In every class (n=8 or 72.2%) In every class (n=7 or 63.6%)

In every class (n=8 or 22.2%); In few of the classes (n=9 or 25%) In every class (n=11 or 30.5%); In few classes (n=8 or 22.2%) Event 2*

● MOOC

● LMS

● Blended Learning

● Social media

None of the classes (n=7 or 63.6%) In every class (n=7 or 63.6%) In every class (n=9 or 81.8%)

In every class (n=3 or 27.27%); In half of the classes (n=4 or 36.4%)

None of the classes (n=19 or 52.8%)

In few of the classes (n=10 or 27.8%); None of the classes (n=8 or 22.2%)

Half of the classes (n=14 or 39%); In every class (n=7 or 19.4%) In every class (n=16 or 44.4%); In half of the classes (n=13 or 36.1%)

*Event 1: The transition from in-person instruction to online learning modalities in ELE due to COVID-19; Event 2: The implementation of CEFR in ELE; Event 3: The implementation of the Internet and multimedia technology that is aligned with the integration of Education 4.0 and 21^st-century skills in ELE

(10)

276

Table 3: Participants’ Views Regarding the Other Teaching and Learning Methods Used during the Study Teaching and Learning

Methods

Malaysian Universities Thai Universities

Community-based Learning

None in the classes (n=7 or 63.6%); In few of the classes (n=3 or 27.3%

In few classes (n=17 or 47.2%); None of the classes (n=9 or 25%)

Service Learning None of the classes (n=6 or 54.5%); In every classes (n=2 or 18.1%) In few classes (n=18 or 50%); None of the classes (n=11 or 31%) Academic Writing In every class (n=8 or 72.7%); In half of the classes (n=2 or 18.1% In few classes (n=16 or 44.4%); In half of the classes (n=7 or 19.4%) Collaborative Learning In every classes (n=4 or 36.4%); In half of the classes (n=3 or

27.3%)

In every class (n=12 or 33.3%); In half of the classes (n=11 or 31%)

E-Portfolios In every classes (n=4 or 36.4%); None of the classes (n=5 or 45.5%) In few classes (n=14 or 39%); None of the classes (n=14 or 39%)

(11)

277

Given the transition from in-person instruction to online learning modalities due to COVID-19, participants employed several teaching and learning methods such as synchronous teaching (Malaysian universities n=5; 45.5% in every class; Thai universities n=16 or 44.4% in every class n=10 or 27.8% in few of the classes), video conferencing tools (Malaysian universities n=8; 72.7% in every class; Thai universities n =35 or 97.2% in every class), remote learning (Malaysian universities n=6; 54.5% in every class; Thai universities n=19 or 52.7% in every class) and distant learning modes (Malaysian universities n=9; 81.8% in every class; Thai universities n=18 or 50% in every class).

In terms of the implementation of CEFR, the participants reported integrating CEFR elements (Malaysian universities n=8 or 72.2% in every class; Thai universities n=8 or 22.2% in every class and n=9 or 25% in few of the classes) into their English lessons. The participants also reported using the CEFR-aligned textbooks in their classes (Malaysian universities n=7 or 63.6% in every class;

Thai universities n=11 or 30.5% in every class and n=8 or 22.2% in a few of the classes). Regarding the implementation of the Internet and multimedia technology, the participants indicated using the Blended Learning approach (Malaysian universities n=9 or 81.8% in every class; Thai universities n=14 or 39% in half of the classes and n=7 or 19.4% in every class) and social media (Malaysian universities n=4 or 36.4% in half of the classes and n=3 or 27.27% in every class); Thai universities n=16 or 44.4% in every class and n=13 or 36.1% in half of the classes and n=13 or 36.1% in half of the classes). The participants also reported using other teaching and learning methods in their English lessons such as collaborative learning (Malaysian universities n=4 or 36.4% in every classes and n=3 or 27.3% in half of the classes; Thai universities n=12 or 33.3% in every class and n=11 or 31% in half of the classes) and emphasizing academic writing in their approach to teaching English to their students (Malaysian universities n=8 or 72.7% in every class and n=2 or 18.1% in half of the classes;

Thai universities n=16 or 44.4% in few of the classes and n=7 or 19.4% in half of the classes). However, very few participants reported using community-based learning and service learning, as well as e- Portfolios in their lessons.

Several points can be gleaned from the above results. First, a majority of the participants cited COVID-19 as the major event that affected their ELE. This comes as no surprise for two reasons:

one, the fact that the survey was conducted during the pandemic, and two, the participants and their respective universities were still dealing with the new normal in the teaching and learning process as a result of the pandemic. These reasons corroborate the data from the empirical studies that revealed many English language teachers the world over have been affected by the coronavirus outbreak and have transitioned from face-to-face instruction to new modalities of teaching and learning (Ang &

Sandaran, 2020; Irwandi, 2020; Mahyob, 2020; Younesi & Khan, 2020; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2021). These modalities, as many of the participants in the current study reported, include synchronous and asynchronous online learning, video conferencing for teaching and learning purposes, as well as remote, hybrid, and distance teaching-learning modes. The use of such modalities resembled those observed in ELE at the tertiary level in Malaysian and Thai universities (Arumugam et al., 2021; Zulkifli et al., 2022; Thumvichit, 2021; Zimik & Kachchhap, 2022).

