















































31 
 

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY 

Vol. 05 No. 01, March 2023, pp. 31 - 44 

Available online at:  

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current 

ISSN: 2721-3811 (media online) 

 

Insights on CEFR and Its Implementation in Arabic Language Learning at 

Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding School 

Friendis Syani Amrulloh 

Universitas Kiai Abdullah Faqih Gresik 

friendissyani@gmail.com    

ABSTRACT 

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) provides guidelines for Arabic language teaching 

aids and curriculum development in language courses. The research investigated pre-service Arabic teachers' 

perceptions of CEFR in the context of the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding School. A total of 200 fourth- 

and fifth-year preservice Arabic teachers participated in the study. A mixed method design was used to collect 

data through a seven-point Likert scale questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The quantitative 

findings revealed that the participants had a high level of understanding of the CEFR, particularly in the 

domain of assessment and the development of reference level descriptions. In contrast, qualitative data 

revealed that Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding School preservice teachers had little knowledge of the 

CEFR, and their understanding of the CEFR was very limited. However, the pre-service teacher of the 

Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding School expressed a positive view regarding the application of CEFR into 

classroom practice. Overall, these findings suggest that pre-service Arabic teachers have a poor understanding 

of the conception of the CEFR, suggesting that stakeholders of the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding School 

should raise awareness regarding the proper implementation of the CEFR and its alignment with the national 

curriculum. 

Keywords: CEFR, Arabic, Islamic Boarding School, Mambaus Sholihin 

 

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current
http://u.lipi.go.id/1580741566
mailto:friendissyani@gmail.com


32 
 

I. INTRODUCTION 
The CEFR has been generally adopted in 

language learning, teaching, and assessment 

worldwide, and several studies have 

examined its effectiveness. For example, 

Nakatani (2012) investigated whether the 

use of communication strategies (CS) 

identified in the CEFR could improve 

learners' language proficiency in 

communication tasks (Nakatani, 2012). 

Another study examined the impact of 

assessment practices, based on the CEFR 

descriptor, on learning outcomes in Swedish 

higher education (Baldwin & Apelgren, 

2018). The integration of pronunciation 

based on CEFR-oriented perspectives for 

language learners and teachers has also been 

explored (Topal, 2019). Interestingly, several 

studies have reported that many teachers 

have not adopted CEFR into their classroom 

practice despite its popularity and benefits. 

Indeed, a study conducted in Turkey showed 

that teachers do not adapt CEFR problems 

into their practice (Uri & Abd Aziz, 2018), 

and another study in Malaysia reported that 

a significant number of Malaysian teachers 

did not fully understand how to implement 

the framework and had limited knowledge of 

some aspects of the document, including 

assessment (Sahib & Stapa, 2021). 

At the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic 

Boarding School, the Language Department 

Board introduced the CEFR in 2021 as a 

practical guidebook for teaching Arabic in 

the context of the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic 

Boarding School. The goal is to reform 

traditional Arabic language teaching into 

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 

to improve Arabic proficiency at all levels of 

education at the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic 

Boarding School. The hope is that the CEFR 

will provide a clear framework for the 

development of school curricula, syllabi, 

teaching methodologies, and assessments for 

practitioners. To date, not much has been 

made to explore the implementation of the 

CEFR framework. Overall, the study shows 

some understanding of CEFR principles 

from their perspective. However, little effort 

has been made to investigate the point of 

view of the pre-service Arabic teacher of the 

Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding School 

on the CEFR and its implementation into 

classroom practice. Understanding pre-

service teachers' existing knowledge of the 

CEFR will increase awareness of the CEFR 

among curriculum planners, academics, 

researchers, and policymakers.  



33 
 

II. LITERATURE OF THE STUDY 

UNDERSTANDING OF CEFR 
The CEFR plays an important role in 

Arabic language teaching and learning and is 

a useful tool for curriculum guidelines, 

Arabic courses, assessments, and describing 

language proficiency levels. The CEFR is 

built on four key principles: teaching and 

learning, assessment, reference level 

description, and implementation (Council of 

Europe, 2001). In the domain of learning and 

teaching, the document highlights that 

practitioners should highlight the 

characteristics of the local context when 

developing language learning curricula. This 

framework makes it possible to state that 

language teaching should focus on the 

strengths and weaknesses of learners and 

encourage them to achieve learning 

objectives. The CEFR relies primarily on two 

approaches. 

