Introduction

In this globalized era, learning the English language has been an essential factor due
to the most widely spoken languages (Crystal D., 2017). As for Malaysia and South Korea,
Bahasa Melayu and Korean language are the official languages respectively. Even so, the
English language still plays a crucial part in both countries’ education systems. Imparting
proficiency in the English Language should begin right from the school level (Maeroff G, 2011).
As it is said, it is vital for the students to master in the English language. Hence, this writing
will further compare and contrast the Malaysian KSSR English Language curriculum with the
English Language of 7th National Curriculum of South Korea.

Curriculum Design

First of all, Malaysia undertook a comprehensive reform of the primary education

system which encompassed structural and curriculum change by introducing KSSR or the
Primary School Standards-Based Curriculum in 2011 starting Year 1 cohort (Curriculum
Development Division, 2011). According to KSSR, the curriculum is involving the inclusion of
basic reading literacy, phonics, penmanship, and language arts as the new curriculum
contents. Furthermore, in KSSR also emphasizing on critical and creative thinking skills,
reasoning skills that are planned in the learning standards to enhance pupils to solve simple
problems, make decisions and express themselves creatively in simple language (Curriculum
Development Division, 2011).

In contrast, the English education in the 7th National Curriculum of South Korea basis
principles (Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation, 1997) in English Education for
focusing the student-centeredness, cultivating the communicative competence, utilizing
various activities and task, fostering logical and creative thinking and functioning effectively as
a nation in an era of globalization. 7th National Curriculum of South Korea develops English
curriculum in two parts which are the English language as a required subject that applies from
the third grade of elementary school to the first grade of high school and as an elective subject
for second and third grades of high school. Furthermore, the 7th curriculum adopted a
proficiency-based language program which allows pupils to learn according to their abilities
and interest.

As we can see from the curriculum design of English language overview for both
countries, we could say that both countries have different concepts and principles. This is due
to in Malaysia English Language is taught as a second language (ESL) while in South Korea
is taught as a foreign language (EFL). The multicultural citizen in Malaysia influences the
reason why they teach ESL (Ministry of Education, 2011) while in South Korea uses English
as foreign language due to the society is homogenous (Armstrong, 2007).
Factors that Influence the Development of the Curriculum

From my reading, the most influencing factor to KSSR’s curriculum development is

social need. Most working sectors nowadays have English language mastery as their
requirement to be employed (OECD Economic Surveys: Malaysia 2016: Economic
Assessment, 2016). In line with the era of globalization, the English language has been
highlighted to be an essential mastery in working sectors exceptionally private industry. The
reason is simply that English is a lingua franca for all around the globe (Roger & Zuwati, 2017).
With this, MOE has taken this matter seriously and developing an English language curriculum
in Malaysia to enable the young learners to speak and communicate in the English language
as well as preparing them for the challenging globalized era (Tajularipin, Fauzi & Suriati, 2015).
For example, the English subject is a compulsory subject since Standard 1 primary school.

Politics influence contras with Malaysia's KSSR, 7th National Education of South
Korea. In South Korea, private international schools and certain specialized high schools offer
the English language as a medium of instruction (EMI). The Korean language is still
predominant in higher education school, but EMI has been implemented since the Korean
government started to encourage the university to offer English-taught classes. Some
universities are now teaching more than 90 percent of their courses in English. Since the
English language is the language of international business and science, it has been prioritized
in South Korea.

Furthermore, English competency is highly essential for employment prospects and social
status. Many Korean children started to learn English in kindergarten before entering primary
school; this phenomenon appeared slowing down pupils’ proficiency in the Korean language.
Thus in 2018, the government banned the teaching of English to third grade.

With that, we can conclude that different main factors influence both countries' English
language curriculum development. For Malaysia, the main factor that influenced KSSR is the
social need to fulfilled the working industries’ demands of English proficiency, not only in
Malaysia but also all around the globe. On the other hand, the prominent factor that influenced
7th National Education in South Korea is a political factor because they want Korea to use EMI
in the classes.

