The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is now widely used in language

education, including Arabic. This study examined how Arabic Language teachers at the Centre for Languages

and Pre-Academic Language Development (CELPAD, IIUM) engage with a CEFR aligned curriculum, focusing

on their knowledge, perceptions, and challenges. A survey adapted from Ngu and Aziz (2019) was distributed

to all staff in the department and included items on familiarity with CEFR, classroom practice, and curriculum

implementation. The results show that teachers are generally aware of CEFR and recognise its relevance for

teaching and assessment. They viewed CEFR as useful for setting benchmarks and guiding curriculum but

reported uneven knowledge beyond the reference levels and difficulties in applying descriptors to lesson

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is widely regarded as a comprehensive

framework for curriculum design and assessment in language education. Created by the Council of Europe, its

original purpose was to provide consistency across European countries. The framework sets out six proficiency

levels from A1 to C2 and places emphasis on communicative competence, learner autonomy, and practical

language use (Council of Europe, 2001, 2020).

Since its introduction, CEFR has extended well beyond Europe and now shapes language teaching in many parts

of the world. Countries across Asia and the Middle East have adopted CEFR standards to update teaching

practices and improve outcomes (Little, 2020). In Malaysia, the framework has been central to reform in English

language education. The Ministry of Education launched the English Language Education Reform Roadmap

2013 to 2025, designed to raise national English proficiency through CEFR based instruction and assessment

increasing focus on communicative activities and proficiency-oriented assessment.

These developments reflect a broader recognition of CEFR’s potential, but also raise important questions about

its suitability for Arabic instruction. Unlike European languages, Arabic presents unique challenges due to its

diglossic nature and long tradition of grammar focused teaching. As such, understanding how teachers engage

with CEFR in practice is crucial for assessing its effectiveness in this context. This study seeks to address that

gap by examining Arabic teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and the challenges they face in implementing a

CEFR aligned curriculum at IIUM.

In recent years, efforts to apply CEFR in Arabic instruction have gained momentum. Institutions such as the

American University in Cairo and several Islamic universities in Indonesia have piloted CEFR aligned Arabic

sessions, the Arabic Language Division launched a curriculum review in 2023 to align its courses with CEFR

standards. By now, courses have been structured from A1 to B2 levels, with greater emphasis on communicative

activities and assessments based on proficiency.

Although CEFR based Arabic teaching is expanding, little is known about how teachers in Islamic higher

education contexts understand and apply it. Much of the literature on CEFR in Malaysia has focused on English,

leaving a gap in understanding how Arabic teachers view and implement the framework. The success of

curriculum reform depends heavily on teacher readiness and acceptance, making their perspectives central to

evaluating CEFR’s effectiveness.

This study investigates the knowledge, perceptions, and challenges of Arabic language teachers at IIUM. By

2. How do Arabic teachers perceive the CEFR and its relevance in their classroom practice?

3. What are the main challenges faced by Arabicic Language teachers in implementing the CEFR-aligned

curriculum?

Several studies have examined the extent of teachers’ knowledge of CEFR and how far this knowledge translates

into practice. Amrulloh (2023), in a study of Arabic teacher candidates in Indonesia, observed that although most

candidates were aware of CEFR and could explain its purpose in broad terms, their understanding of the

framework remained superficial. The study showed that many of these teacher candidates were unable to explain

in detail how CEFR descriptors should be used in classroom teaching, and even fewer were able to link CEFR

opportunities remain limited.

introduced CEFR concepts in general terms but did not provide sustained training or practical examples. This

suggests that even when teachers are familiar with CEFR terms, they may not fully understand how to translate

them into teaching and assessment practices.

Earlier work by Abu Amshah (2014) also highlighted the same issue, arguing that the absence of structured

teacher training is a major barrier to meaningful CEFR implementation. He stressed that both pre service and in

service training must include dedicated CEFR modules if teachers are to move beyond a surface level knowledge

of the framework. According to his analysis, without structured training, CEFR risks being introduced in policy

documents or textbooks but not being applied consistently by teachers.

A more positive view is offered by Nurdianto and Jutshin (2020), who showed that aligning Arabic learning

outcomes with CEFR descriptors gave teachers clearer instructional targets. Their study demonstrated that when

learning outcomes were explicitly tied to CEFR levels, teachers felt more confident about what they were

expected to achieve in the classroom. However, they also acknowledged that this alignment required strong

Malaysian ESL context, Karim and Sulaiman (2023) found that primary school teachers generally viewed CEFR

positively, particularly because it provided clearer objectives and benchmarks for language learning. However,

classroom realities, especially when resources and training were limited. This shows that even when teachers

appreciate CEFR as a framework, they remain cautious about its practical implementation.

