1

Research paper written in the framework of Research Mobility Program organized by the

Oriental Business and Innovation Center (OBIC)

ÁGNES IBOLYA PÁL, PHD

Associate Professor

Budapest Business School, University of Applied Sciences

TOWARDS THE REINFORCEMENT OF STUDENTS’ GLOBAL COMPETENCIES THROUGH LANGUAGE AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT COURSES AT UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

(MALAYSIA) AND BUDAPEST BUSINESS SCHOOL (HUNGARY)

Content:

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Educational policies to improve graduates’ employability in Malaysia and in Hungary through the development of university students’ foreign language skills and intercultural communication competence …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

1.1. The situation of foreign language education and the development of intercultural communication competence in Malaysian higher education .................................................... 4

1.2. The situation of foreign language education in Hungary, with a focus on higher education…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11

2. Global competencies: USM and BBS students’ skills development through language and communication courses . ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

2.1. Understanding global competence ................................................................................... 19

2.2. Development of students’ global competencies in BBS and USM .................................... 22

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 30

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 32

2

Introduction

In an interview published in Hungarian in Világgazdaság entitled The Malaysian good practices

could be a good example for Hungary (Barát, M., 2017), Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Governor of Bank Negara

Malaysia (Malaysia's central bank) from 2000 to 2016 and one of the founders of Asia School of

Business, explains that the development of Malaysian education system has a key role in the

competitiveness of the emerging economy. Within the reform of the education system in Malaysia,

second and third foreign language teaching, and especially English Language Teaching (ELT) is

especially focused on: “over the last few decades, Malaysia has commenced its effort to propagate the

importance of English language” (Ganapathy, 2015: 18). The Malaysian vision concerning the

paradigm-shift in the importance of English proficiency and the corresponding efforts have been

monitored and reflected upon by many researchers. The National Higher Education Strategic Plan

Beyond 2020 also points out that “proficiency in the third language is vital for developing human capital

that drives the k-economy as well as gears the country towards competitive innovation in the

international arena” (The Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education, 2007: 62). The Malaysian measures

to improve the quality of education, especially higher education, and the efforts to improve foreign

language teaching in recent years are practically unknown in Hungary. The fact that no comparative

study has been made previously in this field inspired the author of the present study to offer a

comparative analysis of regulating documents of the two countries related to foreign language

improvement in higher education. A short mobility realised at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in the

framework of a research grant awarded by the Oriental Business and Innovation Centre (OBIC) of

Budapest Business School (BBS) made possible for the author to get a better insight into the practice

of language education in Malaysia and to explore differences and similarities in the challenges faced

by the two institutions, as well as to identify good practices.

The comparative approach is relevant, because the Institute of Foreign Language and Communication

at BBS (including the Language Departments of the four Faculties) and the School of Languages,

Literacies and Translation at USM equally strive for ensuring excellent quality in language skills

development courses and give special attention to providing students with skills of crucial importance

for their employability. Surprisingly, but understandably, in spite of the physical distance and the

differences in the academic settings, the presentation of the two language units on the homepage of

the respective institutions is almost identical: The School of Languages, Literacies and Translation

“provides flexible and comprehensive preparation both for employment in settings that require good

interpersonal, communication, and problem-solving skills”, as we can read on the USM homepage

3

(www.usm.my/a), and the same message can be found on the homepage of the Budapest Business

School: “we ensure the preparation of students to acquire the foreign language knowledge and skills

they will need as graduates in their future career” (www.uni-bge.hu).

1. Educational policies to improve graduates’ employability in Malaysia and in Hungary through the development of university students’ foreign language skills and intercultural communication competence

Methodology

The first part of this chapter is secondary research based on document analysis. The Malaysian

regulating documents – and the findings by researchers related to the implemented measures defined

in them – are analysed in this study from the perspective of their content related to foreign language

development in higher education. The regulating documents on a national level are the following:

– National Higher Education Strategic Plan beyond 2020

– Malaysian Education Blueprint (2015-2025)

– Roadmap for English Language Education Reform in Malaysia (2015-2025)

Classroom observation was conducted at the School of Languages, Literacies and Translation between

February and April 2018, when different classes were observed in the following programs offered by

the School: Intensive English, English for Professionals (BA), English for Specific Purposes,

Conversational Spanish. Classroom observation provided a great help to the author of the present

study for the analysis of the Malaysian regulating documents and their implications, as it gave a unique

opportunity to gain a better understanding of the importance of second language development in the

Malaysian higher education context.

As a second step, based on key statements identified in the Malaysian strategic documents, in-depth

interviews were carried out with three lecturers from Budapest Business School. The participating

lecturers teach English for Specific Purposes and Skills Development courses, their research fields cover

various topics (ICT, autonomous learning, testing, innovative assessment, students’ motivation) and

they have different responsibilities. Their opinions provide valuable reflection on foreign language

development at tertiary level in Hungary, and particularly at Budapest Business School, in the light of

the Malaysian reform process.

4

1.1. The situation of foreign language education and the development of intercultural

communication competence in Malaysian higher education

Cultural and language issues in Malaysia, and the corresponding official policies have been the topic

of numerous studies on key issues of multiculturalism. A considerable number of research papers focus

on its multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multilingual society.

On the basis of estimated data of 2017, the following table presents the demographic profile of

Malaysia.

Table 1: Malaysia’s demographic profile

Ethnic groups Bumiputera 61.7% (Malays and indigenous peoples, including Orang Asli, Dayak, Anak Negeri), Chinese 20.8%, Indian 6.2%, other 0.9%, non-citizens 10.4%

Religions Muslim (official) 61.3%, Buddhist 19.8%, Christian 9.2%, Hindu 6.3%, Confucianism, Taoism, other traditional Chinese religions 1.3%, other 0.4%, none 0.8%, unspecified 1%

Languages Bahasa Malaysia (official), English, Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka, Hainan, Foochow), Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Panjabi, Thai note: Malaysia has 134 living languages - 112 indigenous and 22 non-indigenous; in East Malaysia several indigenous languages (Iban and Kadazan, among others) are spoken by a high percentage of the population

Source: https://www.indexmundi.com/malaysia/demographics_profile.html

Malay is the official language and English is considered as a second language, but, as Table 1 shows,

neither of them is the mother tongue of more than 40% of the country’s population.

Considering the efforts made in the European Union to raise EU citizens’ intercultural awareness and

foreign language communication competence, it is particularly interesting to consider the current

situation1 of a country with such a high level of diversity concerning its citizens’ ethnic, religious and

cultural background, being a living example of existing multilingualism. The ongoing efforts in

education related to these issues in the Asian country merit particular attention.

1.1.1. Language issues

In Malaysia, where Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) is the official language, English is considered as a

second language. The status of English as a Second Language (ESL) and the current situation and

1 The present research was realized between February and May 2018, concluded shortly after the general election in Malaysia. Multi-ethnicity is a key question of the Malaysian political discourse.

5

challenges of English Language Teaching (ELT) are described in the English Language Roadmap (2013)

and discussed in several studies, see for example the following summary:

“In Malaysia, English is the second language (L2) of the country, which is one of the compulsory

subjects taught in primary and secondary school. It is also the most spoken language used in

private universities and colleges. At a pre-university level, English is a compulsory subject as

they [prospective students] are required to sit for the Malaysian University English Test (MUET),

a pre-requisite for entering under-graduate programs at Public Higher Educational Institutions

(IPTA). Despite its wide usage in Malaysian education, an average Malaysian student still finds

it hard to master the language adequately in terms of speaking the language fluently, writing

compositions in English and applying proper grammar, resulting in unsatisfactory examination

results” (Kiram et al, 2014: 775).

The secondary research by USM students advocating for the introduction of English as an official

language in Malaysia, following the Singapore model, provide more details about the whole process:

“Before the introduction of a comprehensive language policy in Malaysia (formerly Malaya),

schools were usually divided into two categories, namely the government-controlled English-

medium schools and the vernacular schools (namely Malay, Chinese and Tamil-medium

schools). It was only until the 1950’s that structured educational proposals were drafted, like

the Barnes Report in 1950 (which recommended the conversion of vernacular schools into

national schools that will use Malay as the instructional medium) and the 1951 Fenn-Wu Report

(which suggested the preservation of vernacular schools)” (Li Yong et al., 2016: 457).

From a historical perspective the following factors are highlighted in the corresponding studies in

relation with ELT in Malaysia:

the country’s colonial past, characterized by the elite attending school with English as a

medium of instruction

the spread of mass education in the 1970’s, with the conversion of English-medium schools

into Malay-medium

the introduction of the PPSMI (Teaching and Learning of Mathematics and Science in English)

Policy in 2003

revocation of the PPSMI and replacement in 2009 by the MBMMBI (Upholding the Malay

Language and Strengthening the English Language) Policy.

Obviously, from the historical perspective the comparison between Malaysia and Hungary may seem

inappropriate. However, the increased use of English is a global phenomenon, and the corresponding

challenges are the same in the two countries. The analysis of the importance of English in Malaysia

perfectly applies for the situation in Hungary: “The world becomes increasingly inter-connected

digitally and economically, where English language proficiency has become a requirement for better

employment and opportunities in the global arena” (Ganapathy, 2017:19). In the Hungarian context,

6

it has also been repeatedly demonstrated by surveys conducted among potential employers (e.g. Arau,

Loch & Pál, 2017, Szőke & Dévény 2009) that foreign language skills and intercultural communicative

competence are among key factors of graduates’ employability.