The Role of the Teacher as Curriculum Designer and Implementer

MOE (2012) stated that the keys for transformation in the education system are to have
proper alignment between policy formulation and implementation. To gain the desired policy
enactment-implementation alignment is not going to be a straightforward process. However,
the teachers are not actively involved in curriculum design since the policies are mediated by
the agencies of the state, the school, the English department, and individual teachers, while
teachers’ opinions and views are being voted down by a higher authority (Kamarul & Kasthuri,
2013). Teachers are free to plan their style and approaches that suit the classroom demands
and personalities (Mattsson, Eilertsen & Rossison, 2011). Hence, the role of teachers, in
Malaysia, is more on the implementer instead of a designer.

In contrast to the 7th curriculum of South Korea, most aspects of the education system
are controlled by the government ministries and agencies. The Korean government sets
national curriculum standards (MOE, 2019). They are responsible for the formulation and
implementation of policies to classroom activities and public education. The teachers in South
Korea just followed the guidelines given and recommended to follow it. Even so, they could
make changes in the activities according to their knowledge and consideration in their
classroom environment or pupils background knowledge.

From these given arguments, we could conclude that in both countries, the teacher’s
role is more as an implementor compared to as the designer. However, teachers in Malaysia
have more freedom in the way to deliver their lesson as long as the contents are still the same,
while most teachers in South Korea deliver their lesson using what had been suggested by
the curriculum designers.

Conclusion

To put in the nutshells, we could see that both of the countries, Malaysia and South
Korea, MOE are highlighting the English language as an essential language to be learned in
benefits both their people and economic growth (Importance of English Education in School,
2015). They understood the importance of learning English since the school level as it will help
the pupils be able to compete in this era of globalization.
References

Armstrong, C. K. (2007). The koreas. New York: Routledge.

Barnard, R., & Hasim, Z. (2018). English medium instruction programmes: Perspectives from
South East Asian universities. London: Routledge/Taylor & Franics Group.

Curriculum Development Division. (2011). Literasi bahasa inggeris. Teacher’s module [English
literacy: Teacher’s Module]. Putrajaya: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2012). Preliminary report of malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025.

Putrajaya: Author.

Curriculum Development Division. (2011). Standard document of primary school curriculum:

basic core module of english language for national schools. Putrajaya: Author.

Crystal, D. (2017). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hasim, Z., & Barnard, R. (2017). Pedagogical research practices in higher learning institutions
in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.

Importance of English Education in Schools. (2015, April 17). Retrieved February 15, 2019,
from http://languagelab.in/article-details/article/37/

Kabilan, M. K., & Veratharaju, K. (2013). Professional development needs of primary school
English-language teachers in Malaysia. Professional Development in Education, 39(3),
330-351. doi:10.1080/19415257.2012.762418

Maeroff, G. I. (2011). School boards in America: A flawed exercise in democracy.

Mattsson, M., Eilertsen, T. V., & Rorrison, D. (2011). A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education.
Rotterdam: Sense.

Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://english.moe.go.kr/sub/info.do?m=020108&s=english

OECD economic surveys: Malaysia 2016: Economic assessment. (2016). Paris: OECD.

Olivia,P.F. & Gorgon. R.W. (2013). Development the curriculum (8th Edition). London. Allyn &
Bacon Educational Leadership.

Ornstein, A. C. & Huskins, F.P. (2014). Curriculum: Foundation, Prinsiples, and Issues (6th
ed.). Essex. Pearson Edu. Ltd.

Tajularipin Sulaiman, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub & Suriati Sulaiman. (2015). Curriculum change
in english language curriculum advocates higher order thinking skills and standards-based
assessments in malaysian primary schools. 6(2)- (pp: 494-500). Retrieved from
http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/5835/5621
Tyler,R.W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. London: University of
Chicago Press.