Navigating Policy Silos: A Comparative Analysis of Teacher Competency Frameworks in Malaysia's Education Blueprints

Malaysia's pursuit of high-income nation status is intrinsically linked to ambitious educational reforms, driven by a suite of parallel national policy documents. Foundational texts such as the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education) [MEB (HE)] and the more recent Digital Education Policy [DEP] articulate a vision for a transformed education system capable of navigating the complexities of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR4.0). This policy landscape necessitates a new profile of teacher competencies, yet there remains a significant lack of scholarly analysis that comparatively examines how these key policies conceptualize the 'ideal teacher'. The concurrent and often overlapping nature of these documents’ risks creating implementation silos for teacher education institutions. This study addresses this gap by employing a qualitative comparative document analysis that interrogates the conceptualization of the 'ideal teacher' across Malaysia's core education policy and standards documents, revealing both strategic alignment and significant structural dissonance. Utilizing a macro-meso-micro analytical framework, the study systematically compares the national policy vision, institutional implementation requirements, and expected pedagogical practices articulated within each document. The article's primary contribution is the development of a synthesized model that identifies critical areas of convergence and divergence. By mapping these policy intersections, this analysis offers a pathway toward a more coherent and integrated national teacher competency framework, providing actionable insights for policymakers and teacher education providers.

Teacher Education, Digital Competencies, Education Policy Analysis, Malaysian Teacher Education, Document Analysis.

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bahagian Pendidikan Guru, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2009). Standard Guru Malaysia. Putrajaya: Giga Wise Network. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Benali, M., & Mak, A. S. (2022). Teachers’ digital competence frameworks and policy alignment: A comparative analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11059–11079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11002-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. British Council. (2012). The shape of things to come: Higher education global trends and emerging opportunities to 2020. London: British Council. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Caena, F. (2014). Teacher competence frameworks in Europe: Policy as discourse and practice. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12088 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st-century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356–369. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Carbone, M. (2018). Policy coherence. In E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 413–428). London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ferrari, A. (2020). Digital competence in education: Conceptual evolution and policy implications. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(2), 109–121. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Honig, M. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for educators. Eugene, OR: ISTE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2015). Malaysia education blueprint 2015–2025 (Higher education). Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2023). Digital education policy. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2024). Malaysia education blueprint 2013–2025: Annual report 2023. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2017). Programme standards: Education (2nd ed.). Putrajaya: Malaysian Qualifications Agency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesising the implementation literature: The ambiguity–conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mourshed, M., Farrell, D., & Barton, D. (2012). Education to employment: Designing a system that works. Washington, DC: McKinsey Center for Government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. OECD. (2019). Education policy outlook 2019: Working together to help students achieve their potential. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. OECD. (2020). Education policy outlook 2020: Shaping responsive and resilient education in a changing world. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ochieng, R. (2024). Contextualising global teacher competency frameworks in developing education systems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 135, 104203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Owo, B. (2025). Policy borrowing and digital competence development: Risks of fragmentation in teacher education systems. Comparative Education Review, 69(1), 88–107. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., Carretero Gomez, S., & Van den Brande, L. (2016). DigComp 2.0: The digital competence framework for citizens. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. World Economic Forum. (2020). Schools of the future: Defining new models of education for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Wurdinger, S. D., & Carlson, J. A. (2010). Teaching for experiential learning: Five approaches that work. Lanham, MD: R&L Education. [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