implementing the common european framework of … · 2020-02-20 · ministry of education and...
TRANSCRIPT
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
LÊ THỊ THANH HẢI
IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES
AT TERTIARY LEVEL IN VIETNAM:
GENERAL ENGLISH TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSES
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND
METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
HUE, 2019
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
LÊ THỊ THANH HẢI
IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES
AT TERTIARY LEVEL IN VIETNAM:
GENERAL ENGLISH TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSES
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND
METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
CODE: 9 14 01 11
Supervisor
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Thi Hong Nhung
HUE, 2019
i
DECLARATION
I certify that the present dissertation submitted today entitled:
―Implementing the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages at teriary level in Vietnam: General English teachers’ perceptions
and responses‖
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in theory and methodology in English
language teaching, is the result of my own research, and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, contains no material which has been accepted for the award
of any other degree in any institute, college, or university, and previously published
or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the
dissertation.
Signature:
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The road to achievement within this Doctoral Program is paved with the
assistance and efforts of the many who worked diligently to assist me, believed in
me and guided me to pursue a personal goal. I acknowledge those who without
hesitation contributed their professional and academic knowledge to this study.
Without these individuals, this would never have been possible.
I would like to acknowledge the forbearance of my supervisor Associate
Professor Doctor Pham Thi Hong Nhung, who provided instruction and feedback to
various steps of the study and to various versions of this dissertation with the
support and words of wisdom. I was exceptionally fortunate to have her as a
mentor for this work. Her encouragement allowed me to continue to grow as a
person and a researcher. She helped me keep things prioritized and in focus.
Without her, this work would not have taken its final shape.
I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to teachers, lecturers and
professors of University of Foreign Languages, Hue University for patiently and
wholeheartedly guiding me through the process required to complete my program of
study. Their support, encouragement, and willingness to serve as academic
committee members were of huge benefit to me. Their knowledge and wisdom
inspired me to broaden my scope of investigation.
I also thank my dear and best friend whom without her support, I would
possibly have not accomplished this personal goal. A special mention also goes to
my colleagues whose understanding, sympathy, and support were invaluable
spiritual strength for me during the process of completing this work. I owe a great
debt to many English teachers at the home university who voluntarily and patiently
answered the questionnaire and took part in the in- depth interviews during the data
collection process of this study.
This journey was made possible through the love and support of my mother,
my husband and children. I would like to express my deep gratitude to my family.
To my husband, for his unconditional love, support, and encouragement. He
encouraged me unfailingly, provided ongoing support and kind words, motivated
iii
me, and had confidence in me. To my mother whose life demonstrated that honor is
found in hard work and sacrifice. I thank her for loving me unconditionally and for
providing me with encouragement in my educational pursuits. My thanks go to my
children, who are a source of strength to me. Along the way, they constantly made
sacrifices to facilitate me in my endeavors. They were persistent in reminding me of
my desire to complete the journey and motivated me every step of the way. I will be
forever grateful and inspired by their love.
iv
ABSTRACT
The present study investigates teachers‘ perceptions of the values of the CEFR, the
perceived readiness and necessity of its application, and the work involved in its
application process. Also, it explores teachers‘ responses to the use of the CEFR to
renew the general English curriculum, reflected in how they changed their teaching
activities, adapted the assigned textbooks and modified their assessment practice. The
study was a case study applying the mixed method sequential explanatory model
(Creswell & Clark, 2007). Data were collected from thirty-six GE teachers at a university
in Vietnam by means of a forty-nine-item questionnaire. Eight semi-structured in-depth
interviews were conducted.
The findings revealed that GE teachers were knowledgeable about the CEFR and its
implementation at the research site. Specifically, they highly perceived the values of the
CEFR, its readiness and necessity for application. Their perceptions, however, were not
totally and successfully reflected in their responses. Although GE teachers made great
effort in modifying the CEFR-aligned curriculum, they were dissatisfied with the work
involved in its implementation process. Encountered challenges included time
constraints, incompatible teaching materials, and mismatch between students‘ admission
level of proficiency and learning outcome. To deal with the challenges, GE teachers
made adaptations and modifications in the teaching activities, teaching materials and
classroom assessment practice, albeit the activities were merely used as coping strategies.
In particular, teaching activities were changed. There was a lack of adherence to the
assigned textbooks. The CEFR-aligned tests were favored and students‘ self and peer
assessments were focused. GE teachers were found to teach ―test-taking strategies‖ and
instant techniques to aid students achieving the required learning outcome. Due to the
limited timeframe, an emphasis on blended learning and learner autonomy was
recognized and started to take hold. From the findings, methodological and pedagogical
implications are made for improvements of the adoption of the CEFR on the
implementation level.
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CoE : Council of Europe
CEFR : The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CRLs : Common Reference Levels
FSL : French as a Second Language
GE : General English
L1 : First language/ the mother tongue
L2 : Second language
M : Mean (value)
MOET : Ministry of Education and Training
NFL : Vietnam‘s National Foreign Languages
QUAN : Quantitative
QUAL : Qualitative
SPSS : Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
S.D : Standard deviation
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background context of the study ......................................................................... 1
1.2. Rationale of the study........................................................................................... 3
1.3. Purpose of the study and research questions ........................................................ 6
1.4. Research design overview .................................................................................... 7
1.5. Scope of the study ................................................................................................ 8
1.6. Significance of the study ...................................................................................... 9
1.7. Organization of the study ................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2.LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 12
2.1. Definitions of the key terms ............................................................................... 12
2.2. The CEFR in language education ...................................................................... 13
2.2.1. A sketch of the CEFR: Definition, content, purpose, limitations and
suggestions for good use ............................................................................................... 14
2.2.2. The spread of the CEFR in language education ......................................... 18
2.3. Teachers‘ perceptions and responses ................................................................. 25
2.3.1. Teachers‘ perceptions ................................................................................. 25
2.3.2. Teachers‘ responses .................................................................................... 26
2.3.3. The relationship between teachers‘ perceptions and teachers‘ responses .. 27
2.4. The CEFR implementation as change management in English language
education ........................................................................................................................ 29
2.4.1. Educational change management model .................................................... 29
2.4.2. Factors influential to successful educational change management ............ 31
2.4.3. The implementation of the CEFR in the light of educational change
management ................................................................................................................... 34
2.5. Previous studies on the use of the CEFR in English language education .......... 40
vii
2.5.1. Previous studies in the world ...................................................................... 40
2.5.2. Previous studies in Vietnam ....................................................................... 44
2.6. The conceptual framework ................................................................................. 48
2.7. Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 49
CHAPTER 3.METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 51
3.1. Research approach and research design ............................................................. 51
3.1.1. Research approach ...................................................................................... 51
3.1.2. Research design .......................................................................................... 54
3.2. Research questions and conceptual framework ................................................. 56
3.3. Research setting and sample .............................................................................. 57
3.3.1. Research setting .......................................................................................... 57
3.3.2. Participants .................................................................................................. 58
3.3.3. Researcher‘s role......................................................................................... 61
3.4. Data collection methods ..................................................................................... 61
3.4.1. Data collection instruments ........................................................................ 61
3.4.2. Data collection procedures ......................................................................... 67
3.5. Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 70
3.5.1. The pilot phase ............................................................................................ 71
3.5.2. The official round ....................................................................................... 72
3.6. Validity ............................................................................................................... 74
3.7. Reliability ............................................................................................................ 76
3.8. Ethical considerations ........................................................................................... 77
3.9. Chapter summary ................................................................................................. 78
CHAPTER 4.FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 79
4.1. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation ........................ 79
4.1.1. General results ............................................................................................ 79
4.1.2. GE teachers‘ understanding of the values of the CEFR ............................. 80
4.1.3. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR readiness for application .............. 82
4.1.4. GE teachers‘ attitudes towards the necessity of the CEFR implementation
....................................................................................................................................... 85
4.1.5. GE teachers‘ dissatisfaction of the work involved in the CEFR
implementation process.................................................................................................. 89
viii
4.1.6. Summary of the first research question‘s findings ..................................... 95
4.2. GE teachers‘ responses to the CEFR implementation ....................................... 96
4.2.1. General results ............................................................................................ 96
4.2.2. GE teachers‘ responses to teaching activities modification ....................... 96
4.2.3. GE teachers‘ responses to teaching materials adaptation ......................... 103
4.2.4. GE teachers‘ responses to classroom assessment renewal ....................... 108
4.2.5. Summary of the second research question‘s findings .............................. 113
4.3. Chapter summary ............................................................................................. 115
CHAPTER 5.CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 117
5.1. Summary of key findings ................................................................................. 117
5.1.1. Teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation process ....... 117
5.1.2. GE teachers‘ responses to the CEFR implementation .............................. 122
5.2. Implications ...................................................................................................... 125
5.2.1. Implications for teachers and classroom teaching .................................... 126
5.2.2. Implications for administrators ................................................................. 128
5.3. Research contributions ..................................................................................... 130
5.4. Limitations of the study ................................................................................... 131
5.5. Recommendations for further research ............................................................ 132
LISTS OF AUTHOR‘S WORK .................................................................................. 134
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 134
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 146
APPENDIX A: The pilot questionnaire ...................................................................... 147
APPENDIX B1: The official English questionnaire ................................................... 156
APPENDIX B2: The official Vietnamese questionnaire ................................................. 160
APPENDIX C: The pilot interview protocol-Vietnamese version ............................. 165
APPENDIX D: The oficial interview protocol-Vietnamese version .......................... 169
APPENDIX E1: Participant information sheet and consent form-English version .... 172
APPENDIX E2: Participant information sheet and consent form -Vietnamese version
..................................................................................................................................... 175
APPENDIX F: Sample of interview coding and theming ........................................... 178
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Demographic data of participants (N=36) ............................................. 60
Table 3.2. Summary of the pilot questionnaire ...................................................... 63
Table 3.3. Summary of the official questionnaire .................................................. 65
Table 3.4. Timeline for data collection procedure and data analysis ..................... 68
Table 3.5. The reliability of the pilot questionnaire and clusters ........................... 72
Table 3.6. The reliability of the official questionnaire and clusters ....................... 73
Table 4.1. General results of the four clusters ........................................................ 79
Table 4.2. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR values ...................................... 80
Table 4.3. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR readiness for implementation .. 82
Table 4.4. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the necessity of the CEFR implementation
............................................................................................................... 85
Table 4.5. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the work involved in the CEFR
implementation process ......................................................................... 89
Table 4.6. General results of teachers‘ responses ................................................... 96
Table 4.7. GE teachers‘ responses to teaching activities modification .................. 97
Table 4.8. GE teachers‘ responses to teaching materials adaptation .................... 103
Table 4.9. GE teachers‘ responses to classroom assessment renewal .................. 108
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The teacher iceberg (Waters, 2009, p.442) ....................................... 28
Figure 2.2: A simplified overview of the change process (Fullan, 2001b, p.51) 30
Figure 2.3: Eight drivers of change knowledge (Fullan et al., 2005, p.57) ......... 32
Figure 2.4: Development stages with the CEFR (Richards, 2013, p.28) ............ 35
Figure 2.5: The conceptual framework ................................................................ 48
Figure 3.1. Mixed method sequential explanatory model ................................... 55
Figure 3.2. An adapted model for the present study............................................ 55
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The present study explores General English (GE) teachers’ perceptions of
and their responses to the CEFR implementation for non-English major students at
a university in Central Vietnam. This chapter serves as an introduction to the thesis.
It introduces the background of the study and statement of the problem, presents the
research purpose and research questions. The chapter also provides an overview of
the research design and describes the organization of the thesis.
1.1. Background context of the study
In the era of globalization and integration, English is more and more
indispensable to the development of any country. It has become the first foreign
language to be taught and a compulsory subject for both undergraduates and
graduates at tertiary level in Vietnam (Vietnamese government, 2008). Nonetheless,
English language education has encountered great difficulties in catching up with
the social need. The heavy reliance on the explicit teaching of grammatical rules
and grammar-based testing which have long characterized English teaching in
Vietnam has been proved to be very resistant to change (Hoang, 2010). As a result,
Vietnam was grouped into ―low proficiency‖ countries in terms of English
(Education First, 2013).
To change the situation, various attempts have been made to reform the
foreign (especially English) language teaching system, among which is the NFL
2020 Project and the adoption of the CEFR. Specifically, in 2008, the Vietnamese
Government launched a national project named ―Teaching and learning foreign
languages in the national educational system for the 2008-2020 period‖, often
referred to as NFL 2020 Project as a national strategy so as to renovate the foreign
language teaching and learning in the national education system during the period
2008-2020 (Vietnamese government, 2008), now extended to 2025 (Vietnamese
government, 2017). The most significant part of NFL 2020 Project is the adoption
2
of the CEFR, a global framework, into Vietnamese local context of language
teaching and learning as a ―quick-fix‖ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004) solution to
restructure the national foreign language education system.
On the basis of the CEFR, a Vietnamese version of the CEFR was
developed, approved and legitimated by Vietnamese authorities (MOET, 2014a;
MOET, 2014b). It is utilized to set standards for teacher professionalism. It is also
used to set standards for learning outcomes at different levels of education, from
primary to high schools and universities. This adoption of the CEFR as standard-
based outcomes and professionalism in Vietnam, underpinned by NFL 2020 Project
has been hoped to bring positive, radical changes in the national foreign language
education system as it is clearly stated in Decision 1400 of the government
(Vietnamese government, 2008). In effect, this has led to the renewal and
modification of language curricula, language teaching materials, as well as testing
and assessment in different levels of educations, for different types of learners and
at different schools, universities and institutions nationwide.
The home university, where this research was conducted, is a regional
university in Central Vietnam. Its non-English major students come from the
Central Highlands and the provinces and cities in the centre of the country.
According to their major field of study, students attend different colleges of the
home university. They vary in terms of social backgrounds, major fields of study
chosen, and English proficiency, but most enter university at the age of 18 years.
Teachers also differ in origin, experiences, qualifications and expertise. MOET
mandated that, as a state-run university, the home university must have its non-
English major students achieve CEFR B1 level as one condition for being granted a
university graduation degree. Under the impacts of this innovative national foreign
language (mainly English) policy, in 2012, an official document was issued by the
home university stating that their non-English major students must achieve B1 level
as the prerequisite for their university graduation. Since 2011, curricula for students
at tertiary level of the home university were changed. Not only foreign language
(English) major university students become standardized and CEFR-aligned,
3
general English curriculum for university students majoring in subjects other than
English was also modified. A 7-credit general English curriculum was compelled
for non-English major students before their B1 CEFR-aligned examination. In
effect, non-English major students have a total of 105 teacher-led hours of English
classes in their first three semesters, divided into 30-30-45 hours respectively, and
are expected to achieve level B1. Two series of textbooks, English Elements by
Hueber and later on Life by Cengage were chosen as the required teaching materials
for the respective students by the Faculty and University. Detailed syllabi for three
semesters, together with the forms and formats of the final examinations were also
made available. GE teachers at the home university, as implementers, have to bond
learners, materials, teaching practice and assessment altogether so that non-English
major students can achieve the required CEFR-aligned learning outcome B1 within
the given timeframe and curriculum. What GE teachers perceive and how they react
to the situation is worth investigating.
1.2. Rationale of the study
Soon after its publication in 2001, the CEFR has gained attention and respect
not only in Europe but also in the rest of the world (Alderson, 2002; Byrnes, 2007;
Hulstijn, 2007; Tono & Negishi, 2012). The enthusiasm for the document has been
recognized to extend far beyond Europe to Latin America, the Middle East,
Australia and parts of Asia (Byram & Parmenter, 2012). Outside the European
contexts, as a ―supranational language education policy‖ (Little, 2007, p.645), the
CEFR has been observed to have major influences in language policy planning
(Bonnet, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Little, 2007; Nguyen & Hamid, 2015; Pham, 2012;
2017) especially in countries where English is taught as a foreign language. A
number of Asian countries have witnessed the implementation of the CEFR in
national contexts as an attempt to reform the system of language teaching in the
country. Vietnam is not an exception. However, it has been warned that the success
of this ambitious language policy can be threatened by its unfamiliar and top-down
nature (Little, 2006; 2007; Pham, 2017).
4
Firstly, since adapted from the CEFR whose original purpose is not for the
diversified contexts of the world but revolves around Europe, this alien framework
may give rise to paradoxes (Le Van Canh, 2015) if it is not well contextualized
(Pham, 2017). With the remarkable differences in terms of social needs, language
learning and teaching conditions, qualifications of language teachers and
proficiency levels of learners as well as their expectations and purposes, the
appropriateness of the CEFR-aligned framework in Vietnam may be questionable.
Nearly 10 years after its first introduction in Vietnam, the adoption of the CEFR
still faces challenges and obstacles from ―limited human resources‖ (Pham, 2017) to
―deficits in teacher professionalism‖ (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015). The need for more
research on the CEFR adoption in Vietnam, its impacts on teachers, students and
English language teaching and learning process, its successes and limitations has
never been ceased for the benefits of its future practices.
Secondly, r the use of the
CEFR has been recognized in different domains from setting teacher
professionalism standards, setting student learning outcomes, renewing language
curriculum, adapting teaching materials to modifying language assessment practice
(Vietnamese government, 2008). However, the Vietnamese CEFR-aligned
framework has been forwarded to lower levels for implementation without
explanation for its adoption (Pham, 2017) nor consultation with the ultimate
language learners and users. There is also a lack of previous research and pilot use
of this framework in Vietnamese context (Pham, 2012). Up to now, there is no
official document or research evidence about the involvement of teachers and
students in the process of making decisions of applying the CEFR in Vietnam.
When teachers‘ perceptions or their students‘ need and wants are not taken into
account, it is synonymous that teachers‘ ownership of innovation was denied and
the possibility of teachers‘ feedback was minimal (Hyland & Wong, 2013).
As such the adoption of the CEFR can be considered to follow the ―top
down‖ approach well reflected in the literature on language planning. Accordingly,
practitioners, especially teachers and learners at the lowest level have no say in this
5
policy making. Teachers are only envisioned as implementers of the policy and they
do not play a key role in the centralized language planning processes (Poon, 2000;
Waters, 2009). Therefore, the implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam is likely to
create some mismatches between the adopters, those who sanction the innovation
(government officials) and the implementers (teachers) (Chang, 2007). The need for
research on the field of the national CEFR adoption language policy and issues of
its implementation has emerged.
Thirdly, within the current context, the CEFR-aligned curriculum
implementation for non-English major students at the home university is very much
concerned. As it is suggested that approximately 200 guided learning hours be
necessary for a language learner to progress from one level of the CEFR to the next
and from 350 to 400 hours of instructions for a learner to achieve B1 Level
(Desveaux, 2013), the CEFR-aligned curriculum within the duration of 105 teacher-
led hours and the required B1 learning outcome for non-English majors set by MOET
are questionable. Moreover, considering the factors that may lengthen or reduce the
expected time such as learners‘ language learning background, intensity of learners‘
study, the amount of study/ exposure outside of lesson times (Desveaux, 2013),
MOET‘s requirement becomes more challenging for GE teachers and non-English
major students in Vietnam at the moment. Finally, since MOET sets the learning
outcomes for learners independent of curricula and teaching materials, the burden on
the shoulders of state-run universities, teachers and students becomes heavier as they
have to innovate all those related domains to meet the new learning outcome.
Besides, studies have demonstrated that while the key implementers of all
language education policies, teachers did not always do what was told nor did they
always act to maximize policy objectives (Cohen & Ball, 1990; McLaughlin, 1987).
Problems and failure of the implementation phase may thus come from teachers
themselves due to their attitudes and behavior, which were proven to ―interact bi-
dimensionally‖ with each other (Borg, 2009, p.164). Firstly, teachers have been
diagnosed as ―resistant to change‖ (Wang, 2008, p.3) or not willing to actually
implement a teaching innovation despite their positive attitudes towards it
6
(Kennedy, 1999; Keranen, 2008, as cited in Waters, 2009). Secondly, although
teachers‘ perceptions and attitudes are not always reflected in what teachers do in
the classroom, they do influence practices (Borg, 2009). The necessity of
understanding teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to this language policy
implementation has been obvious. Yet limited research has been found on the issue
under investigation. As the implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam is both
comprehensive and profound (Vietnamese government, 2008), the need for more
research on the CEFR in Vietnam such as its impacts on language education system,
teachers and learners‘ attitude and perceptions toward the use of the CEFR, the
effectiveness of such changes in (foreign) language policy, is longed for. For that
reason, the current research is an effort to explore the CEFR implementation from
grass-root level in Vietnam.
1.3. Purpose of the study and research questions
The study aims to explore the perceptions, knowledge and responses of GE
teachers (i.e. teachers who teach English to non-English major students) at the
home university as they become involved in implementing the CEFR for their non-
English major university students. Firstly, it seeks to gain an in-depth understanding
of how GE teachers perceive and interpret the current use of the CEFR at tertiary
level. Specifically, it examines the teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its values,
its necessity and readiness for application. The study also explores teachers‘
understanding and interpretation of the implementation process.
The study also aims to investigate teachers‘ responses to the adoption of the
CEFR within their school context, that is what they do in terms of action and what
factors are influential to their response. The findings of the study are hoped to
provide the solid ground on which methodological and pedagogical implications
can be made to supplement GE teachers with methodology, techniques, and
procedures to modify the CEFR-aligned curriculum in order to match theory and
practice, to assist educators and administrators during the process of contextualizing
a global framework in a local English language teaching and learning situation.
7
In particular, this study seeks to answer the following two research questions:
1. What are GE language teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its use for
non-English major students at a university in Vietnam?
2. What are GE language teachers‘ responses to the use of the CEFR on the
implementation level?
1.4. Research design overview
The current study examines teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to the
CEFR implementation for non-English major university students. It adopted the
mixed method sequential explanatory model by Creswell and Clark (2007). The
data collection procedure consisted of two phases, the pilot and the official phases.
The aim of the pilot phase was to test the research instruments and get baseline data
on general English teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to implementing the
CEFR for non-English major students. The results of the pilot phase were used to
modify the questionnaire and interview protocol for the official round.
The research setting was a university in Central Vietnam, where the researcher
has been working for more than fifteen years. All English language teachers, who have
been teaching general English for non-English major students of the home university
for more than one semester, were invited to participate in the survey research. Eight of
the teacher participants took part in in-depth interview sessions.
The literature review and theoretical concepts relevant to the research field
were generalized and summarized to build up the conceptual framework for the
present study. Utilizing this information, together with results from the pilot phase,
a forty-nine item questionnaire was made to explore how GE teachers perceived the
CEFR and its implementation, and how they responded to the CEFR-aligned
curriculum implementation regarding their teaching activities, the assigned
textbooks and the classroom assessment practice. For the semi-structured in-depth
interview, an interview protocol consisting of fifteen main questions was sketched
to guide the interview sessions and make sure the validity and consistency of the
data collected.
8
Quantitative data were analyzed via Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 20. In determining the reliability of the questionnaire,
Cronbach‘s alpha values of the whole questionnaire and sub-clusters were above .70
and ranged from .819 to .873. Descriptive statistics including the mean scores and
standard deviation of each item were generated. After the data of the questionnaire
had been collected and analyzed, the interview sessions were successively carried
out and coded. Qualitative data were then themed, compared and contrasted with
quantitative findings.
After the interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative data, an
integration of both groups of data was made. The findings were presented with
respect to the research questions, the sub-clusters of the questionnaire, and the
emerging themes from the interview sessions. Finally, detailed discussions,
conclusions and pedagogical implications with regard to the conceptual framework
were made and reported.
1.5. Scope of the study
The primary goal of this study is to investigate the status of implementing the
CEFR-aligned curriculum as perceived and responded by GE teachers in non-
English major classes at the home university during the school years 2015-2018.
The aspects looked into are how teachers perceived the CEFR and its values, the
necessity and readiness for its application for non-English major students, as well as
the work involved in the CEFR application process. Next, the researcher explores
teachers‘ responses to the CEFR-aligned curriculum renewal. Specifically, how GE
teachers modified their teaching activities, how they adapted the assigned
textbooks, and how they changed their classroom assessment practice. The results
of the study, therefore, can be generalized to similar contexts in the same field only.
The generalizations may not necessarily be applicable to other contexts and
situations far different from the present one.
In particular, the present study explores a top-down policy of adopting a
global framework to local contexts without much explanation and piloting (Pham,
2012). The results of the study are from teachers‘ perspectives. It does not involve
9
administrators and students during the data collection process. It cannot be
applicable to any policy that goes beyond these bounds.
Secondly, the study focuses on what and how teachers, as key implementers,
perceived and responded during the implementation process. It aims to get insights
into the reality of the CEFR implementation at the home university, whether
teachers encountered any challenges and how they dealt with those difficulties. The
ultimate purpose is to make insightful methodology and pedagogical implications
for GE teachers. There may be some differences in the results and implications if
the implementation process is perceived from the perspectives of administrators or
students. The scope of the present study is, therefore, limited to language education
and methodology for teachers rather than language policy and planning.
Thirdly, the subject of the study is the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-
English major university students whose motivation and language proficiency are
not the same as of language-major students. The timeframe, textbooks, assessment,
and even teaching activities are totally different. Therefore, its results cannot be
generalized to English-major students of the same university.
Finally, the research setting is a regional university in Central Vietnam,
where culture and other socio-economic factors may differ from those of bigger
cities of the country. As a result, while the findings of the study may be applicable
for other regional universities sharing similar backgrounds, the generalizations
should not be made for universities in the North or the South of Vietnam, nor can
they be made for other universities outside Vietnam.
1.6. Significance of the study
This study is of great significance because the data and findings add to the
existing knowledge of top-down implementation policies in foreign language
education. It also provides useful understanding on the impacts of such a policy on
different domains of language teaching methodology, from curriculum renewal,
teaching practice adaptation, to testing and assessment adaptation.
Firstly, since the 1990s, the urge to promote foreign language competency,
especially English, among Vietnamese workforce and citizens has never ceased
10
(Nguyen, 2012). Numerous efforts have been made to reform foreign language
teaching and learning in Vietnam, including the adoption of global educational
policies into the local contexts such as the CEFR. Like many other language
educational reforms in Vietnam, the policy is very much top-down, without taking
human resources and facilities at grass-root level into consideration. Researching
and exploring such a policy have thus been significant in providing a better
understanding and valuable lessons especially for MOET and policy makers.
Secondly, the findings of the study are expected to shed light on the
implementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major university
students at tertiary levels. It is expected that the voice and perceptions of teachers
will provide insights into the achievement and drawbacks of the policy, the
advantages and disadvantages during the implementation process, as well as the
challenges faced and lessons gained. The study helps the home University and
respective Faculty re-evaluate the policy, figure out what to do next, what to
maintain, what needs to be improved or changed, what to aid teachers and students,
etc. so that the curriculum implementation becomes more effective and successful.
Above all, the study is beneficial to teachers and non-English major students.
The results of the study provided valuable information to teachers and
administrators. They will be better aware of their roles and importance in the
implementation process. They will know the strengths and weaknesses of the policy
and the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students; what challenges
they encountered and why they encountered such challenges.
The ultimate purpose of all the afore-mentioned suggestions for changes and
modifications is to ameliorate students‘ English proficiency and their learning
outcome. The present study is thus of great help and usefulness for non-English
major students, who need to achieve the CEFR B1 certificate as the precondition for
their university graduation being granted.
1.7. Organization of the study
The present study consists of five chapters.
Chapter One describes the territory of the research by presenting the
11
background context, procedures, the aims and importance, as well as the structure of
the study.
Chapter Two provides a critical review of literature relevant to the CEFR and
its implementation. It addresses theoretical concepts fundamental to the study,
including teachers‘ cognition, teachers‘ behavior and their mutual relationship.
Next, the chapter discusses the CEFR in language education and its implementation
as change/ innovation. From the theories and studies reviewed, the chapter provides
the conceptual framework of the study.
Chapter Three describes the methodology employed in the present study. It
starts with a description of the research approach and mixed method design of the
study. Next, it presents research questions and research setting. It then describes in
details issues related to data collection and analysis. The chapter ends with our
discussion of the validity, reliability and ethical considerations of the selected
research design.
Chapter Four reports and interprets detailed findings on the basis of data
analysis results. It then presents the findings regarding GE teachers‘ perceptions of the
CEFR and its implementation. Specifically, it describes how GE teachers perceived the
values of the CEFR, its readiness for application, the reasons and necessity of
implementing the CEFR for non-English major students, and the work involved in its
application process. Next, the chapter describes GE responses to the CEFR
implementation in three different domains: teaching activities, teaching materials and
classroom assessment. Emerging themes on both GE teachers‘ perceptions of and their
responses to the CEFR implementation are also refined and addressed.
Chapter Five summarizes the key findings of the study. Major conclusions
regarding the CEFR and its implementation for non-English major university
students are drawn out. Pedagogical and methodological implications, together with
the study limitations and suggestions for further research are also presented.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews relevant literature and explores factors that contribute
to the success of implementing a language reform policy. Specifically, it critically
reviews the literature on how the CEFR is recommended for use in English
language education, how such a change should be planned and managed for
effective practice and what the current state of implementing the CEFR in Vietnam
is like. The chapter first starts by providing working definitions of the key terms and
then an overview of the CEFR in language education from its definition, purpose,
content, limitations and suggestions for good use, followed by its spread in
language education. The chapter also pinpoints the CEFR implementation as
change management in English language education and emphasizes the role of the
CEFR in innovating English language curriculum. The chapter ends by reviewing
relevant studies in the world and Vietnam with an aim to establish the space for the
present study and the research questions formulated.
2.1. Definitions of the key terms
The following list of definitions assists in understanding the study and its
data. Those terms were used throughout this study and are currently used in the
educational field. Some key terms will also be defined in the coming sections in the
literature review, and in that occurrence sources are cited.
Change. Change is a movement out of a current state, through a transition state, to a
future state. Educational change can involve systematic transformation of the
education system or structural change in organization, policy, programs, courses,
etc. (Fullan, 2001b). Change can be more successful if the concerns of teachers are
considered (Hall & Hold, 1987).
Curriculum. The term curriculum is used here to refer to ―the overall plan or
design for a course and how the content for a course is transformed into a blueprint
for teaching and learning which enables the desired learning outcomes to be
achieved‖ (Richards, 2013, p.6).
13
General English teachers. The term ―General English‖ is introduced to distinguish
with ―English for Specific Purposes‖. General English, English for General
Purposes (Far, 2008) or English for Educational Purposes (Strevens, 1977) refers to
contexts such as schools where needs cannot readily be specified. It accounts for a
school-based learning of a language as a subject element within the overall school
curriculum. For this study, General English is limited to subjects to develop
students‘ language skills such as listening, writing, speaking, and reading.
Therefore, General English teachers mean teachers who teach General English and
in this study, it refers to teachers for non-English major students only.
Implementation. In education, implementation means putting a new curriculum,
policy or learning program into practice (Marsh & Stafford, 1988). For this study,
implementation refers to the implementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for
non-English major students. It also involves adoption, accommodation or adaptation
of the policy or learning program.
Innovation. Innovation is defined as the process of making changes to something
established by introducing something new (O‘Sullivan & Dooley, 2008). In the
present study, it is therefore used interchangeably with changes.
Non-English major students. For this study, the researcher borrows the definition
of non-English major students by Khader and Mohammad (2010). Accordingly,
non-English major students are defined as university students who specialize in any
field except English.
Perception. Perception refers to a person‘s interpretation and understanding about
the surrounding environment (Lindsay & Norman, 2013; Quick & Nelson, 1997).
Response. Response is what a person does to the stimuli (Brink, 2008). In the
present study, it is used synonymously and interchangeably with action or behavior.
2.2. The CEFR in language education
Based on the result of more than twenty years of research (CoE, n.d.) and
two draft versions in 1996, the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment was revised and officially
published by the Council of Europe in two versions (English and French) in 2001.
14
The CEFR is originally a document published by the Council of Europe in 2001
which provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses,
curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe. It is commonly
known later on as a framework which describes language learners‘ ability in terms of
speaking, reading, listening and writing at six reference levels (Cambridge, 2011, p.4)
and is often referred to as the CEFR. It provides a ―descriptive scheme‖ (CoE, 2001,
p.21) of definitions, categories and examples that language professionals can use to
better understand and communicate their aims and objectives. The present section
will provide an overview of the CEFR, including its definition, content, purpose,
limitations and suggestions for good use, as well as its spread in language education.
2.2.1. A sketch of the CEFR: Definition, content, purpose, limitations and
suggestions for good use
2.2.1.1. The CEFR: A definition
The CEFR, as its name suggests, is a description of language, ―a descriptive
scheme‖ (Little, 2006, p.167) or exactly what its title says ―a framework of reference‖
which ―describes language learners‘ ability in terms of speaking, reading, listening
and writing at six reference levels‖ (Cambridge, 2011, p.3). It is ―language neutral‖
(English Profile, n.d.) and ―language independent‖ (Little, 2006, p.178) and thus can
be adapted for use to different foreign language learning situations.
The CEFR adopts the action-oriented approach which views users and
learners of a language as individuals and as social agents whose developing
competence reflects various kinds of cognitive processes, strategies and knowledge
(Cambridge, 2011, pp.7-8; CoE, 2001). The CEFR therefore looks at both language
competencies and communication strategies with the principles that in order for
learners to successfully perform communication acts, they need to choose effective
linguistic resources with appropriate strategies.