Communicative Language Teaching 

(CLT) and plurilingualism, in classroom 

teaching and lesson planning. The CLT 

approach is based on two concepts, task and 

interaction, and involves successful learning 

of the target language by conducting 

meaningful communication in an authentic 

context. The use of language is considered to 

have a purpose, which involves the 

communication of meaning, which is very 

important for language users to achieve their 

goals. In line with this approach, the book 

explains that language learning will be more 

effective if the language is used intentionally. 

Therefore, when using CEFR in classroom 

teaching and planning practices, teachers or 

lesson plan writers should develop tasks and 

interactions based on student needs, 

motivations, and characteristics. 

Plurilingualism is another CEFR approach 

used in language teaching and learning, 

which focuses on the ability to use more than 

one language and cultural resources to 

communicate with people from different 

contexts (Council of Europe, 2001). 

Therefore, lesson plans based on a 

plurilingual approach should emphasize 

students' experiences in their cultural 

context. Their culture and teachers should 

provide more opportunities to learners to 

improve plurilingual competence. 

The principle of assessment relates to 

the selection or development of appropriate 

and feasible material to measure the ability of 

language learners. First, test developers must 

tailor the CEFR to their needs and define the 

purpose of the test. The CEFR can help 

determine test objectives by providing four 

common language proficiency domains: 

personal, public, occupational and 

educational (Council of Europe, 2001). The 



34 
 

next step is to create a relationship with the 

CEFR. Indeed, the book also recommends 

that test results refer to the CEFR reference 

level description. Thus, the test developer 

must demonstrate that the test results can be 

interpreted appropriately based on the 

CEFR reference level (North & Jones, 2009). 

The third step is the production of tests.  

Importantly, the relationship with 

the CEFR must be maintained throughout 

the test development process (Council of 

Europe, 2001) And tests should also be 

examined by experts to identify criteria and 

edit test items to ensure that they can be 

adapted to local contexts. The final step of 

test development is the assessment 

standards. (North & Jones, 2009) states that 

test results must demonstrate CEFR 

proficiency levels, which require specific 

processes to maintain the standard over time. 

For example, tests should be based on the 

clear and comprehensive 'Can-Do' scale 

contained in the CEFR and standardisation 

training should be provided to ensure a 

single and shared interpretation of the 

grading scale.  

Finally, experts should monitor the 

ratings to ensure that they do not differ from 

the standards in question. The CEFR 

reference level description aims to provide 

transparency to language teaching and is 

designed to build a wide range of teaching 

courses that support plurilingual teaching 

(Council of Europe, 2001). The use of 

reference level descriptions is based on two 

principles. First, reference level descriptions 

are tools for language stakeholders to 

support curriculum design or test 

specifications. Secondly, reference level 

descriptions can be used in a variety of ways 

and, therefore, language users must decide a 

priori about various factors, such as the 

learner's proficiency level, age and 

educational background, first language, and 

reasons for learning Arabic. Reference level 

descriptions can also identify what language 

materials should be included for teaching 

and testing at each CEFR level. In addition, 

language practitioners and curriculum 

planners can adapt published reference level 

descriptions into their own contexts. 

The framework also provides a 

comprehensive descriptive scheme of 

language competence and a set of general 

reference levels (A1-C2) in an illustrative 

descriptor scale to identify learners' 

linguistic abilities. The CEFR has become a 

reference level of language competency 

standard on a global scale and is used to 

develop methods of teaching, learning, and 

language testing (Morrow, 2004). The CEFR 

is based on an action-oriented approach that 



35 
 

focuses on activities and communicative 

language strategies. A Can-Do descriptor is 

also included that demonstrates learners' 

proficiency in five skills of listening, reading, 

writing, oral interaction, and oral production 

at six levels, ranging from A1 (for beginners) 