A similar pattern was observed by Uri and Aziz (2024), who studied Malaysian teachers using imported CEFR

textbooks. They reported that while teachers valued the structure of CEFR materials, they often had to make

substantial adaptations to suit local cultural and linguistic contexts. This indicates that perceptions of CEFR are

shaped not only by its content but also by how well its resources align with the needs of students.

structuring learning, but their acceptance is conditional. Teachers remain attentive to the cultural and linguistic

fit of the framework, and where CEFR is seen as mismatched with Arabic structures or teaching traditions, their

support becomes more guarded.

The literature also points to several challenges in implementing CEFR in Arabic teaching. Salwa (2021), in her

critical review, highlighted a lack of training, insufficient localized resources, and institutional resistance as the

main barriers. She noted that Quranic Language teachers in particular struggled to reconcile CEFR descriptors

with the aims of Quranic instruction, which traditionally emphasize memorization and comprehension of

classical texts rather than communicative skills.

primarily for European languages, do not always reflect the complexity of Arabic. This mismatch makes it

difficult for teachers to apply CEFR consistently, especially when dealing with the dual demands of Modern

Standard Arabic and Quranic Arabic.

Attempts have been made to adapt CEFR for Arabic. Rohman et al. (2021) created localized indicators aligned

with CEFR levels, which demonstrated that it is possible to adjust the framework for Arabic instruction. However,

they also acknowledged that such adaptations are not yet widely available and that teachers still lack culturally

appropriate tools to use in their classrooms.

Other studies highlight problems of curriculum misalignment. Abu Amshah (2014) noted that while some

inconsistency. Similarly, Roshimi et al. (2023) found that curriculum documents frequently introduced CEFR in

principle but gave little practical guidance for teachers, leaving them to implement the framework without

sufficient institutional support.

misrepresenting real language use. This highlights the need for adaptation when applying CEFR to Arabic so

that instructional goals reflect both formal and everyday communicative functions.

However, linguistic variation is only one dimension of the adaptation required. CEFR implementation in Arabic

must also be considered in relation to the cultural and pedagogical traditions that shape Arabic language teaching.

In Quranic and Islamic learning contexts, instruction has historically prioritised textual interpretation,

memorisation, and grammatical precision, reflecting a focus on accuracy and reverence for the language. These

aims differ from the communicative, learner-centred orientation assumed by CEFR descriptors, which emphasise

real-world language use and interactive competencies. Therefore, aligning CEFR with Arabic involves a process

of localization, in which descriptors are interpreted and adapted to support the goals of classical text engagement

rather than replacing them. This approach aligns with broader theories of language standardisation, which argue

that global frameworks must be negotiated and reshaped within local educational traditions to ensure meaningful

and coherent implementation.

Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the participants. A total of 31 staff members from the

Arabicic Language Division responded to the survey, consisting of 17 males (55%) and 14 females (45%). In

terms of teaching experience, the majority of respondents (61%) had taught for more than 20 years, while 21%

reported between 11 and 20 years, and 18% had 1 to 5 years of experience. With regard to divisional roles, 52%

of the respondents were ordinary lecturers, while 48% held key positions such as coordinators or senior academic

roles, indicating a balanced mix of perspectives from both leadership and teaching staff. The respondents

represented a mix of genders, teaching experience, and divisional positions. This provided a reasonably balanced

in passing references. A smaller group (18.2%) admitted that they had not read any CEFR-related documents.

These results reveal varying levels of engagement, with many staff preferring summarized or secondary

resources.

and 30.3% in official institutional documents such as curricula, syllabuses, and examination guidelines. This

suggests that CEFR is present in a wide range of resources, with textbooks emerging as the most common

medium.

proficiency. Nearly all respondents recognized the six reference levels from A1 to C2, which appeared to be the

most widely understood feature of the framework. However, when the survey required respondents to identify

additional aspects of CEFR beyond the levels, only a smaller proportion were able to do so. The most common

responses referred to communicative descriptors, but only a few teachers mentioned learner autonomy or the

broader role of CEFR in assessment.

purpose but displayed uneven knowledge when it came to the more detailed elements of the framework. This

indicates that while basic familiarity is widespread, depth of understanding is less consistent.

Fig.6 Benefits to Teachers

relevant to their work.

Fig.7 Benefits to Students

Figure 7 highlights teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum’s impact on students. More than half (56%) strongly

agreed that CEFR covers essential language functions necessary for learning, while only 3% disagreed. About

47% felt it helps students achieve the minimum Arabic language proficiency required by universities, though

36% disagreed. Regarding creating a student-centered environment, 44% strongly agreed, while 34% disagreed.

see such benefits.

Responses to the perception items showed that teachers had a generally positive view of CEFR. Most agreed that

CEFR provides useful benchmarks and clearer goals for teaching Arabic. Many also indicated that they valued