According to the data provided by Shulgina & Gopal (2017), Malaysia has overall 83 higher educational

organizations which offer English language courses, Academic English, Business English, preparation

for IELTS among their programmes. With reference to statistics provided by the British Council (2016),

this study observes that in Malaysia, “the highest demand falls on learning British English language due

to the reason that British way of delivering the language is traditional, effective and reliable. And also

there are the consequences of the colonial rule” (p. 299). The research tool used by Shulgina & Gopal

(2017) is a survey of direct interviews with 100 Fresh Graduates and Newly Employed. The research

findings highlight that English learners most commonly perceive the following factors as difficulties:

grammar and the construction of sentences, wrong pronunciation, and mixing English with local

dialects. The study claims that students face their Low English Proficiency when they fail MUET or IELTS

or any other equivalent examination (when applying to higher education institutions) because of the

not recognizing the importance of English in secondary or high school environment, and the lack of

feedback on the real value of their knowledge (Shulgina & Gopal, 2017: 302).

1.1.2. Intercultural issues

Malaysia provides a fertile ground for investigating intercultural interactions among nationals

from diverse cultural background, and also between locals and foreigners. Manjet Kaur et al. (2017)

refer to research results that endorse the experience of local students’ polarization:

“Najeemah (2008) utilised a survey research methodology to study the patterns of social

interaction between students of different ethnic groups in Malaysia. The results showed that

students generally accorded unequal treatment to those from different ethnicities with some

even behaving negatively towards the other. The study concluded that when students from

different ethnic backgrounds are gathered within a multicultural setting they tend to polarise”

(Manjet Kaur et al, 2017: 1385).

Various studies confirm the general phenomenon of polarization of international students as well, this

is for example the case of Afghan students in Malaysia, according to Ahman et al (2017). The same

phenomenon has been observed throughout Europe for more than a decade. Research on student

mobility has stated that Erasmus students tend to make acquaintances and create relational networks

almost exclusively with their own compatriots or other Erasmus students – this is the phenomenon

referred to as “Erasmus cocoon” (Papatsiba, 2006), shedding light on Erasmus students’ marginal

status with regard to the host community. This observation led to the reinforcement of the needs for

7

the development of intercultural competencies, and numerous programs have been designed and

implemented within the EU, in all sectors of education, that create a favourable environment for the

process of integration. The Erasmus+ program itself aims at “promoting common European values,

fostering social integration, enhancing intercultural understanding and a sense of belonging to a

community” (Erasmus+ program guide, p. 5).

Concerning local and international students, in the case of Malaysia, we have to take into consideration

the diversity of local sub-cultures as well. Dalib et al. (2016) reported on the intercultural experience

of international students studying in Malaysia. The study draws attention to the interrelatedness of

cultural understanding and language ability, claiming that “language emerges as an important element

in the context of participants’ experiences” (p. 13). According to the survey by Dalib et al (2016),

international students perceived the lack of English proficiency of some local students, and the

problems emerging from the diversity of accents. Interesting strategies are mentioned by students to

overcome these obstacles, such as the conscious use of writing (texting) in communication with local

students and a strategy which is referred to as the ‘dual approach’, based on the use of “both verbal

and nonverbal cues to understand interaction” (p. 15).

The importance of this topic is highlighted by the increasing number of foreign students in Malaysia:

“Given the commitment of the Malaysian Higher Education in raising the number of

international students, we believe it is pertinent to consider the international students’

experiences in a Malaysian campus and their perceptions of intercultural competence” (Dalib

et al, 2016: 6).

Dalib et al. (2016) refer to data provided by the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia in 2011,

reporting on 22,000 international students in 2009 and 24,000 in 2010. The Malaysian Education

Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education) sets the target to attract 10 times more international students

(250,000) by 2025. In line with the efforts of the Malaysian government to make the country an

education hub of the region, the number of international students is increasing constantly: “In

Malaysia, as of Dec 31, 2016, there were 172,886 international students in higher education

institutions, private and international schools, and language centres. In higher education alone, there

are 132,710 international students” (Jusoh, 2017).

According to everyday experience, intercultural competence can be developed at school and at home

rather than at university (and ideally between the age of 4 and 14), and this has been confirmed by

research results:

“Findings of studies in tertiary education revealed that the nature of students towards ethnicity

has been internalised in the self, originating from their individual history in social settings

especially in schools and the home (Faridah & Amir, 2004). Consequently, it highlights the

8

importance of school as the best place to build intercultural knowledge and intercultural

behaviour” (Manjet Kaur et al, 2017: 1386).

However, reflection on this topic by educators and researchers, as well as the numerous efforts that

are being realised in this field show that higher education institutions do have a responsibility to

develop students’ intercultural communicative competence, especially when identifying any kind of

weakness in this field.

1.1.3. Policy issues

1.1.3.1. National Higher Education Strategic Plan beyond 2020

With the intention to foster the excellence of Higher Education in Malaysia, the Malaysian government

introduced the National Higher Education Strategic Plan beyond 2020 (NHSP) in 2007. We can read

about it in a study by Abd Rahman Ahmad et al. (2013), with reference to previous articles: “This policy

focused on performance, quality, delivery systems, governance, employability, marketability, research

and development, and internalisation of higher education in Malaysia” (Abd Rahman Ahmad et al.,

2013: 105).

Shariffuddin et al. (2017) provide the following summary (p. 127) for the structure of the NHSP:

Table 2: The phases of the National Higher Education Strategic Plan beyond 2020

Strategic Plan Key process

Phase 1: Laying the foundation (2007-2010) The Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) assist higher education institutions (HEIs) with 20 critical agenda projects

Phase 2: Strengthening and Enhancement (2011-2015)

Improve initial initiatives

Phase 3: Excellence (2016-2020) Refine key initiatives and outcomes of previous phases

Phase 4: Glory and Sustainability Sustain the qualities achieved

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313468272_TRANSFORMATION_OF_HIGHER_EDUCATION_INSTITU

TIONS_IN_MALAYSIA_A_REVIEW

Abd Rahman Ahmad et al. (2013) recall the needs that the strategic plan was based on: “Malaysian

HEIs are affected by the global influence on the expansion of knowledge economy to compete in the

9

global market for ensuring the continuous growth of Malaysian economy (Lee, 2004). HEIs have vital

role in preparing the workforce that can measure up to international standard and stand the challenges

that entail the development of technology, economy, community and information to name a few.”

(Knight, 2006: 128). Obviously, these sentences could have been formulated in relation to any

educational policy reform of any country, as the phenomenon is global, and these needs are not

specific to Malaysia. However, what makes this document more interesting than general policy

statements is the series of documents that were built on it: the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-

2025 and the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education), and in the field of language

education, the Baseline study (2013) and the English Language Roadmap (2013). In the Malaysian

Education Blueprint, the introduction of the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages (CEFR) is identified as a key element to boost the level of education in the country. An

English Language Standards and Quality Council was set up to focus on the foundation and structural

changes to help raise the standard of English in the country in 2013. The constant efforts to reflect on

the topicality and feasibility of the planned measures seem remarkable from our perspective. After the

recent general elections in Malaysia in May 2018, one of the first declarations by the government

referred to carrying on with the education policy reform. According to an interview published in The

Star (23 May 2018): „Education Minister Dr Maszlee Malik said there will be periodic mid-term reviews

on all activities and programs in the blueprints. “These evaluations are part of efforts to strengthen

the implementation of both blueprints and ensure they are understood by all stakeholders” he said

after clocking in for the first time at the Education Ministry” (Rajaendram, 2018).

1.1.3.2. Malaysian Education Blueprint (2013-2025) and Malaysian Education

Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education)

The Ministry of Education in Malaysia introduced the new Education Blueprint to be implemented in

three waves starting from 2013 until 2025, with the aim of raising the Malaysian education standard

to international level and prepare Malaysian children for the needs of the 21st century. The Blueprint

was designed as a response to the trends in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

in 2012.

After its introduction, the effects of the Education Blueprint have been examined in several studies

from the first phase of its implementation, and special attention has been given to its effects on

language teaching (Ganapathy, 2016, Pandian et al., 2014). Lim Mei Shan, P. et al. (2016) found that

“English Language teachers are starting to change pedagogy from teacher centred to student centred

approach which involves many activity-based teaching and learning” (p. 158). The aim of their study

was to examine how teachers were changing their pedagogy to the 21st century teaching method after

10

being coached by their School Improvement Specialist Coach. This experiment is interesting in itself,

because – according to the experience of the author of this study – if trainings include pre- and post-

evaluation, this is often limited to a self-evaluation report from the participants. The research findings

indicate that “as a result of the change in teachers’ instructional approach, students become more

active in classroom participation which is the key to acquiring the 21st century skills” (p. 158). In the

case of more than the 50% of the teachers involved in the study, the authors observed the following

evidences of teachers’ changed attitude (compared to the situation before the coaching process):

sharing the learning objectives with students, lessons better prepared to suit the specific capacities of

the students, inclusion of Higher Order Thinking (HOTS) activities and changed questioning technique,

engagement of students in group activities, inclusion of activities that provide the opportunity for

students to show their creativity.