The CEFR is expected to provide a comprehensive, transparent and coherent
planning tool. Attempting to clarify language knowledge, skills and use as
specifically as possible so that all users can refer their objectives to it, the CEFR is
thought to be ―comprehensive‖. Since its information is clearly formulaic and
15
explicit, it is ―transparent‖. And as its description does not contain ―internal
contradictions‖ but a ―harmonious relation‖ among its needs, objectives, content,
material selected as well as the establishment of teaching/ learning programs,
teaching and learning methods, evaluation, testing and assessment, it is coherent
(CoE, 2001, p.7). To get a clearer understanding of the CEFR, it is appropriate to
make a sketch of the CEFR as the beginning of the review.
2.2.1.2. Content of the CEFR: An outline
There are two possible ways of understanding the term CEFR: as a document
and as a framework. For the purpose of the present study, the term CEFR is mainly
used as a framework and thus, referred to as a framework only.
The CEFR‘s best known and most influential components (Alderson, 2007;
Little, 2006), are the so-called ―global scale‖ and ―self-assessment grid‖ organized
in a vertical and a horizontal dimension.
The vertical dimension, called the ―global scale‖ defines six levels of
communicative proficiency in three bands: basic, independent or proficient user via
the ―can do‖ descriptors. With these ―can do‖ statements, the CEFR is thought to
provide comprehensive views of what people can do with language and supposed to
be very useful in setting truly communicative, functional goals for learners. It is
concluded as being ―accessible to learners, […] curriculum designers, textbooks
authors, teachers and examiners‖ (Little, 2006, p.168).
The horizontal dimension, called the ―self-assessment grid‖ is concerned
with the learner‘s communicative language competences and strategies to achieve
these competences. It enables us to consider how the capacities of the language
learner, the different aspects of language activity, and the conditions and constraints
imposed by context combine with one another to shape communication.
2.2.1.3. The purpose of the CEFR
In the political and social context of a multicultural and multilingual Europe,
the CEFR has been developed and officially published in 2001 by the Council of
Europe as an attempt to facilitate co-operation, ―achieve greater unity among its
members‖ (CoE, 2001, p.2) and improve the quality of communication. The
16
declared purpose of the CEFR is to provide a ―comprehensive basis‖ (CoE, 2001,
p.1) for the elaboration of language syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the design
of teaching and learning materials, and the assessment of foreign language
proficiency. In other words, it caters for all domains of language learning and is ―a
straightforward tool‖ (Cambridge, 2011, p.12) for enhancing teaching and learning.
The CEFR, therefore, first and above all, serve the educational aim as a framework
of reference for languages among Europeans of different language and cultural
backgrounds to ―facilitate the mutual recognition of qualifications gained in
different learning contexts‖ (Cambridge, 2011, p.1), and ―assist learners, teachers,
course designers, examining bodies and educational administrators to situate and
co-ordinate their efforts‖ (Cambridge, 2011, p.6). The CEFR is, nonetheless, not
set out to become a ―uniform pan-European system‖ (Figueras, North, Takala,
Verhelst & Van Avermaet, 2005) as it seems to be now. Its primary aim is to
encourage practitioners‘ reflection and discussion and describe diversity in language
teaching and learning. It is not intended to tell practitioners ―what to do, or how to
do it‖. It ―raises questions‖ rather than ―answer them‖ (CoE, 2001, p.xi) and
encourages practitioners and those concerned to relate the work to the needs,
motivations, characteristics and resources of learners.
The CEFR also serves the political and cultural objectives to ―equip all
Europeans for the challenges of intensified international mobility and closer co-
operation‖, ―promote mutual understanding and tolerance‖, ―maintain and further
develop the richness and diversity of European cultural life through greater mutual
knowledge‖, ―meet the needs of a multilingual and multicultural Europe by
appreciably developing the ability of Europeans to communicate with each other
across linguistic and cultural boundaries‖ (CoE, 2001, p.3). It aims to ―promote and
facilitate co-operation among educational institutions in different countries‖ (CoE,
2001, p.5) and is intended for such uses as the planning of ―language learning
programs‖, ―language certification‖ and ―self-directed learning‖ (CoE, 2001, p.6).
2.2.1.4. The limitations of the CEFR
Although one of the most influential documents in the field of language
17
teaching/ learning in the last decade (Beresova, 2011; Little, 2007), the CEFR itself is
not without limitations. Firstly, Cambridge acknowledges that the CEFR is a ―work in
progress‖, not an ―international standard/ seal of approval‖ nor a ―ready-made answer‖
to every context (Cambridge, 2011, p.2). It is also affirmed to be not exhaustive enough
to cover every possible context nor to be applicable to all languages (CoE, 2001). The
idea of considering the CEFR, a European model, to be universally valid and required
no adjustments in countries outside Europe should be questioned.
The second limitation of the CEFR lies in its language-neutral nature. It is
stated clearly in the CEFR document that the framework itself is neither context- nor
language-specific (CoE, 2001). As it is claimed to be language-independent and
makes no reference to specific languages, the application of the framework to specific
languages lies beyond the scope of the Council of Europe‘s work (Little, 2006).
Next, the CEFR is criticized for its most influential part, the descriptors. It is
complained to have an abstract descriptive system (Figueras, 2012) whose language
is quite complicated and far from reader-friendly (Anderson, 2007; North, 2007).
There are overlaps, ambiguities, insufficiencies, inconsistencies and incoherencies
in the use of terminology in the CEFR scales (Anderson, 2007, p.661; Figueras,
2012, p.483). Hulstijn (2007) points out several issues related to applying the CEFR
scales to measure learners‘ language proficiency. There is no evidence that (1)
learners arrive at a certain level by passing the level below it; (2) learners at a given
level can complete all the tasks of the levels below it; and (3) learners achieving the
overall skills of a given level possess the same quality in terms of linguistic skills of
the same level.
Finally, due to its non-directive ethos (Little, 2006), the CEFR is criticized to
refrain from saying how language should be taught or how communicative
proficiency should be assessed. North (2007) is concerned with its ―absence of
socio-cultural aspects‖ (p.657), which may lead to flaws in its implementations in
different domains and contexts.
2.2.1.5. Suggestions for good use
In response to the rapid acceptance and growing adoption of the CEFR
18
within Europe and beyond, a number of guidance documents have thus been
successively published, among which is ―Using the CEFR: principles of good
practice‖ in 2011. In here, the criteria of the CEFR that it is ―open‖, ―flexible‖,
―dynamic‖ and ―non-dogmatic‖ (CoE, 2001, pp.7-8; Cambridge, 2011, p.3) are re-
affirmed. They also acknowledge that the CEFR is far from ―an international
standard‖ or ―seal of approval‖ (Cambridge, 2011, p.4) but open to amendment and
further development (Cambridge, 2011, p.xi); and should be considered a
framework of reference which needs a lot of adaptation to fix each specific context
(Cambridge, 2011, p.12). It should be seen as a general guide and practitioners must
seriously take into consideration their purposes, contexts, conditions and the like
before its adaptation or adoption.
Embedded in the documents are key principles of good practice for not only
teaching and learning, assessment, but also development and use of reference level
descriptors. For all users, from teachers to administrators, policy-makers and test
developers, it can be noticed that the first and above all principle to bear in mind is
the idea of adaptation. The principle of ―adapting the CEFR to fit the context‖ is
mentioned twice, for both teaching/ learning and assessment. Besides, for those who
aim to develop and use the reference level descriptions, the key message is to use it
as a reference tool rather than a replacement of the teaching/ learning method,
curriculum or test specifications. The CEFR users need to develop, update, improve
or extend the descriptors to fit their context based on their empirical data. Phrases as
―link to the CEFR‖, ―use the CEFR to refer to‖ (Cambridge, 2011, pp12, 13, 16)
appear frequently and throughout the document. As Jones and Savilles (2009)
stated, the CEFR should be used for referring, not for applying or ―hammering‖ in
certain educational contexts.
2.2.2. The spread of the CEFR in language education
2.2.2.1. The landmark of the CEFR
The CEFR gained attention and respect not only in Europe but also in the rest
of the world very soon after its publication (Alderson, 2002; Byrnes, 2007; Hulstijn,
2007; Tono & Negishi, 2012). Its first distribution was in 1996, but became more
19
widely spread since its commercial publication in 2001 (Little, 2006). At first, it
was published in English and French, and then was almost immediately translated
into German (Little, 2006, p.167). At the time of writing, it has been translated into
thirty-nine languages (English Profile, n.d.), and its power and enthusiasm for the
document extends far beyond Europe to Latin America, the Middle East, Australia
and parts of Asia (English Profile, n.d, p.2).
As for the language use, the CEFR has been applied not only to English,
French, Italian but also to other non-European languages studied in Europe,
including Chinese, Japanese, Urdu and so on (Casas-Tost & Rovira-Esteva, 2014;
Pham, 2012) and the adaptation is not only for L2 (second language) but also L1
(first language) learning (Figueras, 2012). Besides, many countries have adapted
and adopted the CEFR, especially the six-level scale (commonly known as the
global scale) as the salient guideline for their language teaching and learning
context, which resulted in the use of the CEFR to be commonplace in all
educational levels [not only for adults and young adults learning foreign languages,
but also for young learners and for L1 learners] by different stakeholders
[government officials, publishers, admissions officers at universities, immigration
authorities] with different degrees of validity (Figueras, 2012).
In short, the CEFR has had large-scale influences on both European and non-
European languages, for both L1 and L2 teaching/ learning, at all educational levels
with different stakeholders all over the world.
2.2.2.2. The domains of the CEFR use
So far, the impact of the CEFR in different countries has been documented to
be diverse and partial (Little, 2011), on various domains in language education.
Within European contexts, the CEFR, first and above all, has impact on assessment
(Beresova, 2011; Figueras, 2012; Little, 2006; 2007; Jones & Saville, 2009) which
is claimed to ―outweigh‖ its impact on curriculum design and pedagogy (Little,
2007, p.648). Evidence is the appearance and development of DIALANG, the free-
of-charge online self-testing service, available in fourteen European languages
aiming at helping learners to familiarize themselves with the six- reference- level
tests (Figueras, 2007; Little, 2007).
20
Outside the European contexts, the CEFR has been observed to have such
major influences in language policy planning (Bonnet, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Little,
2007; Nguyen & Hamid, 2015; Pham, 2012) that it is called a ―supranational
language education policy‖ (Little, 2007, p.645) especially in countries where
English is taught as a foreign language. Specifically, Asian countries have
witnessed the implementation of the CEFR in national contexts as an attempt to
reform the system of language teaching in the country. In Japan, a newly-developed
framework called the CEFR-J dated back to 2004 is one of such attempts (Tono &
Negeshi, 2012). In Vietnam, the launch of the Project 2020 in 2008 acknowledged
the need to adopt the CEFR as a language policy to renew the national foreign
language education system (Vietnamese government, 2008). Similar impacts have
also been found in Canada (Faez, 2011a; Faez, Taylor, Majhanovich, Brown, &
Smith, 2011b; Mison & Jang, 2011) or Mexico (Despagne & Grossi, 2011).
In terms of curriculum design, until the mid-twenties of the 21st century,
Little (2006) noticed that the impact of the CEFR was not so strong and the
reconstruction of curricula using the CEFR‘s descriptive apparatus was scarce
despite its declared purposes of ―elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum
guidelines‖ (CoE, 2001, p.1). However, in contexts where the CEFR as a global
framework is adopted as a local standard in language planning policy, its impact on
curriculum development has been observed to start prevailing. In specific, the
influence of the CEFR on curricula is mainly related to setting desired language
learning outcomes aligned with the CEFR in Japan (e.g. Nagai & O‘Dwyer, 2011)
or Vietnam (Pham, 2015). For teacher education and pedagogy, its impact has been
sparse (Little, 2006; Nguyen & Hamid, 2015; Westhoff, 2007).
2.2.2.3. The CEFR in language education in Vietnam
In Vietnam, the CEFR was first introduced in September 2008 through Decision
No. 1400/QD-TTG by the Prime Minister. It was then drafted several times and
officially launched six years later through Circular No. 1 on January 24, 2014. This
CEFR-based reference framework was stated to be developed ―on the basis of the
CEFR and the English frameworks of some other countries, together with the reality of
21
language teaching and learning in Vietnam‖ (MOET, 2014a, p.3). Nonetheless, it is
criticized to be merely ―a translation of the original CEFR with limited modifications
and adaptations‖ (Pham, 2015, p.54) and ―still embryonic‖ (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015, p.
64). Besides, although first introduced in 2008, not until 2014 was the Vietnamese
version of the CEFR-based framework officially promulgated and is still subject to
more adjustment in the future (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015).
Since 2011, three years after its first introduction in Vietnam, the CEFR has
been widely applied in language education from setting teacher professionalism
standards and student learning outcomes to renewing language curriculum, adapting
teaching materials and modifying language assessment practice. This has caused
great concern and worries among not only English language teachers themselves but
also other practitioners because of several reasons.
Firstly, as the CEFR is originally created to be used within European socio-
cultural context (CoE, 2001), its implementation in Vietnam with limited modifications
(Pham, 2017) can cause the threat of inappropriateness. Secondly, it was stipulated and
implemented by a top-down policy without taking into consideration teachers‘ voice
and opinion, English teacher resources, the disparity of English competency between
teachers in big cities and those in remote areas, etc., its effectiveness was said to be
―unfeasible‖ (Le Van, 2014). Thirdly, while its application started in 2011, not until
2014 was the CFER-based reference framework for Vietnam was officially
promulgated. The CEFR implementation in Vietnam at present is criticized to be
overambitious and not very practical, which was partly reflected in the low percentages
of language teachers and students reaching the standards (The Guardian, 2011, Le Van,
2014; Le Van Canh, 2015; VOV, 2015).
The use of the CEFR to set English teacher professionalism standards
In Vietnam, with the implementation of Project 2020, a nationwide foreign
language policy, MOET has undoubtedly been well aware of the important role of
foreign language teachers, which is reflected in the fact that retraining and
improving language competencies for foreign language teachers is considered the
major force to run Project 2020 (Le Van, 2014). In Decision No. 1400, it is clearly
22
stated that one of the solutions is to review, assess, train, retrain and recruit foreign
language teachers and lecturers at all education levels to ―standardize [teachers‘]
training level under regulations‖ (Vietnamese government, 2008, p.3). Although
there have been no official documents stipulating the language proficiency
standards for English teachers, it was implied that the language proficiency of
English teachers must be two levels higher than the required level of the learners
they are in charge of.
Specifically, primary and secondary English language teachers need to get
Level 4- B2 of the CFER, English language teachers at high schools, continuing
education centers, vocational schools and universities need to attain Level 5- C1. In
2013, Dispatch No. 5201/ BGDĐT- GDĐH notified English language teachers
exempted from language proficiency review. They include teachers with equivalent
international certificates, teachers graduated their Bachelor, Master or Doctor in an
English-speaking country and senior teachers (over 50-year-old female teachers and
over 55-year-old male teachers) (MOET, 2013).
In the end of 2011, Dispatch No. 826/ TB-BGDĐT announced the six foreign
language institutes of excellence in Vietnam authorized by MOET to be responsible
for reviewing in-service foreign language teachers‘ English proficiency, assessing
the pool of English language teachers and retraining them (MOET, 2011a). Since
the end of 2011, English language teachers nationwide were tested their English
proficiency to check if they were eligible for teaching students at a particular
proficiency level (MOET, 2011b).
The use of the CEFR to set standard-based learning outcomes
With an aim to reform learners‘ language proficiency, MOET also states the
language proficiency requirement for different school levels. Specifically, Level 1- A1
is compulsory for learners after primary education, Level 2- A2 for learners after
secondary education, and Level 3-B1 for high school leavers and learners of non-
English major university students. Graduate students of foreign language majors at
junior colleges are required to obtain a Level 4-B2 certificate, whereas those at senior
colleges and language teachers are supposed to achieve Level 5-C1 of the CEFR
23
(Vietnamese government, 2008, pp. 2-3). However, there has been little explanation or
arguments from the government and MOET for their decisions (Pham, 2017).
Although the requirements are itinerary, implementing such standards nation-wide
regardless of the current stakeholders‘ real capacity, the differences in infrastructure
between big cities and remote areas, the local and regional culture varieties and
learners‘ needs, etc. is prone to being subjective and impractical.
The use of the CEFR to renew English language curriculum
Decision No. 1400 (Vietnamese government, 2008, pp.1-2) clearly stated
that one of the overall objectives of Project 2020 is to ―implement new foreign
language teaching and learning programs at different education levels‖ with its
specific targets of ―a 10-year foreign language teaching program‖ at general
education, ―an intensive foreign language training program‖ in vocational education
and tertiary education, and a renewal of foreign language teaching and learning in
the continuing education program. With changes in the training program, the
resultant changes or amendment to its curricula, teaching practice, assessment, etc.
become obvious.
Together with a modification in English language curriculum for general
education levels, a set of new English textbooks from grade 3 to 12 for general
education have been published and piloted since 2010- 2011 school year and will be
applied on large scales from 2018-2019 school year (Vietnamese government, 2008,
p.1). As for foreign language training programs for non-foreign language majors at
tertiary education, the shift from school-year based to credit-based training at
universities approved by MOET since 2007 has reduced the total number of on-site
hours of the whole university program for all disciplines. The number of teacher-led
hours of foreign (English) language subject has thus been shortened to 105 periods,
or 7 credits on-site (Pham, 2015). Beside this compulsory seven-credit foreign
language (mainly English) subject, it is encouraged that students take optional
intensive English training subject to help them achieve the required learning
outcomes (MOET, 2014c).
24
Unlike general education, however, there have not been any regulations by
MOET about textbooks for university students. Based on the learning outcomes set
by MOET, state-run universities develop the curriculum and select the textbooks for
their non-English major students. Nonetheless, since it is hard to find an available
textbook that can be totally aligned with the CEFR and suitable for the local context
in Vietnam, adapting and developing the ready-made materials are encouraged and
have been applied at state-run universities in Vietnam at present. After the selection
of a certain textbook (sometimes by university‘s administrators as the case at the
home university) and its implementation, the duty of textbook adaptation and
material development belongs to general English teachers, the direct practitioners
who clearly know all the issues of contextualization, individual needs,
personalization and timeliness (Block, 1991; Tomlinson, 2005). The success or
failure of material development can be said to be dependent on general English
teachers, their understanding of the CEFR or the six-level framework and their
willingness to create such changes or adaptations.
In short, since its first commercial publication in 2001, the CEFR has caught
world-wide interest and applications of the CEFR have been found in different
domains for different purposes in various countries. Despite its attempt to be
comprehensive, its descriptions are claimed to be never exhaustive nor total
(Cambridge, 2011; Little, 2006). Besides, its comprehensiveness also poses a
challenge to language education across countries, whose adaptation and
implementation require cautions and careful consideration.
Applying the CEFR into English education is both a language policy for
education innovation (Freeman, 2016) and classroom grass-root intervention as it
steps in different major areas in language teaching from curriculum to teaching
materials to assessment and teacher education. As such the implementation of the
CEFR into a specific education can be considered as change. For profound
understanding of the perceptions of responses to this change of the stakeholders,
especially teachers involved in this change process, we need to have insights into
educational change management in the areas in which the CEFR intervenes. The
25
following section then presents the theoretical framework on how educational
change should be implemented. Whenever relevant, references to the
implementation of the CEFR as change are made.
2.3. Teachers’ perceptions and responses
2.3.1. Teachers’ perceptions
In psychology, perception is defined by the ability to see, hear or become
aware of something through the senses. It is a way of regarding, understanding, and
interpreting something (a mental impression). More specifically, perception refers
to the process ―whereby people select, organize, and interpret sensory stimulations
into meaningful information about their work environment‖ (Rao & Narayana,
1998, p.329), of ―interpreting information about another person‖ (Quick & Nelson,
1997, p.83), or of ―interpreting and organizing sensory information to produce a
meaningful experience of the world‖ (Lindsay & Norman, 2013, p.161). In brief,
perception refers to a person‘s interpretation and understanding about the
surrounding environment.
Together with the development in cognitive psychology, mainstream
educational research has witnessed a shift in language teaching studies from ―what
teachers do‖ to ―what teachers think‖ since 1970s (Borg, 2003, p.81) because it was
recognized that teachers‘ behavior and action could be influenced by their thinking
and beliefs. Since then, a ―multiplicity of labels‖ has been used to describe
―teachers‘ mental lives‖ such as pedagogical knowledge, theoretical belief,
perception, attitude, perspective, awareness, understanding, etc. (Borg, 2003, p.83).
The concepts of those terms are quite intertwined and not at all easy to differentiate.
Although the present study focuses on teacher’ perception, it is necessary to begin
with teacher cognition, a notion introduced by Borg to refer to the ―unobservable
cognitive dimension of teaching‖ (Borg, 2003, p.81) because teacher cognition can
be considered the umbrella term of teacher’ perception and other similar concepts.
Based on numerous works about terminologies and the constructs of teacher
psychological processes in more than 30 years, from 1970s to his present time, Borg
revised, formulated and launched the notion of teacher cognition, which was
26
defined as ―what teachers know, think and believe‖ (Borg, 2003, p.81). It can be
notified from Borg‘s definition that teacher cognition can be divided into two
components: one is related to what teachers believe; the other is concerned with
what teachers think and know. Accordingly, what teachers believe is termed
teacher‘s belief, attitude, judgment, opinion, etc.; all of which have similar meaning
and can be used interchangeably (Kagan, 1992; Mansour, 2009; Nespor, 1987;
Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Tomchin & Impara, 1992). Meanwhile, what
teachers think and know is labeled teachers‘ perception, knowledge, understanding,
awareness, etc. (Borg, 2009; Lindsay & Norman, 2013; Pickens, 2005; Quick &
Nelson, 1997; Rao & Narayana, 1998; Woolfolk, Doris & Darley, 2006). While the
former is subjective, emotional but stable and non-flexible, the latter is more
objective, logical but changeable and reasonably-set. Since the present study aims at
researching the active, dynamic but flexible and changeable part of teacher
cognition, the term teacher’s perception was considered to be more appropriate and
thus was chosen and focused.
For this study, teacher’s perception is mainly used to refer to teachers‘
interpretation or understanding of teaching and learning issues based on their past
experience, knowledge, schooling, and education (Borg, 2009). GE teachers’
perceptions are defined as the understanding of GE teachers of MOET policy of
implementing the CEFR at tertiary levels, reflected in their awareness and
understanding of its importance and necessity and their perceptions of its
application for non-English major students at their home university.
2.3.2. Teachers’ responses
The understanding of responses in the present study comes from the theory
of operant conditioning of Skinner (1904-1990), one of the most influential
American psychologists. His theory is based upon the idea that learning is a
function of change in overt behavior, which is the result of an individual's response
to stimuli that occur in the environment. When a particular Stimulus-Response (S-
R) pattern is reinforced (rewarded), the individual is conditioned to respond
(Skinner, 1974). This idea was later on elaborated by other psychologists.
27
Specifically, Brink (2008) defines that when an organism (a person) perceives a
stimulus, s/he creates a response. It is what a person thinks, feels or does to the
stimuli (p.7). In other words, a response is a broad term consisting of not only
behavioral component (predisposition to act) but also cognitive component (beliefs)
and affective component (emotions, feeling), which overlaps with the notions
related to cognition, perceptions and attitudes. To avoid confusing and overlapping,
for the present study, the concept of teachers‘ responses mainly focuses on the
behavioral component. Teachers‘ responses are thus similar to teachers‘ practices,
which can be understood as what teachers do (Borg, 2003) and can be categorized
into two main areas: the instructional strategies teachers use in the classroom and
the collaboration, cooperation and teamwork with peers and colleagues outside the
classroom (Isac, da Costa, Araujo, Calvo & Albergaria-Almeida, 2015).
For the purpose of the present study, teachers‘ responses are defined as
teachers‘ actions or behavior to foster the CEFR implementation, reflected in what
they do in the process of developing teaching materials, modifying their teaching
activities and renewing assessment practices both inside and outside their class so as
to help their students achieve the desired CEFR-based learning outcome.
2.3.3. The relationship between teachers’ perceptions and teachers’ responses
Since 1970s, the development of cognitive psychology has pinpointed the
complexity in relationship between what people do and what they think. In language
teaching, a great deal of attention has thus been paid not only on teachers‘
classroom practices but also on their cognition. On the one hand, teachers‘
cognition (what teachers think, know and believe) was proven to influence their
behavior (what teachers do in their classroom practices) (Baker, 2014; Borg, 2003;
Freeman & Richards, 1996; Harste & Burke, 1977). Teachers make decisions about
classroom instruction in light of theoretical beliefs they hold about teaching and
learning. Teachers‘ cognition influences their goals, procedures, materials,
classroom interaction patterns, their roles, their students, and the schools they work
in, etc. Therefore, teaching is not solely behavior but thoughtful behavior; and
teachers are not mechanical implementers of external prescriptions, but active,
28
thinking decision-makers (Borg, 2009). On the other hand, teacher‘s practices
inform their cognition (Borg, 2003) and can lead to changes in cognition (Borg,
2009). From Phipps and Borg (2007) and his previous work on the field, Borg
(2009) summarized the nature of teacher cognition and its relationship to what
teachers do that teachers‘ cognitions can ―exert a persistent long-term influence on
teachers‘ instructional practices‖; but at the same time, ―not always reflected in
what teachers do in the classroom‖ (p.3). He emphasized that teacher cognition bi-
directionally interacts with experience (i.e. beliefs influence practices but practices
can also lead to changes in beliefs).
Putting teacher cognition and practices in their relationship with each other
and with the environment, a conceptualization of teacher psychology is synthesized
and illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 2.1: The teacher iceberg (Waters, 2009, p.442)
Based on Malderez and Bodoczky (1999), Waters (2009) provided this three-
level of teacher‘s iceberg, which can be noticed to resonate with Borg‘s theory.
Specifically, teacher psychological processes consist of the emerged and the
submerged parts. The emerged or visible part is teacher‘s behavior, action, practices
or responses. The submerged or unseen part is teacher‘s cognition, which can be
sub-divided into ideas or perceptions, and attitudes or beliefs, as termed in Borg‘s
theory, with attitudes at the bottom of the iceberg to imply its deep-root and
resistance to change. All the levels have mutual influences, symbolized by the two-
dimensional arrows. The unseen part is much important and it also has bi-
directional interaction with the educational and socio-cultural context.
29
The teacher iceberg developed by Waters (2009) is of great usefulness since it
visualizes the levels and relationships of teacher psychological processes. For the
present study, the mutual-interactions between perceptions and responses may be
stronger because GE teachers, who are university teachers, can have more power and
flexibility in modifying the curriculum or syllabus compared to primary or high school
teachers. As such their responses may be changed if they change their perceptions.
Besides, in the light of innovation implementation and management, as teachers are
directly responsible for putting the innovation into practice, they are chiefly the
implementers (Waters, 2009, p.461) and thus their role in innovation implementation is
undeniable. For successful change to take place, it is necessary to create change in
teachers‘ psychological processes. The iceberg proves that the accommodation of
change by teachers must involve all of its levels. Since the focus of the present study is
on implementing the CEFR for non-English major students to create change, GE
teachers‘ perceptions and responses as well as their interactions (if there is any) in the
CEFR implementation process need concentrating and investigating.
2.4. The CEFR implementation as change management in English language
education
2.4.1. Educational change management model
The idea of how to create changes and manage such changes has been drawn
attention in different fields, including education. A number of theories have
emerged, among which Lewin‘s (1947) change management model is one of the
most popular approaches. His includes three steps of unfreezing, changing and
refreezing beliefs (i.e. perceptions) and practices (i.e. responses) of stakeholders. It
represents a very simple and practical model for understanding the change process,
and serves as the basis for many modern change models.
Concerning change management model in education, Fullan (2007a)
expanded Lewin‘s work and developed his consisting of three phases, namely
initiation, implementation and institutionalization. The change process phases are
warned to be non-linear with the phases overlapping with each other (Fullan, 2007)
and co-existing in practice, which is illustrated in Figure 2.2 below.
30
Figure 2.2: A simplified overview of the change process (Fullan, 2001b, p.51)
Fullan believes that an important component to successful innovation is to
have someone monitor the implementation of change. In Fullan‘s (2007b)
argument, the change model does not follow a linear process. The three phases of
the process, instead, have mutual relationships with each phase being interactive
with others implied in the two-way arrows between phases. Fullan (2007b) also
warns that the figure ―presents only the general image of a detailed and snarled
process‖ of an even more complex and interactive reality (p.67). As a result,
Fullan‘s (2001b) educational change model is considered to be more practical and
preeminent since it acknowledges the complexity of change process by emphasizing
the multi-dimensional relationship among phases of the process, affirming its no
linearity and warning its co-existence in practice.
The initiation phase is the stage in which individuals now see the need for
change and thus is about deciding to embark on innovation. It is the breaking down
of customs, old beliefs, and old practices so that individuals and groups are ready to
accept the new alternatives.
Implementation is the stage of the process that has received the most
attention. It is the phase when the ideas or reform are put into practice and the
change or reform is more likely to occur when the individuals and groups ready for
change have models they can support and emulate. In education innovation, as
teachers are directly responsible for putting the innovation into practice, they are
chiefly the implementers (Waters, 2009, p.461) and thus, Bianco (2013, p.146)
31
further explained the importance of teachers in the implementation phase that ―what
teachers model in their speech; what they favor or discourage from students, […]
what they facilitate, […] are all instantiations of an underlying theory of language
problems and a set of choices about language solutions‖. For that reason,
understanding teachers, the implementers and their psychological processes in the
innovation implementation phase becomes unquestionable.
The third stage of the model, which was termed innovation institutionalization,
is concerned with the sustainability of innovation. Depending on how innovation or
change is designed and implemented, it can become an ongoing part of the system or
disappears. Waters (2009, p.450) listed a number of factors for the likeliness of
innovation achievement, including proper innovation implementation, suitable
strategies for innovation sustainability, favorable conditions for implementers‘
ownership, and necessary support for sustainability. Waters (2009) also asserted that
the lack of a number of these factors in foreign language teaching innovation projects
has resulted in the lack of its long-term success.
All three phases have different roles in innovation process. Innovation
initiation is necessary for change to take place. Innovation implementation is vital
for new ideas or change to be put into practice. Innovation institutionalization is of
importance for change sustainability. While innovation initiation and
institutionalization usually happen outside the classrooms and closely relates to
policy makers, innovation implementation is directly linked to teachers, the
implementers. To elaborate on the model, Fullan (2001) and Fullan, Culttress and
Kilcher (2005) detail the three phases of innovation into eight drivers for successful
educational change management, which is presented in the coming section.
2.4.2. Factors influential to successful educational change management
From the educational change management model, Fullan (2001) and Fullan
et al. (2005) have developed a substantial list of factors, which he refers to as
foundation and enabling drivers or forces which allow the change to be
implemented successfully. These forces have been provided the ground on which
not just the failure or success of change implementation but also the perceptions and
32
responses of the stakeholders in educational systems involved in the change process
are understood (e.g. Hyland & Wong, 2013; White, 2008). Change knowledge
drivers and their relationship are illustrated in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Eight drivers of change knowledge (Fullan et al., 2005, p.57)
Regarding the eight forces of change, Fullan et al. divide them into
foundation drivers consisting of first three drivers and enabling drivers consisting
of the remaining five ones. Among the three foundation drivers, engaging people‘s
moral purpose is considered the ―overriding principle‖ (p.54). It is the knowledge
about ―the why of change‖ (p.54). In education, it involves committing to raise the
bar and close the gap in student achievement. It is not just a goal but a process of
engaging all key practitioners in the moral purpose of reform. If it is center and
front, the remaining seven drivers are additional forces to help enact the moral
purpose. The second driver is capacity building. It is defined by developing
knowledge, skills, strategies, competencies of individuals. Capacity building must
be a collective phenomenon applied for groups of whole schools, districts, systems.
Capacity building also involves improving the infrastructure so that the system can
provide new capacity such as training, consulting and other support. Fullan et al.
(2001) emphasize the third force: understanding and insight about the process of
change. It is enforced that ―moral purpose without an understanding of change will
lead to moral martyrdom‖ (Fullan 2001a, p.5). It is, therefore, while difficult and
frustrating to grasp, can be considered a big driver for change to take place.
After the first three foundation drivers, there come the five enabling drivers
of change. The fourth and fifth drivers are developing cultures for learning and
33
developing cultures of evaluation. The fourth one involves a set of strategies for
people to learn from each other. Importantly, learning must be during
implementation for successful change to take place. In the scope of schools and
universities, establishing cultures of learning is synonymous with seeking and
developing teachers‘ knowledge and skills that can create effective learning
experiences for students. Moreover, cultures of learning must couple with cultures
of evaluation to deepen the meaning of what is learnt.
For sustainable reform, the sixth driver of focusing on leadership for change
is highlighted. What Fullan (2001) emphasizes is that leadership must spread
throughout the organization. In other words, change knowledge requires that the
systems produce a mass of leaders who produce and feed on other leadership
through the system. Normally, when creating change or innovation, it runs amok
and leads to fragmentation. The seventh driver of making coherence is therefore,
mentioned as an essential force to connect the dots, involve alignment and make
clear how the big picture fits together. The final driver is concerned with cultivating
tri-level development because people are not just talking about changing individuals
but about changing systems, changing contexts. It is necessary to develop better
individuals and simultaneously develop better organizations and systems.
Therefore, tri-level development involves focusing on all three levels of the system:
school and community level, district level and the level of the state.
The implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam, under the guidance of the
Project 2020, is a top-down language policy aiming at creating educational changes
and reforms (Vietnamese government, 2008). As this study centers on
implementing the CEFR at tertiary level in Vietnam, understanding educational
change theories becomes crucial. This study based on Fullan‘s (2001) change
management theory, especially its substantial factors influential to the successful
implementation of change to explore and understand the perceptions and responses
of the teachers as key stakeholders in the use of the CEFR in English education in
Vietnam. These drivers are considered as school forces for improvement and
powerful tools in informing educational reform and as Fullan et al. (2005) strongly
34
stated that ―the presence of change knowledge does not guarantee success, but its
absence ensures failure‖ (p.54). Accordingly, the only condition for change to take
place is that change theory and change knowledge must be ―in the hands (and minds
and hearts) of people who have a deep knowledge of the dynamics of how the
factors in question operate to get particular results‖ (Fullan, 2007, p.3).