to C2 (for those who have mastered the 

language). Several studies on the 

implementation of the CEFR have been 

conducted in the context of Arabic as a 

foreign language or second language. Sebagai 

contoh, Topal (2019) examines how 

pronunciation can be integrated into 

language learning using CEFR-oriented 

perspectives (Topal, 2019), and Apelgren & 

Baldwin (2018) investigated the effect of 

CEFR descriptors on assessment and 

learning outcomes in a university setting in 

Sweden (Baldwin & Apelgren, 2018). Other 

studies have also investigated practitioners' 

perceptions or attitudes towards the CEFR 

(Kır & Sülü, 2014). Overall, these studies 

show that teachers rarely use the CEFR 

framework in their Arabic teaching. 

Moreover, even Arabic teachers who 

have partially adopted a framework for 

assessing language proficiency still need 

more guidance on how to use the CEFR to 

design tests and curricula and how to 

implement the framework into their 

teaching strategies (Le, 2018). Another study 

investigating Uzbek teachers' perceptions of 

the usefulness and impact of the CEFR found 

that, overall, these teachers had positive 

perceptions about the implementation of the 

CEFR in Uzbekistan (Musoeva, 2018). A 

similar study conducted by Díez-Bedmar & 

Byram (2019) assessed the beliefs and 

perceptions of teachers in Spain towards the 

CEFR (Díez-Bedmar & Byram, 2019). It 

found that although most participants had 

positive perceptions about the impact of 

CEFR, some teachers also had limited 

knowledge about CEFR (Díez-Bedmar & 

Byram, 2019). A recent study by Tosun & 

Glover (2020) studied eight Turkish 

teachers' knowledge of CEFR and looked at 

how teachers implement CEFR and ELP in 

Turkey (Tosun & Glover, 2020). The 

findings of this study revealed the 

participants' understanding that the CEFR 

is an important and useful guideline for 

language teaching classes. However, teachers 

also state that they know very little about the 

CEFR because they do not get CEFR training 

in all domains.   

III. METHOD 
This study used a type of qualitative 

descriptive research. This type of research is 

used to evaluate the application of CEFR 

Standards in Arabic language learning at the 

Mambaus Sholihin Islamic boarding school 



36 
 

using the book of Arabiyah Baina Ladaik as 

teaching material and to identify factors that 

influence the application of the CEFR 

Standards. 

SUBJECTS OF STUDY 
The subjects of the study were Arabic 

teachers and students at the Mambaus 

Sholihin Islamic boarding school who were 

involved in learning Arabic using the Arabic 

book Baina Ladaik as teaching material. The 

participants were 200 preservice teachers of 

the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding 

School majoring in Arabic in the academic 

year 2022 – 2023. Participants were selected 

using convenience sampling techniques. All 

participants (32 men and 168 women) were 

aged between 20 and 25 and studied in the 

fourth and fifth years. Fourth and fifth year 

students of the Arabic major were chosen 

because the CEFR document falls under 

their two compulsory subjects – Educational 

Measurement and Evaluation and Arabic 

Language Curriculum. 

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 

QUESTIONNAIRE 
The questionnaire was developed based 

on CEFR documents in the Mambaus 

Sholihin and Arabic Islamic Boarding School 

versions to answer research questions. The 

questionnaire includes three sections and 

uses a seven-point Likert scale to explore the 

views of pre-service Arabic teachers. The 

first section collects participants' 

demographic information, including gender, 

age, year of study, and knowledge of the 

CEFR. The second part examines 

participants' insights into the CEFR. It 

focuses on three elements: 1) principles for 

teaching and learning (items 1 to 7), 2) 

principles for assessment (items 8 to 13), and 

3) principles for the development and 

application of reference levels (items 14 to 

20). Respondents were asked to rate items 

on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). 

The third part is open-ended questions. They 

asked the participants to share their 

opinions on the application of CEFR in 

classroom practice. The questionnaire was 

validated using Cronbach's Alpha, which 

gives a reliability coefficient of 0.951. The 

questionnaire was also validated by seven 

experts and piloted before the main study. 

