The Common European Framework for Languages (CEFR) is a more comprehensive approach to determining international standards. It is essential to note that the CEFR is more than just an assessment since it emphasises the processes of learning, teaching, and assessment. CEFR has recently been recognized at the national level in Thailand to design and develop school curriculums, facilitate teaching and learning, and choose teaching material. Through a quantitative survey method, this study conducted a needs analysis to investigate the understanding and requirements of 20 senior high school English teachers and 850 learners from selected schools in Chiang Mai regarding the CEFR-CLIL-based curriculum contents in English Language Teaching (ELT). The research utilized a structured questionnaire to gauge the depth of teachers’ and learners’ understanding of the CEFR and ascertain their needs to enhance English competencies within the CEFR-CLIL framework. Findings from this extensive sample highlighted a deeper comprehension and specific needs necessary for designing a CEFR-CLIL-based course adapted to the Thai context. These insights from teachers and learners demonstrated the need for a more integrated approach to English instruction. By shedding light on the specific needs and understandings, the results offered educators an outline for refining ELT strategies, formulating relevant unit topics, and implementing pedagogical techniques in tune with the aspirations of Thai learners, ensuring alignment with the foundational principles of the CEFR guidelines.

Keywords: CEFR; CLIL; needs analysis; course design; English Language Teaching (ELT)

Ayakli, C., Karavas, K., Manolopoulou-Sergi, E., & Spinthourakis, J. A. (2004). Course Design and Evaluation: Evaluation, Innovation and Implementation. Patras: Hellenic Open University.

Bower, K., Cross, R., & Coyle, D. (2020). CLIL in Multilingual and English-Background Contexts: Expanding the Potential of Content and Language Integrated Pedagogies for Mainstream Learning. In K. Bower,

D. Coyle, R. Cross, & G. Chambers (Eds.), Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching: CLIL in Practice (pp. 3-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108687867.003

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. D. (2006). Second language studies: Curriculum Development. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, pp. 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/00613-1

Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Channel View Publications.

Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Charttrakul, K., & Damnet, A. (2021). Role of the CEFR and English Teaching in Thailand: A Case Study of Rajabhat Universities. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(2), 82. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.2.p.82

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, U.K: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.

EF Education First. (2022). English level B1 - CEFR definition and tests. Retrieved from http://https://www.efset.org/cefr/b1/

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 193-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082

Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE-The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential.

Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A Development Trajectory. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba.

Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies. Puls, pp. 11–29.

Meyer, O. (2013). Introducing the CLIL-Pyramid: Key Strategies and Principles for Quality CLIL Planning and Teaching. In M. Eisenmann & T. Summer, eds. Basic issues in EFL teaching and learning. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, pp.11–29.

Ministry of Education. (2014). The Guidelines on English language teaching and Learning Reforming Policy. Bangkok: Chamjureeproducts Ltd.

Nagai, N., Birch, G. C., Bower, J. V., & Schmidt, M. G. (2020). CEFR-Informed Learning, Teaching and Assessment: A Practical Guide. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5894-8

Nii, A. T., & Yunus, M. M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions on the implementation of common european framework reference (cefr) in an esl classroom: the malaysian context. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10(06), 226-240. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.106018

North, B. (2011). Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use. Language Teaching, 47(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026144481100020

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prasongporn, P. (2009). CLIL in Thailand: Challenges and possibilities. Paper presented at the Access English EBE Symposium, Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/eng-early-bilingual-education-en.pdf#page=9

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Savski, K. (2019). Putting the Plurilingual/Pluricultural back into CEFR: Reflecting on Policy Reform in Thailand and Malaysia. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(2), 644–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.2.13.64

Sharifian, F., & Marlina, R. (2012). English as an international language (EIL): An innovative academic program. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language (pp. 140–153). Multilingual Matters.

Supunya, N. (2022). Towards the CEFR Action-Oriented Approach: Factors Influencing its Achievement in Thai EFL Classrooms. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature® The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 28(2), pp. 33-48. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2022-2802-03

Suwannoppharat, K., & Chinokul, S. (2015). Applying CLIL to English language teaching in Thailand: Issues and challenges. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.8

Tachaiyaphum, N., & Sukying, A. (2017). EFL pre-service teachers’ perceptions of CLIL. Asian Education Studies, 2(4), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.20849/aes.v2i4.283

Taylor, P. (2022). Perceptions of in-service teachers towards CLIL and CLIL teachers’ target language and intercultural competences: The context of English- medium instruction schools in Thailand. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 565–587.

Thepseenu, B. (2020). Needs Analysis for ESP Course Development: Thai Civil Engineering Students’ Perspectives. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 6(3), 433-442. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2020.63.433.442

Watanapokakul, S. (2022). English for Event Management: A Mixed Methods Study for Needs Analysis and Course Design. THAITESOL JOURNAL, 35(1), 1-38.