1.1.3.3. Roadmap for English Language Education Reform

The English Language Roadmap 2015-2025 summarizes the measures needed to be taken in all

educational sectors in order to improve the effectiveness of English teaching in Malaysia.

The Roadmap is founded on a Baseline Study carried out in Malaysia in 2013 in cooperation with

Cambridge University which outlined the situation of students’ knowledge of English in the

country. As we saw earlier, it builds upon National Higher Education Strategic Plan Beyond 2020 and

the Malaysian Higher Education Blueprint (2015-2025). The policy of Upholding the Malay Language

and Strengthening Command of English (2010) reinforces the idea of bilingualism and defines the need

for developing students’ English proficiency through the whole education system. As Zuraidah Mohd

Don explains about the Roadmap 2015-2025 project:

“The English language roadmap is a time-tabled implementation plan for the systemic reform

of English language education in Malaysia. The goal is to bring about transformation of the

existing English language education system not only in Malaysian schools from pre-school to

postsecondary, but also at tertiary level, and English language teacher education. The

fundamental motivation for this reform is to play a part in turning our national aspirations into

reality” (Mohd Don, Z., 2016).

The Roadmap for English Language Education Reform in Malaysia to be realized between 2015 and

2025 is a joint initiative with Cambridge English and the Ministry of Education’s English Language

Teaching Council. The document places great emphasis on the introduction of CEFR:

“The focus of the roadmap is to shift Malaysia’s English Language Education System towards the

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) — an international standard

that focuses on producing learners who can communicate and interact in any language, in this

11

case, English. CEFR is expected to play a vital role in the reform process in Malaysia’s English

Language education system for the coming decade. Incidentally, CEFR as the framework of

reference is also an element in the Malaysia Education Blueprint aim to boost the level of

education in the country” (Shulgina & Gopal, 2017: 300).

1.2. The situation of foreign language education in Hungary, with a focus on higher

education

1.2.1. Regulating documents

In Hungary, the situation of foreign language teaching in 2012 and the strategy related to the

improvement of the situation were outlined in the White Book: Strategy of the development of foreign

language teaching in Hungary from pre-school to university in the period between 2012 and 2018.

Based on this document, the decree num. 423/2012. (XII. 29.) set the B2 level language examination

as a prerequisite for university studies from 2020. In relation to this disposition, serious objections

were formulated by the Association for the Knowledge of Foreign Languages (Nyelvtudásért Egyesület,

2013). In his report related to the case number AJB-360/2017, the Commissioner for Fundamental

Rights in Hungary stated that decree number 423/2012. (XII. 29.) introducing the B2 level foreign

language certificate as a pre-requisite for admission into higher education as of 2020 meant the

infraction of the right for education. He argued that students’ preparation for the language

examination until 2020 did not ensue from the national curriculum and from the curriculum framework

(AJB-360/2017: 43).

If we compare the Hungarian White Book with the Malaysian Roadmap, we can observe the following:

The White Book, just like the Roadmap, covers all the sectors of education, but without

connecting specific aims to the corresponding planned timetable.

A considerable difference between the two documents is that the White Book focuses on

primary and secondary school, because – according to this document – early language learning

is and will remain optional in preschools (it was offered by 5% of Hungarian preschools in

2012).

Concerning the sector of higher education, on one hand, the document considers foreign

language competencies as a tool for cooperation and professional knowledge that makes

Hungary’s integration possible in the multicultural European Union. On the other hand, even

if the strategy aims at developing students’ competence in languages for specific purposes,

the document confirms the fact that some universities do not include any foreign language

development courses at all as an integrated part of their programs.

The Hungarian White Book encourages courses offered in a foreign language, as a tool of

internationalization in Higher Education.

12

In Hungary, the action-plan for the period between 2016 and 2020 was accepted in 2014 and revised

in 2016, published under the title “Changing gear in Hungarian Higher Education. Medium-term

strategy in the policy of education”. In this strategy, in line with the European aims of multilingualism,

the development of students’ competence in foreign languages for specific purposes (LSP) is the first

on the list of aims. Other equally important objectives are also defined, such as active citizenship,

internationalization, networking and cooperation. This document states that existing training and

output requirements should be revised, and ˗ in order to reinforce employability ˗ it suggests “the

reinforcement of transversal skills, including entrepreneurship, digital skills and foreign language

teaching” (Fokozatváltás, 2015: 16).. However, concerning the purpose of LSP development, the

document proposes the same solution as the White Book: “Regarding the often foreign-owned labour

market environment with foreign working-language, launching teaching programs in foreign language

should be encouraged, as it is the key factor for the level of knowledge export in Hungarian higher

education and the increase of the number of foreign students” (Fokozatváltás, 2015: 26).

Undoubtedly, to provide education accessible for international students, it is necessary to offer

courses in English. Morgado & Coelho (2013) point out that under the pressure of internationalization,

many higher education institutions choose to offer programs in English as a global language. They refer

to corresponding evidence from international research results provided by many researchers (Dudley-

Evans & St John, 1998; Evans & Green, 2007; Hutchinson & Waters, 1987; Swales, 1988; Widdowson,

1998; Evans and Green, 2007, p. 5), when they claim that “teaching subject courses in or through

English has generally little to do with language specialists and there is generally little concern with

language as the medium of instruction, since the focus is on content and understanding content,

academic or subject-related” (Morgado &Coelho, 2013: 1). According to research results, Content and

Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology “requires interdisciplinary approaches, an

integrated curriculum of language and subject specific content, professional development and team

teaching (in some models)”, and English as a medium of instruction can be effective for students with

a minimum language level of C1, for the acquisition of the content (but even in this case it doesn’t

necessarily contribute to the development of foreign language skills) (Morgado & Coelho, 2013: 3).

1.2.2. What can we learn in Hungary from the Malaysian reform concerning English Language Education?

The observations about the Malaysian educational reform process and its implications (in the

first part of the present study) may serve as a starting point for a reflection on language teaching in

higher education in Hungary. For the comparative perspective, interviews were conducted with three

lecturers at the Budapest Business School, who were previously provided some key statements (KS,

13

cited below) from the Roadmap for English Language Education Reform in Malaysia. The interviews

had an average length of 40 minutes, and the profile of the interviewees, recognized experts and

researchers in ELT.

Table 3: The interviewees’ profile

Field of research

Lecturer A Use of ICT tools in foreign language teaching, autonomous learning

Lecturer B Intercultural communication, assessment

Lecturer C Testing and measurement, students’ motivation

1.2.2.1. Reform process and involvement of experts in policy making

The first question addressed to the interviewees referred to their overall opinion about the reform

process taking place in Malaysia, based on the description above, and about the situation of foreign

language teaching in Hungary.

From a general perspective, Lecturer A is slightly sceptical about reforms. The crucial question that

concerns her is whether the actors of the teaching process (especially teachers themselves) get

involved. She welcomes the approach of an in-depth study on the whole process from preschool to

university teacher training, and she supports the idea of not sweeping the problems under the carpet.

As she stresses: “It’s great that if there is a problem, there is an intention to solve it.” “It’s not enough

at all to define the entry and exit requirements”.

Lecturer B is very curious to learn about students’ level of proficiency in the official Malay language,

and in English as a second language in Malaysia. Concerning the White Book, she considers that the

forward-thinking principles and good ideas included in this document often lack continuity on the

practical ground.

Lecturer C underlines the fact that the Roadmap is based on a large-scale Baseline study, in order to

avoid building castles in the air, and in Hungary we don’t have reliable data like the ones produced by

the Baseline Study. He argues that questionnaires using the method of self-evaluation like in Eurostats

have a questionable scientific value. According to his experience, new top to bottom expectations are

often defined in Hungary without the thoughtful evaluation of the current situation and challenges.

According to Lecturer C, we not only lack clear data about the real foreign language level of students,

but also about the language level of educators currently teaching professional subjects in the programs

offered in English in Hungary.

14

Concerning the Roadmap and the Baseline study, the involvement of Cambridge University is seen very

positively by Lecturer C, as the inclusion of in international perspective.

According to the interviewees’ experience, in line with research findings cited above, content courses

delivered in a foreign language do not necessarily contribute to the effective development of students’

foreign language skills.

1.2.2.2. University language courses and employability

Concerning the situation in Malaysia, the Roadmap states that “Employers have drawn attention to

language grades that do not reflect the performance of graduates at interviews. There is a great

discrepancy between interviewees’ English competency and scores obtained for university language

courses” (KS1, p. 259). This statement refers to the period before the publication of the Roadmap.

According to Lecturer A this kind of feedback by employers should be considered in the light of the

content of foreign language courses at university and language examinations. She points out that BBS

offers Career courses with the aim that the participants acquire skills they will need in job interviews.