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS 
Fifteen participants were randomly 

selected for semi-structured interviews. The 

semi-structured interview explored how 

pre-service Arabic teachers felt about 

implementing the CEFR in their teaching 

practice. The duration of the interview was 

15-20 minutes and was conducted after they 

completed the questionnaire. Interviews are 



37 
 

also recorded and transcribed for content 

analysis. After the interview, the transcript is 

verified by the interviewee and the 

researcher. Then, the transcripts are encoded 

and categorized into four CEFR themes, 

including principles for teaching and 

learning, principles for assessment, 

principles for the development and 

application of reference levels, and 

implementation in practice. 

RESEARCH PROCEDURE 
A total of 200 participants were 

recruited to fill out a 20-item survey 

questionnaire. Then, semi-structured 

interviews were conducted with 15 randomly 

selected participants to collect in-depth data 

on CEFR implementation in Arabic 

classrooms. Mixed method design was used 

to collect quantitative and qualitative data in 

the current study to better identify 

participants' attitudes and to provide 

comparisons between quantitative and 

qualitative data (Creswell, 2012). In 

addition, the use of triangulation ensures the 

validity, reliability, and understanding of the 

research. 

DATA ANALYSIS 
Data were collected using 

questionnaires and semi-structured 

interviews. Responses to 20 questionnaire 

items were analyzed using the IBM SPSS 

Statistics program. Content analysis was 

used to categorize audio transcriptions of 

interviews into four themes. Then, to ensure 

accurate transcripts of interviewees, 

interviews were emailed to the participants 

to validate their responses. Transcripts are 

also verified by peer teachers who have 

background knowledge of CEFR. 

IV. FINDING AND DISCUSSION 
The results of demographic information 

were divided into four sections: gender, year 

of study, age, and knowledge of the CEFR. Of 

the 200 participants, 84% were women and 

16% were men and all participants were 

between the ages of 20 to 25. The 

respondents studied in the fourth (57%) or 

fifth (43%) year. The results also revealed 

that 67% of respondents were aware of 

CEFR documents and 33% were not. 

In response to RQ1, as shown in Table 1, 

quantitative findings revealed that 

preservice teachers had a moderate level of 

understanding of CEFR teaching and 

learning principles, with an average score of 

4.26 or 60.85% (SD = 0.42). The highest 

average (5.60 or 80%) was observed for the 

statement "CEFR is a guideline for 

developing Arabic language teaching". This 

shows that most participants understand 

that the CEFR document is a guideline for 

developing Arabic language teaching. The 



38 
 

results also revealed that the participants 

agreed that the CEFR is an important 

document for curriculum design in Arabic 

language teaching, with an average score of 

5.51 or 78.71%. However, the participants 

disagreed with the statement that the 

framework could improve Arabic for 

communication (mean = 2.36). 

Table 1. Principles for teaching and learning 

(n = 200) 

Item  Pernyataan  mean  %  S.D. 

1  CEFR adalah pedoman untuk 
mengembangkan pengajaran 
bahasa Arab.   

5.60  80.00  1.15 

2  CEFR adalah dokumen 
penting untuk desain 
kurikulum dalam pengajaran 
bahasa Arab.  

5.51  78.71  1.13 

3  CEFR adalah buku panduan 
yang digunakan untuk 
merancang bahan ajar.  

5.37  76.71  1.14 

4  CEFR dapat digunakan 
untuk meningkatkan bahasa 
Arab untuk komunikasi.   

2.36  33.71  1.05 

5  CEFR harus disesuaikan 
dengan kurikulum bahasa 
Arab setempat dalam setiap 
konteks.  

5.35  76.42  1.19 

6  CEFR adalah buku pegangan 
yang digunakan untuk 
membantu pelajar dalam 
pembelajaran bahasa Arab.   

2.67  38.14  1.17 

7  Kegiatan pembelajaran 
bahasa Arab harus fokus pada 
plurilingualisme.   

2.97  42.42  1.43 

Total   4.26  60.85  0.42 

 

In contrast, qualitative data revealed 

that the participants had only partial 

knowledge of the CEFR, particularly in the 

domains of learning and teaching. Indeed, 

many participants realized that the CEFR 

was used as a guideline for Arabic language 

assessment but not for learning and teaching. 