2.4.3. The implementation of the CEFR in the light of educational change
management
As mentioned earlier, when the CEFR is adopted and adapted for use in three
well-identified areas of English language education in the world as well as in
Vietnam (see section 2.3.2 for more discussion) in order to bring about positive
change, it is significant to see how this change should be implemented. This
knowledge then will allow us to understand the perceptions and responses of the
teachers as key stakeholders involved in the process of implementing the CEFR as
change.
2.4.3.1. The CEFR and curriculum design
There are three general elements in language education: input (refers to
content and syllabus), process (refers to teaching methods, classroom activities and
materials design and development) and output (or learning outcomes). Those
elements have mutual relationships and the implementation of language teaching
programs can be approached in several ways depending on when those elements are
addressed (Richards, 2013). The map that links all those elements together and
directs the way to achieve the output/ outcomes with appropriate learning activities,
materials and assessment is termed curriculum. Different starting points will reflect
different trends in curriculum design strategies: forward, central or backward
designs. With the advent of the CEFR, the focus has been on learning targets or
learning outcomes and hence, clearly reflects the backward design in curriculum
approach (Richards, 2013, p. 26).
Backward design starts with a statement of the desired learning outcomes. It
means that with backward design, there is always a clear understanding of the ends
in teachers‘ mind. Meanwhile, no particular pedagogical approaches or instructional
35
theories are implied. It is teachers‘ responsibility to work out how the outcomes can
be achieved and develop appropriate teaching strategies, select suitable materials with
relevant content. Teachers can even apply a variety of teaching strategies as long as
their students achieve the desired outcomes. Implementing the CEFR is a typical
illustration of what is called backward design. Illustration is in Figure 2.4 below.
Figure 2.4: Development stages with the CEFR (Richards, 2013, p.28)
It is also recommended that a backward design be more suitable in situations
with high accountability in the curriculum design process and committed resources
for materials development. In the case of large-class size and heavy reliance on
textbooks and commercial materials rather than teacher-designed resources, a
forward design may be preferable (Richards, 2013). To date, however, developing
curricula from the bottom up using the descriptive apparatus of the CEFR to specify
learning targets is scarce (Little, 2006, p.180). In the context of large-scale
curriculum development for a national education system as in the case of Vietnam,
much of the development activity is selected, developed and carried out by others
than teachers. Teachers‘ main responsibility is to implement the curriculum
(Waters, 2009) within the given timeframe, selected textbooks and assigned testing
and assessment format. The insistence of applying a backward design in such
circumstances can be problematic and prone to ―failed implementation‖ (Fullan et
al., 2005, p.54).
With the implementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English
major students at the home university, the backward curriculum design is suggested.
The need to report relevant literature review on what and how teachers and other
stake-holders should perceive, act and respond in such circumstances to
successfully implement the new curriculum is longed for.
2.4.3.2. For successful implementation of the CEFR as change in Vietnam
With the adoption of the CEFR, for the first time in Vietnam, a foreign
36
reference framework has been applied to comprehensively assess the foreign
language proficiency of all foreign language (mainly English) learners.
Synonymously, the CEFR framework is also served ―as a basis for elaborating
curricula and teaching courses and plans, and elaborating evaluation criteria at each
education or training level, ensuring the transferability in foreign language training
between education levels‖ (Vietnamese government, 2008, p.2). This adoption has,
therefore, initiated the unfreezing of old beliefs about language education in Vietnam
and used it as the guideline to create reform in all domains of foreign language
teaching and learning, from methodology and curriculum to teaching materials and
assessment. By setting the aims, objectives of foreign language education and criteria
of students‘ learning outcomes aligned with the CEFR, the government has followed
a top-down approach and acknowledged the need for change, or in other words, the
innovation initiation phase has occurred at the national level.
The English learning outcomes for the whole national education system in
Vietnam becomes (the CEFR-level) standard-based, which set out clear expectations
for target students and provides a ―common language‖ or detailed guidelines for
curricula, teaching practice, instruction design, assessment, and so on (Richards,
2013). As a result, all the domains of a curriculum, including learning outcomes,
teaching activities, teaching materials and assessment practice become much closer
interdependent (Little, 2006). If the coherence among those domains is achieved, the
implementation of the CEFR leads to greater professionalism and increased
transparency (Takala, 2012). On the contrary, once the implementation is imbalanced,
the application of the CEFR to just one or some of the domains it addresses may
generate problems in other domains (Little, 2006). For example, revising the
assessment and school leaving examinations in line with the CEFR may create
difficulties for teachers if the curriculum and textbooks are not revised at the same
time (Little, 2006, p.187), which happened in contexts both in and outside Europe
(Bonnet, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Little, 2006; Tono & Negishi; 2012).
Literature has shown that the process of the setting learning-outcome of
university-degree granting programs should be based on a number of factors and
37
should follow a strict process (Anderson, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Little, 2006). Setting
standard-based learning outcomes for English language tertiary students at the home
university is no exception. It involves various steps including careful analysis of the
language skills and knowledge required by the target labor market, the entrance
level of proficiency of the students and degree of teacher professionalism apart from
the availability of learning and teaching resources. In contexts, where the learning
outcome is set by the administrator by the school, it is important for the
stakeholders to understand the significance and necessity of this standard. In the
light of the implementation of the CEFR in curriculum innovation, setting learning
outcome standards and assessment as change at institutional level, it is crucial for
the following steps to be made from Fullan‘s (2001) change management theory.
Engaging stakeholders’ moral purposes and understanding the change process
First of all, the institution needs to engage its stakeholders‘ moral purposes.
The stakeholders need to understand why it is important and necessary to use the
CEFR to innovate their current curriculum, their students‘ learning outcome as well
as their assessment practice. This is extra helpful in situations where the change
policy is a very much top-down as in the case of the CEFR (Anderson, 2002). All the
teaching and administrative staff members need to be fully aware of the reasons for
this application of the CEFR in their system, the benefits of its use as well as the
consequences of its absence. The context in which it is applied (i.e. the knowledge of
how it is introduced into the system, whether it is imposed or there is choice) should
also be made clear to the stakeholders to make sure that everyone involved shares the
same view and understanding of the rationale of the CEFR implementation.
It is important that all the stakeholders understand the change process. Not
only do they understand the reasons for the CEFR implementation but they also need
to know the steps and procedure for implementing the CEFR successfully so as to
create change. If engaging stakeholders‘ moral purposes helps them understand the
―why‖, understanding the change process requires stakeholders to master the ―what‖
and ―how‖ of the CEFR implementation. Administrators and teachers need to be
provided with the CEFR implementation itinerary by the MOET, its elaborations by
38
the institution to fit the local context of implementation. GE teachers need to master
the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation process and procedures. They must be
well aware of what they need to do as key implementers and how to combine all the
domains and elements together to fit in the context. Also, they need to anticipate the
difficulties or obstacles they may encounter during the implementation process as
well as how to overcome all those obstacles to aid students to achieve the required
CEFR B1 learning outcome.
Building capacity of the whole system
As a foundation driver, capacity building is crucial to the success of change/
innovation management (Fullan et al., 2005) in general and of implementing the CEFR
in particular. The institution needs to develop appropriate policies, strategies, resources
and actions to build its capacity necessary for the successful CEFR implementation.
Specifically, the institution needs to elaborate the CEFR implementation itinerary
based on the overall strategies of the CEFR implementation by MOET and their real
context of the involved stakeholders and infrastructure.
Then the institution develops appropriate policies and takes appropriate actions
to build their teachers‘ capacity so that teachers achieve the required language
competencies (two levels higher than the level they are in charge of) as well as have
appropriate skills, techniques and methods to implement the CEFR in their classroom
effectively and successfully. Teaching and administrative staff members need to carry
out workshops, trainings, consulting and other supports to reinforce the stakeholders‘
knowledge and capacity necessary for the CEFR implementation. Given that front-
end training is insufficient (Fullan et al., 2005, p.55), the workshops and trainings
should take place more regularly and continuously.
The stakeholders need to be provided with plentiful resources from adequate
time for the CEFR deployment, new fruitful ideas for its effective adaptation to
supplement materials compatible with the CEFR and timely motivate key practitioners.
Importantly, whole schools, whole districts and whole systems must increase their
capacity as groups in an on-going basis to create synchronous improvements.
Developing stakeholders’ cultures for learning and cultures of evaluation
Institutions need to design a set of strategies for people to learn from each
39
other. It is suggested that teachers, as the key stakeholder, establish professional
learning communities and develop the culture of learning from peers during the
implementation process, both inside and across schools or institutions. There needs
to be forums, seminars where teachers can share their experiences in how the CEFR
implementation policy by MOET has affected their daily teaching from materials
development, teaching techniques to assessment practices. Not only teachers can
seek for advice from peers about issues related to CEFR and its adaptation but they
are also able to deliver that knowledge to others.
Moreover, developing cultures of evaluation must be coupled with cultures for
learning so that stakeholders, especially teaching and administrative staff members can
assess and self-assess on an ongoing basis to make major improvements. As action
research has been considered an appropriate solution and an effective method for
sharing, learning and evaluating from self and from others, institutions thus need to
carry out trainings on both theory and practice of action research as a means of
scientific evaluation of their CEFR implementation. Teachers need to attend those
workshops and develop a culture of carrying out action research in their daily teaching
practice as a means of self-evaluating the effect of their CEFR implementation process
and later on spread their results for sharing and learning among peers.
Focusing on leadership for change, making coherence and cultivating tri-level
development
On the one hand, institution needs to seek and produce leaders who can
develop leadership in others on an ongoing basis. Outstanding teachers need to be
chosen and sent to workshops and training on the CEFR by MOET. They then
become key trainers to deliver the knowledge to their colleagues, their peers and so
on until all teachers in the institution can become leaders in the field. Specifically,
after workshops and trainings on the CEFR and its implementation by key trainers
of MOET to key trainees, the institution needs to have policies and strategies for
those key trainees to carry out successive workshops and trainings for their teachers
in order that every teacher not only masters the MOET‘s policies and strategies but
can be a trainer/ leader of the CEFR implementation of the community.
40
On the other hand, institution needs to connect and align all the above drivers
to make a unique and consistent picture of change. Making teachers and all the
stakeholders understand the what (CEFR- a language policy- implementation), the
why (its moral purposes), the how (building capacity, developing cultures for
learning and cultures of evaluation, focusing on leadership) can help foster the
success of the policy implementation. Moreover, there should be involvement and
cooperation among individuals, schools and institutions, districts and so on to create
a massive network in organizations and systems. Teachers and administrators need
to understand the necessity and impacts of the CEFR implementation on foreign
language education in Vietnam to make sure that they have enough positive
attitudes and strong beliefs to have practical responses in their teaching.
In short, for successful and sustainable reform, the afore-mentioned steps are
essential. As such these forces will help us understand the stakeholders‘ perceptions
and responses to the implementation of the CEFR as change.
2.5. Previous studies on the use of the CEFR in English language education
2.5.1. Previous studies in the world
Since 2011, ten years after its publication, the CEFR has been popularly
implemented, studied, analyzed and reported in numerous countries, especially in
European context. A great deal of research has thus been conducted on the CEFR,
its adoption, implementation and impacts on foreign language education in different
contexts. The review of literature indicated that interests in the CEFR varied from
the extent to which it was adopted to the domains it was implemented.
Regarding the extent of the CEFR adoption, research has analyzed the
adoption and adaptation of parts of the CEFR to support language learning such as
the power of Can-do Statements to students‘ foreign language learning (Faez,
2011a; Nagai & O‘Dwyer, 2011) and the Common Reference Levels (CRLs) for
students‘ self-assessment (Glover, 2011).
Besides, the CEFR‘s aim of providing a ―common basis‖ (CoE, 2011, p.2)
for the elaboration of various domains in language teaching and learning, etc., has
resulted in its wide application in linguistic pedagogy not only from syllabus and
41
curriculum design but also to assessment, textbooks and materials development,
etc., which was reported in different studies. A number of studies have, therefore,
shown interest in the use of the CEFR and its impacts in different areas of language
teaching and learning. While Despagne and Grossi (2011) and Nakatani (2012) paid
attention to the impact of the CEFR on learner autonomy and learners‘ proficiency
respectively, Glover (2011) was concerned with the use of the CEFR for learners‘
self-assessment. To Faez et al. (2011a/b), the focus was on students‘ learning
outcomes whereas curriculum design and development were the concerned issues in
Moonen, Stoutjesdijk, Graaff and Corda (2013) and Valax‘s (2011) studies.
While theoretical and societal concepts underlying the CEFR demonstrate an
affinity to linguistic pedagogy, practical aspects, especially voices from language
teachers in classrooms, tend to be given little consideration (Mison & Jang, 2011).
Meanwhile, the role of teachers and their attitudes and beliefs are claimed to be of
great importance in the innovation implementation stage (Bianco, 2013; Waters,
2009). A number of studies have, therefore, focused on teachers‘ voices and the
implementation of the CEFR in different contexts (Faez et al., 2011a; Faez et al.,
2011b; Mison & Jang, 2011; Moonen et al., 2013; Díez-Bedmar & Byram, 2018).
Specifically, with the broader purpose of examining the feasibility of using
the CEFR, Faez et al. (2011a; 2011b) had two studies about the CEFR and students‘
learning outcomes. Both investigated teachers‘ perspectives on the CEFR‘s action-
oriented approach. While Faez et al. (2011a) explored the impact of CEFR-
informed instruction (action-oriented instruction focusing on language use) on L2
instruction and learning outcomes in French Second Language (FSL) programs in
Ontario, Canada, Faez et al. (2011b) discussed the potential of communicative
teaching inspired by the CEFR‘s task-based approach in FSL classrooms. Despite
the different data collection methods, namely interviews and pre-and-post-study
questionnaires, results emerged from the voices of the participating teachers of the
two studies were predominantly positive. Faez et al. (2011a) revealed that
implementing CEFR-informed instruction brought about advantages and challenges
for FSL classrooms. CEFR-informed instruction was advantageous as it enhanced
42
learner autonomy, increased student motivation, built self-confidence in learners,
promoted real and authentic use of the language in the classroom, developed oral
language ability, encouraged self-assessment, focused on the positive and could be
used for formative and diagnostic assessment. Challenges of implementing CEFR-
informed instruction included time restriction and lack of understanding the CEFR
and its applicability in FSL classrooms. As the advantages of CEFR implementation
outweighed its challenges, a majority of the participating teachers agreed that the
CEFR-informed approach is highly applicable in the area. Faez et al. (2011b)
revealed that teachers‘ estimates of their students‘ abilities to perform tasks in
French increased as a result of using task-based activities. It was suggested that key
teaching and learning resources that promoted classroom teaching approaches
aligned with the communicative learning outcomes specified by the CEFR need to
be developed, curricula have to be modified, and applicable resources and materials
have to be made readily available to teachers. Conclusion drawn from the two
findings of Faez et al. (2011b) was that with careful adaptation and implementation
of the CEFR, the goal of increasing the French proficiency of high school graduates
can be achieved.
Also concerned with the implementation of the CEFR, Mison and Jang
(2011) studied FSL teachers‘ perceptions toward the CEFR. They carried out a
preliminary study to investigate the adoption of the CEFR in a Canadian context.
They first examined teachers‘ challenges with the CEFR, the role of the CEFR in a
Canadian context, and voices from FSL teachers who participated in three focus
groups in Ontario with an aim to bridge the gap between the CEFR‘s flexible and
abstract facets and teachers‘ existing knowledge, experiences, and needs in
classroom assessment. The findings suggested that contemporary concerns of FSL
teachers should be considered in order to encourage teacher‘s support of and
participation in the potential Canadian adoption and adaptation of the CEFR, which
consolidated the vital roles of teachers in the innovation implementation stage to the
success or failure of a language policy and planning (Waters, 2009).
43
Moonen et al. (2013), Valax (2011) and Díez-Bedmar and Byram (2018)
were more interested in the CEFR and its impacts. Both Moonen et al. and Valax‘s
were large-scale survey case studies. Yet Valax (2011) focused on the CEFR and
curriculum design only while the interest of Moonen et al. (2013) varied from
foreign language teachers‘ teaching, assessment practice and curriculum
development. With Díez-Bedmar and Byram (2018), teachers‘ beliefs about and
perceptions of the CEFR were investigated.
Moonen et al. (2013) found that the CEFR was most widespread in the use of
CEFR-related textbooks and preparation for national examinations aligned to
CEFR. Findings revealed that the application of the CEFR for curriculum planning,
assessment and professional development differed among schools with respect to
the extent to which the CEFR was included in the curriculum and the way teachers
and management worked with the CEFR. The group of teachers or schools that
applied the CEFR more widely in their educational practice was relatively small but
intentions and plans revealed by respondents showed a tendency of gradual increase
in numbers in the near future. Moonen et al. (2013) summarized that factors
determining the extent to which the CEFR has an impact as educational innovation
included compatibility and adaptation.
Valax (2011) reported that there was little enthusiasm for the CEFR among
those who would ultimately determine whether it had any real impact on the
teaching and learning of languages. As for curriculum design, by analyzing two
different CEFR-influenced national, school-based language curriculum projects
within and outside Europe, the results revealed a number of significant problems,
particularly in relation to the articulation of achievement objectives and the
association between achievement objectives and language-specific realizations.
Valax therefore concluded that the CEFR promised considerably more in the area of
language curriculum design than it was capable of.
Díez-Bedmar and Byram (2018) delivered a 35-item questionnaire to in-
service teachers to explore their familiarity with the CEFR, their knowledge of the
contents of the CEFR and their perceptions of its impacts. The findings showed that
44
teachers agreed on the significance of the CEFR‘s impact on syllabi, curricula and
methods, had a high degree of familiarity with levels of competences, yet limited
knowledge of changes that the CEFR proposes. Except for the study of Valax
(2011), the other studies reviewed have shown positive perceptions, attitudes or
perspectives of language teachers on the CEFR implementation, which helps reveal
a trend in language education regardless of its contexts: with careful adaptation and
application, the implementation of the CEFR can be successful and beneficial.
2.5.2. Previous studies in Vietnam
Regarding the foreign language teaching and learning context in Vietnam,
the launch of NFL 2020 Project and the adaptation of the CEFR-based framework
has initiated a language policy which was approved and legitimated by practitioners
other than language teachers since 2008. However, due to its late implementation
compared with other countries, research on the CEFR and its issues in foreign
language education in Vietnam is still sparse (Pham, 2017) in spite of the increasing
concern from the practitioners. The focus of related studies on the field can be
categorized into some themes: while some viewed the CEFR as a top-down
language policy and assessed its impacts in foreign language education (Pham,
2012), others concentrated on its pedagogical use (Luu, 2015; Pham Thi Tuyet
Nhung, 2015) and issues from the CEFR‘s implementation (Nguyen & Hamid,
2015; Pham, 2015).
By critically analyzing the CEFR itself and the warnings by the Council of
Europe and other experts about issues that might arise from its implementation,
Pham (2012) raised awareness of the potential limitations and threats relating to the
CEFR compatibility, stakeholders‘ perceptions of its insights, impacts of the policy
and the commercial issues of its implementation in Vietnam. The need for more
research on the validity, compatibility and impacts of the CEFR in Vietnamese
context before its profound and comprehensive implementation was proposed as a
conclusion of the article.
The CEFR‘s pedagogical use and issues from its implementation caught
attention in a number of studies. Pham Thi Tuyet Nhung (2015) and Luu (2015)
45
both implemented the specific Can-dos statements suitable for their aimed students,
French-major and English-major university students respectively, to develop the
productive language skills throughout a period of 15 weeks. Although different in
their data collection instruments, the findings are not much different when they both
received students‘ positive attitudes towards the application of the activities in their
lessons. Moreover, both studies found clear evidence, although scattering, of their
students‘ development in the skills under investigation. Both Pham Thi Tuyet
Nhung (2015) and Luu (2015) also ended with practical suggestions to the
implementation of the CEFR in foreign language classrooms.
When a language policy is implemented, two key stakeholders that are first
and foremost involved in are teachers and students. Voices from these two
stakeholders should, therefore, be listened to. While Pham (2015) was interested in
students‘ perceptions of their learning outcomes, Nguyen and Hamid (2015) and
Pham (2017) were concerned about teachers‘ voices to this implementation.
Specifically, Pham (2015) reported non-English major students‘ voices to
setting the CEFR-B1 level as their learning outcomes. By means of an open-ended
questionnaire, the data collected were analyzed adopting Forbe‘s et al. two-phase data
analysis. The findings showed students‘ limited understanding of the expected learning
outcome, their concerns and problems of how to achieve those learning outcomes, their
needs for improving learning achievements. Practical suggestions were also made to
aid students surveyed better understand the standard-based learning outcomes and plan
their learning more effectively so as to achieve those standards.
Also concerning the process of adopting and accommodating the CEFR, a
global language education framework in the context of Vietnam, Nguyen and
Hamid (2015) focused on how a global language policy is adopted and appropriated
at the grass-root level. The case study of Nguyen and Hamid focused on the
reception, interpretations and responses of key stakeholders in the process of
enacting CEFR in a Vietnamese public university. By means of policy document
analysis, classroom observation and in-depth interview with teachers, students and
administrators, the study argued that the adoption of the CEFR is a ―quick-fix‖
46
solution to the current problem of English language education in Vietnam.
However, Nguyen and Hamid (2015) pointed out the poor sense of ownership, the
lack of curricular engagement and the absence of student empowerment tools as
some critical issues the policy failed to address. It has contributions to the
understanding of how a global language policy is adopted and implemented in a
local context.
Pham (2017) concentrated on applying the CEFR to renew general English
curriculum at Hue University. She began with a critical analysis of the context of
problem: the foreign language education reform policy by Vietnamese government
an MOET, the adoption of the CEFR- a global language education framework, the
university capacity and capacity building in recent years. She then discussed the
issues raised in applying the CEFR to renew the general English curriculum for
non-English major students. By collecting teachers‘ responses via trainings and
workshops, Pham summarized the university‘s success reflected in teachers‘
relatively sound interpretations of the philosophy of the CEFR. The remaining
challenges of the university included the shortage of qualified staff, the limit of
budgeted investments and the insufficiently-trained information technology for
teachers and students. Pham (2017) suggested that for positive outcomes of the
CEFR implementation, its moral purpose must be successively spread out among
teachers and students, practical action plan and action research on the CEFR
implementation must be continued, teachers‘ and students‘ feedback of the CEFR
implementation process must be listened to, teachers and learner autonomy need to
be empowered.
In short, due to the application of the CEFR in the language policies of a
number of countries worldwide, the influence of the CEFR in language education
context has become unquestionable and the emergence of various studies and
research on the CEFR has been obvious. The current literature does an extensive job
in discussing the attributes and role of the CEFR, its implementation and impacts.
Although the afore-mentioned studies varied from the extent to which the CEFR was
accommodated, the languages it was adopted, the domains it was applied to the
47
countries it was implemented, their findings and implications shared one big thing in
common. They have shown a consistent trend in the CEFR implementation regardless
of its context: if well implemented, the CEFR is useful and beneficial as it renews
curriculum, emphasizes learning outcomes, and evaluates teaching materials which
support the development of these learning outcomes and guides assessment that
facilitate the achievement of learning outcomes. However, this can happen only when
the interaction with and the use of the CEFR is implemented properly.
In addition, multiple possible research questions arose after synthesizing the
current literature on the implementation of a language policy. Despite the
tremendous amount of theoretical research that has been conducted in the field of
language policy and issues of its implementation, there is limited research found
implicating teachers‘ perceptions and responses to the implementation of the CEFR
in the Vietnamese context. As the implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam is both
comprehensive and profound, the need for more research on the CEFR in Vietnam
such as its impacts on language education system, teachers and learners‘ attitude
and perceptions toward the use of the CEFR, the effectiveness of such changes in
(foreign) language policy, is longed for. Research that provides insights into
teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to implementing the CEFR standard-based
learning outcomes and CEFR-aligned curriculum should be a valuable addition to
the education knowledge base. For that reason, the current research aims to study
the CEFR implementation at tertiary level in Vietnam. It takes an interdisciplinary
approach to involve the theories of change management, the psychological
processes of teachers in the innovation implementation, approach of curriculum
design with the advent of the CEFR to explore the implementation of the CEFR in
local context. The focus will be on the perceptions and responses of GE teachers at
the home university to applying the CEFR to develop general English curriculum,
including modifying teaching activities, adapting the textbooks, and renewing
assessment practice to facilitate students‘ learning outcomes and as parts of the key
to meet the ongoing need for our teaching environment.
48
2.6. The conceptual framework
Theoretical frameworks for language curriculum implementation and change
remain relatively underdeveloped. The present study, therefore, based on theories of
teachers‘ cognition (Borg, 2003; 2009; Waters, 2009), change management theory
(Fullan, 2007) and careful literature review on the CEFR values and its
implementation in different contexts to form a relevant conceptual framework.
The underlying assumption of the present study was that teachers‘
perceptions influence their responses and that these have a strong impact on the
success or failure of curriculum renewal. As the current study was concerned with
investigating GE teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to the CEFR
implementation, it was conceptualized as an examination of the variables that
interact to influence this CEFR implementation process and to make innovation to
take place or withdraw. To have a clearer presentation of the research, a conceptual
framework is constructed in Figure 2.5 below.
Figure 2.5: The conceptual framework
Teachers’ responses to
Teaching activities modification
Teaching materials adaptation
Classroom assessment renewal
Teachers’ perceptions of
The values of the CEFR
The necessity of the CEFR
application
The readiness for the CEFR
implementation
The work involved in the
CEFR implementation
process
Desired
output Successful
curriculum
innovation,
improving
students‘
learning
outcome
The CEFR
implementation for
non-English major
students
Fullan‘s change theory
49
Firstly this framework takes the position that the combination of GE teachers‘
perceptions about the values of the CEFR, the readiness for the CEFR application, the
necessity of applying the CEFR and the work involved in the CEFR application
process influence their responses to the use of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-
English major students. Specifically, teachers‘ perceptions have impact on what and
how they do to modify the teaching activities, adapt teaching materials and renew the
classroom assessment practice aligned with the CEFR-aligned outcomes. On the
contrary, teachers‘ responses in those domains help reveal their perceptions of the
CEFR implementation. Secondly, it is also implied that GE teachers‘ perceptions as
well as their responses affect the CEFR implementation process, contributing to an
understanding of the success or failure of the CEFR-aligned curriculum
implementation and innovation. Finally, Fullan‘s (2007a) change management
knowledge is applied to assess the CEFR implementation process for non-English
major students at the home university. It is arguable that CEFR-aligned curriculum
change can take place if teachers perceive it as feasible and appropriately
implement it in their classes.
2.7. Chapter summary
The present chapter presented relevant literature review to help build up the
conceptual framework for data discussion and analysis. Firstly, it provided definitions
of the key terminology of the thesis. Secondly, the chapter made a brief review of the
CEFR and its spread in language education. Related studies on the field both in the
world and Vietnam were also summarized and synthesized, making clear the
attributes and values of the CEFR, its implementation and impacts. It proved the
influence of the CEFR in language education context, revealed the gaps for more
research on teachers‘ perceptions and responses, the need to explore the adoption and
adaptation of the global CEFR framework into local and institutional contexts.
Next, the chapter reviewed teachers‘ perceptions, teachers‘ responses and
pinpointed their mutual relationship. Accordingly, teacher cognition interacts bi-
directionally with experience, i.e. their beliefs influence practices but practices also
lead to changes in beliefs.
50
Aiming at creating drastic change in foreign language education, it is,
therefore, necessary to investigate how the CEFR implementation phase, the
attempt to put reform or innovation into practice at institutional and individual
levels takes place. Change management theory is thus of great importance to
understand the issues under investigation. Besides, since teachers are chiefly the
implementers in the innovation implementation phase, the success or failure of the
implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam can be said to depend much on teachers‘
beliefs (acceptability) and responses to the reform.
Given that theoretical frameworks for language curriculum implementation
and change are relatively underdeveloped, a conceptual framework was built to
understand General English teachers‘ perceptions and responses to the CEFR and its
use to renew the general English curriculum for non-English major university
students at the home university, Vietnam.
The next methodology chapter will present the choice for the research
design, research methodology and procedures of the current study.
51
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes and justifies the methodology used to conduct this
study. It presents the rationale for the research approach and research design and
the conceptual framework employed. Research setting, participants, data collection
methods and data analysis methods are described in detail. Issues of
trustworthiness including validity, reliability and ethics are also addressed.
3.1. Research approach and research design
The research approach and research design are of great importance to any
study. They serve as the foundation to build a strong study and guide the project so
as to obtain the most valid, credible conclusions drawn from the answers to the
research questions (McMillan & Schumacher, 2014). The selection of research
approach and a certain type of research designs depends on four main dimensions of
social research: the research purpose, its intended use, allocated time and research
techniques used (Neuman, 1994). Within this section, we describe and justify the
research approach and design adopted to carry out the current study.
3.1.1. Research approach
The research approach of a study can be quantitative or qualitative, each of
which has its own strengths and drawbacks. In particular, quantitative research is
standardized, reliable, valid and produces results that are easy to summarize,
compare, and generalize (Schreiber, 2011). It also eliminates bias in a study
because it involves many cases and few variables. However, they lack a detailed
narrative of human perception and is hard to get insights into the reasons for
respondents‘ choices, why they perceive things and behave in certain ways as well
as what contextual factors influence their perceptions and practices (Creswell,
1998). Meanwhile, qualitative research involves an interpretive naturalistic approach
to its subject matter (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). In qualitative research, researchers
study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret
52
phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Schreiber, 2011).
Through this process, the researcher is able to build a complex, holistic picture,
analyze words, report detailed views of informants, and conduct the study in a natural
setting (Creswell, 1998). With qualitative research, it can help answer the question
why, thus it provides information useful to understand the processes behind observed
results and assess changes in people‘s perceptions (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
In the present study, a combination of both quantitative and qualitative
methods, commonly known as mixed method research, which has emerged and is
gaining increasing acceptance in social science fields such as sociology, health and
education as a distinct research method (Creswell & Clark, 2007) was chosen. The
fundamental principle of mixed method research is that the combination of
quantitative and qualitative approaches provide a better understanding of the
problem than either approach can achieve alone (Creswell & Clark, 2007; Elliot,
2005). Support of this concept can be made in several areas.
First, as it combines both quantitative and qualitative methods, mixed
method research ensures a vigorous approach to a complex issue because it is
believed to provide strengths to the weaknesses of the two research types. While
quantitative methods can be helpful to teachers‘ perceptions exploration (Newman,
1994), qualitative methods are believed to be more fundamental to teachers‘
responses investigation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). This principle well suits the
current research because both perceptions and responses are looked at and aimed to
be explored in this particular study.
Further, mixed method research can help answer the questions that cannot be
fully answered by a singular approach (Creswell & Clark, 2007). Both teachers‘
perceptions and responses are notions strongly believed to be solved more efficiently
by both numbers and words, with qualitative methods supplementing a rich dataset of
the context and reasons for teachers‘ understanding, beliefs and behavior.
Also, mixed method research enables the researcher to comprehensively study a
problem by means of a wide range of data collection instruments (Creswell, 2013). By
using both quantitative-based questionnaire and qualitative-based semi-structured
53
interview, the researcher can guarantee the validity of the research by means of
triangulation. Triangulation of data occurs when more than one source is used to
validate the results of the study. Two types of triangulation, namely data triangulation
and methodological triangulation have been drawn out in this study. The former
requires the uses of multiple sources of data to look into the phenomenon (Brown,
2001). With a mixed method design, both survey questionnaire and in-depth interviews
are used as data collection instruments of this study, which supports the researcher‘s
efforts and accounts for accuracy as well as credibility of the findings (Creswell, 2013).
The latter entails the employment of different data collection methods. With a mixed
method design, both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were applied
and triangulated (Banister, Burman, Parker, Taylor & Tindall, 1994; Brown, 2001).
The mixed method approach via the use of multiple sources of data collection
will enable the researcher to triangulate the interpretations of the study generated. The
goal is to use each method so that ―it contributes something unique to the researcher‘s
understanding of the phenomenon‖ (Morgan, 1997, p.3). The comprehensive but general
data gained through questionnaire became the basis for the development of questions of
the semi-structured interview. Subsequent to the collection of quantitative data in this
study, the second, qualitative phase was conducted. Built up from the quantitative data of
the questionnaire, the qualitative phase will explain, explore and enrich the quantitative
phase of the study with a fuller, truer picture of the phenomenon (Creswell & Clark,
2007). The explanatory nature of in-depth interviews employed in the present study will
provide additional depth to the subject matter and further explains the quantitative data
collected in the quantitative phase of the study (Dornyei, 2007). Issues related to the
validity and reliability of each instrument were addressed in sections 3.6 and 3.7.
Interviewing enables the researcher to probe teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR
implementation, which are not adequately gained by means of questionnaire, and
simultaneously get insights into the work involved in the CEFR application process for
non-English major student curriculum renewal (Creswell & Clark, 2007).
In short, mixed method research was chosen for the present study because it
proves to be rigorous and efficient in guiding the researcher of making the method
decisions and setting the logic for the interpretations of data and findings.