The key question in relation with any course and any language exam is whether they are appropriate

to measure students’ real knowledge. Hungary and Malaysia face the same need for constant efforts

for adjusting the exams to real life situations. She considers that speaking is a crucial part of foreign

language testing, and ideally, the tasks wouldn’t let students to repeat pre-memorized texts. As an

examiner, Lecturer A prefers oral language exams including free-flowing conversation that provide

richer ground for improvisation.

The interviewees agree that English in Hungary is perceived in the global context. The White book

states that “Nowadays everyone should speak English, as the role of English in international

communication is unquestionable” (p. 9). The statistical data referring to the proportion of English

learners in upper-secondary school in Hungary has increased considerably in the past decade, from

76.5% in 2010, to 83.4% in 2015. Lecturer B shares her experiences and thoughts about global English

and considers this phenomenon as a loss: the wide-spreading of English as lingua franca implies the

simplification of structures and the loss of the complexity of the language. Moreover, the fact that a

language is seen as an instrument of communication that may be used with any subject and anywhere

in the world means that language and culture are seen as separated phenomena. Lecturer B believes

that as global English is gaining terrain, English teachers should face the imperative of renewing their

teaching methodology.

15

1.2.2.3. Admission language requirements for university studies

Referring to the Malaysian University English Test (MUET), successfully aligned with CEFR since March

2018, as one of the accomplished steps that have been suggested in the Roadmap, the document

states that “Different programs specify different MUET Band levels as the English language entrance

requirement. The MUET is the required English examination for university entrance, and individual

universities have the prerogative to decide on minimum MUET Band entry requirements for specific

programs” (KS 2.). In Hungary, currently there is no specific foreign language level defined as entrance

requirement, but a decree has set the B2 level accredited foreign language exam to be introduced in

2020 as a prerequisite for students entering university. The question towards the three lecturers

concerned their opinion about this decree, in view of the solution applied in Malaysia.

The respondents agree that entrance requirements are always filters, and the question is if they are

chosen appropriately. The foreign language exit level in university education should be set up in line

with the demand of employability, whereas concerning the entrance level requirement, it seems

meaningless to neglect the current situation in Hungary: in 2016, the proportion of students entering

university with at least one B2 level accredited language exam was 55,3%: 61,5% for students from

general secondary schools and 34,3% for students from vocational schools (Hajdú, T. et al, 2018: 241).

As it is pointed out by the commissioner of Fundamental Rights in Hungary (AJB-360/2017: 45),

establishing a B2 language level requirement for university admission should be preceded by the

implementation of effective measures to improve incoming students’ proficiency level in foreign

language communication in the process of their secondary school studies. Lecturer B’s prognosis is

that despite the official measures like the decree granting the possibility for young people to take their

first foreign language exam free of charge (Decree num. 503/2017. XII. 29.), the introduction of the

planned admission requirement is not realistic for 2020. “Hungary is not ready for the implementation

of this decree.” Moreover, there seems to be a contradiction between the aim of increasing the

number of students and the filter of the admission requirement.

In the current situation, Lecturer B envisages that the minimum entrance requirement might be

officially modified to the B1 level, which is more realistic than B2, but she considers that this would be

absolutely pointless. She is very much afraid that there will be language examination centres offering

B2 language exams corresponding to lower level in reality, in line with the ongoing and alarming

process of the language exams getting easier and easier. Lecturer C shares this concern. He points out

that 24 accredited language examination centres exist in Hungary, and there is a competition between

them. He believes that if students can only enter university with a B2 language exam, or with an

16

Advance level school leaving exam in English, which is not controlled enough in Hungary, this will lead

to the decrease of the level (and thus the value) of these exams.

Concerning the entrance requirements in Hungary, Lecturer A also argues that the secondary school

does not prepare students for the B2 language exam, as the curriculum in Hungary establishes the

minimum aim of B1 level for students at the end of their secondary studies. The clear gap between the

secondary school exit foreign language level and the planned entrance prerequisite for university

studies is at the core of professional debates in Hungary generated by the introduction of this measure.

According to the interviewees, policy-makers should rely much more on professionals’ opinion.

Lecturer B believes that professionals should articulate their opinion more loudly, for example through

the associations and forums of language teachers in Hungary, which are less active now than they used

to be in the past.

Interviewees showed interest in learning that in Malaysia SPM [Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia, Malaysian

Certificate of Education] English was planned to be introduced as a compulsory subject in 2016 for

university admission tests, but it was postponed as a result of research reports based on teachers’

opinion and the analysis of previous results: “Teachers’ perceptions in students’ low readiness to pass

SPM English is reflected in the quantitative data where only 40.7% of teachers agreed that their

students can pass the SPM English paper” (Munir Shuib et al., 2017: 9).

Lecturer A suggests, inspired by the Malaysian example, that Hungarian authorities should reconsider

the decision related to the introduction of the B2 foreign language exam as a requirement for students

entering university, taking into account the data from previous years, on secondary school students’

foreign language attainment.

1.2.2.4. Challenges resulting from the admission of students with lower proficiency in

foreign language

In relation with the minimum MUET Band entry requirements for specific programs, the roadmap

states that “these minimum requirements are not always adhered to, resulting in the admission of

students whose English proficiency is inadequate for the demands of the academic programs in which

they are enrolled. This situation presents a great challenge to the curriculum, teaching staff and

students themselves, as these students will require more contact hours and more help in order to

achieve proficiency levels expected by employers on leaving university” (KS 3.).

Lecturer A considers that universities’ interest is to accept more and more students, not only locals but

also from abroad, as a mean of internationalisation, motivated in fact by financial interest. She would

17

find it purposeful if students’ entry communication skills in a foreign language were appropriate for

the demands of the academic programs in which they are enrolled. For the students who do not meet

these criteria, if they are allowed to begin their studies, as it is the case in Hungary, extra courses

should be provided. She recalls that Budapest Business School is currently offering this opportunity for

students.

Lecturer C finds it absurd not to have an entry language minimum level requirement for the

participants of the programs offered in English at BBS. His experience is that a considerable proportion

of Hungarian students lack the level of English proficiency necessary to complete their studies in

English. He finds the pre-session system used in the UK meaningful (at the USM it exists in the form of

Intensive English courses), where students who do no complete the course successfully, and therefore

are not prepared from a linguistic perspective, are not allowed to begin their studies.

1.2.2.5. University studies exit language level requirements

In Hungary, at least one accredited foreign language examination certificate is needed currently at B2

level for BA/BSc graduates, but certain programs might define higher proficiency in foreign language,

ensuring that the degree implies not only professional knowledge, but also foreign language

proficiency in line with the exit requirements of that particular program. There is no obligation

concerning the foreign language level needed for graduation in universities in Malaysia, although the

Roadmap sets the aim that B2/C1 in English should be considered as an aim for university graduates in

Malaysia by 2025.

“To ensure improved language proficiency for graduates, the Ministry of Higher Education has stated

that all undergraduates, regardless of their entry MUET levels, must exit the university at one level

higher than that with which they entered the university” (KS 4.).

This statement is seen positively by Lecturer A, because she advocates the progression in foreign

language level, which should be guaranteed by the structure of foreign language units in Higher

Education.

Lecturer C also regards the Malaysian solution positively, but only if this is built on the real demands

of graduates of each program. He is convinced that there is a need to differentiate between the exit

requirements in foreign language proficiency in different programs. He also believes that progression

in English is not necessarily measurable in the case of those who enter the program with a high

language level. However, he considers progression as desirable, and he suggests that study programs

18

should enable graduates to extend the scope of activities they can do in foreign language, and this is

where progression could be measured.

Lecturer B partly shares lecturer C’s opinion. She considers that progression is of course desirable, but

it should be measured individually, and cannot be ensured by standardized regulation. She considers

it important that a minimum foreign language level is defined in Hungary as a requisite for graduation.

She argues that even if it is logical to differentiate according to the required language level at

graduation in different programs in line with the expectations of prospective employers, a defined

minimum level of foreign language proficiency for all graduates in higher education contributes to the

value of their degree.

To sum up the opinion of the interviewees and the author of the present study, they all agree that

Budapest Business School has a competitive advantage for graduates by offering foreign language

development opportunities as an integrated part of the programs, in order to ensure their global

competitiveness. The courses aim at the development of other competencies as well, summarized

under the label of global competencies. They also agree that ideally the courses should be more

diversified to meet the needs of students and to ensure progression. In the case of all universities, the

development of foreign language competencies should be process-oriented, but the minimum foreign

language level requirement at graduation contributes to students’ extrinsic motivation in developing

their foreign language communication competencies. Similarly to Malaysia, the foreign language level

of students entering university is a problem that cannot be solved without raising the effectiveness of

foreign language teaching at primary and secondary schools, and not well-grounded dispositions like

establishing a prerequisite for admission should be reconsidered. Concerning the whole process of the

reforms, the Roadmap is seen as an exemplary guideline in setting goals and defining aims and tools

for achieving these goals at each level of education.

2. Global competencies: USM and BBS students’ skills development through language and

communication courses

The concept of ‘global competence’ acquired special importance in 2018 with the publication of

the OECD PISA Global Competence Framework. The position paper of the OECD project The Future of

Education and Skills 2030 (Schleicher, 2018) claims that the Learning Framework 2030 will be finalized

by the end of 2018, after being reviewed, tested and validated, involving a range of stakeholders from

around the world.