This is illustrated in the following statement:  

Saya tidak pernah tahu sebelumnya bahwa 

CEFR digunakan untuk belajar dan mengajar 

bahasa Arab. Saya belum mengambil kursus 

tentang kerangka kerja, dan dosen jarang 

menyebutkan CEFR di kelas. Namun demikian, 

saya memahami bahwa kerangka kerja ini 

digunakan untuk penilaian kecakapan bahasa 

Arab. (David)   

Saya tidak pernah menganggap kerangka kerja 

sebagai pedoman untuk pengajaran dan 

pembelajaran. Saya hanya tahu bahwa CEFR 

adalah kriteria untuk mengukur kemahiran 

bahasa. (Firman)  

The findings suggest that the university 

curriculum introduces the CEFR framework 

in terms of assessing Arabic proficiency and 

focuses solely on teaching methodology, 

lesson planning, and learning materials, 

rather than adapting CEFR descriptions to 

set learning goals and outcomes. These 

results are consistent with previous research 

reporting that language teachers rarely use 

CEFR in practice (Franz & Teo, 2018). This 

may be because the implementation of the 

CEFR has not been fully enforced and, 

moreover, the CEFR was only introduced at 

the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding 

School in 2020. Overall, the qualitative 

findings suggest that preservice teachers 



39 
 

have little knowledge of the CEFR as a 

teaching and learning aid. Thus, the current 

results are partly consistent with previous 

research that Mambaus Sholihin Islamic 

Boarding School Arabic teachers' 

understanding of CEFR is lacking, especially 

in knowledge related to aspects of learning 

and teaching. 

Participants' understanding of the 

assessment domains within the CEFR 

framework is presented in Table 2. Most 

participants revealed a high level of insight 

into CEFR assessment principles, with an 

average of 5.16 or 73.71% (S.D. = 0.71). 

Notably, participants agreed that the 

purpose of test development depends on the 

implementation of the CEFR in each context 

(mean = 5.37). The results also showed that 

76% of respondents agreed that the 

development of language evaluation should 

align with CEFR descriptions. While 

participants generally agreed with most of 

the statements in this section, the lowest 

scoring statement (with an average of 4.96) 

related to Arabic test scoring was verified by 

experts. Nevertheless, 70% of participants 

agreed with this statement.  

 

 

 

Table 2. Assessment principle (n = 200) 

Item  Pernyataan  mean  %  S.D.  

8  Tujuan pengembangan tes 
tergantung pada implementasi 
CEFR dalam setiap konteks.   

5.37  76.71  1.05  

9  Pengembangan evaluasi 
bahasa harus selaras dengan 
deskripsi CEFR.  

5.32  76.00  1.11  

10  Penilaian tes bahasa Arab 
harus didasarkan pada 
dokumen CEFR.   

5.03  71.85  1.15  

11  Penilaian tes bahasa Arab 
harus diverifikasi oleh para 
ahli.   

4.96  70.85  1.05  

12  Desain tes harus konsisten 
dan bertujuan untuk 
meningkatkan kemahiran 
bahasa.   

5.14  73.42  1.03  

13  Hasil tes dapat digunakan 
untuk mengidentifikasi 
kemahiran bahasa Arab.   

5.15  73.57  1.10  

Total   5.16  73.71  0.71  

 

Although quantitative findings reveal a 

high level of understanding in aspects of 

CEFR assessment, qualitative data suggest 

that preservice teachers have inadequate 

knowledge of the assessment domain. The 

participants reported that the CEFR was a 

criterion for language assessment, but they 

lacked the training to design test scoring. 

The following statements support this 

claim::  

Saya memahami bahwa CEFR adalah kriteria 

untuk mengukur kecakapan bahasa Arab dari 

pemula A1 hingga C2. Namun, saya belum dilatih 

untuk merancang penilaian tes berdasarkan 

CEFR. (Sekar)  



40 
 

This suggests that pre-service teachers 

have only partial knowledge and little 

understanding of the CEFR assessment 

domain. These findings contrast with 

previous research showing that Mambaus 

Sholihin Islamic Boarding School Arabic 

teachers have a complete understanding of 

the CEFR in the field of assessment. This 

may be because participants from both 

studies had different levels of education. 