54
3.1.2. Research design
With the intention of gaining an in-depth understanding of how GE teachers
perceive and interpret the current use of the CEFR at tertiary level and how they do before
and during the process of the CEFR-based curriculum renewal and implementation, it is
important to utilize a research design that provides rich opportunities to describe, explore
and interpret the perceptions and responses of GE teachers who are currently involved in
this CEFR-based curriculum renewal and implementation process. On the one hand, the
researcher hopes to achieve a fuller understanding of teachers‘ perceptions of and
responses to the CEFR on the implementation level, looking at this target phenomenon
from different angles. On the other hand, the researcher expects to verify one set of
findings (relating to teachers‘ perceptions and responses to implementing the CEFR)
against the other, namely validate the conclusion by presenting convergent results obtained
through different methods. To meet the proposed criteria and sufficiently address the
research questions, a mixed method sequential explanatory design is well suited
(Sandelowski, as cited in Dornyei, 2007, p.164).
A mixed method sequential explanatory research is a two-phase sequential
explanatory design which starts with quantitative data collection and data analysis. From
the initial findings of the quantitative phase, the researcher can identify those that need
additional exploration and use these findings to develop or build up the qualitative phase
(Creswell & Clark, 2007). The purpose is to use qualitative results to assist in explaining
and interpreting the findings of the quantitative phase (Creswell & Clark, 2007).
Diagrammatic presentation of Creswell and Clark‘s (2007) mixed method sequential
explanatory model is illustrated in Figure 3.1. An application of this model to the current
study is presented in Figure 3.2.
55
(Creswell & Clark, 2007, p.73)
Figure 3.1. Mixed method sequential explanatory model
Figure 3.2. An adapted model for the present study
56
There exist different typologies of mixed method design such as: sequential,
simultaneous or embedded. Sequential designs can be developed with the qualitative
component first, followed by quantitative section and vice versa (Creswell & Clark,
2007). Dominance of approach is recognized by the use of capital letters. In Creswell
and Clark‘s (2007) original model, quantitative data build up the major findings while
qualitative data are supplementary findings of the design, symbolized by
diagrammatically displayed in capital letters for quantitative but in lower case letters
for qualitative (see Figure 3.1). For the present study, however, quantitative and
qualitative data are of equal importance, reflected in capital letters for both
quantitative and qualitative in the model (see Figure 3.2). Reasons for this adaptation
were due to the limited number of participants within the research setting, and the
insightful information the in-depth interviews could provide, making both types of
data mutually support and equally contribute to the research findings.
3.2. Research questions and conceptual framework
Two research questions have been formulated for the purpose of this study:
1. What are GE language teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its use for
non-English major students at a university in Vietnam?
2. What are GE language teachers‘ responses to the use of the CEFR on the
implementation level?
It is expected that findings of the two questions help to provide insights into
what the teachers think and do on the implementation level of the adoption of the
CEFR as a top-down language policy targeting to create drastic changes in foreign
language education in Vietnam. Since theoretical frameworks for language
curriculum implementation and change remain relatively underdeveloped, the
present study forms a conceptual framework (see Figure 2.5 for the conceptual
framework) to help answer the two research questions. Theories to be based on are
teachers‘ cognition and psychological processes (Borg, 2003, 2009; Waters, 2009),
change management theory (Fullan, 2001b) and careful literature review on the
CEFR values and its implementation in different contexts. It is expected to shed
light on the data regarding GE teachers‘ perceptions and their responses to the
57
CEFR implementation at the home university, and to provide the ground on which
what the investigated teachers think and do can be understood.
3.3. Research setting and sample
3.3.1. Research setting
There are several criteria for the setting of this study. As already stated from the
beginning of this chapter, the overall purpose of the present study is to examine teachers‘
perceptions of and responses to implementing the CEFR at tertiary level as opportunities
for understanding teachers‘ voices to a ‗top-down language reform policy‘ (Nguyen &
Hamid, 2015; Pham, 2017) in Vietnam. Given that the CEFR implementation is applied
for both English major and non-English major curricula, which are totally different from
each other in terms of English proficiency, learning motivation, language curriculum,
and so on, this study does not intend to cover both. Instead, the study focuses more on
non-English major CEFR-aligned curriculum as well as the challenges and problems
teachers face during the process of the CEFR implementation.
The second criterion is closely related to the research design of the present
study. Accordingly, the chosen mixed method design which equally combines
quantitative and qualitative data (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2) requires a setting with the
allowance for the collection of not only representative and diversified but also deep
and detailed data, which leads to the characteristic of case study research (Bodgan
& Bilken, 2007; Merriam, 2002). Case studies look for meaning and understanding
and help researchers understand and interpret the meaning that people apply to a
situation (Merriam, 2002). Case studies offer an in-depth analysis of a bounded
system which can be divided into three parts, including a particular place, a specific
group of people, and a particular school activity (Bogdan & Bilken, 2007). A case
study was selected for the current study in an attempt to achieve a deep
understanding of GE teachers‘ perceptions of and their responses to the
implementation of the CEFR in curriculum renewal and classroom assessment
practices for their non-English major students.
In the present study, the specific group of people was GE teachers for non-
English major students. The particular school activity is the use of the CEFR to
58
renew the English curriculum for non-English major university students. The home
university was selected as this is where the researcher works and has close
relationship with to ensure willing participants, which is a prerequisite to having a
rich dataset (Dornyei, 2007).
Concerning the criterion of representativeness, the home university is in
charge of teaching and training general English for non-English major students from
eight universities and two schools of a regional university, responsible for tertiary
students in Central and Highland Vietnam. Non-English major students that the
home university is in charge of thus vary in terms of geography, social background,
specialism and English proficiency. As for teachers, owing to merging departments
of foreign languages from other member affiliations of the regional university in
2004, GE teachers at the home university also differ in origin, experiences,
qualifications and expertise. The home university, therefore, is believed to be
representative of tertiary settings where the adoption of the CEFR is manifested,
and so was selected to be the setting of the present study. Taking those criteria into
consideration, the researcher decided to carry out a case study at this university.
3.3.2. Participants
The study‘s focus on GE teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to implementing
the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students at the home university
determines the inclusion criteria for participation. Thus, teachers who experienced
teaching General English for non-English major students at the home university for at
least a semester and were willing to participate were included in the study.
In the pilot round, eleven female teachers completed the questionnaire. Less
than one third of the participants are juniors. Nearly three-quarters of them have
more than five-year teaching experience. Although none of them are Doctors, a
majority (8) have already gained their M.A Degree. Two of them, one having
sixteen years of teaching experience and the other with less than five years of
teaching experience, took part in the in-depth interviews.
For the official round, the issue of a case study determined the inclusion of
participants for the present study. For the quantitative questionnaire survey, the
59
researcher used a type of sampling frame based on theory of probability: random
sampling, to ensure sample representativeness, an important criterion in quantitative
research (Creswell, 2013; Fowler, 2009). Therefore, all teachers at the home
university who met the afore-mentioned criteria were invited to take part in this
study. These included forty-five teachers, with thirty-seven from the Faculty of
English for Specific Purposes and eight teachers from other Faculties and Offices.
Thirty six of these participated in the quantitative survey. The remaining nine
teachers either refused or were absent on the day of questionnaire delivery.
For qualitative in-depth interviews, however, issues to ensure the richness
and comprehensiveness of data were more focused. Ten of the thirty-six participants
were thus recruited on a voluntary basis for the semi-structured interviews. In other
words, those who participated in the present study were willing to share information
on the issue under investigation and thus, their willingness demonstrated an
evidence to contribute reliable and constructive information. Eight of them did
participate in the interviews. The two remaining teachers refused the invitation due
to their businesses. Since data analysis showed repetition of stories among
participants after eight interviews, the data reached the ―saturation point‖ (Glesne &
Peshkin, 1992). The researcher stopped selecting new participants for her study.
All participation was anonymous. Details on teacher demographic information
are shown in Table 3.1 below.
60
Table 3.1. Demographic data of participants (N=36)
Questionnaire Interviews
Gender female 29 8
male 7 0
Years of teaching non-
English major students
< 5 yrs 7 2
6-10 yrs 4 0
11-20 yrs 17 5
> 20 yrs 8 1
Highest qualification Bachelor 5 0
Master 30 8
Doctor 1 0
Another Bachelor degree in
languages
No 24 6
Yes 12 2
CEFR training attended By MOET 11 5
By home university 24 7
Participants‘ gender was not equally divided, which is quite common in the
context of foreign language teaching in Vietnam in general and the home university
in particular. Among thirty-six participants for the questionnaire, twenty-nine were
female and only seven were male teachers. Eight participants for the interviews
were all female. Twenty-five were senior teachers with more than ten years
experiencing in teaching non-English major students. The remaining eleven were
juniors experiencing in less than ten teaching years.
In terms of qualification, almost all of the participants have achieved an MA
in TESOL, with some doing their Ph.D. domestically and five having obtained
Bachelor Degree less than three years before the point of time when the study was
conducted. One third of the participants have another Foreign Language Bachelor
Degree beside English.
Of these thirty six teachers, twenty-four confirmed that the information and
knowledge they had about CEFR and its application policy came from workshops
provided by their home university, eighteen from self-exploration including
61
learning from colleagues and eleven had the opportunity to attend CEFR training
workshops conducted by the MOET. This suggests that a number of participants
have attended more than one workshop on the CEFR and its implementation.
3.3.3. Researcher’s role
In this case study, my role was as a researcher and an insider (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2003; Punch, 1998). As a current GE teacher at the home university, I had
nearly 20-year experiences teaching general English for non-English major
students. I bought all those knowledge, attitudes, and experiences to the study. As a
teacher-implementer, I was the participants‘ colleagues and had no influence or
pressure on their careers. Instead, I could build up a good rapport with the
participants, which could ensure the richness and trustworthiness of the data.
Throughout my career, I have formed opinions on what changes, innovation or
obstacles the policy could bring about. I also experienced the challenges GE
teachers might face with the B1 CEFR-learning outcomes for non-English major
students. These are the biases I may brought to the study. However, the researcher‘
biases can be avoided if s/ he remains sensitive during data collection and analysis
(Punch, 1998). As a researcher I tried to avoid biases by being self-critical, as
objective as possible and followed a number of ethical principles such as respects
for human beings, research merit and integrity, justice and beneficence (Fowler,
2009) which are discussed in details in section 3.8.
3.4. Data collection methods
Methods include tools or instruments, procedures and techniques used to
generate and analyze data (Crotty, 1998). In the present section, therefore,
instruments (tools) to collect data on teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to the
implementation of the CEFR for non-English major students at the university and
data collection procedure will be discussed in detail.
3.4.1. Data collection instruments
The present study aimed to explore and describe teachers‘ perceptions of and
their responses to the application of a new language reform policy. It applied a
mixed method design which combined both quantitative and qualitative data
62
collection. By converging numeric trends from quantitative data and specific details
from qualitative data, a mixed method design can gain a better understanding of this
complex issue (Dornyei, 2007). Two data collection instruments including
questionnaire and in-depth interview protocol were thus constructed to suit this
mixed method sequential explanatory study.
3.4.1.1. Questionnaire
To achieve the desirable quantitative data for the study, a small-scale survey
by means of a five- point Likert scale questionnaire was delivered to all GE teachers
at the home university to get the quantified data of GE teachers‘ perceptions of and
their responses to the CEFR implementation for non-English major students at the
home university. There are several reasons for this choice. Surveys are stated to be
appropriate for research questions about knowledge, beliefs, opinions,
characteristics, expectations and past or present behavior (Neuman, 1994). By
means of a questionnaire, the researcher can collect data from a large number of
respondents in a relatively short time with low cost (Merriam, 2002; Creswell,
2013). With a questionnaire that was structured into clusters and sub-clusters in
accordance with the research questions, the collected quantified data could fit
diverse experiences into predetermined response categories, which provided general
and overall findings about GE teachers‘ understanding, beliefs and practices toward
the new CEFR-aligned language policy implementation.
Questionnaire in the pilot phase
In the pilot phase, a two-part questionnaire was developed. Except for the
first five questions about teacher demographics, the remaining fifty-two items of the
questionnaire were in closed format in the hope of achieving teachers‘ willing
participation. It is time-saving for the participants who were all busy teachers and
thus believed to be the most suitable way in such a situation.
Specifically, the first part of the questionnaire deals with teacher
demographics. This consists of five questions investigating teachers‘ gender,
teaching experiences and qualifications. Information on teacher demographics is
expected to help make explanations and comparisons among quantitative findings to
have clearer understandings on the issues under investigation.
63
The second part is the focus of the questionnaire with fifty-two five-point
Likert scale items eliciting teacher perceptions of and their responses to the CEFR
implementation for non-English major students at the home university. To avoid
unnecessary confusion for participants, the five-point scale was coded in
accordance with the logical way of thinking that the bigger the number, the higher
the level of agreement is; i.e. 5 stands for ―strongly agree‖, 4 for ―agree‖, 3 for
―no idea‖, 2 for ―disagree‖ and 1 for ―strongly disagree‖. Participants tick or
circle the number representing their level of agreement.
Both top-down and bottom-up approaches were used to formulate the fifty-two
items in the questionnaire. All the items were developed and designed on the basis of
careful review on the CEFR and its implementation in different contexts, by adapting
the existing literature, and the conceptual framework. These questionnaire items were
broken down into teachers‘ perceptions and teachers‘ responses. Twenty-five items
which were constructed to investigate teacher perceptions were further divided into
four main clusters focusing on their perceptions of the values of the CEFR, the CEFR
readiness for application, the reasons and necessity of implementing the CEFR, and
the work involved in the CEFR application process. The remaining twenty seven
items to investigate teacher responses were divided into three main clusters focusing
on teachers‘ practices to adapt the teaching activities, modify the textbooks and renew
the classroom assessment practice. A summary of the questionnaire with clusters and
sub-clusters is provided in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2. Summary of the pilot questionnaire
Clusters Items
Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR implementation
Values of CEFR
Readiness for application
Necessity of CEFR application
Work involved in the application process
Teachers’ responses to CEFR implementation
Teaching materials modification
Teaching activities adaptation
Classroom assessment renewal
From 1 to 25
4, 6, 10, 15, 18
3, 11, 14, 16, 21, 23
1, 8, 12, 17, 19, 24
2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 20, 22, 25
From 26 to 52
28, 30, 33, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52
26, 31, 35, 40, 45
27, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43,
47, 49, 51
64
In the pilot round, the delivered questionnaire was bilingual (both English and
Vietnamese) so that participants could choose the language that they felt more
comfortable with (see Appendix A for full form of the pilot questionnaire). The items
were randomly ordered to ensure participants‘ focus and understanding when they
circled their number of preference (Hoang Trong & Chu Nguyen Mong Ngoc, 2008).
Questionnaire for the official phase
Based on the pilot data from the pilot questionnaire and pilot interview, face-
to-face discussions and straight feedback from the supervisor, as well as post-pilot
talks to participants, there were a number of changes in the questionnaire for the
official round compared to that of the pilot phase.
For the first part concerning demographic information, questions about years
of teaching experience and of teaching non-English major students were found
repetitive and thus one was excluded from the revised version of the questionnaire.
The rest five questions were restructured and reworded to express more specific and
accurate ideas (see Appendices B1 and B2 for full form of the revised questionnaire).
Major changes are in the main part of the questionnaire. Firstly, questions
about teachers‘ perceptions and responses which were disordered in the pilot
questionnaire were divided into two separated parts in the official questionnaire in
response to participants‘ comments. The official questionnaire, therefore, has three
parts instead of two: part A for demographics, part B about teachers‘ perceptions
and part C about their responses.
Secondly, the scale for part C about teachers‘ responses was changed from
level of agreement (strongly agree to strongly disagree) to frequency degree
(always to never). A number of items such as 8, 9, 14, 20, 39, 47, 48, 50 were
recognized to be ambiguous or obscure to participants, reflected in the low alpha
value (low reliability) in the pilot study. The statements were thus reworded and
restructured to make them more meaningful and the questionnaire more logical. No
statements were negatively-keyed in the official questionnaire.
The third change involved the categorization of the questionnaire items.
Specifically, items related to the necessity to apply the CEFR in part B and the ways
teachers adapt the teaching materials were grouped and reworded to ensure they
were not too lengthy and conveyed the intended meaning.
Finally, some items were found redundant and repetitive and thus deleted in
the revised questionnaire, making a total of twenty-seven items related to teachers‘
65
perceptions and twenty-two items about teachers‘ responses instead of the original
of twenty-five and twenty-seven in the original questionnaire. A summary of the
revised questionnaire for the official round is shown in Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.3. Summary of the official questionnaire
Clusters Items
Teachers’ perceptions of CEFR implementation
Values of CEFR
The CEFR readiness for application
The necessity of CEFR application
The work involved in its application process
Teachers’ responses to CEFR implementation
Teaching activities adaptation
Teaching materials modification
Classroom assessment practice renewal
Part B: 27 items
3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 18
2, 9, 11, 15, 17,
20a, 20b, 20c, 20d, 20e, 20f, 20g, 20h
1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 19
Part C: 22 items
3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17
2, 16, 18a, 18b, 18c, 19a, 19b
1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13
3.5.1.2. Interview Protocol
The quantified data from the questionnaire are criticized to lack a detailed
narrative of GE teachers‘ perception and their responses (Creswell, 2013; Elliott,
2005). Moreover, because the questionnaire cannot elaborate on the detailed context
of the study, it is hard to get insights into the reasons why GE teachers perceive
things and behaved in certain ways as well as what contextual factors influence their
perceptions and responses. To avoid the afore-mentioned limitations of the
quantitative-based questionnaire and to achieve the follow-up qualitative data for
the study, a qualitative-based interview was also combined in the present study. Its
aim was to get a detail explanation and deeper understanding of the first-phase data,
which was survey-based quantitative, i.e. strengthen the design of survey
questionnaires, expand and clarify quantitative findings, and elaborate on the issues
raised in an exploratory manner.
For the present study, the interview was semi-structured and conducted with
consenting participants. While structured interview is criticized to provide generally
little room for variation or spontaneity in the responses, unstructured interview
requires very good rapport between the interviewer and interviewees to achieve the
depth and breadth of the respondent‘s story (Dornyei, 2007). Semi-structured
interview is considered a compromise between the two extremes, which allows for
66
an open relaxed approach to interviewing. Specifically, while the interviewer
provides guidance and direction, the interviewee can elaborate on certain issues and
make interesting developments (Dornyei, 2007, p.136).
Identified issues developed from the quantitative data became the basis for
more in-depth exploration. The interview protocol that contained the questions was
served as a reminder for the researcher about the procedures of the interview
(Creswell, 2013) and an insurance of the consistency with all participants. In the
present study, therefore, the interview was conducted after the questionnaire
collection and data analysis because the researcher needed the initial quantitative
findings from the questionnaire to develop questions for the interview.
The pilot interview protocol
The pilot interview protocol consisted of three parts: a preamble, interview
segment questions and closing.
The preamble aimed to provide the participants with general information
related to the aims of the study, explain the ethical issues and establish the good
rapport between the researcher and the interviewee.
The main section of the interview protocol was divided into three parts
including general background, teachers‘ perceptions and teachers‘ responses. Firstly,
the first three questions about teachers‘ general background concerned with some
demographic information of the interviewee. The next fifteen questions explored
teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation process. The final eight
questions delved into the practice of renewing the CEFR-aligned curriculum.
Questions for both parts regarding teachers‘ perceptions and responses are
twofold. Firstly, they focus on the ―what‖, and were developed in line with the
seven clusters and sub-clusters from the questionnaire, regarding teachers‘
perceptions of values of the CEFR and its readiness, reasons and necessity of its
application, the work involved in the CEFR application process, as well as teachers‘
responses to CEFR-aligned curriculum renewal in three respective domains, namely
teaching activities, teaching materials and classroom assessment practice. The main
aim is to double-check the findings from the survey questionnaire and strengthen its
design at the same time (see 3.6. Data analysis for more details). Secondly, part of
the interview also concerns with the ―how‖ and the ―why‖.
The closing part allowed teacher participants to reflect on whatever they felt
inadequate or insufficient during the interview. Also, the researcher expressed her
67
gratitude to the contribution of the participants and ends the interview.
In the pilot round, the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese so that the
researcher and participants could build up good rapport with each other easily. It
was also believed that using the mother tongue would let the participants feel free to
express himself/ herself (see Appendices C1 and C2 for the pilot interview
protocol). Data and information obtained from the pilot interviews were used to
revise the instruments for the official round.
The official interview protocol
From the initial data and findings from the pilot phase, questions about
teachers‘ perceptions and responses were modified in the official interview
protocol. Firstly, the number of questions concerning teachers‘ perceptions were
reduced to eight instead of fifteen. Reasons were that some questions were too
detailed, repetitive or redundant. In the official interview protocol, the revised
questions were more general compared to those in the pilot one, leaving the
interviewees more freedom for their sharing and reflection. Besides, two questions
delving into challenges and obstacles during the implementation process were
added, making a total of ten questions about teachers‘ responses, which in turn
making the number of questions for both parts become more equal with eight major
questions for teachers‘ perceptions and ten questions for teachers‘ responses.
Finally, as the questions become more open-ended and general, they were not
divided into sub-clusters.
The pleasure and in-depth data obtained from the pilot interview sessions
indicated the importance of the mother tongue to the success of the interview. For
the official round, therefore, all the interview sessions were conducted in
Vietnamese (see Appendices D1 and D2 for the official interview protocol).
3.4.2. Data collection procedures
Data collection procedure of the present study follows Creswell and Clark‘s
(2007) mixed method sequential model (see Figure 3.2). The procedure lasted nine
months from April to December 2017, beginning with the survey questionnaire and in-
depth interviews for the pilot phase in two months from April to May. The official
round lasted five months from September 2017 to February 2018, after an interval of
three months for pilot data analysis and data collection instrument revision. A timeline
for data collection procedure and analysis is shown in Table 3.4 below.
68
Table 3.4. Timeline for data collection procedure and data analysis
P
I
L
O
T
I
N
G
DATA
COLLECTION
April-early May, 2017 Piloting the questionnaire
Delivered: 14 Received: 11
May, 2017 Piloting interview protocol
Invited: 03 Actually interviewed: 02
DATA ANALYSIS
early May- mid July, 2017 DATA ANALYSIS:
-test the research instruments
-collect baseline data on Ts‘ perceptions
and responses
-develop questions for the in-depth
interview
-identify new themes
-revise the questionnaire
SMALL TALKS TO PARTICIPANTS:
-revise the questionnaire
-revise interview questions
mid July- late August,
2017
Instruments revise
O
F
F
I
C
I
A
L
R
O
U
N
D
DATA
COLLECTION
early September, 2017 Questionnaire delivery and collection
Delivered: 43 Received: 36
December, 2017 In-depth interviews
Invited: 10 Actually interviewed: 8
DATA ANALYSIS
September-November
2017
December 2017- January
2018
February 2018
a. THE QUESTIONNAIRE
QUAN data analysis (= SPSS) => QUAN
results
b. THE INTERVIEWS
QUAL data analysis (= thematic analysis)
=> QUAL results
c. INTERPRETATION: QUAN +
QUAL
69
3.4.2.1. The pilot phase
To begin with, a pilot study involving both questionnaire and interview was
conducted from April to May, 2017. Along with an introductory letter explaining
the study and the informed consent letter, the pilot questionnaire was emailed to
fourteen GE teachers at the home university. The researcher emailed to make sure
the questionnaire could reach the target participants in the shortest time and further
explanation was provided upon the participants‘ request. Five days after
questionnaire delivery, however, only five questionnaires, about one third of the
total (sum=14) were sent back. This was actually in line with Flower‘s (2009)
warning about the low response rate of email. Various strategies were employed
including request messages, kind email reminders, personal phone calls and direct
face-to-face reminders got the researcher eleven completed and returned
questionnaires in early May, 2017.
The researcher also did some talks to participants whose questionnaires
showed either highly or low reliable data in order to get their ideas, opinions,
suggestions for questionnaire improvement.
To pilot the interview protocol, two teachers were invited to take part in two
separated one-to-one in-depth interviews. Only one interview actually took place in
early May, 2017. The other teacher cancelled the interview in the last minutes due to
unexpected problems. The researcher had to invite another teacher for the second
interview, which happened in late May. The interviews were conducted in Vietnamese
so that participants felt free to express themselves and were audio-taped for later
transcription. The duration of the interviews was approximately forty-five minutes.
Both participants chose to have the interview take place at a coffee shop for their
convenience. Informed consents were obtained in written form from both participants
before the interviews were started (see Appendices E1 and E2 for the consent form).
The obtained data were used to double check with those from the
questionnaire and to make amendments and adaptations to both instruments for the
official phase.
70
3.4.2.2. The official phase
After two months analyzing the pilot data and revising the instruments, the
official questionnaire was ready in the end of August 2017. At the beginning of
school year, there was a school meeting for all teachers of the university. The
questionnaires were delivered directly to teachers during intervals of this meeting
with the hope to achieve a higher response rate in the shortest period of time. Thirty
out of thirty-seven delivered questionnaires were sent back at the end of that
morning. In the next five days, the researcher managed to deliver and get six more
questionnaires, adding up to a total of thirty-six questionnaires for the official
round. Given the rest nine teachers either refused or were absent on the day of
questionnaire delivery, the number of thirty-six was considered maximum for all
GE teachers at the home university.
In the official round, ten teachers were invited to take part in the one-to-one
in-depth interviews. Eight interviews were actually carried out in December 2017.
Except for changes in the question protocol (see 3.5.2.1 for more details), the data
collection procedure in the official round was the same as that of the pilot study. The
interviews took place at a time and place of convenience for the participants, either at
coffee shops, classrooms or their home. Although the interviews took place only after
having teachers‘ agreement, informed consents were obtained in written form before
the interviews were started. Each interview lasted from thirty to forty-five minutes.
All the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and recorded for later transcription.
The interviews were then transcribed, coded and analyzed. Two or three weeks after
the interviews, the researcher sent the transcripts for those participants to do member-
checking. No participants requested any changes to the transcripts.
3.5. Data analysis
Data analysis was carried out with great care and consideration to ensure the
reliability and validity of the study. Quantitative and qualitative findings are analyzed
separately using different techniques. Quantitative data from the questionnaire were
first dealt with, using descriptive and analytic statistics, followed by qualitative
findings from the interviews transcribed and counted in themes. Both quantitative and
71
qualitative piloted data were analyzed to make necessary changes and adaptation
before the official round of data collection and analysis.
3.5.1. The pilot phase
The aim of the pilot round was twofold. Firstly, it was undertaken mainly to
test the research instruments, to make sure that the data collection instruments work
as intended. Specifically, the questionnaire was analyzed using SPSS version 20 to
check its reliability (α). Secondly, the questionnaire was used to collect baseline
data on general English teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to the CEFR-aligned
curriculum implementation. Quantitative results from the questionnaire were used
to develop questions for the in-depth interview. Its purpose is to gather rich, thickly
descriptive data in order to get insights to the issues it reflects.
After the collection of the pilot questionnaires and the input of raw data in
May, several steps involved in data cleaning and data filtering were carried out before
quantitative data analysis was conducted via SPSS 20 (Julie, 2001). Specifically,
three questionnaires were noticed to have missing values (some items were left blank
in those questionnaires). Given the questionnaires in the pilot phase were delivered
and collected via email so the researcher could identify who those questionnaires
belonged to, personal contacts were carried out to get the missing values, making all
the 11 questionnaires complete and ready for analysis. The second step involved in
reversing negatively-keyed items of the questionnaire (Hoang Trong & Chu Nguyen
Mong Ngoc, 2008). In the pilot questionnaire, items 16, 26, 27, 39, 40, 47, 48, 50 had
been intentionally negatively-keyed. Those items were reversed into positively-keyed
items to ensure the consistence of the questionnaire.
Then, the reliability of the questionnaire was tested via the value of Cronbach
alpha (α). Table 3.5 showed the Cronbach alphas for the whole questionnaire, as well
as separated parts of teachers‘ perceptions and teachers‘ responses. It was noticed that
alphas for the whole questionnaire and for items related to teachers‘ perceptions were
acceptable (α>.70), yet for items related to teachers‘ responses, the reliability was not
good enough (α<.70). Analyses with alpha for the questionnaire if item deleted were
also run to identify problematic items with statistics. Troublesome items included 8,
72
9, 14, 20, 39, 47, 48, 50, half of which were negatively-keyed items, reflect problems
related to wording and explanation. Compared to small talks with participants after
questionnaire collection, the researcher rephrased, reworded and changed those items
to make them clearer and more explicit, which helped to enhance the reliability of the
questionnaire in the official round.
Table 3.5. The reliability of the pilot questionnaire and clusters
Overall
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
Cronbach's
Alpha for
perceptions
N of
Items
Cronbach's
Alpha for
responses
N of
Items
.75 52 .75 25 .69 27
Regarding the qualitative data, prior to data analysis, the interview was
transcribed and the transcripts were sent back to the participants for accuracy
checking. When no modifications were suggested by the participants, a systematic
process for data analysis was started with the generation of categories and themes. All
concepts and ideas emerging in the interview were considered provisional categories.
Besides, the researcher also carried out personal talks with two interviewees to get
insights to the interviewees‘ feeling and emotion during the interview sessions. From
their reflection, the researcher identified which questions in the protocol needed
changes, whether the time allowance was appropriate, how the participants felt during
and after the interview sessions. The information was used to combine with the data
obtained to make decisive modifications for both instruments.
3.5.2. The official round
The data analysis for the official round took place from late September 2017
to April 2018. After data from the survey questionnaire were collected and raw data
input was carried out, a procedure to ensure the validity and reliability of the
questionnaire was applied, i.e. data cleaning and data filter, Cronbach alpha values
of the questionnaire and clusters were conducted.
Although some questionnaires were noticed to be completed without much
care and thoughtfulness, reflected in many items being chosen the same number, the
researcher decided not to leave out any of them to remain the total sample number
73
of thirty-six. The Cronbach alphas (α) of the questionnaire and clusters were then
run to test the reliability of the revised questionnaire and shown in Table 3.6 below.
Table 3.6. The reliability of the official questionnaire and clusters
Overall
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of
Items
Cronbach's
Alpha for
perceptions
N of
Items
Cronbach's
Alpha for
responses
N of
Items
.87 49 .84 27 .82 22
Cronbach alphas of the whole questionnaire and of each separate cluster,
namely teachers‘ perceptions and their responses were much higher than the
required value of .70 and the original values (.87, .84 and .82 compared to .75, .75
and .69 respectively), compensating for the researcher‘s effort to revise, reword and
restructure the questionnaire after the pilot phase.
Quantitative findings were gained by Mean values of the whole clusters and
of separate items. The Standard deviation (S.D) values were sometimes taken into
consideration to explain the differences among data and variances.
As for qualitative data from the interviews, after being transcribed and sent back
to the interviewees for accuracy checking, interviews recordings were listened to many
times and transcribed notes were read and reread, assisting in assuring the accuracy of
the languages captured in the transcribed notes. Simultaneously, participants‘ voices
and tones were captured to deeper understand their perceptions and attitudes to the
issues under investigation. As themes emerged from data analysis, an individual list of
corresponding themes was created. Coding techniques were implemented to organize
data from the interviews analysis and determine the overriding themes. Specific themes
were determined and codes established, information was merged into one document
with all themes and supporting phases made by the participants. Valuable concepts
became categories, some were placed under other sub-headings and minor ideas and
concepts were excluded from the coding process.
Qualitative findings from the interviews were used to triangulate with
quantitative findings from the questionnaire. Simultaneously, quantitative findings
74
were used to verify against qualitative ones (Creswell, 1998). Data and findings
from the questionnaire regarding teachers‘ perceptions and their responses were
compared and contrasted with each other to find out their relations if any. Both
quantitative and qualitative data were then combined, reordered and presented
according to the research questions and clusters and themes. Data obtained are
interpreted in reference to the conceptual framework and compared and contrasted
with relevant literature. The information obtained through the various data
collection methods creates a partnership that expanded the richness of the data. It is
through the expanded understanding that the perceptions of the participants and
their responses to the CEFR implementation were appropriately captured.
As quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the research, validity,
reliability and ethical considerations were addressed in this section (Brown, 2001).
3.6. Validity
Given that validity is concerned with whether the research is believable and
whether it is evaluating what it is supposed to evaluate (Zohrabi, 2013), it is ―an
essential criterion for evaluating the quality and acceptability of the research‖
(Burns, 2003, p.160). The validity of a study can be measured in different ways. It
is closely related to the content of the research instruments and data (content
validity), which can be validated by the reviews of experts in the field of research
(Zohrabi, 2013). It can be the congruence of the research findings with the reality
(internal validity), the degree of usefulness the evaluation findings have for
administrators, managers and other stakeholders (utility validity) and also the
applicability of the findings in other settings or with other subjects (external
validity) (Zohrabi, 2013).
For the present study, all the above criteria have been applied to guarantee the
study‘s validity. Firstly, all the items and questions in the questionnaire and
interviews had been carefully commented and revised by her supervisor, an expert of
NFL 2020 Project and the CEFR implementation in Vietnam before and after the
pilot phase to ensure the content validity of the instruments. Secondly, four out of six
methods: triangulation, member checks, participatory modes of research and issues of
75
researcher‘s bias (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2002) have been used to strengthen the
internal validity of data and findings. The quantitative questionnaire data are
triangulated with the in-depth semi-structured interviews to maintain a chain of
evidence (Yin, 2015). In order to report accurately and credibly on teachers‘
perceptions of and responses to implementing the CEFR at tertiary level, and to
separate herself from the findings, the researcher also employed member checking.
