Curriculum Development in Malaysia: Teacher Perspectives on Sustainability, Moral Education, and Assessment-Oriented Practice

Malaysian curriculum policy is well documented at system level, but far less is known about how individual teachers interpret, mediate, and enact reform priorities in the daily work of a specific school. This paper reports an exploratory, instrumental single-case study of one in-service Mathematics teacher at a fully residential secondary school in Malaysia. The study is deliberately bounded: it does not survey the Malaysian teaching workforce, nor does it evaluate the effectiveness of any programme. Its purpose is to generate a detailed, theoretically informed account of how three concurrent reform agendas education for sustainable development (ESD), moral and values education, and assessment reform are understood and worked with by one teacher situated in one institutional setting. Data were generated through a single semi-structured interview of one hour and twelve minutes conducted via Microsoft Teams and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase reflexive thematic analysis. The analysis is framed by the literature on curriculum enactment, the ecological model of teacher agency, and assessment theory. Three themes were constructed. First, the participant framed sustainability learning as durable only when carried by routine institutional practice rather than by episodic events or subject content. Second, he positioned moral formation as a distributed responsibility that the school can model and reinforce but cannot secure alone. Third, he described working within, rather than against, an examination-oriented assessment regime, treating portfolios, presentations, and peer-teaching structures as complements to public examinations rather than substitutes for them. Across the three themes, the participant’s reasoning is read as the exercise of bounded agency: reform is enacted where it can be attached to existing residential school routines and is deferred where syllabus coverage and examination requirements constrain it. These findings are specific to this participant and setting. They are offered not as generalisable claims about Malaysian schooling but as an analytically transferable account that may inform hypotheses for larger, multi-site research and that suggests questions curriculum designers may wish to test more widely.

curriculum enactment; teacher agency; education for sustainable development; values education; assessment reform; Malaysia; single-case study

1. Ahmad, R. H. (1998). Educational development and reformation in Malaysia: Past, present and future. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810238456 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arumugham, K. S. (2020). Kurikulum, pengajaran dan pentaksiran dari perspektif pelaksanaan pentaksiran bilik darjah [Curriculum, teaching and assessment from the perspective of classroom-based assessment implementation]. Asian People Journal, 3(1), 152–161. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.37231/apj.2020.3.1.175 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Corwin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Halstead, J. M., & Taylor, M. J. (2000). Learning and teaching about values: A review of recent research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 169–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/713657146 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hazri Jamil, Nordin Abd. Razak, Reena Raju, & Abdul Rashid Mohamed. (2014). Teacher professional development in Malaysia: Issues and challenges. Center for the Study of International Cooperation in Education, Hiroshima University. https://cice.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/4-2-81.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Jamaluddin, N. S., & Li Na. (2023). Applicability of constructivist-oriented teaching in the process of educational transformation in Malaysia. International Business Education Journal, 16(1), 22–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.37134/ibej/Vol.16.1.3.2023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Karim, H. H., Che Leh, A., Norris, N., Buang, N. F., & Abd Jalil, N. A. (2025). The impact of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) training on fostering a culture of sustainability in the workplace: A conceptual paper. Asian Journal of Social Science Research, 7(1), 81–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15803441 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. Bantam Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 (Preschool to post-secondary education). Ministry of Education Malaysia. https://www.pmo.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Malaysia-Education-Blueprint-2013-2025.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mohamed Ibrahim, S. B., Mohd Basir, S. N., Johanis, M. A., Habib Sultan, N. H., & Joharis, N. F. (2025). Exploring the impact of social support and academic stress on engineering students’ resiliency. Asian Journal of Social Science Research, 7(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15803407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Quinlan, K. M. (2024). Educationally authentic assessment. Teaching in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2394042 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Rosli, M. R., & Jamaludin, K. A. (2023). Integration of civic education in primary school: Challenges faced by teachers. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i4/20018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402–435). Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Twining, P., Butler, D., Fisser, P., Leahy, M., Shelton, C., Forget-Dubois, N., & Lacasse, M. (2020). Developing a quality curriculum in a technological era. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2285–2308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09857-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/CGBA9153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/YFRE1448 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2024). A systematic literature review on authentic assessment in higher education: Best practices for the development of 21st century skills, and policy considerations. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, 101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study