19

“The aim of the OECD project is to help countries find answers to two far-reaching questions:

What knowledge, skills, attitudes and values will today's students need to thrive and shape

their world?

How can instructional systems develop these knowledge, skills, attitudes and values

effectively?” (Schleicher, 2018:2).

The present chapter builds on the first results of the OECD project and fits in the ongoing global

reflection about global competencies. The two key questions (What? and How?) are relevant for each

institution. In Budapest Business School and Universiti Sains Malaysia considerable challenges have

been met and some important results have been achieved in this field. The present paper wishes to

shed light on researchers’ reflection, ongoing efforts and possibilities to develop students’ global

competencies through language, communication and skills development courses offered at the two

universities.

2.1. Understanding global competence

The concept of ‘global competence’ was previously used as a synonym of ‘intercultural

competence’ by some researchers (e.g. Deardorff, 2006). Definitions of Intercultural Competence (IC)

and Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) are numerous in the literature. The one that is

considered to be the most relevant in the present study is as follows: “Intercultural competence can

be understood as the necessary skills and attitudes to suspend one’s own beliefs about cultures (both

own and other) while learning about general processes of societal and individual interaction in familiar

and unfamiliar cultures” (Dooly, 2006: 19).

For the purpose of the present study, the definition of global competence is used as proposed by the

OECD in Education 2030 Framework, presented in ’Global competency for an inclusive world’

(hereinafter referred to as OECD, 2017), a document describing the OECD’s proposal for the PISA 2018

Global Competence assessment. According to this document, “Global competence is the capacity to

examine local, global and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and

world views of others, to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with people from

different cultures, and to act for collective well-being and sustainable development” (OECD, 2017: 7).

As we can see, in this sense, global competence – compared to intercultural communicative

competence – is more complex, and includes criteria usually referred upon as critical thinking,

openness, civic-mindedness and civic engagement.

In relation with the concept of global competence, it is interesting to take into consideration the

following conceptual frameworks:

20

National Research Council (2012): Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable

Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century

Council of Europe (2016): Competences for democratic culture – Living together as equals in

culturally diverse democratic societies

2.1.1 National Research Council (2012): Education for Life and Work. Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century

The concept of global competence (OECD, 2017) is interrelated with the set of key skills defined

by the American National Research Council in 2012, which reports on the results of reviewing and

synthesizing research on the nature of deeper learning and 21st century skills, defining the set of key

skills that are referenced by the labels “deeper learning,” “21st century skills,” “college and career

readiness,” “student centred learning,” “next generation learning,” “new basic skills,” and “higher

order thinking.” According to the findings of this document, “these labels are typically used to include

both cognitive and noncognitive skills—such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration,

effective communication, motivation, persistence, and learning to learn that can be demonstrated

within core academic content areas and that are important to success in education, work, and other

areas of adult responsibility” (National Research Council, 2012: 17).

The terms used for 21st Century Skills are categorized in this framework in different clusters of

cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies.

Table 1: Clusters of 21st Century Competences in: National Research Council, 2012: 33-35

Clusters Terms used for 21st Century Skills

cognitive competencies

cognitive processes and strategies

critical thinking (1), problem solving, analysis (2), reasoning, interpretation, decision-making, adaptive learning (3), executive function

knowledge information literacy (research using evidence and recognizing bias in sources), ICT literacy, oral and written communication (4), active listening (5)

creativity creativity, innovation

intrapersonal competencies

intellectual openness

flexibility (6), adaptability (7), artistic and cultural appreciation, personal and social responsibility (including cultural awareness) (8), appreciation for diversity (9), continuous learning, intellectual interest and curiosity (10)

work ethic/ conscientiousness

initiative, self-direction, responsibility, perseverance, productivity, integrity, citizenship (13)

positive core self-evaluation

self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-reinforcement (18)

interpersonal competencies

teamwork/ collaboration

teamwork (11), collaboration (11), cooperation (11), coordination, perspective-taking (14), conflict resolution (12), negotiation, empathy (19),

leadership responsibility, assertive communication, self-presentation, social influence with others (20)

21

2.1.2. Council of Europe (2016): Competences for democratic culture – Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies

The Council of Europe (2016) publication forms the first component of a new reference

framework of competences for democratic culture. The elements of the 20-competence model

(Council of Europe, 2016: 11) are closely related to the elements of the OECD global competence

model. This publication builds on Michael Byram’s Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence

model (1997).

The Council of Europe (2016) document defines the following set of values, knowledge, attitudes and

skills as components of the competencies for a democratic culture:

Table 2: The 20 competencies included in the model for competencies for a democratic culture,

2016: 11.

Values Valuing human dignity and human rights; cultural diversity (9); democracy, justice,

fairness, equality and the rule of law (13)

Attitudes

Openness to cultural otherness and to other beliefs, world views and practices (10);

civic-mindedness (16); respect (17); responsibility (8); self-efficacy (18); tolerance of

ambiguity (6)

Skills

Autonomous learning skills; analytical and critical thinking skills (1,2); empathy; flexibility

and adaptability (3, 6, 7); linguistic, communicative and plurilingual skills (4); co-

operation skills (11); conflict-resolution skills (12), skills of listening and observing (5);

Knowledge

Knowledge and critical understanding of the self, of language and communication, and

of the world: politics, law, human rights, culture, cultures, religions, history, media,

economies, environment (15)

2.1.3. OECD (2017). PISA 2018 global competence assessment questionnaire

In the tables cited in the two previous sections, numbers have been inserted in order to show

the inter-relatedness of the documents. Similar numbers indicate the same skills that appear in the

different taxonomies. The following table shows the10 topics of the questionnaire used by the PISA

2018 global competence assessment (OECD, 2017), where the same skills can be identified.

22

A. Self-efficacy regarding global issues (1, 4, 15, 18)

B. Awareness of global issues (1, 2, 4, 15)

C. Perspective taking (12, 14)

D. Adaptability (3, 6, 7)

E. Awareness of intercultural communication (4, 8,10, 15)

F. Students’ engagement (with others) regarding global issues (15, 16)

G. Interest in learning about other cultures (9, 10)

H. Respect for people from other cultural backgrounds (9, 17)

I. Global-mindedness (10, 13)

We can observe that most of the skills classified according to the taxonomy used in National Research

Council (2012) and to Council of Europe (2016) appear as part of the global competencies according to

OECD, 2017.

2.2. Development of students’ global competencies in Budapest Business School and

Universiti Sains Malaysia

In the present chapter different methods are used to highlight the efforts in the field of

development of students’ global competencies at Budapest Business School and Universiti Sains

Malaysia:

In order to investigate the role that the two universities assign to the development of global

competencies, the documents presenting the institutions’ respective strategic aims have been

analysed.

The survey by Ganapathy et al. (2017) developed at USM was administered among educators at

Budapest Business School in order to have comparable data concerning the activities used by

educators to develop Higher Order Thinking Skills.

Educators at USM and BBS were then asked about their opinion concerning their students’

corresponding competencies in a survey following the topics of the OECD 2018 PISA global

assessment.

2.1.1. The development of global competencies among BBS’ and USM’s strategic objectives

Budapest Business School’s strategy for the period between 2016 and 2020 (Plan for the

Development of the Institution) defines four strategic aims, namely internationalisation, 21st century

teaching methodology, the promotion of entrepreneurship and social responsibility. Budapest

Business School is undergoing a process of renewal of curriculum, and although it is not mentioned

23

explicitly among the objectives, the “21st century teaching methodology” aims at increasing students’

and educators’ motivation, and, as it has been demonstrated above, it is strongly linked to the aim of

developing students’ global competencies. The development of global competencies at BBS appears

specifically as a target in intercultural communication (IC) courses offered at the University and in the

international projects that have been realized under the auspices of the Erasmus+ program.

Universiti Sains Malaysia was chosen by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education in 2008 to

implement its program entitled Transforming higher education for a sustainable tomorrow in the

framework of the Accelerated Program for Excellence (APEX). We can read about the APEX program

on the University’s homepage: “APEX is a fast track development program to enable institutions of

higher education to be recognised as world class entities” (www.usm.my/b).

The aims for 2014-2019 in USM’s APEX2 mission and vision include “Building a global mindset citizen”

(USM, 2013: 28-34). The reasons for developing competencies for Global Environment are also

explained: “Graduates need to have strong drive and resilience, be able to work in multi-cultural

teamwork and collaboration, highly adaptable, capacity to develop new skills, negotiation skill across

cultures Multicultural learning agility, global entrepreneurships, highly confident with cultural agility.

Above all, USM graduates should be nurture-based on sound universal values” (USM, 2013: 31). Key

competencies of a global graduate as defined by the Association of Graduate Recruiters (UK) figure

appear explicitly on the USM homepage. Capital letters in the second column indicate the

corresponding topics in OECD (2017), and the numbers indicate the skills according to National

Research Council (2012) and Council of Europe (2016) as indicated above.

a. A global mindset – the ability to see the world from a cosmopolitan viewpoint and have an awareness of different cultures and values and how one’s own culture and values differ.