Specifically, the participants were asked to check the accuracy of the transcripts of
the interviews in both the pilot phase and the official round. The participants‘
confirmation of what they stated during the interviews is a strong evidence of the
plausibility and truthfulness of the information. The researcher was also well aware of
the ethical rules and principles. Not only did she perform the evaluation as accurately
as possible and reported the findings honestly but she also tried to remain
nonjudgmental and clear throughout the research project. In addition, as the
participants are also the researcher‘ colleagues with knowledge and experiences in the
field, the researcher always asked them to review and comment on the interviews and
questionnaire data and findings to augment the validity of the research.
Given that a conceptual framework based on Fullan‘s (2007a) theory on
change management, Borg‘s (2003) theory of teachers‘ cognition and Waters‘ (2009)
teacher iceberg, utility criterion and the external validity of the study are also
recognized and supported. Firstly, the findings of the present research were expected
to provide insights into the issues of the CEFR implementation in Vietnam, which
can be of great usefulness for administrators, managers and other stakeholders, one
important criterion for utility validation (Zohrabi, 2013). Secondly, the findings
helped explain what GE teachers perceived and behaved with respect to Borg‘s
(2003) cognition theory, the results of the present study were believed to be of great
importance in other context of language teaching, which ensures the validity of the
research. Thirdly, the CEFR comes and goes, but other ―new models, old patterns‖
foreign language policies are very likely to take place. The conceptual framework
based on Fullan‘s (2007a) theory on change management, Borg‘s theory of teachers‘
cognition and Waters‘ teacher iceberg helped explain the reality of the CEFR
76
implementation in Vietnam in a more general and comprehensive way and the
findings of this study, therefore, are still applicable with other top-down language
policies, a criterion for the external validity of this research.
3.7. Reliability
Reliability of data and findings is one of the main requirements of any research
process, which involves in its consistency (internal reliability), dependability and
replicability (external reliability) (Dornyei, 2007; Zohrabi, 2013). In the present study, in
order to guard against threats to internal reliability, several techniques have been applied.
Firstly, except for the demographic questions, all the items in the questionnaire
were designed in closed format, five-point scale, which were then transformed and
analyzed using SPSS, a software program assisting the researcher in achieving reliability.
The Cronbach alpha (α) of all items as well as of separate clusters was run to test the
reliability of the questionnaire. Besides, results of the pilot phase, combined with
comments and suggestions of the participants help identify items with repeated ideas or
ambiguous statements so that necessary modifications and adjustments can be made to
enhance the reliability of the questionnaire. Regarding the in-depth, qualitative
interviews, the process of data analysis was carried out in such a way that ensures the
reliability of data findings (see 3.5. data analysis for more details). The researcher also
received valuable helps and qualified support during the data collection, analysis and
interpretation. All the interviews were recorded and preserved so that the reanalysis and
replication of the data can be easily implemented by any independent investigator, a vital
criterion to increase the internal reliability of the data and findings.
As for the external reliability, five important aspects of inquiry namely the status
of the researcher, the choice of informants, the social situations and conditions, the
analytic constructs and premises, and the methods of data collection and analysis
(Nunan, 1999) are all concerned in this study. Specifically, the status of the researcher is
clarified to the participants of the study before collecting data via the informed consent
form. The study was conducted at the home university, so the social situations and
conditions are fairly constant and uniform for all the participants. Next, information
related to the participants is clearly described in 3.4.2, making it easy for any
77
independent inquirer to replicate the study. The main terms, constructs, definitions, etc.
are all described in details and explicitly, which eases the process of replication and
consequently enhance reliability. Methods of data collections and analysis are explicitly
explained. The quantitative data are analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative
data by means of thematic interpretations (see 3.4. data analysis for more discussion).
3.8. Ethical considerations
The ethical principles for the conduct of social research such as respects for
human beings, research merit and integrity, justice and beneficence (Fowler, 2009) are
adhered to throughout the study.
Firstly, informed consents were gained from all participants involved in the study.
Prior to delivering the questionnaire for quantitative data collection, the researcher read
the information sheet and consent form to all the participants as well as answered their
questions to make sure they knew issues related to the research project, including the
research purpose, data collection procedures, the possible risks and benefits of
participation (see Appendices E1 and E2). Regarding the interviews for qualitative data
collection, each participant was provided with a consent form to sign in after careful
reading and detailed explanation by the researcher.
The voluntary nature and right of withdrawal were emphasized. Participants
could decide to be in the survey and interview or not. They could withdraw at any time
without explanation, and have all or some of their data withdrawn from the study. The
risk of being in this study was minimal. Participation in this study did not place
participants at risk or criminal or civil liability or be damaging to their financial standing,
employability or reputation. If participants felt stressed during the interview, they could
stop at any time. They were able to skip any questions that they felt were too personal.
Participants‘ information and sharing were documented in a doctoral study. While they
did not get any financial benefits, the results may be used to improve the CEFR
implementation at tertiary level in general and at the home university in particular.
Issue of confidentiality was also guaranteed. The information gathered
during this study was recorded in such a manner to ensure confidentiality of the
subjects. The researcher did not use participants‘ information for any purposes
78
outside of this project. All the information was anonymous. Teachers‘ participation,
their answers and/ or transcripts were not shared with anybody. All questionnaires
and tapes, and a copy of this form were stored in a file cabinet accessible to the
researcher only in her home office.
To ensure that the researcher did not distort what participants shared in the
interviews, the transcript of each interview was sent back to the participants for accuracy
checking. Modification and changes were made until the interviewee‘s satisfaction. The
relationship between the researcher and participants was also paid attention to so as to
guarantee the authentic data for the study. The researcher managed to create a relaxed,
comfortable feeling and mutual respect between her and the participants as an addition to
maintaining the ethical issue of this study.
3.9. Chapter summary
This chapter describes the methods and procedures employed to provide
insights into teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to implementing the CEFR at a
Vietnamese university. Given the objectives of the study, research questions and the
conceptual framework, it is justified in this chapter that the choice of mixed method
research is appropriate. A case study which combines both quantitative and
qualitative research design involving the use of questionnaires and in-depth
interviews was chosen for this study.
Data collection procedures began with the pilot round. The detailed explanation
of how the instruments were piloted, analyzed and revised to gain better instrument
versions for the official round was presented. In data analysis, findings from the
quantitative-based questionnaire provided general information and initial results for
developing questions of the interview, the second instrument to achieve qualitative data
and findings. While data from the questionnaire were analyzed to provide statistical and
descriptive results, data and findings from the interviews were coded in themes, counted
and thematically analyzed to achieve richer, deeper and more explanatory results. Issues
related to reliability, validity and ethics of the study were also addressed and disclosed.
The presentation of data in Chapter 4 and 5 will address the two research
questions, as well as general demographic information collected. A summary and
discussion of the findings, along with conclusions, implications for practice, and
recommendations for future research form the contents of Chapter 5.
79
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents and interprets quantitative and qualitative findings in
response to the research question formulated. The chapter describes in details GE
teachers’ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation regarding the values of
the CEFR, its readiness for application, the reasons and necessity of implementing
the CEFR for non-English major students, and the work involved in its application
process. The description of and discussion on GE responses to the CEFR
implementation in three different domains: teaching activities, teaching materials
and classroom assessment are also provided. Emerging themes on both GE
teachers’ perceptions of and their responses to the CEFR implementation are
refined and simultaneously addressed.
4.1. GE teachers’ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation
This section presents the results of twenty-seven items in part B of the
questionnaire regarding GE teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation
for non-English major students at the home university. All items are in close format,
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as ―strongly disagree‖ to 5 as ―strongly agree‖.
4.1.1. General results
The general results regarding GE teachers‘ perceptions of the values of the
CEFR, its readiness for application, the reasons and necessity of its implementation and
the work involved in the CEFR application process were shown in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1. General results of the four clusters
Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
The values of the CEFR 36 3.97 .50
The CEFR readiness for application 36 3.71 .60
The reasons and necessity of the CEFR implementation 36 3.60 .45
The work involved in the CEFR application process 36 3.19 .57
80
As seen in Table 4.1, the Mean values of the four clusters ranged from 3.19
to 3.97, between levels 3 and 4 of the five-point Likert scale, which indicated that
GE teachers had neutral to relatively positive perceptions of the CEFR and its
implementation for their non-English major university students. Specifically, the
level of teachers‘ agreement regarding the CEFR‘s value reached close to 4.0 (M=
3.97) and were slightly higher than those given to the need for the CEFR‘s
application and its readiness for implementation (M=3.60 and 3.71 respectively).
Nevertheless they perceived the work involved in implementing the CEFR process
as the lowest with a Mean value of only 3.19.
Of note is the fact that the first three clusters related more to the CEFR itself
while the fourth concerned its application to general English for non-English major
university students. It can be concluded that GE teachers had a generally sound
understanding of the CEFR and its use. However, their perceptions of the CEFR
implementation process were not as high. As such GE teachers had knowledge
about the why of CEFR implementation, which is called the moral purposes of
change (Fullan et al., 2005, p.54). In Fullan et al.‘s (2005) change management
knowledge, engaging teachers‘ moral purposes is extremely important because it is
the front and center driver for successful change in practice.
The next sections will present detailed discussion of these clusters together
with the themes and sub-themes that emerged from interviews.
4.1.2. GE teachers’ understanding of the values of the CEFR
Table 4.2. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR values
No Items Contents N Mean Std. Deviation
The values of the CEFR 36 3.97 .50
1 3 The CEFR can make learning outcomes transparent. 36 4.19 .92
2 5 The CEFR helps create mutual recognition across
institutions. 36 3.86 .80
3 8 The CEFR encourages self-directed learning. 36 3.92 .65
4 12 The CEFR helps renew assessment practice. 36 3.83 .88
5 13 The CEFR can help renew curriculum. 36 4.03 .77
6 18 The CEFR can create positive changes in English
language education. 36 4.00 .63
81
Details of teachers‘ perceptions of the values of the CEFR can be seen in
Table 4.2 above. Specifically, their agreement that CEFR can make learning
outcomes transparent, renew curriculum and create positive changes in English
language education reached above 4 of the five-point scale (4.19, 4.03 and 4.0
respectively). Other purposes such as encouraging self-directed learning, creating
mutual recognition across institutions and renewing assessment practice received
the Mean values below 4 on the five-point scale of agreement (3.92, 3.86 and 3.83
respectively). Attention is drawn to the Mean values of items being quite close to
the Mean value for the whole cluster of 3.97, suggesting that GE teachers well
understood the comprehensive objectives and principles of the framework including
their application to non-English major students.
Data from the interviews generally aligned with quantitative findings. Of
eight respondents, six teachers claimed that the CEFR‘s overall objectives met
Vietnam‘s need for integration in the current situation. They also supported
MOET‘s aims that the foreign language (especially English) proficiency of
Vietnamese people in general and learners of different levels in particular could be
improved through implementation of the CEFR. From their comments, GE
teachers‘ understanding of the values of CEFR could be captured. In brief, they
understood that the policy for non-English major students was part of the bigger
picture of efforts to boost foreign language education nationwide, at different levels
of education and in different contexts, not just within their university. One teacher
emphasized the potential to create mutual recognition between institutions with the
CEFR-aligned outcomes, which was a favorable condition for students pursuing
education at another university or institution.
In their context of teaching general English to non-English major university
students, four out of the eight interviewed teachers expressed satisfaction with the
CEFR division of language proficiency into six levels with concise descriptors for
each level and for different language skills. They believed that this made the
learning outcomes more specific and transparent. One participant also added that
the descriptors ―aided teachers and students a lot as they could see more clearly
82
what and how they should do to get through to the end of their teaching and
learning journey by looking at the B1 CEFR-aligned learning outcome‖. In other
words, the interviewed teachers believed that their English teaching and learning
became better oriented through the CEFR implementation. This finding was in line
with that of Pham (2017). Data from the interview sessions also showed that
teachers were aware of the interdependence among different domains of language
education from outcomes, assessment to teaching materials and pedagogy. This idea
reflected one feature of the CEFR‘s contribution to language education worldwide,
which was previously pinpointed by Little (2006).
In sum, GE teachers had a sound understanding of the CEFR‘s values. This
finding was similar to that of Pham (2017) but differed from that of Nguyen and
Hamid (2016). In Nguyen and Hamid (2016), the value of the CEFR to teachers was
limited to ―testing scores and numbers only‖ (p.69). This difference could be partly
explained by the different timing of research, with theirs being conducted during the
first years of the CEFR implementation program while the present study was carried
out six years after its first implementation. Another explanation may arise from the
difference between the participant groups, with the former investigating English
language teachers of both English major and non-major students while the latter
focused on GE teachers of non-major students only.
4.1.3. GE teachers’ perceptions of the CEFR readiness for application
Table 4.3. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR readiness for implementation
No Items Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
The CEFR readiness for application 36 3.71 .60
1 2 The CEFR descriptors of proficiency levels are
representative. 36 4.06 .71
2 9 The CEFR is English-specific. 36 3.39 .93
3 11 The CEFR is context- specific. 36 3.33 .93
4 15 The CEFR is ready for any curriculum renewal. 36 3.61 .93
5 17 The CEFR descriptors need to be specified. 36 4.17 .88
83
In general, teachers partly agreed that the CEFR and its descriptors applied
well to non-English major students, showing a Mean value of 3.71 for this cluster of
questions. The Mean value of individual items, however, varied greatly from a low
of 3.33 to a high of 4.17. Specifically, GE teachers strongly believed that the
descriptions of the CEFR levels of proficiency are representative (M=4.06) on the
one hand, and that the CEFR need to be more specific (M=4.17) on the other.
Doubts that the descriptors are context-specific or English specific still remained
but were not as strong (M=3.33 and 3.39 respectively).
The high SD values of nearly 1.0 to a majority of items showed that teachers‘
choices were dispersed, indicating inconsistency between individual teacher‘s
perceptions of CEFR specificity. Given that the CEFR descriptors are neither language-
nor context-specific, with the descriptions used for each level of proficiency being
illustrative rather than representative (CoE, 2001), this result should be given serious
consideration. The teachers need better understanding of the levels of
comprehensiveness of the CEFR descriptors so as to use them more effectively.
The data from the interview sessions further explained teachers‘ perceptions
and provided reasons for the quantitative results above. From the interviews, the
contradiction between teacher‘s thinking could be identified and explained. On the
one hand, teachers seemed to correctly understand that the CEFR is not a precise
document that can be readily applied in every context without modification or
adaptation. On the other hand, they were initially hesitant to talk about their
uneasiness with the CEFR, which aspects of the CEFR are not suitable and which
need improvement to make them more useable or relevant. This might be partly
because they were not well trained in understanding this at the outset so did not feel
confident enough to say what they think, and partly because of their commonly
expressed belief that, as a global framework, the CEFR must be good and complete.
Only after encouragement did the participants reveal their concerns more openly
and completely. These concerns are described below.
Firstly, four of the eight interviewed teachers strongly agreed that the CEFR
descriptors were representative and comprehensive in the levels of proficiency they
84
seek to describe. The main reasons given were that language use at each level was
not only divided into skills and sub-skills but also into domains, situations, areas,
topics and strategies with all being clearly described for each proficiency level.
On the CEFR implementation for non-English major students, however, the
teachers provided detailed examples of the inappropriateness of the CEFR
descriptors. Some of the descriptors were described as being alienated from
Vietnamese students‘ age, ability, interest and concerns. They were also criticized
for being not specific. The way terms like ―basic‖, ―short‖, ―simple‖, ―satisfactory‖
were used to describe levels of language proficiency failed to help teachers and
students visualize clearly the scope and boundary of different levels. This finding
accorded with warnings of CEFR limitations pointed out by Little (2006) and
Figueras et al. (2005) that although the CEFR ―offers considerably greater
explicitness than most curricular documents, it is still quite an abstract descriptive
system‖ (p. 270).
In short, GE teachers were not consistent in their understanding of the CEFR
readiness for application. The finding was similar to that of Pham (2017), showing
limits to teachers‘ understanding of the CEFR and its descriptors. This offers hints
to effective CEFR implementation that the university should continue the
workshops and training programs on the comprehensiveness of the CEFR and its
descriptors. The Faculty of ESP and GE teachers should take initiatives in creating
forums for knowledge exchange on the CEFR so as to have a better understanding
and more effective implementation process.
85
4.1.4. GE teachers’ attitudes towards the necessity of the CEFR implementation
Table 4.4. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the necessity of the CEFR implementation
No Items Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
The reasons and necessity of the CEFR implementation 36 3.60 .45
1 20a The CEFR is a comprehensive global framework. 36 3.94 .83
2 20b The teachers involved in the process are ready. 36 3.44 .84
3 20c The students involved are ready. 36 3.28 .91
4 20d The CEFR has been well applied in other countries. 36 3.33 .68
5 20e The university has all resources required. 36 3.56 .88
6 20f The CEFR can help improve the teaching quality of
the university. 36 3.89 .71
7 20g The university can promote its reputation. 36 3.69 .82
8 20h The CEFR implementation will improve the language
proficiency of the students of the university. 36 3.69 .82
On average, the Mean value of the whole cluster fell between 3 (no idea) and
4 (agree) (M=3.60). Synonymously, GE teachers were aware that implementing the
CEFR at their home university was required, although their level of agreement was
not high. Specifically, they agreed that the application of the CEFR was necessary
because it provided a comprehensive global framework (M=3.94) and applying the
CEFR would help improve teaching quality (M=3.89), promote the university‘s
reputation (M=3.69) and improve students‘ language proficiency (M=3.69). But
they did not fully agree that teachers, students and the home university‘s resources
were ready for this implementation. The Mean values were close to middle value of
3.0 for the readiness of students, teachers and the university resources (M=3.28,
M=3.44, and M=3.56 respectively) and indicated that teachers did not agree that
their university was ready for such an application. In addition, they did not support
the idea that it was necessary to apply the CEFR in the home university because the
framework has been successfully applied in other contexts (M=3.33).
86
There are two issues worth noticing from the quantitative results regarding
GE teachers‘ perceptions of the necessity of the CEFR implementation. Firstly, all
items showed high standard deviations (SD), with values ranging from .71 to .91,
showing an ambit of teachers‘ viewpoints. In other words, GE teachers‘ perceptions
differed widely. Although the Mean values of some items were quite high, it could
not be concluded that every teacher shared the same level of agreement. Secondly,
the Mean values varied greatly among items, revealing that the teachers had
different perceptions regarding the necessity of applying the CEFR to non-English
major students at their university.
Items related to the potential impacts and effects of the CEFR implementation,
such as on the school‘s reputation, promotion, teaching quality and students‘
proficiency improvement received relatively positive rankings. In comparison, the
items concerning school infrastructure and capacity readiness obtained a much lower
level of agreement from GE teachers.
The data obtained from the interview sessions accorded with the
questionnaire data. Of eight teachers interviewed, four strongly supported the need
to apply the CEFR to non-English major students; three acknowledged the need but
held concerns and reservations and one did not think it necessary to implement the
CEFR. Supportive ideas yielded from the interview sessions were as follow. Firstly,
the division by CEFR of language proficiency into six attainment levels made it
more appropriate for different groups of language learners. For non-English major
students, applying the CEFR-aligned outcomes of A1 and B1 seemed to be more
practical and appropriate compared with previous standards, which were closely
aligned with TOEIC and TOEFL tests. One teacher further explained that previous
standards were more academic and thus more challenging for non-English major
students whose language needs should be more focused on daily and
communicative needs. This is understandable because the A1 and B1 CEFR
descriptors are mainly focused on ―familiar matters regularly encountered in work,
school, leisure, etc.‖ (Cambridge, 2011, p.24), making them more appropriate for
non-English major students.
87
Reasons for teachers‘ support also came from the expectation that CEFR
implementation could create big changes to their teaching and learning contexts,
either for the short or long term. In particular, one teacher mentioned the change in
students‘ awareness which led to the changes in ―learning methodology‖. Another
added that ―the policy is a motivation for students‘ language improvement‖. One
teacher reflected, ―it [the CEFR] affects students‘ perceptions, which (hopefully)
will result in changing students‘ language competency‖. All interviewed teachers
acknowledged the change in students‘ attitudes and motivation, which they
confirmed to be present and easily recognized in their classes. Nevertheless, they
were reluctant to discuss the actual changes in students‘ language competency and
proficiency and admitted that such expectations were ―too ambitious‖ to achieve,
even six years after CEFR implementation began in Vietnam.
The second change pinpointed by all eight teachers was the modification and
adaptation to teaching practices teachers had made, whether or not done voluntarily.
They mentioned what they had done in their classes as evidence of their efforts to
make changes accommodating the new policy and implementation. In short, the
interviewed teachers observed three additional and direct impacts of the CEFR
implementation: changing students’ attitude and motivation in English learning,
changing teachers’ classroom practices and to some extent changing the
university’s qualifications and reputation and gave these as essential reasons for
applying the CEFR framework to their non-English major students.
For teachers who did not perceive the CEFR implementation as necessary,
doubt about its efficiency was the main reason given. They pointed to some
previous standard-based outcomes and curricula as examples of unsuccessful
policies and doubted that the CEFR implementation policy would fare any better.
One teacher mentioned suitable planning and reasonable timelines as two basic
principles for the students to achieve B1 level. In her view, these two key things
were missing from the current environment of the home university.
Reluctance to change and adaptation to changes were additional reasons for
teachers‘ disagreeing with the requirement to implement the CEFR. These teachers
88
expressed their weariness at the previously abrupt and uninformed changes in
language policy, specifically to the B1 standard-based learning outcomes, being
unexpectedly imposed on teachers and students with limited notice and preparation
time. They also expressed fear that just when they became accustomed to a new
policy, the policy changed, making them, as one teacher stated: ―passive and under
a lot of unnecessary pressure‖. In short, although these concerns and disagreements
were not prominent, they helped explain why GE teachers did not consider the
necessity to implement the CEFR as being high; ranking it the lowest Mean score of
the four clusters.
The findings proved that the moral purpose was already established not only
among teachers but also students at the home university. Besides, GE teachers‘
perceptions of the CEFR-aligned learning outcome implementation at the home
university also proved that they had a sound understanding of the change process.
Compared to the drivers by Fullan et al. (2005), the foundation forces for the
implementation process were achieved. From the findings, it can be concluded that
GE teachers‘ positive perceptions of the necessity of implementing the CEFR came
mainly from their trust in the potential positive impacts such an implementation
could bring about and not from their beliefs about the readiness of the people and
resources involved in the process. This suggests that the university really need to
work harder to better support and facilitate staff and students during the
implementation process.
89
4.1.5. GE teachers’ dissatisfaction of the work involved in the CEFR implementation
process
Table 4.5. GE teachers‘ perceptions of the work involved in the CEFR
implementation process
No Items Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
The work involved in the CEFR application process 36 3.19 .57
1 1 Necessary resources for the implementation were
provided. 36 3.86 .83
2 4 The implementation of the CEFR was piloted. 36 2.69 1.14
3 6 Capacity building for the implementation (e.g. training
workshops on the CEFR) was provided. 36 3.81 .89
4 7 Staff involved were informed about the CEFR values and
limitations. 36 3.67 1.10
5 10 All teachers were involved in the CEFR-aligned curriculum
design. 36 1.56 .56
6 14 Staff involved were trained for the implementation
procedure. 36 3.39 .96
7 16 Expertise and professional support during the
implementation process were provided. 36 2.56 1.03
8 19 The objectives were realistic within the required timeline. 36 3.06 1.07
As seen in Table 4.5, the low Mean value of 3.19 for the whole cluster, just
above point 3 of the five-point Likert scale, showed that teachers were not much
satisfied with what had been done to implement the CEFR for non-English major
students at the home university. While some actions were acknowledged, others
received strong criticism from the GE teachers, reflected in the wide range, from 3.86
to 1.56, of Mean values between items. In particular, GE teachers agreed with the
proposition that necessary resources and capacity building for the CEFR
implementation had been provided. The Mean values for the two items were 3.86 and
3.81 respectively. While GE teachers reported that they were trained, the training and
workshops provided the teachers with knowledge of the CEFR‘s value (M= 3.67)
90
rather than preparing them to apply the procedures (M= 3.39). Results from the
questionnaire showed that teachers had neutral attitude towards the feasibility of the
timeline (M= 3.06). In contrast, the last three items regarding the piloting phase of the
program, the available support from experts, and the involvement of teachers and
students in CEFR-aligned curriculum design received negative comments from
teachers, with all Mean values below level 3 (2.69, 2.56 and 1.56 respectively).
Findings from the interview sessions provided better understanding of the data
derived from the questionnaire. Although varying in number, all GE teachers
interviewed reported their participation in workshops and training, organized by
either MOET or their home university, related to the CEFR, its values and limitations,
and its descriptors. They observed and highly rated the facilities and resources made
available for the CEFR implementation process. Better-equipped classrooms with
computers, projectors, CD-players, together with supportive online softwares and
programs were among resources listed by respondent teachers as efforts made by the
university to help teachers and students achieve B1 level as the new standard-based
learning outcome. They also listed their retraining and improving language
proficiency workshops and the English proficiency tests that they participated in from
2011 to 2013 as evidence of the capacity building the university had provided in
preparation for implementation. However, all teachers asserted that the CEFR-aligned
curriculum was not piloted and they had no significant involvement in its design and
development. It can be seen that, while the teachers had relatively sound
understanding and perceptions the CEFR, they were not well prepared for the process
of actually implementing it in their own university context.
The interview data revealed that GE teachers were dissatisfied with the
implementation process. They provided evidence of the mismatch between the
CEFR and the current context of implementation, due to students‘ cultural
differences, the reality of language need and students‘ level of proficiency and
considered them as the big challenges for successful CEFR implementation. More
specifically, GE teachers‘ discontent is associated with three main issues, namely
time constraints, incompatible teaching materials and the tremendous gaps between
students‘ entry levels of English proficiency and the B1 learning outcome.
91
Time constraints
In interviews, GE teachers reported their dissatisfaction with the limited
number of teacher-led periods assigned to each course. This was the biggest disquiet
for GE teachers and led to the two other discontents. The phrase ―time constraints‖
was repeated many times during six teacher interviews. In fact for non-English
major students at the home university the curriculum specifies 30 teacher-led
periods for A1 and A2 courses and 45 periods for B1 courses, which was stated to
be ―too limited do to anything‖.
One teacher complained: ―We need adequate time to change students‘
language competence. Yet time allowance [for my non-English major students] to
move from A1 to B1 is too limited‖. This viewpoint was shared by another teacher
with her reflection that ―the total 30 or 45 periods are not enough to improve
students‘ language proficiency‖. The phrase ―the pressure of time limits‖ was also
raised in other teachers‘ interviews.
Limited, teacher-led, classroom interactions per week was another cause of
the dissatisfaction expressed around time constraints. Due to the limit of 30 or 45
periods, non-English major students at the home university attended only one class
of two or three teacher-led periods each week. ―The long interval between one
English classes and the next is enough for my students to forget everything (about
English)‖, one teacher said.
A senior teacher with more than 25 years of teaching experiences reported
that time allowances for English language curricula for non-English major students
had once been much longer, when the school-year program was applied. The shift
from a school-year to a credit-based program considerably reduced the number of
teacher-led, or classroom contact hours while increasing the time allotted to student
self-learning (or study outside the classroom without a teacher). For language
learning, especially for non-English major students, this model has created huge
challenges ―simply because not many non-English major students want and have the
learner autonomy ability to self-learning‖.
92
In short, with the current CEFR-aligned outcomes, insufficient time
allowance was the biggest pressure GE teachers currently had to deal with. This
finding is similar to what Faez, et al. (2011a) found in their study where teachers
indicated ―time crunch‖ (p.11) and insufficient time to implement CEFR activities
and cover the demanding curriculum simultaneously.
Incompatible teaching materials
The dissatisfaction with the CEFR implementation process, reported by
many teachers, was the mismatch between the assigned textbook and the CEFR-
aligned outcomes. Many teachers noted that, together with the implementation of
the CEFR-aligned outcomes, a new textbook series, English Elements, plus a later
text entitled Life, were selected for course use by non-English major students at the
home university. Both textbook series, especially English Elements, were criticized
as being incompatible with the CEFR-aligned outcomes. Some complaints and
criticisms are cited below.
Many teachers maintained that English Elements, a textbook series by
German publisher Hueber, was intended for and targeted learners who were very
unlike students at the home university. In addition, one teacher stated that the series
was totally unsuited to the needs of a 105-period English curriculum. Selecting this
series for non-English major students at the home university caused challenges for
both teachers and students. As one teacher explained:
It‘s impossible to teach four books from the series [English Elements] in
105 periods, spreading over a total of three semesters. Yet we had to.
Comparing the CEFR descriptors for A1-B1 levels, we found that the
books contained many irrelevant topics and themes, irrelevant exercises,
irrelevant vocabulary and grammar….Some [vocabulary, grammar, topics,
etc.] reappears or are repeated in more than one book, while many others,
included in the descriptors, cannot be found anywhere [in the textbooks].
Regarding the textbook series Life, which was recently used in parallel with
English Elements, the complaints were not as strong in terms of the book content.
Four (4) teachers reported that the new textbook series [Life] was better aligned
93
with the A1-B1 CEFR learning outcomes as it focused more equally on the four
basic language skills. However, its design indicated that its use required far longer
than the 105 periods allocated in the current curriculum. Although challenges arose
less from the book itself, GE teachers described problems in selecting content that
would help students achieve the required learning outcomes within the allotted time.
A senior teacher explained the problems with Life as follows:
Take the A1 course as an example. Each unit in Life has six parts, from A
to F, and a review, usually 12 pages long. And we have to teach 6 units,
plus administer a mid-term test and an end-of-course speaking test. To do
all this we have four periods per unit and three book pages per period. It is
too challenging really.
In short, the assigned textbooks, both English Elements and Life series, were
considered to be not compatible with the current curriculum for non-English major
students in terms of their content, their purpose, and, especially, their time demands.
For the CEFR implementation process to be successful and to create changes, GE
teachers needed to put in a lot of effort to develop and modify the text materials to
align them with CEFR learning outcomes.
This demonstrates that, when the MOET set the CEFR B1 level of
proficiency as the required learning outcome, teachers expected that the materials
selected should support the achievement of this outcome. It also suggests their
belief in the existence of suitable, ready-to-use materials. In contrast, however,
teacher feedback on the text materials themselves showed a greater concern with
how to deliver the materials within the limited timeframe rather than on how to
make effective use of the prescribed materials. They showed less concern to
evaluate the materials, adapt and prioritize sections, or select the tasks and topics
most useful in supporting student acquisition of the required B1 level of proficiency
than for the time limits imposed.
Mismatches between students’ admission level of proficiency and learning outcomes
The third dissatisfaction originated from low levels of students‘ language
proficiency at the course entry point. Two teachers thought that students‘ current
94
proficiency was too low to allow them to achieve the B1 outcome (level three of the
six levels) required of non-English major students after three semesters of university
study. They cited the low percentage of non-English major students achieving the B1
certificate as evidence of this viewpoint. Six teachers mentioned the vast gap between
students‘ actual English language competency and the level they were required to
reach. It was also observed that the situation varied between students undertaking
different majors and attending different colleges. One teacher commented:
It depends on the students. In general, GE students majoring in medicine,
pharmacy, or economics have better English language competency
compared to students completing majors in other subjects. The B1-aligned
outcome may be ok for them, if those students keep on working on their
English. But the others, who form the majority, are not good enough…
This idea was widely held, with another teacher stating:
We did have a placement test before admission so that we could classify
students into different ability groups based on their level of English
proficiency at entry. I would say that there are many students whose
English was at A0 or lower. They simply knew nothing about English
despite spending up to ten years learning English at primary, secondary
and high schools. How can their English reach B1 level after 105 periods
at our university?
Although the problems may not come directly from the CEFR and the policy
to implement it, the low levels of students‘ English ability at the point of course
entry have created huge challenges for both teachers and non-English major
students at the home university. From the viewpoint of those having to implement
the policy, the mismatch between students‘ entry levels of English language
proficiency and the standard they are required to achieve means that the outcome of
students attaining a CEFR level B1 is totally unrealistic.
In summary, GE teachers perceived the work involved in the CEFR
implementation process as the lowest among four clusters. Criticism was made from
the mismatch between the CEFR-aligned high-standard learning outcomes and the
constraint timeframe, the incompatible teaching materials and students‘ low language
95
proficiency level. The CEFR-aligned curriculum was also blamed for not being
piloted. GE teachers, the key implementers, were reflected to have no voices in the
CEFR-aligned curriculum planning. As such the issue of adaptation which was
continuously repeated in the principles for good using the CEFR (Cambridge, 2011)
was raised. This offers hints that GE teachers and/ or non-English major students
should be involved in the CEFR-aligned curriculum planning. GE teachers‘ voices
need to be listened to. The curriculum had to be piloted so that non-English major
students‘ proficiency level and their English language needs were taken into account.
4.1.6. Summary of the first research question’s findings
The findings revealed GE teachers‘ positive perceptions and sound
understanding of the CEFR and its use. GE teachers understood the CEFR and its
values. They were also well aware of the challenges during the implementation
process. Synonymously, the moral purposes for changes have been built up. The above
findings are of great importance in the current context of the CEFR implementation for
non-English major students at the home university. As Fullan et al. (2005) pointed out,
creating the moral purposes and the understanding of the change process are the two
first driving forces of change management. As such GE teachers‘ relatively positive
perceptions are the initial success of the implementation process and the essential
condition for education change and/ or innovation to take place.
Moreover, as shown in the demographic information of participants, all GE
teachers attended trainings and/ or workshops on the CEFR at least one. They also
reported their participation in retraining and improving language proficiency
workshops from 2011 to 2013. This is the evidence that capacity building, the
second driver for change management pinpointed by Fullan et al. (2005), has been
made in preparation for the CEFR implementation. From teachers‘ reflection,
however, it was concluded that GE teachers were mainly supported with the CEFR
and its values. They lacked the procedure and process to implement the CEFR in
their current context for non-English major students. This suggests that the coming
workshops for teacher professional development should focus more on the CEFR
implementation process, particularly how to make necessary adaptations and bring
all the domains of the curriculum into much closer interdependence.