Second, there were other ‘events’ that affected ELE in the participants’ respective universities. A majority of the participants cited two other ‘events’ that affected their ELE namely the implementation of CEFR in their English language courses and the integration of the Internet and multimedia technologies in support of the teaching and learning of these courses. In terms of the

(12)

278

implementation of CEFR, a large number of participants reported that elements of CEFR were incorporated into their English language course, in addition to the use of CEFR endorsed or aligned textbooks. In terms of the integration of the Internet and multimedia technologies, a high percentage of participants reported the use of various online teaching methods such as MOOC, LMS, Blended learning, and social media. These results corroborate the observations made previously on the trends affecting ELE at the tertiary in Asia, which include the adoption of CEFR (Foley, 2019; Kanchai, 2019, Mohd Don & Abdullah, 2019) and the adoption of Education 4.0 (Ahmad et al., 2019;

Hariharasudan & Kot, 2018) through the use of digital and web-based technologies and multimedia applications. Third, the participants also reported a plethora of methods that were used in their respective English language courses at the time when the survey was conducted. Such methods include community-based learning, service learning, collaborative learning, and creating e-portfolios.

A close examination of these results showed that there was another trend affecting ELE at the participants’ respective universities, namely, the integration of 21^st-century learning skills into their English language courses. The methods that the participants reported were used to equip students with the four C’s of the 21^st-century skills - collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking skills - that they need to perform both in educational and workplace settings.

Finally, the preliminary results from the survey offer insights that can be used to explore the rapidly evolving scholarship on the English language teaching community’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2021). These insights show that COVID-19 is not the only event that affected ELE at the participants’ respective universities. Other previously mentioned events also came to play, bringing to light an important fact that efforts of the English language teaching community in dealing with these other events have not been brought to a halt or put on the back burner just because of the coronavirus outbreak. COVID-19 has helped expanded and intensified these efforts, particularly those that involved the implementation of ELE via online teaching and learning. The preliminary results from the survey also provide insights into the lessons learned from what Moorhouse and Kohnke (2021) describe as the collective experiences and responses of the English language teaching community to ERT and other online modalities in ELT since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such lessons are evidenced in the study in the form of the participants’

similar experiences with COVID-19 and other events affecting their respective ELE and how they resorted to various common ELTT methods. The similarities are important as they help rethink the usual way ELE in time of crisis has been discussed: the issues and challenges in the implementation of ELE during COVID-19 are specific to the context of the English language teaching and learning community. More importantly, these similarities call attention to look beyond the differences to find commonalities in the implementation of ELE during periods of crisis, which may open up much- needed conversations about the subject matter and other potential future areas of cooperation to support and strengthen the teaching and learning of English in today’s ever-changing and challenging world.

(13)

279

5. Conclusion

The study presented in this paper investigated ELE at the tertiary level in Asia, with a special focus on universities in the Southeast Asian region. A survey was conducted with English language students and teachers from selected universities, with findings that revealed a string of events that affected the participants’ respective ELE: the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of the CEFR, and the integration of Education 4.0 and 21^st-century learning skills into the participants’ respective English curriculum. The findings also revealed various ELTL methods that the participants utilized in their respective English language courses in response to the above-mentioned events. The study has some limitations that should be noted. A major limitation was the low turnout of survey participants, which was due to several reasons such as the recruitment method (e.g., primarily through the researchers’

network of students and fellow English language colleagues) and the data collection process (e.g., low response rate during the pandemic). These limitations can be addressed in future research by utilizing various means of recruitment such as phone-based surveys and self-administered surveys on social media sites and applications. Another major limitation was related to the disadvantage of using the survey instrument. While the survey managed to gather the data needed to address the research questions, it could not fully capture or elicit in-depth responses from the participants regarding the topic under investigation. More needs to be known about, for instance, the participant's responses or feelings regarding the events that affected their ELE, and how specific ELTL methods were used to support the teaching and learning of their English language courses during the pandemic. This limitation can be overcome by using other instruments to support the survey such as interviews and focus groups.

6. Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Research Fund provided by University Malaysia Sarawak under the Smart Partnership Grant Scheme (Project ID: F09/PARTNERS/2102/2021).

References

Ahmad, M. K., Adnan, A. H. M., Azamri, N. M., Idris, K. B., Norafand, N. N., & Ishak, N. I. (2019).

Education 4.0 technologies for English language teaching and learning in the Malaysian context.

In MNNF Network (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Invention, Innovative & Creative (InIIC) Conference, Series 2/2019 (pp. 6-16). MNNF Network.

Al-Issa, A., & Mirhosseini, S-A. (2019). Worldwide English language education today: Ideologies, policies, and practices. London, UK: Routledge.

Ang, S. R., & Sandaran, C. (2020) Teachers’ practices and perceptions of the use of ICT in ELT classrooms in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic era and suggestions for the ‘new normal. LSP International Journal, 7(1), 99-119. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v7n1.100

Arumugam, N., De Mello, G., Ramalingam, S., Ibrahim, M. N. A., Suppiah, P. C., & Krishnan, I. A.