I 10, 13

b. Global knowledge, alongside a global mindset is the need for knowledge of global business activity and specific background knowledge of the economics, history, and culture of different countries.

B 15

c. Cultural agility – the ability to understand the perspectives of individuals from different cultures and backgrounds and to empathise with these views and respond to them. It is also the ability to cope with and adapt to living in different environments.

C 3, 6, 7, 14

d. Advanced communication skills – the ability to communicate effectively (speaking, listening and presenting) with others from around the world and, where required, communicate in the native language.

E 4

e. Management of complex interpersonal relationships – the ability to manage relationships with diverse teams and clients from across the globe and deal with inherent challenges (e.g. socio-cultural, political).

E 3, 11, 20

f. Team-working and collaboration – the ability to work collaboratively and empathetically with diverse teams from across the globe.

11, 19

g. Learning agility – the ability to rapidly assimilate knowledge and develop understanding in order to rapidly respond and adapt to new challenges, circumstances and cultures.

G 10

h. Adaptability, flexibility, resilience, drive and self-awareness – these attributes underpin the above global competencies and are essential, enabling qualities.

D 7, 10

2 Available form [online]: https://www.usm.my/index.php/en/my-usm/apex/apex-transformation-agenda

24

2.2.2. Developing Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in the two institutions

In the Malaysian educational context, studies report on various initiatives to develop HOTS more

effectively, as an effect of the implementation of the Malaysian Education Blueprint.

Several projects promoting HOTS at USM have been presented by the participating researchers in their

scientific publications (Ganapathy, 2014; Tan Ai Lin, D. et al., 2016). Reports include the analysis of the

use of i-MoL as a Mobile-based Tool for Teaching Grammar (Ganapathy et al., 2016), or the use of

Academic Word List (Lee Bee Cho et al., 2017). The scientific reflection comprises the reference to

previous bigger scale projects such as the i-Think program implemented by the Malaysian Ministry of

Education in collaboration with Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM) (Ali, 2002, cited by Ganapathy et al.,

2017: 76).

Among the studies reflecting upon the effects of the Education Blueprint in Foreign Language teaching

in Higher Education, a relevant project focused on the promotion of HOTS at USM. The findings were

summarized by Ganapathy et al. (2017) and showed to what extent university lecturers of the

Language Department used activities that promoted HOTS in their teaching practice. The qualitative

and quantitative analyses pointed out that from 40 lecturers involved in the study, more than 50%

used 23 from the 25 teaching activities that the authors qualified as activities promoting HOTs, with

high or very high frequency. The two exceptions were field trip (often used by only 2.5%) and the

practice to encourage students to engage with guest speakers (used by 17%). The study shows that

lecturers at USM are highly aware of the importance to include these activities in their teaching

practice.

To make a comparison between the two institutions, the same questionnaire was sent to the 40

lecturers of the Language Department of BBS CCCT. The comparative results are shown in Table 4. The

questionnaire and the data referring to USM are retrieved from Ganapathy et al. (2007:7).

25

1 - Always 2- Often 3-Sometimes 4- Seldom 5 - Never Mean

Teaching Activities that promotes HOTs

USM (%)

BBS (%)

USM (%)

BBS (%)

USM (%)

BBS (%)

USM (%)

BBS (%)

USM (%)

BBS (%)

USM BBS

Field trips 0.00 6.0 2.50 6.0 5.0 0.0 15.0 12.0 77.5 76.0 4.67 4.47

Case study 20.0 6.0 20.0 28.0 32.5 27.5 17.5 27.5 10.0 11.0 2.77 3.05

Brainstorming 45.0 17.0 30.0 44.0 20.0 28.0 2.50 5.5 2.50 5.5 1.88 2.41

Problem solving 47.5 12.0 30.0 35.0 15.0 41.0 7.50 12.0 0.00 0.00 1.83 2.52

Interactive lectures 17.5 24.0 45.0 35.0 22.5 35.0 12.5 6.0 2.50 0.00 2.38 2.23

Project-Based Learning 17.5 6.0 45.0 35.0 22.5 29.0 15.0 24.0 0.00 6.0 2.35 2.88

Discuss higher level questions

35.0 6.0 37.5 24.0 20.0 17.5 5.00 35.0 2.50 17.5 2.03 3.35

Engage students in oral presentations

67.5 29.0 17.5 65.0 10.0 6.0 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.53 1.76

Ask students to reflect on their experiences

50.0 35.0 22.5 41.0 15.0 18.0 12.5 6.0 0.00 0.00 1.90 1.94

Arrange students for small group activities

65.0 47.0 10.0 47.0 20.0 6.0 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 1.58

Create the environment for idea exploration

25.0 35.0 47.5 35.0 17.5 12.0 7.50 12.0 2.50 6.0 2.15 2.17

Sequence questions from concrete to abstract

20.0 20.0 37.5 33.0 27.5 20.0 10.0 7.0 5.00 20.0 2.43 2.87

Stretch the students’ thinking beyond reading

32.5 24.0 40.0 47.0 20.0 24.0 5.00 5.0 2.50 0.00 2.05 2.11

Prompt students to make hypothesis

17.5 5.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 24.0 7.50 18.0 5.00 18.0 2.43 3.05

Prompt students to explain their thought processes that promotes a solution

27.5 12.0 27.5 35.0 37.5 18.0 7.50 29.0 0.00 6.0 2.25 2.82

Have students to debate analytically to challenge pre-existing beliefs

17.5 18.0 30.0 25.0 35.0 12.0 17.5 35.0 0.00 12.0 2.53 3.0

Encourage students to engage with guest speakers

7.50 12.5 10.0 25.0 32.5 25.0 37.5 12.5 12.5 25.0 3.38 3.12

Encourage students to find answers to assigned tasks

60.0 29.0 35.0 53.0 5.00 18.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 1.88

Encourage students to draw inferences

37.5 29.0 42.5 59.0 15.0 12.0 5.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.88 1.82

Encourage students to apply newly taught skills in varying contexts

32.5 24.0 50.0 70.0 17.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.85 1.82

Encourage students to reflect on how content is related to real world knowledge

45.0 41.0 37.5 53.0 12.5 6.0 2.50 0.0 2.50 0.0 1.80 1.64

Encourage students to analyse functionally (to understand the purpose of something)

47.5 33.0 40.0 47.0 10.0 13.0 2.50 7.0 0.00 0.0 1.68 1.93

Encourage students to analyse critically (to understand the consequences/implications of something)

40.0 18.0 42.5 47.0 15.0 29.0 2.50 6.0 0.00 0.0 1.80 2.23

Encourage students to synthesise information

37.5 31.0 32.5 44.0 27.5 25.0 2.50 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.95 1.93

Encourage students to evaluate information

45.0 12.0 37.5 47.0 17.5 29.0 0.00 12.0 0.00 0.0 1.73 2.41

26

Results from BBS have a limited relevance, because of the limited number of answers (from 40

lecturers, it was completed only by 17), and in the future, a larger-scale survey should be conducted in

this field. However, some observations appear to be highly relevant for the BBS context, even taking

the limitations into consideration.

Analysing the data, it seems evident that some of the activities are absolutely essential among the

methodological tools used by language teachers, such as “arranging students for small group

activities”, practiced with a very high frequency (’always’) by the 47% of the respondents in case of

BBS and by the 65% in case of USM, and with a high frequency (’often’) by the 47% of the respondents

in case of BBS and by the 10% in case of USM, or engaging students in oral presentations (practiced

with a high or very high frequency by the 94% of the respondents in case of BBS and by the 84% in case

of USM).

Some of the activities are also very popular among lecturers at both universities, this is the case of

encouraging students to apply newly taught skills in varying contexts (Mean: 1.85 at USM and 1.82 at

BBS), and encouraging students to reflect on how content is related to real world knowledge (Mean:

1.80 at USM and 1.64 at BBS). The high frequency of the use of these activities show the efforts made

by educators of both universities to provide practical and meaningful knowledge and skills

development for the students, for instance in the framework of language courses for specific purposes.

The following activities, with a difference superior to 0.5 points, were less practiced by lecturers at BBS

than at USM:

Project-Based Learning,

Case study,

Brainstorming,

Problem solving,

Prompting students to explain their thought processes that promotes a solution,

Encouraging students to evaluate information,

Discussing higher level questions,

Sequence questions from concrete to abstract,

Encouraging students to evaluate information,

Having students to debate analytically to challenge pre-existing beliefs.

From these activities, project-based learning is especially encouraged at BBS in the framework of

methodological renewal: project-based activities have been developed by groups of lecturers who will

implement them from the academic year 2018/2019.

27

In the case of “discussing higher level questions”, terminology was confusing for some of the Hungarian

respondents, who explained after filling in the questionnaire that they interpreted “higher level

questions” as ideological questions, not to be discussed at a public university.

The findings ensuing from the comparison between the teaching activities used at BBS and USM were

discussed with the organisers of the Methodology Workshop of the Language Department, who found

significant that the following activities were less used by the lecturers at BBS: brainstorming, problem

solving, encouraging students to evaluate information. These activities will be discussed with more

details in the framework of the 2018/19 Methodology Workshop, and lecturers will discuss the

possibilities to include these activities more frequently in everyday teaching practice. From the

perspective of the development of students’ intercultural competencies, it is also crucial to include

more activities focusing on students’ debate to challenge pre-existing beliefs.

