The Malaysian curriculum reform in 2011 for English as a Second Language (ESL) was designed with the intent to set a national curriculum system that is on par with international standards by adopting CEFR into the ESL classroom. However, challenges arose when rural primary school learners were found to have lower proficiency level. Therefore, this study investigated the impact of communicative language tasks on rural primary school learners’ communicative competence in Julau, Sarawak, Malaysia. This study also explored the learners’ perspective towards the communicative language tasks in developing their communicative competence. Informed by the qualitative approach of data collection, this study employed pre-test, post-test and individual interviews with ten research participants selected through purposive sampling. Findings from this study disclosed that the CEFR-aligned communicative language tasks enhanced the learners’ grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic communicative competence. The findings also revealed that the learners have developed intrinsic motivation and interest to learn English using the communicative language tasks.
Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(6), 1-25.
Aziz, A. H. A. A., Ab Rashid, R., & Zainudin, W. Z. W. (2018). The enactment of the Malaysian common European framework of reference (CEFR): National master trainer’s reflection. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 409-417.
Azli, N., And Akmar, A. (2019). Implementation of CEFR-Aligned Assessment Tools in Malaysian ESL Classroom. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 4(2), Pp.7-10.
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Butzkamm, W. (2007). Native language skills as a foundation for foreign language learning. Transcending boundaries. Essays in honour of Gisela Hermann-Brennecke. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 71-85.
Canale, M., and Swain, M. (1980). The theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-47
Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S. K., Smith, M., and Crowley, K. (2011). The power of “Can Do” statements: Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a second language classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), p.1.
Fauziati, E. (2015). A State of the Art of Communicative Competence Theory. Ahmad Dahlan Journal of English Studies (ADJES), 2(2).
Fazil, S. H. S. M., Nor, F. M., & Halim, N. A. A. (2018). Issues in promoting Communicative Competence among Malaysian Primary School Students. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(8), 608–619.
Highmore, B. (2002). The everyday life and cultural theory. New York: Routledge
Goullier, F. (2007). Council of Europe tools for language teaching. Common European Framework and Portfolios. Paris: Didier.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University.
Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2013). Language communication and communicative competence: Aview from contemporary classrooms. Language and Education, 27(5), 398-414.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are learned (4th ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91,645-655.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). English language education reform in Malaysia: The roadmap 2015-2025. (M. Orey, Ed.). Putrajaya: English Language Standards and Quality Council, Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of counseling psychology, 38(1), 30.
Nagai, N., and O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 6, pp.141-152.
Naganuma, N. (2010). The Range and Triangulation of Can Do Statements in Japan. In: Schmidt, M.S., Naganuma, N., O’Dwyer, F., Imig, A., Sakai, K. (eds.), 2010. Can do statements in language education in Japan and beyond. Tokyo: Asahi Press, pp. 19-34.
Nakatani, Y. (2009). An interview study of English levels in international business contexts: An initial qualitative data analysis for CEFR-J Tokyo University of Science Kiyo, 42, 91-102.
Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the implementation of the CEFR in Asian contexts: Focus on communication strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, pp.771-775.
Nordin, N. M., Ali, F. D. R., Zubir, S. I. S. S., & Sadjirin, R. (2013). ESL learners reactions towards code switching in classroom settings. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 478-487.
North, B. (2007). The CEFR: Development, theoretical and practical issues. Babylonia, 1(07), pp.22-29.
Othman, I., Salleh, N. M., & Norani, N. A. M. (2013). The Implementation of school-based assessment in primary school standard curriculum. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(7), 1-10.
Pinker, S. (2003). El instinto del lenguaje. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Rajasekaran, C., and Anburaj, G. (2015). Ways of teaching English in rural areas. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(2): 100-12.
Rojas-Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Fernández, M., and Wegerif, R. (2006). Explicit reasoning, creativity and co-construction in primary school children's collaborative activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), pp.84-94.
Sage, R. (2003). Lend us your ears: listen and learn. Stafford: Network Educational Press
Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., & Chi, L. J. (2018). CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in the Malaysian primary ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 452-463. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v8i2.13311
Sidhu, G. K., Chan, Y., & Azleena, M. (2011). Teachers' knowledge and understanding of the Malaysian school-based oral English assessment. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, 93-115.
Ur, P. (2008). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory: Trainer’s Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge Teacher Training and Development.
Wilde, M. E., and Sage, R. (2007). Developing the communicative competence and narrative thinking of four and five year olds in educational settings. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6-7), pp.679-693.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning (Vol. 60). Harlow: Longman.
Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (1984). Games for language learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yen. H., W. (2013). Developing Taiwanese Elementary School Learners' EFL Communicative Competence through Communicative Language Activities. pp. 27-41.
In-Text Citation: (Legak & Wahi, 2020)
To Cite this Article: Legak, T. C., & Wahi, W. (2020). Communicative Language Tasks to Enhance Young Learners’ Communicative Competence. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(6), 355–367.
Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