(2021). COVID-19: Challenges of online teaching among ESL educators of private higher learning institutions in Malaysia. English As a Foreign Language International Journal, 25(5),

141–158. Retrieved August 18, 2022, from

https://connect.academic.education/indext.php/eflij/article/view/74

(14)

280

Buasuwan, P. (2018), "Rethinking Thai higher education for Thailand 4.0", Asian Education and Development Studies, 7(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-07-2017-0072

Doff, S. (2018). English language teaching and English language education – History and methods In Surkamp, C., & Viebrock, B. (Eds.), Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction (pp. 1-16). Deutschland: J.B. Metzler Stuttgart.

Foley, J. (2019). Adapting CEFR for English language education in ASEAN, Japan, and China. The New English Teacher, 13(2), 101-117. http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/ new English teacher/article/view/3879/2371

Hariharasudan, A. & Kot, S. (2018). A scoping review on digital English and Education 4.0 for industry 4.0. Social Sciences, 7(11). 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110227

Hazita, A. (2016). Implementation and challenges of English language education reform in Malaysian primary schools. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(3), 650-678.

Hussin, A. A. (2018). Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas for teaching. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(3), 92. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.3p.92

Hyland, K., & Wong, L. L. C. (2013). Innovation and change in English language education.

Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.

Irwandi, I. (2020). Implementing eclectic method for ELT through distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educatio: Jurnal Ilmu Kependidikan, 15(2), 91-103.

https://doi.org/10.29408/edc.v15i2.2799). Thai EFL university lecturers’ viewpoints on the impacts of the CEFR on their English language curricula and teaching practice. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 24 (35), 23-47. https://so04.tci- thaijo.org/index.php/NJLC/issue/view/14826

Ketamon, Th., Pomduang, P., Na Phayap, N., 7 Hanchayanon, A. (2018). The Implementation of CEFR in the Thai Education System. Hatyai Academic Journal, 16(1), 77-88.

Kirkpatrick, R. (Ed.). (2016). English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa.

Switzerland: Springer.

Le, V. C., Nguyen, H. T. M., Nguyen, T. T. M., & Barnard, R. (Eds.). (2019). Building teacher capacity in English language teaching in Vietnam: Research, policy, and practice. London &

New York: Routledge.

Lieu, T. T. B., Duc, N. H., Gleason, N. W., Hai, D. T., & Tam, N. D. (2018). Approaches to developing undergraduate IT engineering curriculum for the fourth industrial revolution in Malaysia and Vietnam. Creative Education, 9(December), 2752–2772.

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.916207

Mahyoob, M. (2020). Challenges of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced by EFL

learners. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 351-362.

https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.23

Mohd Adnan, A. H., Abd Karim, R., Mohd Tahir, M. H., Mustafa Kamal, N. N., & Yusof, A. M.

(2019). Education 4.0 technologies, industry 4.0 skills, and the teaching of English in Malaysian tertiary education. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 10(4), 330 343.

https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no4.24

(15)

281

Mohd Don & Abdullah, M. H. (2019, May 22). The reform of English language education in Malaysia. Retrieved August 8, 2022, fromhttps://www.moe.gov.my/en/menumedia/printed- media/newspaper-clippings/the-reform-of-english-language-education-in-malaysia-free-

malaysia-today-22-mei-2019

Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2021). Responses of the English-language-teaching community to the COVID-19 pandemic. RELC Journal, 52(3), 359-378, doi:10.1177/ 00336882211053052 Park, S. E., & Spolsky, B. (Eds.). (2017). English education at the tertiary level in Asia: From policy

to practice. London & New York: Routledge.

Singh, S., & Sagar, R. (2021). A critical look at online survey or questionnaire-based research studies

during COVID-19. Asian Journal of Psychiatry. 65:102850,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102850

Thumvichit, A. (2021). English language teaching in times of crisis: Teacher agency in response to the pandemic-forced online education. Teaching English with Technology, 21(2), 14-37.

Tsui, A. B. M. (Ed.). (2020). English language and teacher education in East Asia: Global challenges and local responses. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wattanavorakijkul, N. (2019). Challenges faced by Thai tertiary teachers in designing and delivering English courses in the 21st Century. Thai TESOL Journal, 32(1), 33-54.

Wong, L. T., & Dubey-Jhaveri. (2015). English language education in a global world: Practices, issues, and challenges. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Younesi, M., & Khan, M. R. (2020). English language teaching through the Internet at Post COVID- 19 age in India: Views and attitudes. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 7(3), 870-875.

Zulkifli, M. S., Hisham, N. N. B., & Razak, N. A. (2022). ESL Lecturers’ adaptation to the new norm of online teaching in Malaysia. TESOL and Technology Studies, 3(1), 15–23.

https://doi.org/10.48185/tts.v3i1.334

Zimik, H. R., & Kachchhap, S. L. (2022). Challenges of online EFL classes: The case in Thai university during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(1 Spring), 274-281.

http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.1.19.274