Indeed, participants in the current study 

were pre-service teachers who likely had 

more opportunities to adopt CEFR 

assessments in their pedagogical practice. 

As shown in Table 3, based on 

quantitative data, participants showed a 

high level of understanding regarding the use 

of reference level descriptions. Overall, the 

participants agreed with the statement, with 

an average average of 4.92 or 70.28% (SD = 

0.63). More than 70% of participants 

indicated that descriptions should bring 

transparency to Arabic teaching and should 

encourage Arabic learning across all four 

skills (mean = 5.14). The statement with the 

lowest score was related to developing 

reference level descriptions to describe what 

learners knew and their abilities at each level 

(mean = 4.73).  

 

Table 3. Principles for the use of reference 
level descriptions (n = 200) 

Item  Pernyataan  mean  %  S.D. 

14  Mengembangkan deskripsi tingkat 
referensi CEFR membawa 
transparansi dalam pengajaran 
bahasa Arab.  

5.14  73.42 1.20 

15  Pengembangan deskripsi tingkat 
referensi harus menggambarkan apa 
yang diketahui peserta didik dan 
kemampuan mereka di setiap 
tingkat.   

4.73  67.57 1.09 

16  Pengembangan deskripsi tingkat 
referensi CEFR harus menunjuk 
kemampuan peserta didik terkait 
dengan indikator dalam kurikulum 
nasional.  

4.99  71.28 1.01 

17  Deskripsi tingkat referensi CEFR 
harus bertujuan untuk 
meningkatkan bahasa Arab keempat 
keterampilan (mendengarkan, 
berbicara, membaca, menulis).   

5.07  72.42 1.12 

18  Deskripsi tingkat referensi CEFR 
perlu mengidentifikasi apa yang 
dapat dilakukan peserta didik di 
setiap tingkat.   

5.01  71.57 1.03 

19  Deskripsi tingkat referensi CEFR 
harus menjelaskan apa yang dapat 
dicapai peserta didik dalam 
keterampilan apa pun.   

4.76  68.00 1.02 

20  Deskripsi tingkat referensi CEFR 
dapat menjadi pedoman untuk 
evaluasi bahasa Arab.   

4.75  67.85 1.12 

Total  4.92  70.28 0.63 

 
However, again, qualitative data 

analysis does not support quantitative 

findings. Indeed, analysis of the content of 

the interviews revealed that the participants 

were not aware of the CEFR description. The 

following excerpts support this claim::  

Saya tidak tahu apa-apa tentang deskripsi 

referensi CEFR. (sunni)  

Saya belum pernah mendengar tentang deskripsi 

CEFR sebelumnya. (Aziz)  



41 
 

Saya tidak tahu tentang deskripsi CEFR. (Eva) 

These citations indicate that pre-service 

Arabic teachers have an inadequate 

understanding of CEFR reference level 

descriptions. The reasons for this may be 

twofold. First, student teachers may not be 

familiar with the framework. Second, the 

participants are not full-time teachers; 

therefore they do not have adequate time or 

opportunity to practice CEFR. These results 

were consistent which found that teachers 

were not confident to adjust the framework 

in the classroom because they did not know 

how to integrate descriptions into their 

language test assessments. Thus, these 

results indicate that student teachers require 

additional CEFR training, especially in the 

area of using reference level descriptions.  

To test whether Mambaus Sholihin 

Islamic Boarding School preservice teachers 

applied CEFR into practice, interview data 

were analyzed and categorized into three 

themes; learning and teaching, assessment, 

and use of reference level descriptions. In the 

field of learning and teaching, most 

participants reported that they were 

unaware of an action-oriented approach, and 

only two participants used the CEFR in their 

learning and teaching practices. These 

participants stated that they had adopted a 

partial framework for setting learning goals 

and outcomes that highlight communication. 