96
4.2. GE teachers’ responses to the CEFR implementation
This section reports findings of 29 items in part C of the questionnaire
investigating GE teachers‘ responses to the CEFR implementation for non-English
major students at the home university. All items are in close format, five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 as ―never‖ to 5 as ―always‖.
4.2.1. General results
Table 4.6. General results of teachers‘ responses
Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
Teaching activities modification 36 3.78 .38
Teaching materials adaptation 36 3.90 .47
Classroom assessment renewal 36 3.96 .42
As shown in Table 4.6, the Mean values of the three clusters regarding GE
teachers‘ responses to the CEFR-aligned curriculum renewal ranged from 3.78 to
3.96, close to level 4 of the five-point Likert scale, showing GE teachers‘ effort in
the implementation and adaptation process. Specifically, the Mean values for
teaching activities modification, teaching materials adaptation and classroom
assessment renewal were 3.78, 3.90 and 3.96 respectively. Of note is the fact that
the values were quite close to each other, meaning GE teachers‘ modification was
relatively equally distributed for all three domains of the curriculum.
Nonetheless, renewing classroom assessment practice was paid slightly more
attention compared to the others (Mean=3.96 compared to 3.78 and 3.90). As such
GE teachers‘ effort in modifying the CEFR implementation on assessment practice
was stronger than that on the other two, although the difference was not much. This
was in accordance with Little‘s summary of its impact on testing and assessment
(2006, p.178). The next section will present detailed discussion of the clusters
combined with emerged themes and sub-themes from the interviews.
4.2.2. GE teachers’ responses to teaching activities modification
What GE teachers did to modify their teaching activities to be aligned with
the CEFR-aligned curriculum was revealed in Table 4.7 below.
97
Table 4.7. GE teachers‘ responses to teaching activities modification
No Items Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
Teaching activities modification 36 3.78 .38
1 3 Teaching activities development are based on
the CEFR descriptors. 36 3.64 .80
2 4 I use the CEFR descriptors to give my students
feedback about their performance. 36 3.33 .83
3 8 I emphasize the importance of learner
autonomy. 36 4.06 .98
4 10 Teaching activities focus on helping students
pass their examination. 36 3.69 1.12
5 12 My teaching activities are greatly affected by
the CEFR learning outcomes. 36 4.00 1.01
6 14 I encourage my students to use CEFR to assess
their competency. 36 3.64 .68
7 15 My teaching activities become test-oriented. 36 3.86 .68
8 17 I teach my students strategies for the CEFR-
aligned tests. 36 4.06 .72
Regarding teaching activities, the Mean value of 3.78 for the whole cluster
showed that the teaching activities modification by GE teachers took place rather
frequently, impacted by the CEFR-aligned learning outcomes. In particular,
teaching non-English major students strategies for the CEFR-aligned tests and
emphasizing students‘ self-learning (outside the classroom without a teacher) were
two activities GE teachers applied most frequently, shown in the highest Mean
values of the whole cluster of 4.06 for both. Besides, their teaching was also
frequently modified in accordance with the CEFR (M=4.00). Activities that GE
teachers applied least frequently included using the CEFR descriptors to provide
feedbacks, letting students assess their language competency and developing
appropriate teaching activities (3.33, 3.64 and 3.64 respectively). From the above
findings, it is concluded that GE teachers focused more on instant techniques or
98
coping strategies to deal with the CEFR-aligned tests than on long-term activities
and methods to develop students‘ language competency aligned with the CEFR
required outcomes.
In general, data from the interviews yielded similar findings. When being
interviewed, all eight teachers said that they made great modification in teaching
methods. However, questions to delve into their explanation revealed that teaching
methods and teaching techniques were not actually modified. GE teachers just made
some modification and adaptation to available tasks, making them more test-
oriented. Particularly, in whatever skills, activities and tasks aligned with A1-B1
tests, either in the format or contents, were favored. For example, in writing skill,
informal emails, messages or notes were focused by most teachers because those
tasks will reappear in the final CEFR-aligned tests. Meanwhile, writing dairy,
reflection, formal complaint letters, and so on were not emphasized, simply because
the CEFR B1 writing ―don‘t have that kind of tasks‖, as expressed by a teacher.
Concerning reading skill, excerpts and paragraphs with familiar daily topics such as
school, sports, holidays, etc. were paid more attention to.
Besides, six teachers mentioned the focus on speaking skill and considered
this one essential modification they have made together with the CEFR-aligned
curriculum implementation. As their explanation, before the CEFR curriculum
implementation and the CEFR-aligned learning outcomes, speaking was excluded
from the final exams for non-English major students at the home university. As a
result, speaking skill had been paid no attention to or even neglected at general
English classes. With the CEFR-aligned learning outcomes, oral skill becomes
compulsory and an indispensable component in the test formats of all three levels
A1-B1. Both teachers and students at the home university cannot neglect this skill
but try it harder to compensate for the previous ignorance.
One teacher further explained, ―since speaking was added to end-of-exam
tests, students were more interested in its participation. Speaking activities were
thus more meaningful and effective‖. Nonetheless, their detailed descriptions of
how the activities were conducted showed that GE teachers simply divided the
99
teacher-led periods evenly among four skills. No specific change or adaptation in
terms of methods or techniques actually takes place. The effort made was for non-
English major students achieving the CEFR-aligned learning outcomes rather than
developing students‘ language proficiency level.
The most important modification in teaching identified from the interviews
by all eight teachers, therefore, was the appearance of ―test-taking strategies
teaching‖. All adaptations that have been described above can be considered
temporary strategies to deal with in the present situation and context. GE teachers
acknowledged that they taught test-taking strategies‖ and emphasized that it was a
―must‖ in the boundaries of the assigned curriculum, the timeframe, students‘ entry
level of proficiency, etc. Under the pressure of implementing the CEFR-aligned
curriculum with A1-B1 learning outcomes for non-English major students, within
time constraints and students‘ low level of proficiency, teaching test-taking
strategies was considered the best solution to ensure higher percentages of students
achieving the required B1 certificate, as hinted by two teachers. This is, in fact, in
accordance with quantitative findings above that teaching test taking strategies
accounted for the most frequent activities among items of the cluster.
In short, GE teachers made effort to adapt their teaching practice in response
to the CEFR implementation. However, no significant changes in teaching methods
have been identified. What GE teachers have done was limited to ―coping strategies‖
such as ―test-taking strategies‖ teaching and a more equal distribution of the four
skills in teaching activities. The use of the CEFR can-do descriptors for students‘
language proficiency level improvement was not paid adequate attention. This can be
explained by the fact that GE teachers did not get appropriate trainings on the CEFR
implementation procedures and techniques already reported in session 4.1. It is also
consistent with the perceived constraints and challenges in implementing the CEFR-
aligned curriculum for non-English major university students.
From the interview sessions, two emerging themes, namely the role of
information technology and the emergence of learner autonomy, in the current
teaching and learning activities for non-English major students were identified.
Below is the detailed description of these activities.
100
The role of information technology
With the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation for non-English major
students, the role of information technology in teaching increased. Firstly, many GE
teachers carried out their teaching activities with the support of computers and the
Internet Three teachers named YouTube as a useful website for their teaching. They
played some A2-B1 speaking test video clips available on YouTube as
demonstration. Students watched and analyzed the strategies and language used,
structures and vocabulary, etc. for later application. With computers, CD-players
and projectors available in every classroom, teachers maximized the help of E-book
and CD-ROM in their classroom activities, making their teaching more visual,
modern and attractive to their students.
Besides, three teachers acknowledged the emergence of blended-learning, a
combination of online and face-to-face experiences (Bonk & Graham, 2012). They
reported their introduction of some relevant websites of the British Councils,
Cambridge, CEFR-aligned practice tests at the first periods of each course and
encouraged their students to visit those websites regularly. Yet no further steps were
made to supervise or check students‘ participation. The activities were mainly
dependent on teachers‘ encouragement and students‘ self-awareness, simply
because teachers did not have time and energy for such supervision.
As explained by GE teachers, together with the current textbooks, either
English Elements or Life, there is an online software or website for students‘ self-
learning. The software or website contains exercises aligned with the textbooks‘
content. Because doing the online homework was compulsory for students‘ taking
final exams, all eight teachers reported that they introduced the online sources at the
beginning of the course and checked their students‘ participation regularly.
However, they all admitted that they did not pay much attention to the effects of this
activity due to several reasons. Three teachers complained about teachers‘
overloaded work. As they stated, ―on average, each of us is in charge of 6 to 10
classes, or about 240 to 400 students each semester. We simply cannot focus on
every single student.‖ Four explained that the online program already provided
101
results and keys. ―Students will be automatically marked right after their mouse
clicking for submission ends. There‘s no need [for teachers] to do so‖.
The most important reason for their less focus on the activity, nonetheless, as
all teachers revealed, was the incompatibility of those online exercises and the
CEFR-aligned tests and learning outcomes. The online exercises were developed
from the assigned textbooks. Since those textbooks, especially English Elements,
were criticized to be incompatible with the CEFR-aligned tests and learning
outcomes for non-English major students, they were considered not much helpful
for those students. As a result, although the introduction of those online resources
was from the university administrators, GE teachers‘ responses to the activities
were strongly affected by their perceptions of its effectiveness.
In sum, with an effort to aid non-English major students in their English
language learning, GE teachers have applied information technology in their
teaching as necessary adaptation in the current context. This finding is partly
aligned with that by Nguyen and Hamid (2005) that access to blended learning was
among contemporary innovations teachers ―made up for the issue of insufficient
contact hours in language classes‖ (p.66). The current application of blended
learning for non-English major students, however, was neither adequately taken
notice nor effectively implemented. Without teachers‘ initiative, regular control,
detailed guidance and timely feedbacks, the effectiveness of blended learning on
non-English major students‘ language proficiency is questionable. This suggests
that GE teachers need to be properly trained of the implementation procedure, if the
implementation is to be more successful.
The importance of students’ self learning
The shift to credit-based learning has reduced the total teacher-led hours to
105 periods. Together with blended learning, developing learner autonomy was
another approach GE teachers applied to cope with in the present situation. All eight
teachers interviewed emphasized learner autonomy in their teaching activities.
When being probed to more details, however, GE teachers reported a ―half-way‖
application of this strategy.
102
All eight teachers reported that the inadequate school timetable reduced
teachers‘ role while increased the importance of students‘ self-learning. At present,
students‘ achievement, therefore, ―depended much more on their autonomous
learning‖, as one teacher commented. GE teachers mentioned two learning sources
for students‘ self-learning activities. The first one is the official software and/ or
online websites for outside classroom students‘ self-learning which has been
previously described. The second source was extra CEFR-aligned practice tests (e.g.
KET, PET) introduced or provided by GE teachers themselves. Specifically, they
combined extra CEFR-aligned practice tests in their teaching. Due to limited
teacher-led hours, students‘ preparation and practice tests completion were carried
out in advance, outside classroom, by students themselves. Teachers‘ explanation
and test correction took place in class. By so doing, they could manage to solve
more tasks and tests within the limited timeframe.
The afore-mentioned strategy was used to deal with the limited teacher-led
hours and aided develop learner autonomy in language learning at the same time. At
first view, the current implementation of the CEFR for non-English major students
followed the principal functions of the framework as it facilitates language learning
and teaching via developing teacher‘s teaching flexibility and students‘ autonomous
learning (CoE, 2001, p.141). When taking a closer look, however, what GE teachers
at the home university have been applying for their non-English major students did
not fully follow the learner autonomy approach. According to teachers‘ reflection,
some of the activities such as the online resources for homework took place by
students‘ self-instruction, students‘ learning without a teacher, which is one of the
misconceptions about learner autonomy (Little, 1991). Besides, the capacity for
learner autonomy requires students to ―take charge of their own learning, determine
their objectives, and select [appropriate] methods and techniques‖ (Neupane, 2010,
p.115). Obviously, non-English major students were not taught or developed such
capacities. They simply did some exercises and practice tests outside the classroom,
without teachers‘ initiative and control.
103
In brief, due to time constraints, GE teachers developed and encouraged
students‘ self-learning in accordance with the CEFR-aligned curriculum
implementation. Learner autonomy and student autonomous learning started to be
noticed and developed. This echoes the CoE‘s interest (Little, 2006) in developing
the CEFR. The finding thus accorded with that of a number of studies (Faez et al..,
2011a; Despagne & Grossi, 2011; Nagai & O‘Dwyer, 2011; Pham, 2017). Yet the
implementation of learner autonomy for non-English major students at the home
university was still unprompted and spontaneous. The lack of proper methods in the
implementation procedure raises the issue of extra training on capacity building and
professional development for GE teachers at the home university. Students also
need further help and support so as to develop their autonomous and individual
learning abilities.
4.2.3. GE teachers’ responses to teaching materials adaptation
Table 4.8. GE teachers‘ responses to teaching materials adaptation
No Items Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
Teaching materials adaptation 36 3.90 .47
1 2 I use the CEFR practice tests as parts of the
teaching materials. 36 3.94 .89
2 16 The textbook‘s themes and topics are modified. 36 3.97 1.08
3 18a I involve supplementary materials aligned with
the CEFR. 36 4.06 .63
4 18b The textbook‘s exercises and tasks are adapted
to be aligned with the CEFR. 36 4.08 .69
5 18c I prioritize parts of the textbook aligned with
the CEFR. 36 3.94 .83
6 19a I discuss with colleagues when making any
adaptation. 36 3.50 .94
7 19b I explain to students reasons for the adaptations. 36 3.78 .90
104
Results of teachers‘ responses to teaching materials adaptation were shown
in Table 4.8 above. On average, the Mean value of the whole cluster reached 3.90,
close to level 4 (usually) of the five-point Likert scale. Synonymously, GE teachers
frequently adapted their teaching materials, using different techniques. The Mean
values of items were very close to the Mean value of the whole cluster (and also
close to 4.00), indicating GE teachers not only usually adapt their teaching materials
but apply various techniques equally as well.
In particular, two most frequent activities that GE teachers usually applied
were adapting the textbook‘s exercises/ tasks and providing supplementary
materials to be aligned with the CEFR (Mean=4.08 and 4.06 respectively). Other
strategies were also frequently applied by GE teachers such as using CEFR practice
tests as parts of the teaching materials, prioritizing parts of the textbook aligned
with the CEFR, and modifying the textbook‘s themes/ topics to be aligned with the
CEFR. The Mean values were 3.94, 3.94 and 3.97 respectively. Meanwhile, the
Mean value for teachers‘ explanation for their adaptation was 3.78, not as high as
other strategies. It was concluded that GE teachers did that sometimes. Finally, item
regarding discussion with colleagues during the implementation process reached the
lowest value of 3.50, meaning that teachers‘ collaboration and cooperation did not
take place as often as it should be.
The data from the interview sessions further described GE teachers‘
responses to adapt the teaching materials. In general, findings from the interviews
were consistent with those from the questionnaire. GE teachers made a lot of
modification and adaptation with the assigned textbooks. These responses in details,
however, were confined to GE teachers‘ experience, knowledge and perceptions.
There was a lack of teacher collaboration and cooperation to synchronize and
systemize the modifications. Detailed of the modification and insightful reasons for
their responses are described below.
In session 4.1.5, the findings revealed that GE teachers perceived the current
assigned textbooks (both English Elements and Life series) incompatible with the
CEFR-aligned outcomes. They also reported time constraints as a challenge during
105
the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation. As such GE teachers had some
strategies concerning modifying the current textbooks. In general, GE teachers were
not adhered to the assigned textbooks and teaching materials. A lot of omission and
reduction have been made for both textbook series, which was confirmed in one
teacher‘s comment: ―Both textbooks need adaptation to be compatible with the
CEFR-aligned outcomes. Yet the English Elements requires much more
modification‖. Another teacher added: ―Because the assigned textbooks, especially
the English Elements, were far from being aligned with the CEFR, I teach 50-60%
of the content only‖. Other teachers shared similar viewpoints with 30-40% of the
content in English Elements and 70-80% in Life. ―If I totally followed the assigned
textbooks, either English Elements or Life, the number of students who cannot
achieve the required CEFR-aligned outcomes will be much much higher‖, one
teacher expressed.
From teachers‘ expressions, it can be recognized that at least one third of the
textbooks were omitted. Questions to delve into the situations were asked and the
following explanations were gained from teachers‘ answers. The first issue related
to which parts in the textbooks were omitted and what were the criteria for this
omission. Only one teacher did not pay much attention to the CEFR-aligned
outcomes when making textbook modification. She reported: ―My criteria of
selection were quite subjective. I don‘t totally base on the CEFR‖. Most teachers
prioritized those aligned with the CEFR outcomes. This can be their first and
foremost criterion, as stated by one senior teacher: ―The CEFR-aligned outcomes
were used as the criteria for my decision of which parts should be omitted and
which parts should be focused‖; and another: ―My teaching and textbook selection
became very test-oriented now. Whatever chosen topics, grammar points, and even
tasks in each unit, they should be aligned with the test format‖. The artifacts and
teachers‘ explanation and clarification of the teaching materials modification
revealed that GE teachers taught ―the textbook as if it were a test book‖
(Prodomou, 1995) because they focused on those points which would be tested.
106
This viewpoint was echoed in teacher‘s reflection that the textbook listening
tasks were replaced with the CEFR-aligned ones. For others, it is a combination of
criteria, reported as follows:
I carried out need analysis at the beginning of the course to identify
students‘ needs and interests, compared the results with the CEFR-aligned
outcomes to choose the appropriate tasks and activities in the textbook.
or sharing from a young teacher: ―I based on my own experience, students‘ competency,
and the CEFR-aligned outcomes to make necessary modification‖ and a senior:
I based on different criteria for the omission or addition. The first one was
the detailed outlines of each level that have been approved. The second
one was, of course, the CEFR-aligned outcomes. I also took students‘ level
of proficiency and students‘ interests into consideration.
In brief, for both textbooks series, GE teachers made a lot of modification.
The modification and adaptation were made with reference to students‘ level of
proficiency, students‘ interest and especially the CEFR-aligned outcomes.
Nonetheless, the modification and adaptation were not necessarily consistent among
teachers nor among different classes of one teacher. Knowledge sharing was not
popular among GE teachers, making their modification and adaptation spontaneous
and unsystematic. From the theory of change management (Fullan et al., 2005), it is
concluded that what GE teachers have modified and applied is insufficient for the
CEFR-aligned curriculum innovation to take hold. Although the culture for learning
among peers and the professional learning communities were established, they have
been inadequately maintained and developed. It is just the initial steps on the long
journey of change process because ―successful change involves learning during
implementation‖ (Fullan et al., 2005, p.55). The University, the Faculty or GE
teachers themselves need to take initiatives to collect and select innovative ideas,
effective new experiences of adaptation and then spread them via official channels.
When the University can develop a ―climate‖ where people ―learn from each other
within and across units‖ and turn ―good knowledge into action‖ (Fullan et al., 2005,
p.57), the CEFR implementation process would be more likely to take hold.
107
The second issue was about which materials were supplemented. Because the
CEFR-aligned outcomes was the ultimate criterion of textbook omission or
replacement for most teachers, two released practice test series aligned with the
CEFR A2 B1, namely Key English Test (KET) and Preliminary English Test (PET)
were most favored. All eight teachers admitted that they introduced KET and PET
in their classroom although the number of tests, the way they delivered those tests,
and the purposes of those activities were not necessarily the same. Four teachers
mentioned other sources beside KET or PET. For example, a teacher shared that:
Some of the textbooks that I often use is Activate A2 or Target KET Those
books were designed to prepare for A2 CEFR-aligned outcome so they are
appropriate for my students‘ need. They are not complete tests like KET or
PET. They have units, topics, grammar points, etc. so I don‘t feel like
doing a test-preparing course.
The remaining teachers named some textbooks like Solution or some
websites. However, when those teachers were probed to expand on their statements,
those books and websites were just introduced and recommended for students‘ self-
learning. They were not really taught by teachers on site.
In general, a majority of GE teachers used ―test books‖ as supplementary
textbooks. Again, the choice and selection of those test books were unprompted. GE
teachers did not have united regulations of which practice tests and/ or which test
books were used for which level. Although GE teachers acknowledged teacher
collaboration and teacher cooperation during the implementation process, questions
to probe into the issue revealed a limit and inefficiency of the activities.
Specifically, there is a lack of official seminars and trainings either from the Faculty
or the University for teacher collaboration and cooperation. ‗Personal talks‘ and
‗experience sharing‘ during class intervals and breaks were the most common
channels for GE teachers learned and shared experienced or problems with each
other. There is little willingness to discuss it openly and officially. Given that the
workshops and training sections GE teachers attended focused more on the CEFR
itself than its implementation procedure (see 4.1 for more details), the lack of
108
detailed guidelines and regulations of how to use the assigned materials may cause
the threat of the CEFR-aligned curriculum being improperly followed.
In brief, due to time pressure of the school timetable, the limited curriculum
timeframe and the impact of the CEFR-aligned tests presented above, there is an
absence of adherence to the assigned textbooks and teaching materials. Techniques
for adaptations and modifications included omission, replacement, reduction,
addition, etc. whatever that aided the teaching materials to be more aligned with the
required CEFR A1-B1 learning outcomes. There was a lack of teacher collaboration
and cooperation to synchronize and systemize the modifications. In effect,
knowledge, experiences and techniques, etc. to modify the textbooks were not
circulated or shared among peers and colleagues. Regarding change management
drivers by Fullan et al. (2005), the home university and faculty failed to address the
issue of developing culture of learning, an enabling driver, among teachers. The
adaptations and modifications were thus limited to ―teaching the textbook as if it
were a test book‖ (Prodomou, 1995, p.15) and using the test books as
supplementary textbooks. It suggests that GE teachers need further preparation and
training on curriculum implementation. They need to be better prepared with its
implementation procedure. They also need to get detailed familiarization with
techniques for textbooks development and adaptation. Ongoing capacity building
and developing cultures for learning are suggested.
4.2.4. GE teachers’ responses to classroom assessment renewal
Table 4.9. GE teachers‘ responses to classroom assessment renewal
No Items Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
Classroom assessment renewal 36 3.96 .42
1 1 Classroom assessment is used to prepare
students for the CEFR-aligned tests. 36 3.89 .62
2 5 Classroom assessment is used for evaluation
(grades and marks). 36 3.94 .75
3 6 My classroom assessment is set with reference 36 3.94 .79
109
No Items Contents N Mean Std.
Deviation
to the CEFR.
4 7 All four skills appear in my assessment practice. 36 4.00 .68
5 9 Classroom assessment is used to develop
students‘ proficiency. 36 3.78 .76
6 11 I encourage my students to use CEFR-aligned
tests for their self-assessment. 36 4.14 .59
7 13 I use the CEFR-aligned tests in formative
assessment. 36 4.06 .72
Quantitative findings for GE teachers‘ responses to classroom assessment
renewal were presented in Table 4.9 above. Overall, classroom assessment renewal
accounted for the high Mean value of 3.96, showing GE teachers‘ frequent focus on
modifying the assessment activity. In particular, it is noticed that among different
assessment practices, using CEFR-aligned tests for students‘ self-assessment,
applying CEFR-aligned tests in formative assessment and combining all four skills
in the classroom assessment practice were most frequently applied by GE teachers,
shown in the Means of 4.14, 4.06 and 4.00, above the ―usually‖ value of 4.00. The
small S.D values ranging from .59 to .79 indicated the consistency in teachers‘
choices. Besides, two other assessment practices that GE teachers implemented
almost reached the level of usually (M=3.94). The first one included the changes in
formative assessment so that it was in line with the CEFR. Since formative
assessment was modified to be aligned with the CEFR, it was mainly in the form of
tests and was used for evaluation and marking, leading to the second frequent
assessment practices of using those tests to grade students. Using classroom
assessment to prepare students for the CEFR-aligned tests also relatively usually
applied (M=3.89). This revealed the impact of the CEFR-aligned curriculum with
the CEFR-aligned learning outcomes on assessment.
Among three components of curriculum modification, namely teaching activities
adaptation, teaching materials development and classroom assessment renewal,
110
qualitative findings from the interview sessions showed teachers‘ focus on renewing
classroom assessment practice. All eight teachers associated the CEFR-aligned
curriculum with its learning outcomes and assessment practice. They thus paid much
attention to the assessment activities in such a way that could aid their non-English major
students achieve the required learning outcomes. The strong impact of the CEFR-aligned
outcomes on the assessment practice could be seen in the appearance of CEFR aligned
tests and the focus on students’ self and peer assessments.
The appearance of CEFR-aligned tests in the assessment practice
In response to the CEFR implementation, GE teachers made some changes in
both the content and format of formative classroom assessment. The first change
was the frequent appearance of CEFR-aligned test formats such as KET, PET in
assessment. All GE teachers used the CEFR-aligned practice test books for A1-B1
levels, namely Key English Test (KET) and Preliminary English Test (PET) as
supplementary materials and in formative assessment practice. All eight teachers
admitted that their teaching and assessment became test-oriented.
Overall, it is worth noticing the appearance of some complete CEFR-aligned
tests in the classroom assessment practice, either as placement tests, mid-term tests
or formative assessment activities. Take a junior teacher as an example. At the
beginning of each course, she used a CEFR-aligned test taken from KET, PET as a
placement test so that she could have an overview of the students‘ proficiency in the
class. She kept on giving A1-B1 aligned tests during the course. The number of
practice tests, however, varied among classes, mainly because of students‘
proficiency levels and time allowance. Four teachers provided at least 2 or 3 CEFR-
aligned tests for each class. Students were asked to do the tests at home or in class.
Teachers then spent time providing keys and explanations for these tests and
assessing students‘ work as well.
In addition, the CEFR-aligned tests and/ or tasks were also popular. Many
teachers did not provide students with complete practice tests as appeared in KET,
PET Instead, they cut the tests into parts and combined or replaced them with the
tasks in the textbooks. One teacher explained:
111
I always try to find tasks aligning with the theme or topics in the textbook.
For example, in Life unit 5 for A1 level, the unit title is Food. So I try to
find a task from KET, either reading or listening, about food for my
students. Or unit 2 reviews numbers, so I provide the listening tasks about
numbers in which students have to listen and take notes telephone
numbers, room number, addresses, number or prices of tickets bought,
which was available in part 4 and 5 of the listening test for KET level.
Findings from the interview sessions and the collected artifacts showed that
the Can-do descriptors of the CEFR for the respective levels were inadequately
taken notice. GE teachers were more concerned with students achieving the
required learning CEFR-aligned A1-B1outcomes than students improving their
language proficiency.
Given that topics and themes for speaking activities were chosen and
provided by the Faculty, a typical example of how GE teachers dealt with speaking
is shown in the following description:
We have a detailed outline with essential topics for each level. At the
beginning of the course, I‘ll assign them for my students, usually each
student in charge of one topic. After two or three weeks, students take turn
to present their topic in the first 15 minutes of each period. Grading is
applied for this activity.
Those teachers admitted that they had to spend much time and energy doing
this way. Although the number of tasks and tests they could provide students was
not as many as those by the afore-mentioned teachers, they thought their teaching
and assessment became closer-interdependent. Besides, by doing so, teachers could
introduce the CEFR-aligned test format in a more relevant and meaningful way.
In sum, teachers either provided complete A1-B1 aligned practice tests or
broke them into tasks and exercises for students‘ practices. It is of note that the
appearance of CEFR-aligned tests outweighed other types of formative assessment,
making assessment more test-oriented. The classroom assessment practice thus
focused on the rise in the number of students reaching CEFR B1, the minimum
language proficiency requirement for students being conferred the university
graduation. Yet it may not necessarily improve students‘ language proficiency.
112
The focus on students’ self and peer assessments
Due to time constraints, teachers had strategies in assessment practices. Findings
from the interviews revealed that self and peer assessments were favored. Together
with assigning tasks and exercises for students‘ preparation at home, applying self and
peer assessments for students‘ correction and feedback activities was one strategy GE
applied to deal with under the pressure of time. It was noticed that the current
application of self and peer assessments for non-English major students was mainly as
coping strategies. The preference of GE teachers to the activities was the result of the
limited timeframe curriculum and large classes rather than the method values,
principles or effectiveness of the activities. An example of how these activities were
often carried out can be visualized from the following reflection:
I found self and peer assessments extremely practical in the current
context. On average, we [GE teachers at the home university] are in
charge of 5 to 6 classes per semester, equal to 200 to 250 students.
Grading students‘ work is really challenging. Instead of teachers grading
and marking students‘ work, some reading and listening tasks can be
assessed by students with teachers‘ support. I often provide answer keys
with necessary explanation. Students assess their friend‘s or their own
work with the given keys by counting the correct answers. By doing so, I
can save time for explanation and writing tasks.
The present reflection echoed that GE teachers focused more on keys and
answers for specific exercises and/ or tasks than on the CEFR can-do descriptors for
students‘ self and peer assessments. The activities were thus limited to the issue of
correctness. The long-term effect of the activities, which is students‘ language
proficiency improvement, was difficult to achieve. This is also the limitation of the
current self- and peer assessment application because the activities would be
definitely more beneficial for non-English major students if GE teachers developed
students‘ self-assessment ability with reference to the CEFR can-do descriptors.
In brief, due to time constraints and the large classes, GE teachers at the
home university preferred self and peer assessments and used these two activities
113
frequently. The original purpose of self and peer assessments in the current context,
however, was not from the CEFR values or assessment principles, and thus can be
recognized not to be able to fully achieve its overall aims of students‘ autonomy and
proficiency improvement. The achievement, if there was any, is short-term and
temporary. What GE teachers have tried in assessment practice might raise the
number of non-English major students passing the required CEFR-aligned A1 B1
examinations. However, the long- term effect of improving students‘ language
proficiency is hard to achieve.
It was noticed that with the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation, what
GE teachers have done in their classroom assessment practice proposed changes and
innovations. Nonetheless, the changes and innovations were unable to take effect
and far more unable to sustain. After six years of the CEFR-aligned curriculum
implementation for non-English major students, the afore-mentioned initial
innovative results may be acceptable. GE teachers need further support both
theoretically and practically so as to foster the effectiveness of the activities.
For capacity building, front-end training is insufficient (Fullan et al., 2005,
p.55). Teacher training and collaboration ought to become a regular part of teacher
professional development. Hence, GE teachers need further training not only on the
CEFR but also on assessment of language learning in relation to the CEFR. The
trainings need to take place more regularly as an ongoing activity, in which GE
teachers need to be more active by voicing up their needs so that the trainings and
workshops‘ themes and contents become more relevant and insightful. GE teachers
also need to take more initiatives in their cooperation and collaboration for
knowledge sharing and experience exchange.
4.2.5. Summary of the second research question’s findings
The findings revealed GE teachers‘ effort in renewing the CEFR-aligned
curriculum. In general, GE teachers frequently modified all three domains of the
curriculum, namely teaching activities, teaching materials and assessment practice
during the CEFR implementation process. The third domain, assessment practice,
was found to be paid more attention compared to the others.
114
The quantitative and qualitative results were generally consistent and inter-
supportive. The ultimate reason for all GE teachers‘ modification and adaptations
was to improve the percentage of students passing the CEFR-aligned B1
examinations. GE teachers‘ responses were found to be affected by the high CEFR-
aligned B1 learning outcome, the limited timeframe, the incompatible textbooks and
students‘ low entry level of English proficiency. What GE teachers have adapted in
all three domains of curriculum implementation, therefore, was limited to coping
strategies. The strong impact of the CEFR-aligned A1 B1 learning outcomes could
be recognized.
Regarding teaching activities, no significant changes in teaching methods were
found. The modification and adaptation were limited to teaching ―test-taking strategies‖
and an equal emphasis on four skills, especially the oral skill. Due to insufficient contact
hours, GE teachers favored blended learning and learner autonomy.
Also, GE teachers were not adhered to but made a lot of adaptation and
modification with the assigned textbooks. At least one third of the textbooks were
omitted and replaced. The CEFR-aligned learning outcomes were used as guidelines
for omission and replacement. In sum, GE teachers taught ―the textbook as if it
were a test book‖ (Prodomou, 1995) and used ―test books‖ as supplementary
textbooks. Although GE teachers acknowledged teacher collaboration and teacher
cooperation during the implementation process, the activities were found limited
and inefficient.
With the CEFR-aligned curriculum, GE teachers paid much attention to the
assessment activities to help their non-English major students pass the required
CEFR-aligned A1-B1 examinations. All the assessment practice renewal and
adaptation revolved around the format and requirement of those exams and became
very test-oriented. GE teachers did not pay adequate attention to the can-do
descriptors of the CEFR A1-B1 to improve students‘ language proficiency. The
strong impact of the CEFR-aligned outcomes on the assessment practice could
therefore be seen in the appearance of CEFR aligned tests and the focus on
students’ self and peer assessments. The original purpose of self and peer
115
assessments in the current context was not from the CEFR values or assessment
principles. The activity was thus not to be able to fully achieve its overall aims of
students‘ autonomy and proficiency improvement.
In sum, effort to create changes and innovation together with the
implementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students at
the home university was recognized. The reported activities for non-English major
students at the home university, however, were still unprompted and spontaneous.
There is a lack of proper methods in the implementation process. The issue of extra
training on capacity building and professional development for GE teachers at the
home university was thus put forward. Lack of official channels for teacher sharing
and collaboration was also noticed, making the teaching materials adaptation less
effective and systematic as it should be. GE teachers need support from the home
university, the Faculty and from their peers so that their modifications and
adaptations can take effect. Regular ongoing capacity building and developing
cultures for learning are suggested.