ICT literacy also figures among the 21st Century Skills, and Ganapathy et al. (2017) include research

results in this domain. The use of ICT tools is among the aims promoted in the Blueprint as well,

however, the results at BBS and USM show that lecturers face difficulties in integrating ICT tools

meaningfully in their teaching practice.

At USM, although the “basic” ICT tools, such as desktop applications (Word, Excel, Publisher, etc),

presentation softwares (Power Point, Prezi, etc.) and Web 2.0 tools (Blogs, Wikis, YouTube etc.)/Social

Network (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram etc.) were used by 100% of the participating lecturers in

their teaching practice, only 2.5% of the lecturers stated that they always integrated ICT in teaching

(7.5% integrated it often, the majority (65%) integrated it sometimes, 25% seldom, and 3.1% never).

The study states that “lecturers find it difficult to change from their current teaching practice to

integrate ICT tools in learning (M=3.150)” and „the majority (87.5%) of lecturers cannot keep pace with

the change in ICT tools at least some of the time” (Ganapathy et al., 2017).

In the context of the Budapest Business School, Asztalos (2016) investigated the use of ICT tools at the

language departments of BBS. Based on questionnaires and semi-structures interviews, she claims that

the virtual learning environment of the University is regarded by lecturers as a mere administrative

and not as a pedagogical tool, and its collaborative nature or the opportunity of personalised learning

is not familiar to most of the lecturers (Asztalos, 2016: 117). The same study included an investigation

concerning language teachers’ use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) and web 2.0 tools at

different tertiary level institutions in Budapest. The research results showed that even teachers who

claimed to be technological experts did not seem to exploit the potential of the VLE to enhance

autonomous, student-centred and individualized learning or collaborative knowledge building

(Asztalos, 2016: 138).

28

As a conclusion, we can state that lecturers at the language units of the two institutions are aware of

their role in developing students’ global competencies and make efforts to identify their own

weaknesses.

2.2.3. Using the OECD (2017) questionnaire to identify university students’ strengths and weaknesses concerning their global competencies

2.2.3.1. Methods, Instruments and Data collection

The questionnaire used in the 2018 PISA was developed by OECD for 15-year old secondary school

students. As a hypothesis, we can assume that as a validated questionnaire it is a tool that provides

valuable feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of first year university students (18-19 years of

age) concerning their global competencies. A pilot study is being conducted at USM and BBS to confirm

this hypothesis. With the authorization of OECD, the survey has been administered simultaneously in

the two institutions with a limited number of students, as a pilot experiment: at USM, the survey was

filled in by 75 international students of the pre-university Intensive English Programme. In Budapest

Business School, the survey was completed by 52 students from three groups: 16 first year local

students and 36 international students. The present research does not include the findings of this pilot

study, research results are envisaged to be published later.

When the questionnaire was shared with different lecturers, a general opinion was that students’

strengths and weaknesses could be predicted, especially by lecturers who imparted seminars/practical

courses to smaller groups. This affirmation gave the idea for the following experiment. The topics of

the OECD (2017) questionnaire were gathered, and a key question was formulated by the author of

the present study corresponding to each topic. At both universities educators were asked to give their

overall opinion about their students’ competencies corresponding to each topic, by answering the

corresponding questions, with 1 as the weakest, and 4 as the highest score.

Data collection was realised in the framework of a department meeting at BBS, with the participation

of 30 lecturers. Out of them, 26 filled in the questionnaire anonymously. Discussion groups were then

formed to exchange further thoughts about students’ strengths and weaknesses and their teaching

practices. At USM, the same survey was offered in the form of a Kahoot! Survey to the audience of a

talk given at USM by the author of the present study about intercultural communication. Among the

audience, 56 participants filled in the survey anonymously.

29

2.2.3.2. Results and discussion

Table 5: Lecturers’ view of their students’ global competencies

Topics Key question Mean

Scale: 1-4 (1: the weakest score; 4: the highest score)

USM (N=56)

BBS (N=26)

1) Self-efficacy regarding global issues

How effectively are your students able to explain global issues?

2,42 2,26

2) Awareness of global issues

What is the rate of awareness of your students concerning global issues?

2,54 2,23

3) Perspective taking

To what extent are your students able to reconsider a question from a different perspective (e.g. in personal and professional disagreements)?

2,4 2,18

4) Adaptability How easily can your students adapt to new situations and new environments?

2,8 2,71

5) Awareness of intercultural communication

When communicating with people from other cultures, to what extent do your students make efforts to avoid misunderstandings?

2,8 2,75

6) Students’ engagement (with others) regarding global issues

To what extent are you students involved in actions related to global issues (such as environment protection, or social issues)

2,39 2,33

7) Interest in learning about other cultures

To what extent are your students interested in learning about other cultures? (traditions, religions, lifestyle, other people)

3,25 2,52

8) Respect for people from other cultural backgrounds

To what extent do your students respect otherness?

3,21 2,69

9) Global mindedness To what extent do your students consider themselves as global citizens?

2,31 2,27

Limitations of the results: the survey reflects exclusively the participating educators’ personal, thus

subjective point of view concerning their students’ competencies. Obviously, there might be huge

differences among students’ individual competencies, therefore giving a general impression is not an

easy task. The comparison of the results is also problematic because Malaysian and Hungarian

participants may have a different approach concerning their practice to give their opinion about

students.

Taking into consideration these limitations, it is interesting to observe that the difference ranges

between 0.04 and 0.31, with the exception of two cases. The salient scores attributed to students’

interest in learning about other cultures (3,25) and students’ respect for people from other cultural

30

background (3,21) at USM denote that openness and respect are core values in the Malaysian

multicultural context. BBS lecturers gave the highest scores to students’ awareness of intercultural

communication, in the sense that according to their view students make efforts to avoid cultural

misunderstandings. In the meantime, they gave the lowest scores to their perspective taking skills,

although perspective-taking skills are essential in intercultural communication. Discussion groups at

BBS emphasized that there is a strong need to develop further our students’ intercultural

communication competence.

Conclusions

This study examined at various levels the question of developing students’ global

competencies through languages courses: on the international level it focused on the interrelatedness

of some theoretical frameworks, it highlighted some research results from Hungary and Malaysia, it

focused on the content of the corresponding national regulating documents, it scrutinized universities’

mission and vision, and investigated teachers’ experience.

At the Institute of Foreign Languages and Communication at Budapest Business School, individual

lecturers have always endeavoured to develop students’ foreign language communications skills

effectively, and the climate of the institute has been characterized by an openness to experiment with

a variety of methodological tools. In the past few years efforts have been intensified to increase the

visibility of this aspiration. The main projects implemented were 21st Century Skills in Focus program,

that won the European Language Label Award in 2013, and the Intercultural Communicative

Competence – a Competitive Advantage for Global Employability (ICCAGE, 2015-2017) project that

included the creation of 14 modules aiming at the development of students’ intercultural

communicative competence (ICC) piloted and implemented at 13 HE institutions across Europe,

involving 66 educators and more than 800 students who were the direct beneficiaries of the project.

In the Malaysian higher education context, we can observe a more intense dialogue between

researchers, educators and policy-makers in matters of the development of students’ second (and

third) language communication and global competencies. For instance, the national policy has been

modified in the case of unrealistic aims (we referred to the case of the postponement of SPM English

as a compulsory requirement for university studies as a result of research reports based on teachers’

opinion and the analysis of previous results), and in case of such a key issue as students’ global

31

competence, there seems to be a synchronicity between international research findings, national

policies, university’s strategical aims and educators’ practice and research results.

In the introduction of the present study, we referred to the words of Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Governor of

Malaysia's central bank, who explained that the development of Malaysian education system has a key

role in the competitiveness of the emerging economy. The findings of the present study showed

that a crucial part of this development is dialogue and reflection on key issues ˗ such as global

competence ˗ by stakeholders, policy-makers, developers of University strategies and lecturers (in the

case of educational practice and research).

32

Bibliography

Ahmad, A. L., Azimi, H., Salleh, S., Mohamad, E. M. W & Sannusi, S. N. (2017): The Intercultural

Adaptation Experience of Afghan Students in Malaysia. SHS Web of Conferences 33.

Ahmad, R. & Farley A. (2013): Funding Reforms in Malaysian Public Universities from the Perspective

of Strategic Planning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 129. 105 – 110.

Arau Ribeiro, M. C., Loch, Á. & Pál, Á. (2017): Intercultural Communication Competence in Foreign

Language Courses for University Students: the ICCAGE project (2015-2017) from a Hungarian

perspective. In Lendvai, L., Keresztes-Takács, O. & Csereklye, E. (Eds.), Mobilities, Transitions,

Transformations. Intercultural Education at the Crossroads: Conference Proceedings (pp. 54-77).

Budapest: International Association for Intercultural Education (IAIE).