This failed implementation of the CEFR in 

the classroom can be explained by the lack of 

knowledge of pre-service Arabic teachers 

about the use of action-oriented and 

plurilingual approaches, which means they 

feel uncomfortable (and, possibly, incapable) 

using the CEFR in their classroom practice. 

In addition, Arabic courses provided in the 

education system of the Mambaus Sholihin 

Islamic Boarding School have traditionally 

relied on grammar-translation teaching 

methods. Therefore, pre-service teachers 

may not have the opportunity to adapt and 

use the CEFR approach. This is illustrated in 

the following statement:  

Saya telah menggunakan deskripsi untuk 

menetapkan tujuan pembelajaran dalam rencana 

pelajaran saya. Saya pikir berguna bagi saya 

untuk merancang kegiatan pembelajaran. (Soni)  

Saya telah mendengar tentang pendekatan 

berorientasi CEFR beberapa kali. Saya juga 

mencoba menyesuaikan pendekatan untuk 

merancang kegiatan pembelajaran di kelas saya 

karena saya mengajar kursus tambahan, Bahasa 

Arab untuk komunikasi. Meskipun demikian, 

saya tidak tahu banyak tentang pendekatan ini. 

(Dakir)  

Overall, the results showed that student 

teachers had a poor understanding of the 

CEFR in its approach to learning and 

teaching because they were inexperienced 

with the document. These results are in line 

with some researchers who state that 



42 
 

teachers do not have enough support to 

implement the CEFR in Arabic classrooms. 

This shows that Arabic language teaching in 

the context of the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic 

Boarding School still focuses on traditional 

teaching rather than communicati teachingf. 

The results also revealed that the 

participants considered the CEFR as a 

criterion for test scoring. However, they 

could not provide additional details and did 

not implement the CEFR to measure the 

performance of Arabic tests in the classroom. 

Furthermore, the participants reported that 

they never adopted the description to design 

the test scoring. This may be because student 

teachers are not trained on how to design 

tests based on CEFR principles, as shown in 

the excerpt below:  

Saya mendengar dosen saya menyebutkan 

dokumen CEFR berkali-kali, tetapi saya tidak 

masuk ke dalam kerangka kerja karena tidak ada 

kelas untuk pelatihan tentang CEFR. Untuk 

pemahaman saya, ini hanya digunakan untuk 

mengukur penilaian tes bahasa Arab. (Nina)  

This quote shows that, despite 

understanding the CEFR assessment, the 

participants were unable to apply it in an 

authentic context. Indeed, the current 

results suggest that the participants can 

understand the principle of assessment but 

practice less in real settings. Therefore, pre-

service Arabic teachers may require further 

training on assessment languages in relation 

to the CEFR. 

The CEFR reference level description 

emphasizes the use of the Can-Do descriptor 

used to describe language proficiency in five 

skills – listening, reading, writing, oral 

interaction, and oral production – on six 

scales (Council of Europe, 2001). Interviews 

reveal that student teachers have partially 

adopted the description in practice, as 

shown in the excerpt below:  

Deskripsi dapat digunakan untuk 

mengidentifikasi apa yang dapat dilakukan 

pelajar bahasa dalam setiap keterampilan. 

Meskipun saya dapat berkonsultasi secara 

singkat dengan ide deskriptor Can-Do, saya 

tidak menerapkan konsep tersebut ke dalam 

praktik. (Nadia)  

This quote illustrates that the 

participants had no knowledge of Can-Do 

descriptors, possibly due to an inadequate 

understanding of CEFR reference level 

descriptions. In addition, as mentioned 

earlier, the participants were not full-time 

teachers; therefore, they may not have 

adequate time or opportunity to practice 

CEFR. Therefore, these results also indicate 

that student teachers require additional 

CEFR training in the area of use of reference 

level descriptions. In conclusion, qualitative 

analysis revealed that the pre-service Arabic 

teacher of Mambaus Sholihin Islamic 



43 
 

Boarding School only partially implemented 

the CEFR and had insufficient knowledge of 

the implementation of the CEFR. The 

findings suggest that student teachers have 

limited opportunities to adapt the CEFR in 

pedagogical practice, especially since they 

are not in-service teachers. 