4.3. Chapter summary
The current chapter reported important findings about GE teachers‘
perceptions of and responses to the CEFR and its implementation for non-English
major students at the home university. For the main part of the chapter, both
quantitative and qualitative data are combined, grouped and presented according to
the two research questions and respective themes. Generally, GE teachers had
neutral to relatively positive perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation for
their non-English major university students. They highly perceived the CEFR‘s
value, the need for the CEFR‘s application and its readiness for implementation.
Nevertheless, they did not appreciate the work involved in implementing the CEFR
process. Their discontent is associated with three main issues, namely time
constraints, incompatible teaching materials and the tremendous gaps between
students‘ entry levels of English proficiency and meeting the B1 learning outcome.
Regarding GE teachers‘ responses to the CEFR-aligned curriculum renewal,
quantitative findings from the questionnaire show GE teachers‘ effort in the
116
implementation and adaptation process. Specifically, GE teachers‘ modification is
relatively equally distributed for all three domains of the curriculum, namely
teaching activities, teaching materials and classroom assessment practice.
GE teachers are found not to be adhered to the assigned textbooks and
teaching materials. Instead, they have made a lot of modification and adaptation with
the assigned textbooks. These responses in details, however, are confined to GE
teachers‘ experience, knowledge and perceptions. There is a lack of teacher
collaboration and cooperation to synchronize and systemize the modifications.
Limited official channels for teacher sharing and collaboration was also noticed,
making the teaching materials adaptation less effective and systematic as it should be.
Regarding assessment practice, the strong impact of the CEFR-aligned
outcomes on assessment practice could be seen in the appearance of CEFR aligned
tests and the focus on students’ self and peer assessments. The original purposes of
the two activities, however, are not from the CEFR values or assessment principles,
and thus can be recognized not to be able to fully achieve its overall aims of
students‘ autonomy and proficiency improvement.
Surely, the effective CEFR implementation, as any other educational reform
policy, will take time. The positive thing is that GE teachers have relatively positive
perceptions of the CEFR implementation policy. They have also made great effort
in their responses to the implementation process by adapting their teaching
activities, modifying the current teaching textbooks and renewing the classroom
assessment practice. These are initial successes of the CEFR-aligned curriculum
implementation. The difficulties, challenges and obstacles are indispensable for
changes and innovation to take place.
The next chapter will summarize the main findings, draw out major
conclusions and elaborate insightful implications for the current CEFR-aligned
curriculum implementation for non-English major students at the home university.
117
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presents major findings of the study in direct response to two
research questions. Based on the findings, relevant implications are made and
contributions of the study pointed out. The present chapter also addresses the
limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research.
5.1. Summary of key findings
The present mixed method sequential explanatory study investigated
teachers‘ perceptions of and their responses to the CEFR-aligned curriculum
implementation for non-English major university students. In the present study, two
following research questions translated from the objectives were addressed:
1. What are GE language teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its use for
non-English major students at a university in Vietnam?
2. What are GE language teachers‘ responses to the use of the CEFR on the
implementation level?
The focus of the present study is twofold. Firstly, the study examined GE
teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation for non-English major
students at the home university. Secondly, it explored GE teachers‘ responses to
modifying their teaching activities, adapting the assigned teaching materials, and
renewing the assessment practices to be aligned with the CEFR-based curriculum
and learning outcomes. Based on the Findings and Discussions Chapter, the
following key findings and conclusions about GE teachers‘ perceptions and
responses were made.
5.1.1. Teachers’ perceptions of the CEFR and its implementation process
In general, GE teachers had neutral to relatively positive perceptions of the
CEFR and its implementation for non-English major university students. GE
teachers were concluded to have a sound understanding of the CEFR and its values.
They also highly perceived the CEFR readiness for application and generally
118
appreciated the reason and necessity of the CEFR implementation at the home
university. However, their perceptions of the CEFR implementation process were
not as high.
More specifically, regarding GE teachers‘ perceptions of the values of the
CEFR, both quantitative and qualitative data suggested that GE teachers well
understood the comprehensive objectives and principles of the framework including
their application to non-English major students. As such GE teachers had relatively
sound knowledge about the why of CEFR implementation, or the moral purposes of
change (Fullan, et al., 2005, p.54). In Fullan‘s change management knowledge,
engaging teachers‘ moral purposes is extremely important because it is the front and
center driver for successful change in practice. GE teachers‘ sound understanding of
the moral purposes of the CEFR implementation for non-English major university
students can be considered the initial success of the CEFR implementation policy in
the home university. Also, it is the essential condition for education change and/ or
innovation to take place.
Secondly, concerning the CEFR readiness for application, there was
inconsistency between individual teachers‘ perceptions of CEFR specificity. While
strongly believing that the descriptions of the CEFR levels of proficiency are
representative, GE teachers also doubted that the descriptors are context-specific or
English specific. Reasons for the contradiction among teachers‘ thinking were made
clear by GE teachers‘ explanation that on the implementation level for non-English
major students at the home university, the CEFR and its implementation were not
without limitations. They criticized the inappropriateness of the can-do descriptors
in the specific context of implementation for non-English major students at the
home university and provided detailed examples of the inappropriateness. To sum
up, GE teachers well understood the CEFR and its limitation for the application into
their contexts of GE curriculum for non-English major students.
Thirdly, as for the reasons and necessity of the CEFR implementation, GE
teachers were aware that implementing the CEFR at their home university was
required, although their level of agreement was not high. Quantitative data showed
119
an ambit of teachers‘ viewpoints. Besides, GE teachers had different perceptions
regarding the necessity of applying the CEFR to non-English major students at their
university. While the potential impacts and effects of the CEFR implementation
received relatively positive rankings, school infrastructure and capacity readiness
obtained a much lower level of agreement from GE teachers. Further explanation
and reasons for teachers‘ support were that in essence, the CEFR implementation
was expected to create big changes to their teaching and learning contexts, either for
the short or long term. The interviewed teachers reported three additional and direct
impacts of the CEFR implementation: changing students’ attitude and motivation in
English learning, changing teachers’ classroom practices and to some extent
changing the university’s qualifications and reputation. They were given as
essential reasons for applying the CEFR framework to their non-English major
students. On the contrary, some GE teachers did not perceive the CEFR
implementation as necessary. They doubted its efficiency and were reluctant to
change and adaptation to changes. Although these concerns and disagreements were
not prominent, they helped explain why GE teachers did not consider the necessity
to implement the CEFR as being high; ranking it the lowest of the four clusters. In
short, GE teachers positively perceived the necessity of implementing the CEFR.
They trusted the potential positive impacts such an implementation could bring
about. Yet they did not appreciate the readiness of the people and resources
involved in the process.
Finally, relating to the work involved in the CEFR implementation process,
quantitative data showed that teachers were not totally satisfied with what had been
done to implement the CEFR for non-English major students at the home
university. While some actions were acknowledged, others received strong criticism
from the GE teachers. Specifically, GE teachers appreciated the facilities and
resources made available for the CEFR implementation process. They also listed
their retraining and improving language proficiency workshops and the English
proficiency tests as evidence of the capacity building the university had provided in
preparation for implementation. However, three items regarding the available
120
support from experts, the piloting phase of the program and the involvement of
teachers and students in CEFR-aligned curriculum design received negative
comments from teachers, meaning that GE teachers were dissatisfied with the
activities. This suggests that when it comes to the implementation process, GE
teachers were not well prepared. They lacked suitable support to have a thorough
understanding of the change management process. They were not provided with
training on the implementation process, its steps and procedures. Their doubt of the
effect of such an implementation is associated with a number of factors, which
could demotivate themselves from implementing the CEFR implementation policy.
When teachers, the key implementers were so passive, the home university
failed to address the issue of focusing on leadership and cultivating tri-level
development (Fullan et al., 2005) where everyone should become a leader in the
change process. Compared to Fullan et al.‘s change management theory, the
capacity building was not paid adequate attention to. There is a lack of the change
knowledge. A thorough understanding and the tri-level development of the change
process was lacked. The drivers of change process were absent.
In addition, to clarify their dissatisfaction during the CEFR implementation
process, GE teachers provided evidence of the mismatch between the CEFR and the
current context of implementation. Reasons were due to students‘ cultural
differences, the reality of language need and students‘ level of proficiency, making
big challenges for GE teachers to implement the CEFR successfully. More
specifically, GE teachers‘ discontent is associated with three main issues, namely
time constraints, incompatible teaching materials and the tremendous gaps between
students‘ entry levels of English proficiency and the B1 learning outcome. It can be
seen that, while the teachers had relatively sound understanding and perceptions of
the CEFR, they were not well prepared for the process of actually implementing it
in their own university context.
The above findings demonstrate that, when the MOET set the CEFR B1 level
of proficiency as the required learning outcome, teachers expected that the materials
selected should support the achievement of this outcome. It also suggests their
121
expectation of the existence of suitable, ready-to-use materials. The belief that
students‘ English language proficiency was far lower than the required CEFR B1
learning outcome can also be a demotivation. It can deter GE teachers themselves
from doing their utmost to improve students‘ language capability. Again, issues
related to building capacity and focusing on leadership for change (Fullan et al.,
2005) were ignored or insufficiently provided. The implementation process of the
CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students at the home university
lacked some foundation and enabling drivers for change to successfully take place.
In conclusion, GE teachers generally supported the CEFR implementation
policy. They highly perceived the CEFR values and its readiness for application.
According to teachers‘ cognition theory (Borg, 2009), teachers‘ perceptions can
have ―a persistent long-term influence‖ (p.3) on teachers‘ practices. Teachers‘
perceptions are thus of great importance and the prerequisite for their innovation in
classroom practices. As GE teachers perceived the CEFR implementation
positively, they were likely to respond positively to the policy. In other words, their
sound understanding of the CEFR values and their relatively good awareness of the
necessity of its implementation at their home university can be seen as the first and
foremost support for their responsive behaviors to create change and innovation in
their classrooms because ―perceptions influence practices‖ (Borg, 2009, p.3).
However, some mismatches between the CEFR framework and implementation
policy and the university context were found as the main causes of their worries and
concerns in implementation. Among obstacles listed, some prominent ones included
students‘ low language proficiency level, incompatible teaching materials, limited
timeframe and inadequate trainings on the implementation process. GE teachers
were thus expected to make effort and have appropriate strategies in modifying and
renewing their teaching activities to optimize the curriculum and its effects in
practice. They need better support to deal with the obstacles, break the gaps and
successfully implement the CEFR-aligned curriculum for their non-English major
university students.
122
5.1.2. GE teachers’ responses to the CEFR implementation
Quantitative and qualitative findings showed GE teachers‘ effort in the
implementation and adaptation process. Generally, GE teachers made great effort to
adapt and renew all three domains of the curriculum, namely teaching activities,
teaching materials and classroom assessment.
Firstly, regarding teaching activities modification, the findings showed that
the activity took place quite frequently and was strongly affected by CEFR-aligned
learning outcomes. GE teachers paid much attention to tasks and skills which will
appear in the final CEFR-aligned tests. English for daily activities (asking and
giving directions; writing informal emails; reading brochures, newspapers; listening
to advertisement, etc.) with familiar topics (school, family, sports, etc.) was favored.
All the four skills, including speaking skill, were equally developed. However, GE
teachers were found to focus on instant techniques or coping strategies to deal with
the CEFR-aligned tests. The activities were limited to test-aligned topics practicing
and test-taking strategies developing so that non-English major students were able
to pass the exam. The adaptations were temporary and strategic, which was
acknowledged as a ―must‖ in the boundaries of the assigned curriculum, the limited
timeframe, students‘ low level of proficiency, etc. There was a lack of long-term
activities and methods to develop students‘ language competency aligned with the
CEFR B1 required outcomes. The use of the CEFR can-do descriptors for students‘
language proficiency level improvement was not paid adequate attention to.
Importantly, the interview sessions revealed the appearance of applying
information technology and developing learner autonomy, in the current teaching
and learning activities for non-English major students. With computers, CD-players
and projectors available in every classroom, teachers maximized the help of E-book
and CD-ROMs in their classroom activities, making their teaching more visual,
modern and attractive to their students. Blended learning was recognized to emerge,
compensating for the insufficient teacher-led hours in English- for- non-major-
students classes. However, the activity remained unprompted and spontaneous. It
was mainly dependent on students‘ self-awareness and students‘ self-learning.
123
There was a lack of teachers‘ control and guidance, simply because they did not
have time and energy for such supervision, and because teachers were not fully
aware of its importance.
Together with blended learning, learner autonomy and student autonomous
learning started to take hold. This echoes the Council of Europe‘s interest (Little,
2006) in developing the CEFR. The findings demonstrated that learner autonomy
and student‘s self-learning were applied due to the limited timeframe. The current
implementation of the CEFR for non-English major students partly followed the
principal functions of the framework. In essence, it facilitated language learning and
teaching via developing teacher‘s teaching flexibility and students‘ autonomous
learning (CoE, 2001, p.141). The activities are aligned with the modern trend in
language teaching and matched the overall purposes and expectation of the CEFR
framework (CoE, 2001). It was, however, still unprompted and spontaneous.
Teachers and students need further help and support so as to properly develop
learner autonomy and individual learning abilities.
In brief, GE teachers had positive perceptions of the CEFR policy, yet they
doubted its effects and practicability in the current context of implementation for
non-English major university students. Therefore, although some changes and
modification were identified, GE teachers‘ responses were still strategic and
unprompted, aiming at supporting non-English major student acquisition of the
required CEFR B1 level of proficiency. GE teachers were more concerned with
teaching test-aligned topics and test-taking strategies than teaching methodology
adaptation to be compatible with the CEFR‘ philosophy and values. They focused
on instant techniques and coping strategies in their teaching activities. The long-
term objective of improving student language ability was not focused. No
significant modification in teaching methods was reported. Their responses were
thus ―half-way‖ and mainly used as coping strategies, which could not create drastic
changes as intended.
Secondly, concerning teachers‘ responses to teaching materials, GE teachers
frequently adapted their teaching materials, using different techniques. Two
124
outstanding activities were adapting the textbook‘s exercises/ tasks and providing
supplementary materials to be aligned with the CEFR. Teacher feedback on the text
materials themselves showed a greater concern with how to deliver the materials
within the limited timeframe rather than on how to make effective use of the
prescribed materials. They showed less concern to evaluate the materials, adapt and
prioritize sections, or select the tasks and topics most useful in supporting student
acquisition of the required B1 level of proficiency than for the time limits imposed.
The modification and adaptation were made with reference to students‘ level of
proficiency, students‘ interest and especially the CEFR-aligned outcomes. The
strong impact of the CEFR-aligned learning outcomes has resulted in GE teachers
teaching the textbook ―as if it were a test book‖ (Prodomou, 1995) and used extra
―test books‖ as supplementary textbooks.
Finally, as for classroom assessment, the findings showed GE teachers‘
frequent focus on modifying the assessment activity. In particular, GE teachers
associated the CEFR-aligned curriculum with its learning outcomes and assessment
practice. They thus modified the assessment activities in such a way that can aid their
non-English major students achieve the required learning outcomes. The strong
impact of the CEFR-aligned outcomes on the assessment practice could be seen in the
appearance of CEFR aligned tests and the focus on students’ self and peer
assessments. However, GE teachers were more concerned with students achieving the
required learning CEFR-aligned A1-B1outcomes than students improving their
language proficiency. As for self- and peer assessment, the choice of the activities
was due to time constraints and large classes rather than the method values, principles
or effectiveness of the activities. The long-term effect of the activities, which is
students‘ language proficiency improvement, was difficult to achieve. This is also the
limitation of the current self- and peer assessment application.
To sum up, GE teachers‘ positive perceptions resulted in their effort of
modification and adaptation in their teaching activities. However, affected by the
concerns that the required CEFR B1 learning outcome was challenging for their
students, GE teachers did not really focus on appropriate methods and/ or approach.
125
They simply taught their students whatever could help them pass the compulsory
coming exam and achieve the required CEFR B1 certificate. Besides, GE teachers
acknowledged the application of information technology and learner autonomy in
their classes. The activities, however, were found to be not properly implemented
and effective enough, which raised the issue of application. GE teachers need to be
better equipped with methods and procedure of the implementation process.
In conclusion, the implementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-
English major university students has led to the modification and adaptation of all
relevant domains, namely teaching activities, teaching materials and assessment
practices. This accorded with their afore-mentioned positive perceptions and echoed
the teacher‘s psychological process (Waters, 2009) that behaviors/ responses are the
reflection of what teachers think and believe. Modification and adaptation in
teaching activities, teaching materials and classroom assessment were identified.
Changes and innovation were said to start to take hold albeit the remaining
difficulties, challenges and obstacles. Although the results may not be as expected,
those are the initial success of the university that should be acknowledged after six
years of the CEFR implementation.
5.2. Implications
The findings of the present study revealed a contradiction in teachers‘
perceptions of the CEFR and their responses to its implementation for non-English
major students at the home university. On the one hand, GE teachers‘ sound
understanding of the CEFR philosophy, their positive thinking of its readiness and
their relatively good awareness of its necessity are the first and foremost insurance
for their responsive behaviors to make change and innovation in their classrooms
because ―perceptions influence practices‖ (Borg, 2009, p.167). On the other hand,
results also reported GE teachers‘ dissatisfaction and their difficulties during the
implementation process. These factors hindered teachers‘ involvement and limited
their success. The results of the present study have compelled the implications for
practice. The perceptions and responses of GE teachers could assist in providing an
overview of the success the CEFR implementation policy for non-English major
126
students could have. Furthermore, the results could change the manner in which
changes are implemented at university level. Therefore, for more effective CEFR
implementation at the home university, a number of implications have been drawn out.
5.2.1. Implications for teachers and classroom teaching
Given that changes and innovations can only take place when teachers
perceive them as feasible (Van den Branden, 2009), GE teachers‘ positive
perceptions of the CEFR implementation policy is of great advantages for renewing
the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students. To maximize the
condition, GE teachers‘ positive perceptions need to be maintained and enriched.
They need to understand better what involves in the CEFR implementation process,
and what to expect in the procedure. They also need to be better-prepared with what
entails, what the policy may bring about, what challenges they may encounters,
what obstacles they may face, etc. Having a thorough perspective of the potential
success and failure of the implementation process will provide teachers a better
understanding of the change process, an essential driver of Fullan‘s (2007a) change
management theory.
Secondly, teachers are the actual deliverers of curriculum across disciplines
and across levels. Their instructional practice and educational foundations may
vary, but they still remain the key implementers of the curriculum. This offers hints
that GE teachers and/ or non-English major students should be involved in the
CEFR-aligned curriculum planning. Therefore, their voices must be acknowledged,
listened to and acted upon. For the unreasonable aspects of the curriculum regarding
time, teaching materials or assessment, they need to make their voices heard via
staff meetings, school academic conferences, petition letters, etc. At least, their
voices about the current belief of language teaching and learning, the available
resources, students‘ language proficiency levels, the society‘s language needs, etc.
to help visualize a complete picture of the language teaching and learning context
need to be listened to and taken into consideration before any detailed language
planning and policy is made.
127
Thirdly, GE teachers should be actively involved in teacher trainings and
professional development programs for capacity building. Not only do they attend
available workshops and trainings on CEFR and its implementation but they should
also be more active in the organization process. From the findings, teachers
perceived insufficient training programs on the CEFR implementation procedure.
Therefore, they need to voice up their needs so that the trainings and workshops‘
themes and contents become more relevant and insightful.
As key implementers, they need to be empowered with techniques, skills and
knowledge necessary for implementing the CEFR-aligned curriculum. They should
attend trainings and workshops on teaching and pedagogy because these workshops
are thought to be of usefulness for them. They should be further provided with
techniques and skills on how to make use of the available resources, how to adapt
the given textbooks aligned with the new CEFR-aligned curriculum. Also, GE
teachers need further training on assessment of language learning in relation to the
CEFR. Once provided with theories and techniques, together with their classroom
experiences, GE teachers are more likely to have practical solutions in adapting the
current textbooks, modifying current teaching methodology and renewing current
assessment practices so that all components of the curriculum can become more
consistent. As such the CEFR expected learning outcomes can be achieved.
Next, teachers should take initiatives in the implementation process. They
should call for understanding and acceptance among students, parents and local
communities so that the CEFR application becomes more effective. Inside
classrooms, they need to perceive themselves as leaders in their classrooms and take
in the role of active leaders, not just passive implementers. By realizing the
intentions and plans of policy-makers, they act out the policy and spread the
leadership to their students and peers, making leadership developed in others on an
ongoing basis for sustainable reform (Fullan et al., 2005).
In the present study, teachers reported challenges and dissatisfaction during
the implementation process such as limited timeframe, students‘ low level of
language proficiency, and incompatible textbooks. Teachers must address the
128
inhibitors and asked themselves: ―What should I do to benefit my students?‖ It is
recommended that teachers take risks and try new things. They need to move
forward and do what is best for the students.
What is more, GE should seek collaboration and cooperation among their
peers. They need to take more initiatives for knowledge sharing and experience
exchange. As expertise and professional support was reported limited, colleagues
and peers can be considered a valuable source for teachers to learn from each other.
Many of them are senior teachers who had opportunities to attend many workshops
on the field. All of them have experienced implementing the CEFR in their
classrooms. Peer and team collaboration will definitely be of great help for their
CEFR application. With timely support from the Faculty and home University,
teachers can accumulate individual knowledge and experiences, uniting and making
them their collective strengths. The collective strengths are then spread out again
among members and their home university.
Finally, teachers should see the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation as
a chance to facilitate themselves in upgrading their professional capacity. The
CEFR-implementation policy may come to an end one day, but there will be
another policy for replacement and curriculum innovation will always be among hot
issues of language education. Therefore, teachers should engage themselves in such
ventures and gain ownership of the innovation, making innovation and reform part
of their professional capacity. By doing so, teachers become more autonomous in
language teaching and curriculum renewal, not just limited to some coping
strategies and mainly dependent on the designated textbooks.
5.2.2. Implications for administrators
The findings of the current study revealed the home university‘s initial success
after six years of the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation. Nonetheless, the
results also showed that GE teachers were dissatisfied with a number of factors
relating to the CEFR implementation for non-English major students. Because
administrators play an important role in motivating teachers, providing necessary
support, and giving timely feedback and reinforcement, the following implications
129
are made so that the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation process at the home
university becomes more effective.
Firstly, although a top-down policy by MOET, the home university needs to
work more closely and effectively with teachers so as to have a clearer
understanding of the context, students‘ language proficiency levels, human and
other resources, etc. before officially select and implement the curriculum. Besides,
the curriculum had to be piloted so that non-English major students‘ proficiency
level and their English language needs were taken into account. After the pilot
phase, there should be official channels where GE teachers‘ voices and feedbacks
can be listened to.
Secondly, there is evidence that capacity building, the second driver for
change management pinpointed by Fullan (2007a), has been made in preparation for
the CEFR implementation. Nonetheless, for capacity building, front-end training is
insufficient (Fullan, et al., 2005). Teacher training and collaboration ought to
become a regular part of teacher professional development because ―successful
change involves learning during implementation‖ (Fullan, et al., 2005, p.55). This
offers hints that the home university and the Faculty of ESP have plans and
continue organizing relevant workshops and trainings for GE teachers. Besides, GE
teachers reflected that they were mainly supported with the CEFR and its values.
They lacked the procedure and process to implement the CEFR in their current
context for non-English major students. This suggests that the coming workshops
should focus more on the CEFR implementation process, particularly how to make
necessary adaptations and bring all the domains of the curriculum into much closer
interdependent.
Finally, the lack of proper teaching methodology in the implementation
procedure raises the issue of extra trainings on professional development for GE
teachers at the home university. The University and the Faculty need to take
initiatives to collect and select innovative ideas, effective new experiences of
adaptation and then spread them via official channels. When the University can
develop a ―climate‖ where people ―learn from each other within and across units‖
130
and turn ―good knowledge into action‖ (Fullan et al., 2005, p.57), the CEFR
implementation process would be more likely to take hold.
5.3. Research contributions
The present study addresses the issues of language teaching, specifically the
implementation of the CEFR for non-English language major university students. It
aims to help GE teachers understand knowledge and gain experiences as they become
involved in implementing the CEFR for their non-English major university students.
Besides, teachers can identify factors affecting their implementation and how they
respond during the process of the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation and
renewal. This section focuses on the contributions of this dissertation. It addresses the
theoretical, methodological and practical contributions of the research.
Firstly, the study takes the issues of the CEFR adoption, the most significant
part of NFL 2020 Project, into consideration. Adopting an alienated framework,
theory or methodology into local contexts without taking into consideration issues
of the region‘s culture, background, capacity, etc. has not been rare in language
learning making and planning in Vietnam and other countries. An overview of the
CEFR and its principles is pointed out, making it clear for different stake-holders
from policy-makers to implementers to recognize its roles, purposes and nature in
language teaching and learning.
Secondly, theoretical frameworks for language curriculum implementation
and change remain relatively underdeveloped. The present study based on concepts
and theories of teachers‘ cognition (Borg, 2003; 2009), teacher psychological
processes (Waters, 2009), change management theory (Fullan, 2007) and relevant
research and studies on the CEFR and its implementation to form a conceptual
framework. Both theory and empirical findings contribute to our understanding of
the CEFR and its implementation as a language reform policy all over the world.
Although some research studies have been done on how universities,
institutes and communities adopt and implement the CEFR in countries worldwide,
very little has been done in Vietnam (Pham, 2017). The present study is expected to
fill the gap and provide insights to the implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam.
131
The main methodological contribution of the study has been the
interdisciplinary approach to explore the implementation of the CEFR in local
context. The successful use of the mixed-method sequential explanatory model in
this study contributes towards the interpretation of teachers‘ perceptions and
responses and their relationship like the present one.
The practical contributions of this study are the detailed insight of
implementing the CEFR, a top-down language policy from the perspective of grass-
root level. Specifically, the present study helps explain its impacts on language
education system, teachers and learners‘ attitude and perceptions toward the use of
the CEFR, and the effectiveness of such changes in (foreign) language policy, etc.
Another contribution of the study is the practical implications for teachers
and administrators. The findings imply that for effective implementation, emphasis
should be placed on understanding the social cultural contexts of students, teachers
and organization. The findings also offer hints that teachers should be involved in
the policy planning. Their voices must be acknowledged, listened to and acted upon.
They need to be empowered with techniques, skills and knowledge necessary for
the language policy implementation.
5.4. Limitations of the study
The overall design of this study was subject to a number of limitations. The
first limitation originated from the mixed-method design of the study. On the one
hand, the combination of both quantitative and qualitative design fosters the
reliability of the data because the strengths of each approach can compensate for the
drawbacks of the other. On the other hand, the researcher may not be fully
experienced with both approaches so as to analyze and interpret the data thoroughly.
For qualitative findings, the use of semi-structured interview limits the
ability to understand how the subject would frame the topic (Bogdan and Biklen,
2007). Semi-structured interview allows for an open relaxed approach to
interviewing. With semi-structured interview, the interviewer provides guidance
and direction; the interviewee can elaborate on certain issues and make interesting
developments (Dornyei, 2007). It is, however, criticized that the framing of the
132
topic may be from the researcher‘s perspective, not from the interviewee‘s. This
potential limitation has been addressed and taken into account.
Next, the research may have had some limitations due to its data collection
instruments. By using the questionnaire and interview protocol to explore teachers‘
perceptions and responses, what the research investigated were reflected rather than
actual practice. Although this limitation was previously aware of, reflected in the
term ―responses‖ rather than ―practice‖, this can be considered a limitation of the
present study when other instruments such as class observations, artifacts or
narration were not employed to triangulate data.
Another limitation may have been the researcher‘s knowledge and work
related to the issue under investigation. Over the past fifteen years, the researcher
has been teaching general English for non-English major students of the home
university. She had experience in the CEFR implementation right from the
beginning. She was sent to workshops and trainings by both MOET and the home
university on the CEFR. Although these provided the researcher with plentiful
knowledge and experience in the field, her previous involvement and knowledge
could have skewed her interpretation of the data due to her beliefs and biases.
The case study design of the present research raises the issue of
generalizability. While it provides detailed and insightful information, generalizing an
in-depth understanding of the CEFR-aligned curriculum implementation for non-
English major university students, it limits the overall application of the results to
other settings. The results of the study may not be generalizable to other particular
cases or wider population if the settings and context are not the same. Although all
GE teachers teaching non-English major students at the home university were invited
to participate in the study, the total number of 36 participants indicated the small
sample size of the study, making the quantitative findings more or less limited.
5.5. Recommendations for further research
The findings of this study indicate multiple opportunities for other possible
research studies in regards to the CEFR implementation policy in Vietnam. More
case studies investigating teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to the policy
133
conducted in different universities, more diversity in the teacher participants and
other staff populations would strengthen the validity and reliability of such a study.
The present study investigates the CEFR implementation and its application
for non-English major university students. Yet the subjects of the study were GE
teachers. A similar research exploring the same issue via students‘ viewpoints and
beliefs is worth conducting. It can triangulate the results of the present study. Also,
it can further explain and provide insights to the effects and impacts such a top-
down policy may bring about.
Finally, the present study looked at three different domains of curriculum
innovation, namely teaching practices, teaching materials and assessment. The data
collection instruments were however confined to a close multiple-choice survey
questionnaire and an in-depth interview protocol. Further studies can focus more on
one specific domain, such as teaching practices, but deeper the findings by other
tools such as class observation, narration or artifacts.
134
LISTS OF AUTHOR’S WORK
PAPERS
1. Lê Thị Thanh Hải (2015). Implementing CEFR at tertiary level: A preliminary
study on investigating general English teachers‘ perceptions of its assessment
practice. In Proceedings of the International Conference on “Interdisciplinary
Research in Linguistics and Language Education” (pp.35-44). Hue: Hue
University Publisher.
2. Lê Thị Thanh Hải (2016). Implementing the CEFR-based learning
outcomes at Hue University: A preliminary study on general English
teachers‘ responses to adapting the teaching materials. Proceedings of the
International Conference on ―Action Research in Language Education‖,
(pp.91-98). Hue: Hue University Publisher.
3. Lê Thị Thanh Hải (2018). A pilot study on implementing the CEFR for
non-English major students at Hue University. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on ―Interdisciplinary Research in Linguistics and
Language Education‖, (pp.135-148). Hue: Hue University Publisher.
4. Lê Thị Thanh Hải (2018). Advantages and challenges of the CEFR-aligned
learning outcome implementation for non-English major students at Hue
University. Tạp chí Khoa học Ngôn ngữ và Văn hóa Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại
học Huế, 2(3), pp.282-294.
5. Lê Thị Thanh Hải (2018). Impacts of the CEFR-aligned learning outcome
implementation on assessment practice. Tạp chí Khoa học Xã hội và Nhân văn
Đại học Huế, 127(6B), pp.87-99. DOI: 10.26459/hueuni-jssh.v127i6B.4899
6. Lê Thị Thanh Hải, Phạm Thị Hồng Nhung (2019). Implementing the CEFR
at a Vietnamese university—General English language teachers‘ perceptions.
CEFR journal: Research and Pratice, pp.41-57. ISSN: 2434-849X
(forthcoming).
PROJECTS
1. Lê Thị Thanh Hải et al. (2017- 2018). Nghiên cứu hoạt động ứng dụng
khung tham chiếu Châu Âu về ngôn ngữ (CEFR) trong kiểm tra đánh giá
tiếng Anh- Trường hợp áp dụng cho Đại học Huế. In-process project
sponsored by Ministry of Education and Training.
135
REFERENCES
Alderson, J. C. (ed.) (2002). Common European framework of reference for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Case studies. Strasbourg, France:
Council of Europe.
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(4), 659-663.
Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers' knowledge of second language pronunciation
techniques: Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices, and student
perceptions. Tesol Quarterly, 48(1), 136-163.
Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Quality
methods in Psychology. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bérešová, J. (2011). The impact of the Common European framework of reference
on teaching and testing in Central and Eastern European context. Synergies
Europe, 6, 177-190.
Bianco, J. L. (2013). Innovation in language policy and planning: ties to English
language education. Innovation and Change in English Language Education, 139.
Block, D. (1991). Some thought on DIY materials design. ELT Journal, 45(3), 211-217.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods. Boston. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Bonnet, G. (2007). The CEFR and education policies in Europe. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(4), 669-672.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language
Teaching, 36(02), 81-109.
Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. The Cambridge guide to second
language teacher education, 163-171.
136
Brink, T.P (2008). The definition and history of psychology. Retrieved from
www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/.../TLBrink_PSYCH.pdf
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, England: CUP.
Burns, A. (2003). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge, England: CUP.
Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Common European framework of
reference: The globalization of language education policy (Vol. 23). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual matters.
Byrnes, H. (2007). Developing national language education policies: Reflections on
the CEFR. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 679-685.
Casas-Tost, H., & Rovira-Esteva, S. (2014). New models, old patterns? The
implementation of the Common European framework of reference for languages
for Chinese. Linguistics and Education, 27, 30-38.
Chang, K. (2007). Innovation in primary English language teaching and
management of change. Primary Innovations Regional Seminar. Hanoi: British
Council, 61–66.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A
commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-338.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: CUP.
Council of Europe (n.d.). Common European framework of reference for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved April 12th
, 2016 from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp
Cambridge, E.S.O.L. (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of good
practice. Cambridge, England: Author.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
137
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in
the research process. Melbourne, Australia: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research:
Theory and Issues (eds). London, England: Sage.
Despagne, C., & Grossi, J. R. (2011). Implementation of the CEFR in the Mexican
Context. Synergies Europe, 6, 65-74.