Asztalos, R. (2016): The Pedagogical Purposes of the Use of Virtual Learning Environments and Web 2.0

Tools in Tertiary Language Teaching in a Blended Learning Environment. (Doctoral Dissertation).

Retrieved from ELTE EDIT Database (10.15476/ELTE.2015.182)

Az alapvető jogok biztosának jelentése az AJB-360/2017. számú ügyben (2017). [Report by the

Commissioner of Fundamental Rights in Hungary in the case num. AJB-360/2017.]

Available form [online]: http://nyelvtudasert.hu/cms/data/uploads/jelentes-a-felsooktatasi-felveteli-

nyelvvizsga-koevetelmenyeirol-360_2017.pdf

Chin, S. Z. (2013): Foreign Language Lecturers in Malaysia and Interculturality: Common (Mis-)

understandings. International Journal for Education of Diversities (IJE4D), Volume 2, 62-75.

Council of Europe (2016): Competences for Democratic Culture: Living Together as Equals in Culturally

Diverse Democratic Societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Dalib, S., Harun, M. & Yusof N. (2016): Student intercultural competence in a Malaysian campus: a

phenomenological approach. Journal of Multicultural Discourses.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006): The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student

Outcome of Internationalization at Institutions of Higher Education in the United States. Journal of

Studies in International Education, Fall 2006, 10, 241-266.

Dooly, M. (2006): Integrating Intercultural Competence and Citizenship Education into Teacher

Training: a Pilot Project. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 18-30.

Fabricius, A. H. & Preisler, B. (Eds.) (2015). Transcultural interaction and linguistic diversity in higher

education – The students experience. Palgarve Macmillan UK.

Fokozatváltás a Felsőoktatásban. Középtávú szakpolitikai stratégia 2016 [Changing gear in Hungarian

Higher Education. Medium-term strategy in the policy of education]

Available form [online]: http://www.kormany.hu/

33

Ganapathy, M. & Kaur, S. (2014a): ESL Students’ Perceptions of the use of Higher Order Thinking Skills

in English Language Writing. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(5), 80-87.

Ganapathy, M. (2014b): Using Multiliteracies to Engage Learners to Produce Learning. International

Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 4(6), 410-422.

Ganapathy, M. (2015): Boosting Malaysian Graduates’ Employability via the New MUET Policy. Bulletin

of Higher Education Research, National Higher Education Research Institute, Malaysia, 18-19.

Ganapathy, M. (2016): Transformation of Malaysia’s Higher Education System: Malaysia Education

Blueprint (2015-2025). Bulletin of Higher Education Research, National Higher Education Research

Institute, Malaysia, 10-11.

Ganapathy, M., Kaur, M., Kaur, S., & Wai Kit, L. (2017a): Promoting Higher Order Thinking Skills via

Teaching Practices. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, Vol 23(1), 75-85.

Ganapathy, M., Kaur, M., & Kaur, S. (2017b): Tertiary Students’ Learning Practices using Information

and Communication Technology to Promote Higher-Order Thinking. Pertanika Journal of Social

Sciences and Humanities, 25 (2), 877 – 890.

Hajdú, T., Hermann, Z., Horn, D., Varga, J. (2018): A közoktatás indikátorrendszere, 2017. MTA

Közgazdaság- és Regionális Tudományi Kutatóközpont Közgazdaság-tudományi Intézet.

Kiram, J., Sulaiman, J., Swantob S. & Akmam Din, W. (2014): The Relationship between English

Language Learning Strategies and Proficiency of Pre-University Students: A Study Case of UMS. AIP

Conference Proceedings.

Li Yong, Kong Poh Mei, Lim Zhi Xin (2016): Language Policy and Planning (LPP) for English in Malaysian

Education System in the 21st Century. Journal of English Language and Literature, Volume 6 No. 2

October 2016. 455-463.

Mei Shan, P. L., Yunus, M. & Maslawati, M. (2016): The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013 and its

Effects on English Language Teaching in Malaysia. The Asian EFL Journal, 158-171.

Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (2007): The National Higher Education Strategic Plan Beyond

2020. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Higher Education.

Malaysia. Ministry of Education (2015): Malaysia education blueprint 2015-2025: higher education.

Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.

Malaysia. Ministry of Education (2015): English Language Education Reform in Malaysia The Roadmap

2015-2025. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.

Morgado, M. & Coelho, M, (2013): CLIL vs English as the medium of instruction: the Portuguese Higher

Education Polytechnic context. Egitania Sciencia 7, 12, 123-145.

34

Mohd Don, Z. (2016): Implementing the English Language Roadmap to initiate reform (Project Log).

Available form [online]: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Implementing-the-English-Language-

Roadmap-to-initiate-reform

National Research Council (2012): Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge

and Skills in the 21st Century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, J.W.

Pellegrino and M.L. Hilton, Editors. Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education,

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press.

Nyelvtudásért Egyesület (2013): Észrevételek a nemzeti idegennyelv-oktatás fejlesztésének stratégiája

az általános iskolától a diplomáig Fehér könyv 2012 – 2018 című előterjesztéshez kapcsolódóan.

Available form [online]: http://nyelvtudasert.hu/cms/data/uploads/nyelvtudasert_egyesulet_feher-

konyv_eszrevetelek.pdf

OECD (Coordinated by Schleicher, A. & Belfali, Y., (2017): Preparing our youth for an inclusive and

sustainable world. The OECD PISA global competence framework. OECD.

Pál, Á. (2017): Vivir Fuera De Nuestro País: Destrezas y retos interculturales de la movilidad global. In

El Homrani, M., Penafiel, M. & Hernández, A. F. (Eds.), Entornos y estrategias educativas para la

inclusión social (pp. 261-265). Granada: Editorial Comares.

Pandian, A., Bee Chow, L., Tan Ai Lin, D., Liew Ching Ling, C., Muniandy, J., Chwee Hiang, T. (2014):

Language Teaching and Learning: New Dimensions and Interventions. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Papatsiba, V. (2006): Study abroad and Experiences of Cultural distance and Proximity: French Erasmus

students. (pp. 108-133) In: Byram, Michael & Amwei Feng. Living and Studying abroad – research and

practice. Multilingual Matters.

Schleicher, A. (2018): The future of education and skills Education 2030. (OECD E2030 Position Paper,

05.04.2018.) OECD.

Shariffuddin, S. A., Razali, J. R., Ghani, M. A., Shaaidi, W, Ibrahim, I. S. A. (2017): Transformation of

higher education institutions in Malaysia: a review. Journal of Global Business and Social

Entrepreneurship (GBSE). Vol. 1: no. 2, 127.

Shulgina, T. &, Gopal, S. (2017): Is There a Possibility of Convergent in English Language Teaching in

Malaysian Higher Institutions of Learning for English Competency Among Graduates? E-proceeding of

the 6th international conference on social sciences research 2017 (ICSSR 2017), 4th December 2017,

Melia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Tan Ai Lin, D., Pandian, A., Jaganathan, P. (2016): Encouraging ESL/EFL Reading Among Lower

Proficiency Students at the Tertiary Level: The Use of Graded Readers. The Reading Matrix: An

International Online Journal, Volume 16, Number 2, September 2016, 20-36.

The World Bank Report. (2007, March): Malaysia and the knowledge economy: Building a world-class

higher education system. Putra Jaya: The Economic Planning Unit Prime Minister’s Department.

35

UNESCO (2014): Global Citizenship Education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century,

Paris: UNESCO.

Universiti Sains of Malaysia (2013): APEX Transformation Agenda. The Apex University Second Phase.

January 2013. USM. Available form [online]: https://www.usm.my/index.php/en/my-usm/apex/apex-

transformation-agenda

Newspaper references:

Barát, M. (April 2017): Nekünk is példa lehet a maláj minta. Világgazdaság. Available form [online]:

https://www.vg.hu/gazdasag/nekunk-is-pelda-lehet-a-malaj-minta-482858/ (Accessed on

16.06.2018.)

Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh (higher education minister) (07.05.2017): Turning the world towards Malaysian

education. New Straits Time. Available form [online]:

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2017/05/237032/turning-world-towards-malaysian-

education (Accessed on 16.06.2018.)

News: PISA 2012 highlights deteriorating education performance in Malaysia (April 18, 2014) In:

Scientific Malaysian, a global network of Malaysian scientist. Available form [online]:

https://www.scientificmalaysian.com/2014/04/18/pisa-2012-deteriorating-education-performance-

malaysia/ (Accessed on 16.06.2018.)

Rajaendram, R. (23.05.2018): Education blueprints to stay. The Star Online. Available form

[online]:https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/05/23/education-blueprints-to-stay-

maszlee-activities-and-programmes-will-be-reviewed-periodically/ (Accessed on 16.06.2018.)

Homepage of University Sains Malaysia

http://www.ppblt.usm.my/index.php/about-us/about-school

Cited in the text as www.usm.my/a.

https://www.usm.my/index.php/en/my-usm/apex/apex-transformation-agenda

Cited in the text as www.usm.my/b.

Homepage of the Budapest Business School

https://uni-bge.hu/kvik/Szervezeti-

egysegeink/oktatasiszervezetiegysegek/TURIMUSVENDSZAKNYINTTAN

Cited in the text as www.uni-bge.hu