The Malaysian ESL (English as a Second Language) curriculum has undergone several reforms since the implementation of the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025. In 2016, the Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) or the Standard Curriculum for Primary Schools (SBCPS), first introduced in 2011, was revised to align with the Common European Framework of References (CEFR) for languages. This more action-oriented approach resulted in fundamental changes to teaching, learning, and assessment including the integration of an innovative school-based assessment (SBA). It witnessed a shift from the traditional stance of assessment of learning to assessment for learning that emphasizes both peer and self-assessment as necessary components for the development of autonomous language learners. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to investigate the implementation of the CEFR-aligned SBA in the primary ESL classroom. Data were collected via a three-pronged procedure involving surveys, interviews, and document analysis from TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) teachers in five randomly-selected schools located in Damansara, Malaysia. The findings revealed that the implementation of SBA left much to be desired and was far from formative assessment. Though teachers expressed rather positive opinions on SBA, they lacked a full understanding of the method and admitted possessing a limited knowledge of the revised CEFR-aligned ESL curriculum altogether. Teachers provided little or no constructive feedback on assignments, and learners were not encouraged to reflect on assignments. There was little evidence of peer and self-assessment required for developing autonomous learners. Teachers cited time constraints, classroom enrolment, heavy workload, and lack of training as their main challenges against the effective implementation of the CEFR-aligned SBA.
Background
Low birth weight prevalence in Malaysia remains high. Socioeconomic background may lead to differences in physical activity and maternal nutritional status, which may play an important role in birth outcomes.
Methods
This prospective cross-sectional study aimed to identify rural-urban differences in risk factors for low birth weight among women in Malaysia. Pregnant women at ≥20 weeks of gestation in urban and rural Malaysia (
n
= 437) completed questionnaires on sociodemographic characteristics and physical activity. Weight and middle-upper arm circumference were measured. Infant birth outcomes were extracted from medical records.
Results
The overall prevalence of low birth weight infants was 6.38%. Rural women had more low birth weight infants than urban women (9.8% vs 2.0%,
p
= 0.03). Findings showed rural women were less sedentary (
p
= 0.003) and participated in more household/caregiving activities (
p
= 0.036), sports activities (
p
= 0.01) and less occupational activity (
p
< 0.001) than urban women. Logistic regression revealed that older age (OR = 1.395, 95% Cl = 1.053 to 1.846), low parity (OR = 0.256, 95% Cl = 0.088–0.747) and low middle-upper arm circumference (OR = 0.738, 95% Cl = 0.552 to 0.987) increased the risk of low birth weight infants in rural, but not in urban women.
Conclusions
We observed differences in risk factors for low birth weight between urban and rural pregnant women. Age, malnutrition and low parity were risk factors for low birth weight among rural pregnant women. Our findings suggest that rural pregnant women with low nutritional status should be encouraged to monitor their middle-upper arm circumference consistently throughout pregnancy. Improving nutritional status in rural pregnant women may reduce the risk of low birth weight infants in this population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.