V. CONCLUSION  
The current study investigates 

Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding School 

pre-service Arabic teacher's insights on the 

CEFR and explores the implementation of 

the CEFR in classroom practice. Overall, 

quantitative results revealed that preservice 

Arabic participants had moderate CEFR 

knowledge. Knowledge of the assessment 

domain is greater than knowledge in the 

domain of description, reference level and 

teaching and learning approaches. Regarding 

the assessment domain, Mambaus Sholihin 

Islamic Boarding School pre-service teachers 

demonstrated a high level of CEFR 

comprehension. However, qualitative data 

analysis revealed that pre-service Arabic 

teachers appear to have only partial 

knowledge of the CEFR, including in the 

assessment domain. Indeed, pre-service 

Arabic teachers understand the CEFR but 

cannot apply any domain in an authentic 

context. This may be because they have an 

incomplete understanding of the framework 

or have no experience in applying the 

principles of the framework in a real teaching 

context. This finding is partly consistent 

with previous research that Arabic teachers 

of the Mambaus Sholihin Islamic Boarding 

School lack understanding of CEFR, 

particularly aspects of learning and teaching. 

In addition, the participants did not apply 

reference level descriptions to design Can Do 

descriptors for their pedagogical practice. 

Thus, the results of the current study suggest 

that CEFR training should be incorporated 

into university courses and curricula for 

student teachers.  

VI. REFERENCES 

Baldwin, R., & Apelgren, B.-M. (2018). Can 

Do and Cannot Do–CEFR inspired 

examination and assessment in a 

Swedish higher education context. 

Apples: Journal of Applied Language 

Studies, 12(2). 

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European 

framework of reference for languages: 

Learning, teaching, assessment. 

Cambridge University Press. 

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: 

Planning, conducting, and evaluating 

quantitative and qualitative research (4th 

ed). Pearson. 

Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Byram, M. (2019). The 

current influence of the CEFR in 

secondary education: Teachers’ 

perceptions. Language, Culture and 

Curriculum, 32(1), 1–15. 



44 
 

Franz, J., & Teo, A. (2018). ‘A2 is Normal’–

Thai Secondary School English 

Teachers’ Encounters with the 

CEFR. RELC Journal, 49(3), 322–338. 

Kır, E., & Sülü, A. (2014). LANGUAGE 

TEACHERS’VIEWS ON CEFR. 

International Online Journals of Education 

and Teaching (IOJET), 1(5), 358–364. 

Le, H. T. T. (2018). Impacts of the CEFR-

aligned learning outcomes 

implementation on assessment 

practice. Hue University Journal of 

Science: Social Sciences and Humanities, 

127(6B), 87–99. 

Morrow, K. (2004). Insights from the common 

European framework. Oxford 

University Press. 

Musoeva, A. (2018). WHAT DO 

UZBEKISTANI EFL TEACHERS 

KNOW AND BELIEVE ABOUT THE 

USEFULNESS OF THE CEFR? 

Education, 2019. 

Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the 

implementation of the CEFR in Asian 

contexts: Focus on communication 

strategies. Procedia-Social and 

Behavioral Sciences, 46, 771–775. 

North, B., & Jones, N. (2009). Further 

material on maintaining standards 

across languages, contexts and 

administrations by exploiting 

teacher judgment and IRT scaling. 

Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. 

Sahib, F. H., & Stapa, M. (2021). The Impact of 

Implementing the Common European 

Framework of Reference on Language 

Education: A Critical. 

Topal, I. H. (2019). CEFR-oriented probe 

into pronunciation: Implications for 

language learners and teachers. 

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 

15(2), 420–436. 

Tosun, F. Ü., & Glover, P. (2020). How Do 

School Teachers in Turkey Perceive 

and Use the CEFR?. International 

Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 

7(4), 1731–1739. 

Uri, N. F. M., & Abd Aziz, M. S. (2018). 

Implementation of CEFR in 

Malaysia: Teachers’ awareness and 

the challenges. 3L, Language, Linguistics, 

Literature, 24(3). 

 