Desveaux, S. (2013). Guided learning hours. Retrieved April 16th
, 2016 from
https:// support. cambridgeenglish.org/hc/en-gb/articles/202838506-Guided-
learning-hours
Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Byram, M. (2018). The current influence of the CEFR in
secondary education: Teachers‘ perceptions. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
1-15.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
EF Education First (2013). EF English proficiency index 2013. Retrieved August
10th
, 2015 at www.ef-australia.com.au/epi/
Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
English Profile, (n.d.). What is the CEFR. Retrieved April 15th
, 2016 from
http://www.englishprofile.org/the-cefr
Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011a). The
power of ―Can Do‖ statements: Teachers‘ perceptions of CEFR-informed
instruction in French as a second language classrooms in Ontario. Canadian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 1-19.
Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S., Brown, P., & Smith, M. (2011b). Teachers‘
reactions to CEFR‘s task-based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies
138
Europe, 6, 109-120.
Far, M. M. (2008). On the relationship between ESP & EGP: A general
perspective. English for Specific Purposes World, 7(1), 1-11.
Figueras, N., North, B., Takala, S., Verhelst, N., & Van Avermaet, P. (2005).
Relating examinations to the Common European Framework: a
manual. Language Testing, 22(3), 261-279.
Figueras, N. (2007). The CEFR, a lever for the improvement of language
professionals in Europe. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 673-675.
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485.
Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher learning in language
teaching. Cambridge, England: CUP.
Freeman, D. (2016). Education second language teachers. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Fowler, J. F. J. (2009). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). Eight forces for leaders of
change. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 54.
Fullan, M. (2001a). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2001b). The new meaning of educational change (4th
ed). Columbia,
NY: Teacher College Press.
Fullan, M. (2007a). Change theory as a force for school improvement. In Intelligent
leadership (pp. 27-39). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An
introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Glover, P. (2011). Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students‘
awareness of their speaking skills. Language Awareness, 20(2), 121-133.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process.
Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research:
Both teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. Reading: Theory,
research and practice, 32-40.
139
Hoang, V. V. (2010). The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in
Vietnam. Research on culture and languages of Ritsumeikan, 22(1).
Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and
qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language
Journal, 91(4), 663-667.
Hyland, K., & Wong, L. C. (2013) (Eds.) Innovation and change in English
language education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Isac, M. M., da Costa, P. D., Araújo, L., Calvo, E. S., & Albergaria-Almeida, P.
(2015). Teaching practices in primary and secondary schools in Europe: Insights
from large-scale assessments in education. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI, 10, 383588.
Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2009). European language policy: Assessment, learning,
and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51-63.
Julie, P. (2001). A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.
Khader, K. T., & Mohammad, S. (2010). Reasons behind non-English major
university students’ achievement gap in English language in Gaza Strip from
students’ perspectives. Retrieved February 26th, 2017 from http://www. qou.
edu/english/conferences/firstNationalConference/pdfFiles/khaderKhader. pdf.
Lewin, K. (1947). ‗Frontiers in group dynamics‘. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Field
theory in social science. London, England: Social Science Paperbacks.
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (2013). Human information processing: An
introduction to psychology (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Little, D. (2006). The Common European framework of reference for languages:
Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167–190.
Little, D. (2007). The Common European framework of reference for languages:
Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The
140
Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-655.
Little, D. (2011). The Common European framework of reference for languages: A
research agenda. Language Teaching, 44(3), 381-393.
Little, D. G. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin,
Ireland: Authentik Language learning Resources.
Luu, N. L. (2015, November). Role-plays as a realization of CEFR Can-dos for
speaking skills. In the Proceedings of Regional Conference on Interdisciplinary
Research in Linguistics and Language Education Hue, Vietnam (pp.45-52). Hue
City: Hue University of Foreign Languages.
Malderez, A., & Bodoczky, C. (1999). Mentor course. Cambridge, England: CUP.
Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers' beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and
research agenda. International Journal of Environmental and Science
Education, 4(1), 25-48.
Marsh, C. J., & Stafford, K. (1988). Curriculum: Practices and issues. Sydney,
Australia: McGraw-Hill.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based
inquiry. London, England: Pearson Higher Ed.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy
implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative Research in
Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, 1, 1-17.
Mison, S., & Jang, I. C. (2011). Canadian FSL teachers‘ assessment practices and
needs: Implications for the adoption of the CEFR in a Canadian
context. Synergies Europe, 6, 99-108.
Moonen, M., Stoutjesdijk, E., Graaff, de, R., Corda, A. (2013). Implementing the
CEFR in secondary education: Impact on FL teachers' educational and assessment
practice. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 226-246.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nagai, N., & O‘Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on
language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 2011, 141-152.
141
Nakatani, Y. (2012). Exploring the implementation of the CEFR in Asian contexts:
Focus on communication strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 46, 771-775.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328.
Neuman, W.L. (1994). Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Neupane, M. (2010). Learner autonomy: concept and considerations. Journal of
NELTA, 15(1-2), 114-120.
Nguyen, T. T. T. (2012). English language policies for Vietnamese primary schools
and issues of implementation in rural settings. (Doctoral dissertation). Asian
Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language.
Nguyen, V. H. & Hamid, M. O. (2015). Educational policy borrowing in a
globalized world: A case study of Common European Framework of Reference
for languages in a Vietnamese University. English Teaching: Practice &
Critique, 14(1), 60-74.
North, B. (2007). The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. The Modern Language
Journal, 91(4), 656-659.
Nunan, D. (1999). Research methods in language learning (8th
ed). Cambridge,
England: CUP.
O'Sullivan, D., & Dooley, L. (2008). Applying innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage publications.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers‘ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pham, T. H. N. (2012). Applying the CEFR to the teaching and learning English in
Vietnam: Advantages and challenges. Journal of Foreign Language Studies, 30,
90-102.
Pham, T. H. N. (2015, November). Setting the CEFR-B1 level as learning outcomes:
Non-English major students‘ voices. In the proceedings of Regional Conference on
Interdisciplinary Research in Linguistics and Language Education Hue, Vietnam
142
(pp.53-62). Hue City: Hue University of Foreign Languages.
Pham, T. H. N. (2017). Chapter 6. Applying the CEFR to renew a general English
curriculum: Successes, remaining issues and lessons from Vietnam. In North
Brian (Ed.) Critical, constructive assessment of CEFR-informed language
teaching in Japan and beyond (pp. 97-117). Cambridge, England: CUP.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between teachers' beliefs
and their classroom practice. Teacher Trainer, 21(3), 17.
Pickens, J. (2005). Attitudes and perceptions. Organizational Behavior in Health
Care, 3, 43-76.
Poon, A. Y. (2000). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and practice.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Prodromou, L. (1995). The backwash effect: From testing to teaching. ELT Journal,
49(1), 13-25.
Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Berverly Hills, CA: Sage publications.
Quick, D. L., & Nelson, J. C. (1997). Organizational behavior: Foundations,
realities, and challenges. New York, NY: West Publishing Company.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward,
central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach.
In Handbook of research on teacher education, 2, 102-119.
Rao, V. S. P. & Narayana P. S. (1998). Organisation theory and behaviour (2nd
ed.).
New Delhi, India: Konark Publishing Company.
Schreiber, J. (2011). Educational research. Medford, MA: John Wiley& Sons.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Oxford, England: Alfred A.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and
lending. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Strevens, P. (1977). Special-purpose language learning: A perspective. Language
Teaching, 10(03), 145-163.
Takala, S. (2012). The landscape of language testing and assessment in Europe:
143
Developments and challenges. Research Papers in Language Teaching and
Learning, 3(1), 8.
The Guardian. Vietnam demands English language teaching ―miracle‖, (2011,
November 8). p. Education 1. Retrieved October 3rd, 2016 from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/nov/08/vietnam-unrealistic-
english-teaching-goals
Tomchin, E. M., & Impara, J. C. (1992). Unraveling teachers‘ beliefs about grade
retention. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 199-223.
Tomlinson, B. (2005). The future for ELT materials in Asia. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2), 5-13.
Tono, Y., & Negishi, M. (2012). The CEFR-J: Adapting the CEFR for English language
teaching in Japan. Framework & Language Portfolio SIG Newsletter, 8, 5-12.
Valax, P. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A
critical analysis of its impact on a sample of teachers and curricula within and
beyond Europe. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Waikato, New
Zealand.
Van den Branden, K. (2009). Diffusion and implementation of innovations.
The handbook of language teaching (pp. 659-672).
Vietnamese government (2008). Decision No. 1400/QD-TTg Approval of the Project
“Teaching and learning foreign languages in the national educational system for
the 2008-2020 period”. Hanoi, September, 2008.
Vietnamese government (2017). Decision No. 2080/QĐ-TTg Approval of modifying
and supplementing the foreign language teaching and learning project of the
national education system period 2017-2015. Hanoi December 22, 2017.
Wang, H. (2008). Language policy implementation: A look at teachers‘
perceptions. Asian EFL Journal, 30(1), 1-38.
Waters, A. (2009). Managing innovation in English language education. Language
Teaching, 42(04), 421-458.
Westhoff, G. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of the CEFR for reimagining
144
foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 676-679.
White, R. V. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching
organizations. Cambridge, England: CUP.
Woolfolk, R. L., Doris, J. M., & Darley, J. M. (2006). Identification, situational
constraint, and social cognition: Studies in the attribution of moral
responsibility. Cognition, 100(2), 283-301.
Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY:
Guilford Publications.
Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and
reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254.
Vietnamese
Hoang Trong, & Chu Nguyen Mong Ngoc (2008). Phân tích dữ liệu nghiên cứu với
SPSS. HCM City, Vietnam: Hong Duc.
Le Van (2014 July 4). Hiệu quả ―trên trời‖ của đề án Ngoại ngữ 2020- Bài 1. Tin
tức. Retrieved October 3rd, 2016 from http://baotintuc.vn/xa-hoi/hieu-qua-tren-
troi-cua-de-an-ngoai-ngu-2020-bai-1-20140703214902438.htm.
Le Van Canh (2015, October). Công tác bồi dưỡng giáo viên: thành tựu, hạn chế và
định hướng. In the Proceedings of the Conference on Solutions to Enhancing the
Quality of Teachers’ and English Teachers’ Professional Development (pp.10-25).
Hanoi.
MOET (2011a). MOET recognition of foreign language universities of excellence
to undertake teacher training and assessment activities. Hanoi, September, 2011.
MOET (2011b). Dispatch No. 20/ ĐANN Guidance on improving language
proficiency for teachers. Hanoi, October, 2011.
MOET (2013). Dispatch No. 5201/ BGDĐT- GDĐH Reviewing English language
proficiency of English teachers and ESP teachers at universities. Hanoi, July, 2013.
MOET (2014a). Circular No. 01/TT-BGDĐT Issuing Six-level framework for
foreign language proficiency in Vietnam. Hanoi, January, 2014.
MOET (2014b). Dispatch No. 792/ BGDĐT –NGCBQLGD Guidance on
implementing basic requirement for English language teachers’ competencies.
145
Hanoi, February, 2014.
MOET (2014c). Dispatch No. 5957/BGDĐT-GDĐH Guidance on Teaching and
Learning Intensive English and other foreign languages. Hanoi, October 2014.
Pham Thi Tuyet Nhung (2015, November). A pilot study on Can-dos statements for
writing skills to help French majors‘ self-assessment. In the proceedings of
Regional Conference on Interdisciplinary Research in Linguistics and Language
Education Hue, Vietnam (pp.63-69). Hue City: Hue University of Foreign
Languages.
VOV. Chương trình tiếng Anh theo đề án: Thiếu giáo viên đạt chuẩn, (2015,
September 30). p. Xã hội 1. Retrieved October 3rd, 2016 from http://vov.vn/xa-
hoi/giao-duc/chuong-trinh-tieng-anh-theo-de-an-thieu-giao-vien-dat-chuan-
436257.vov.
146
APPENDICES
147
APPENDIX A: THE PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE
BẢNG CÂU HỎI ĐIỀU TRA
Nghiên cứu này nhằm tìm hiểu nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo viên đối với việc
áp dụng CEFR cho SV không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Ngoại ngữ Đại học Huế.
Thông tin thu thập được sẽ giúp hiểu sâu hơn việc giảng dạy tiếng Anh ở bậc Đại
học khi áp dụng một chính sách ngôn ngữ quốc gia (CEFR). Tất cả thông tin từ
bảng hỏi này chỉ phục vụ cho mục đích của nghiên cứu này. Tất cả thông tin sẽ
được giữ bí mật, mong rằng thầy/ cô sẽ trả lời các câu hỏi một cách trung thực, một
tiêu chí tối quan trọng cho thành công của nghiên cứu này.
A. Vui lòng chọn hoặc ghi câu trả lời vào ô trống.
1. Giới tính: nam nữ
2. Vui lòng chọn ô tương ứng với số năm giảng dạy của thầy/ cô
1-5 6-10 11-20 trên 20 năm
3. Thầy/ cô đã dạy SV không chuyên ngữ bao nhiêu năm?
1-5 6-10 11-20 trên 20 năm
4. Bằng cấp:
+ Bằng ĐH 1:……………….…………..
+ Bằng ĐH 2 (nếu có):.……………….…………
+ Bằng cấp cao nhất: ……………….…………
5. Vui lòng chọn các hội thảo, tập huấn mà thầy cô đã từng tham dự và cho biết số
lần tham gia của quý thầy/ cô.
+ Hội thảo, tập huấn về EFL: có không ……………..lần
+ Hội thảo, tập huấn về ESP: có không ……………..lần
+ Hội thảo, tập huấn về CEFR: có không ……………..lần
B. Các phát biểu sau đây là về Áp dụng CEFR cho SV không chuyên ngữ tại
Đại học Huế. Vui lòng đọc các phát biểu và chọn con số đại diện cho mức độ
đồng tình của quý thầy cô với mỗi phát biểu.
5: hoàn toàn đồng ý, 4: đồng ý; 3: không ý kiến; 2: không đồng ý; 1: hoàn toàn không đồng ý
148
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1.
It‘s necessary now for Vietnam to apply the CEFR in English
language education because it is a global framework.
Việc áp dụng CEFR vào giảng dạy tiếng Anh ở Việt Nam
hiện nay là cần thiết vì đây là một khung năng lực quốc tế.
5 4 3 2 1
2. Necessary human resources for the process of renewal
should be provided.
Cần bổ sung nguồn nhân lực cần thiết (vd: đội ngũ giáo
viên) cho việc đổi mới giảng dạy ngoại ngữ.
5 4 3 2 1
3. The CEFR-aligned descriptors are representative for the
language proficiency of its level.
Các đặc tả ngôn ngữ tương ứng với các kỹ năng của từng
cấp độ đại diện cho năng lực ngôn ngữ của cấp độ đó.
5 4 3 2 1
4. The CEFR is aimed to make language learning outcomes
transparent.
Việc áp dụng CEFR nhằm làm rõ chuẩn đầu ra ngoại ngữ
cho người học.
5 4 3 2 1
5. The product of the CEFR application should be piloted.
Việc áp dụng CEFR nên được thử nghiệm trước khi chính
thức áp dụng.
5 4 3 2 1
6. The CEFR allows comparison and mutual recognition
across institutions and qualifications.
Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho phép việc so sánh và thừa
nhận bằng cấp lẫn nhau giữa các học viện và đơn vị đào tạo.
5 4 3 2 1
7. Capacity building for the process of renewal should be provided.
Muốn đổi mới chương trình cần nâng cao năng lực cho
đội ngũ giáo viên.
5 4 3 2 1
8. It‘s just the right time for my university to apply the CEFR
as it has all the resources required for such an application. 5 4 3 2 1
149
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
Trường tôi đã có đủ các nguồn lực cần thiết cho việc áp
dụng CEFR.
9. Staff involved should be trained to be aware of the values
and limitations of the CEFR.
Giáo viên cần được tập huấn để hiểu rõ hơn về giá trị
cũng như hạn chế của CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
10. The CEFR is meant to encourage self-directed language learning.
Việc áp dụng CEFR nhằm khuyến khích người học tự chủ
động định hướng trong việc học ngôn ngữ.
5 4 3 2 1
11. The CEFR is English-specific.
Khung CEFR đặc tả năng lực ngôn ngữ cụ thể cho tiếng Anh. 5 4 3 2 1
12. My university cannot postpone the application of the
CEFR any longer as it wants to promote its teaching
quality and reputation.
Việc áp dụng CEFR ở trường tôi không thể trì hoãn hơn
được nữa vì trường cần nâng cao danh tiếng và chất lượng
giảng dạy.
5 4 3 2 1
13. The process should involve everyone from teachers to
students at my university.
Quy trình đổi mới cần có sự phối hợp từ cả giáo viên lẫn
sinh viên của trường.
5 4 3 2 1
14. The CEFR is context-specific.
Khung CEFR cụ thể hoá cho từng bối cảnh, ngữ cảnh áp dụng. 5 4 3 2 1
15. The CEFR can be used as a basis for the renewal of
classroom assessment.
Khung CEFR có thể sử dụng làm cơ sở cho việc đổi mới
kiểm tra đánh giá.
5 4 3 2 1
16. The CEFR-aligned descriptors need to be further specified 5 4 3 2 1
150
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
to be applicable to the context in which is it used.
Các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR cần được chi tiết hoá thêm
để phù hợp hơn với ngữ cảnh được áp dụng.
17. The present implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam is necessary
as it helps improve learners‘ current low language proficiency.
Việc áp dụng CEFR hiện nay là cần thiết vì nó có thể giúp nâng
cao năng lực ngoại ngữ còn thấp hiện nay của người học.
5 4 3 2 1
18. The CEFR can be used as a basis for the construction of
the language teaching curriculum.
Khung CEFR có thể sử dụng làm cơ sở cho việc đổi mới
chương trình dạy học ngoại ngữ.
5 4 3 2 1
19. It‘s time for Vietnam to apply the CEFR as it has been
well applied in many other countries for innovations in
language teaching.
Việt Nam nên áp dụng CEFR vì khung này đã được áp
dụng thành công để đổi mới giảng dạy ngôn ngữ ở nhiều
quốc gia trên thế giới.
5 4 3 2 1
20. Staff involved should be trained to understand the
procedure of applying the CEFR to renew curriculum and
assessment practice.
Giáo viên nên được tập huấn để hiểu rõ hơn quy trình áp dụng
CEFR để đổi mới chương trình và việc kiểm tra đánh giá.
5 4 3 2 1
21. The CEFR is applicable to curriculum renewal for non-
English major students.
Áp dụng khung CEFR để đổi mới chương trình ngoại ngữ
cho SV không chuyên ngữ là phù hợp.
5 4 3 2 1
22. Expertise and continuous professional support should be
made accessible. 5 4 3 2 1
151
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
Giáo viên cần sự hỗ trợ thường xuyên và chuyên nghiệp
từ các chuyên gia trong quá trình ứng dụng CEFR.
23. The CEFR is best used for positive change in English
language education.
Sử dụng CEFR là tối ưu trong việc tạo ra những thay đổi
tích cực cho việc giảng dạy tiếng Anh.
5 4 3 2 1
24. It‘s essential to apply the CEFR now to renew General
English curriculum at my university because most people
involved are ready for such an application.
Việc áp dụng khung CEFR để đổi mới chương trình ngoại
ngữ cho SV không chuyên ngữ ở trường tôi là thiết yếu vì
GV và SV đều đã sẵn sàng cho việc áp dụng này.
5 4 3 2 1
25. Timeline should be feasible to make sure the product of
the CEFR application have good quality.
Lộ trình áp dụng nên thực tế và mang tính khả thi để đảm
bảo sản phẩm của việc áp dụng này đạt chất lượng.
5 4 3 2 1
26. Implementing the CEFR makes my teaching irrelevant of
my assessment.
Áp dụng CEFR làm quá trình dạy và kiểm tra đánh giá
của tôi tách biệt, không liên quan đến nhau.
5 4 3 2 1
27. I generally do not change my classroom assessment
practice.
Việc kiểm tra đánh giá tại lớp của tôi hầu như không thay
đổi gì sau khi áp dụng CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
28. My choice of teaching materials is strictly guided by the
finalized descriptors of the CEFR-level described in the
unit description.
Tôi luôn căn cứ vào các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR để lựa
5 4 3 2 1
152
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
chọn tài liệu giảng dạy phù hợp.
29. I develop CEFR-based classroom assessments to help
students to improve their language proficiency.
Tôi triển khai việc kiểm tra đánh giá trên lớp định hướng
theo CEFR nhằm giúp SV nâng cao năng lực ngoại ngữ.
5 4 3 2 1
30. I prioritize parts and tasks of the assigned course book
which closely reflect the CEFR-aligned descriptions.
Tôi ưu tiên giảng dạy những phần trong giáo trình bám sát
với các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
31. A constant concern in my teaching is to help students to
pass their examinations.
Mối bận tâm chính của tôi trong việc dạy là giúp SV đậu
kỳ thi.
5 4 3 2 1
32. My classroom assessments are to prepare students for the
CEFR-aligned tests.
Việc kiểm tra đánh giá trên lớp của tôi nhằm giúp SV
chuẩn bị cho các bài thi theo CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
33. I discuss with my colleagues to get consensus on how we should
treat the assigned course book and supplementary materials.
Tôi luôn trao đổi với đồng nghiệp để tìm sự thống nhất về
việc sử dụng giáo trình và tài liệu bổ trợ.
5 4 3 2 1
34. I use CEFR-oriented tests as parts of my teaching materials.
Tôi sử dụng các bài kiểm tra theo định dạng CEFR như
một phần trong tài liệu giảng dạy của mình.
5 4 3 2 1
35. I base on the CEFR-aligned descriptions to choose
appropriate teaching activities.
Tôi dựa vào các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR để lựa chọn
hoạt động giảng dạy phù hợp.
5 4 3 2 1
153
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
36. My classroom assessments are to determine how much
students have learned from teaching.
Việc kiểm tra đánh giá trên lớp nhằm kiểm tra SV tiếp thu
được gì từ quá trình dạy.
5 4 3 2 1
37. My classroom assessment practices are to get students‘
results (grades and marks).
Việc kiểm tra đánh giá trên lớp nhằm lấy điểm học phần
cho SV.
5 4 3 2 1
38. My classroom assessments are set with reference to
CEFR-aligned examination.
Việc kiểm tra đánh giá trên lớp của tôi được thiết kế dựa
trên các bài thi tương ứng với trình độ của CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
39. I have my own way of using the teaching materials
without discussing with my colleagues.
Tôi tự lựa chọn tài liệu giảng dạy chứ không trao đổi với
đồng nghiệp.
5 4 3 2 1
40. CEFR-aligned learning outcomes have little impact on my
teaching.
Chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR hầu như không ảnh hưởng gì
đến việc dạy của tôi.
5 4 3 2 1
41. I use CEFR-aligned tests in assessment process.
Tôi sử dụng các bài thi theo định dạng CEFR trong quá
trình kiểm tra trên lớp của mình.
5 4 3 2 1
42. I involve supplementary materials aligned with the CEFR-
based descriptions.
Tôi điều chỉnh tài liệu giảng dạy tương thích với các đặc
tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
43. My students are encouraged to use the CEFR-aligned 5 4 3 2 1
154
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
descriptors to see what they can and cannot do with
English.
Tôi khuyến khích SV sử dụng các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của
CEFR để tự đánh giá năng lực ngôn ngữ của bản thân.
44. I adapt the assigned teaching materials so that they are
aligned with the CEFR-based learning outcomes.
Tôi điều chỉnh tài liệu giảng dạy để tương thích với chuẩn
đầu ra theo CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
45. My teaching becomes test-oriented together with
implementing the CEFR-aligned curriculum.
Việc dạy của tôi theo định hướng bài thi (test-oriented)
sau khi áp dụng chương trình theo CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
46. For any supplementary materials I use I explain with my
students why such materials are necessary.
Tôi luôn giải thích cho SV lý do cho việc lựa chọn các tài
liệu giảng dạy bổ trợ.
5 4 3 2 1
47. My classroom assessments are irrelevant of the CEFR-
aligned examination.
Việc kiểm tra đánh giá trên lớp của tôi không bị tác động
bởi các bài thi cuối kỳ theo CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
48. I do not use the assigned course book at all, and provide
external supplementary materials instead.
Tôi không sử dụng giáo trình bắt buộc mà tự chọn các tài
liệu giảng dạy bổ trợ riêng.
5 4 3 2 1
49. I teach my students strategies for doing tasks in the
CEFR-aligned tests.
Tôi dạy cho SV chiến lược làm các tasks của bài thi theo
5 4 3 2 1
155
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
CEFR.
50. I teach everything in the course book, making no
modifications.
Tôi dạy mọi thứ theo giáo trình được chọn chứ không thay
đổi gì cả.
5 4 3 2 1
51. I use CEFR-aligned descriptors to provide feedbacks to
students about their performance.
Tôi sử dụng các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR để phản hồi
cho SV về năng lực ngôn ngữ mà họ thể hiện.
5 4 3 2 1
52. I go through the unit description and make the CEFR-
aligned learning outcomes comprehensible to my
students.
Tôi luôn mô tả nội dung khoá học cho SV và giải thích
cho SV hiểu về chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR.
5 4 3 2 1
156
APPENDIX B1: THE OFFICIAL ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE
The present study aims to explore teachers’ perceptions of and responses to
the CEFR implementation for non-English major students at Hue University.
The data collected are expected to provide insights to the English teaching at
tertiary level after the implementation of a national language reform policy (CEFR).
All the information from this questionnaire is targeted for the present research only
and will be confidentially restored. It is hoped that you answer the questions
honestly, a crucial criterion for the success of the research.
A. Please tick or write the answer to the given blank.
1. Gender: Male Female
2. How long have you been learning English?
1-5 6-10 11-20 over 20 years
3. What is your highest qualification?
Bachelor Master Doctor
4. Have you got another Bachelor degree in language beside English?
Yes No
5. Which information channel(s) provided you your knowledge and information
about the CEFR?
Workshops by MOET
Workshops by home university
Other(s):…………………………………………………….……
.………………………………………………………………………………………
B. The following statements are to explore teachers’ perceptions of the CEFR
implementation for non-English major students at our university. Please read
the statements and circle the number representative for your level of agreement.
5: strongly agree, 4: agree; 3: neutral; 2: disagree; 1: strongly disagree
157
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1. Necessary resources for the implementation were provided. 5 4 3 2 1
2. The CEFR-aligned descriptors are representative for the
language proficiency of its level. 5 4 3 2 1
3. The CEFR can make language learning outcomes transparent. 5 4 3 2 1
4. The implementation of the CEFR was piloted. 5 4 3 2 1
5. The CEFR helps create mutual recognition across institutions. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Capacity building for the implementation (e.g. training
workshops on the CEFR) was provided. 5 4 3 2 1
7. Staff involved were informed about the CEFR values and
limitations. 5 4 3 2 1
8. The CEFR encourages self-directed language learning. 5 4 3 2 1
9. The CEFR is English-specific. 5 4 3 2 1
10. All teachers were involved in the CEFR-aligned
curriculum design. 5 4 3 2 1
11. The CEFR is context-specific. 5 4 3 2 1
12. The CEFR helps renew classroom assessment practice. 5 4 3 2 1
13. The CEFR can help renew the curriculum. 5 4 3 2 1
14. The staff involved was trained for the implementation
procedure. 5 4 3 2 1
15. The CEFR is ready for any curriculum renewal. 5 4 3 2 1
16. Expertise and professional support during the
implementation process were provided. 5 4 3 2 1
17. The CEFR-descriptors need to be specified. 5 4 3 2 1
18. The CEFR can create positive changes in English
language education. 5 4 3 2 1
19. The objectives were realistic within the required timeline. 5 4 3 2 1
20. The present implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam is
necessary as: 5 4 3 2 1
158
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
a. CEFR is a global comprehensive framework. 5 4 3 2 1
b. Teachers involved in the process are ready. 5 4 3 2 1
c. Students involved are ready for such an
application. 5 4 3 2 1
d. CEFR has been well applied in other countries. 5 4 3 2 1
e. My university has all the resources required for
such an application. 5 4 3 2 1
f. The CEFR can help improve the teaching quality
of the university. 5 4 3 2 1
g. My university can promote its reputation. 5 4 3 2 1
h. The CEFR implementation will improve the
language proficiency of the students of my
university.
5 4 3 2 1
C. The following statements are to explore teachers’ responses to the CEFR
implementation for non-English major students at Hue University. Please read
the statements and circle the number representative for your level of agreement.
5: always; 4: usually; 3: often; 2: sometimes; 1: never
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1. Classroom assessment is used to prepare students for the
CEFR-aligned tests. 5 4 3 2 1
2. I use the CEFR practice tests as parts of my teaching materials. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Teaching activities development is based on the CEFR
descriptors. 5 4 3 2 1
4. I use the CEFR descriptors to give my students feedbacks
about their performance. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Classroom assessment is used for evaluation (grades and
marks). 5 4 3 2 1
159
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
6. My classroom assessment is set with reference to CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
7. All four skills appear in the classroom assessment practice. 5 4 3 2 1
8. I emphasize the importance of learner autonomy. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Classroom assessment is used to develop students‘
proficiency. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Teaching activities focus on helping students pass their
examination. 5 4 3 2 1
11. I encourage my students to use the CEFR-aligned tests for
their self-assessment activities. 5 4 3 2 1
12. My teaching activities are greatly affected by the CEFR
learning outcomes. 5 4 3 2 1
13. I use the CEFR-aligned tests in formative assessment. 5 4 3 2 1
14. I encourage my students to use the CEFR to assess their
competency. 5 4 3 2 1
15. My teaching becomes test-oriented. 5 4 3 2 1
16. The textbook‘s themes and topics are modified. 5 4 3 2 1
17. I teach my students strategies for doing tasks in the CEFR-
aligned tests. 5 4 3 2 1
18. When I adapt teaching materials,
a. I involve supplementary materials aligned with the
CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
b. The textbook‘s exercises and tasks are adapted to be
aligned with the CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
c. I prioritize parts of the textbook aligned with the CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
19. When adapting the teaching materials,
a. I discuss with my colleagues when making adaptations. 5 4 3 2 1
b. I explain to my students reasons for the adaptations. 5 4 3 2 1
160
APPENDIX B2: THE OFFICIAL VIETNAMESE QUESTIONNAIRE
Nghiên cứu này nhằm tìm hiểu nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo viên đối với
việc áp dụng CEFR cho SV không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Ngoại ngữ Đại học
Huế. Thông tin thu thập được sẽ giúp hiểu sâu hơn việc giảng dạy tiếng Anh ở bậc
Đại học khi áp dụng một chính sách ngôn ngữ quốc gia (CEFR). Tất cả thông tin từ
bảng hỏi này chỉ phục vụ cho mục đích của nghiên cứu này. Tất cả thông tin sẽ
được giữ bí mật, mong rằng thầy/ cô sẽ trả lời các câu hỏi một cách trung thực, một
tiêu chí tối quan trọng cho thành công của nghiên cứu này.
A. Vui lòng chọn hoặc ghi câu trả lời vào ô trống.
1. Giới tính: nam nữ
2. Thầy/ cô đã dạy SV không chuyên ngữ bao nhiêu năm?
1-5 6-10 11-20 trên 20 năm
3. Bằng cấp cao nhất của thầy/ cô là gì?
Cử nhân Thạc sĩ Tiến sĩ
4. Thầy/ cô có bằng ĐH ngoại ngữ khác ngoài tiếng Anh không?
có không
5. Theo quý thầy/ cô, những kiến thức, hiểu biết về CEFR mà thầy/ cô có được là từ
kênh thông tin nào?
Tập huấn của Bộ
Tập huấn của trường
Từ bạn bè đồng nghiệp
Tự tìm hiểu
Khác (Vui lòng liệt kê): ………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………...
B. Các phát biểu sau đây nhằm tìm hiểu về Nhận thức của quý thầy/ cô đối với việc áp
dụng CEFR cho SV không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Huế. Vui lòng đọc các phát biểu và
chọn con số đại diện cho mức độ đồng tình của quý thầy cô với mỗi phát biểu.
5: hoàn toàn đồng ý, 4: đồng ý; 3: không ý kiến; 2: không đồng ý; 1: hoàn toàn không đồng ý
161
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1. Trường có bổ sung nguồn nhân lực cần thiết cho việc
đổi mới giảng dạy ngoại ngữ. 5 4 3 2 1
2. Các đặc tả ngôn ngữ tương ứng với các kỹ năng của từng
cấp độ đại diện cho năng lực ngôn ngữ của cấp độ đó. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Việc áp dụng CEFR nhằm làm rõ chuẩn đầu ra ngoại
ngữ cho người học. 5 4 3 2 1
4. Việc áp dụng CEFR có được thử nghiệm trước. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho phép việc thừa nhận
bằng cấp lẫn nhau giữa các học viện và đơn vị đào tạo. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Trường có nâng cao năng lực cho đội ngũ giáo viên
phục vụ việc ứng dụng. 5 4 3 2 1
7. Giáo viên được tập huấn về giá trị cũng như hạn chế
của CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
8. Việc áp dụng CEFR khuyến khích người học tự chủ
động định hướng trong việc học ngôn ngữ. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Khung CEFR đặc tả năng lực ngôn ngữ cụ thể cho
tiếng Anh. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Giáo viên được tham gia vào quá trình biên soạn
chương trình. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Khung CEFR cụ thể hoá cho từng bối cảnh, ngữ cảnh
áp dụng. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Khung CEFR giúp đổi mới kiểm tra đánh giá. 5 4 3 2 1
13. Khung CEFR giúp đổi mới chương trình. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Đội ngũ tham gia được tập huấn về quy trình áp dụng. 5 4 3 2 1
15. Khung CEFR sẵn sàng cho việc đổi mới chương trình. 5 4 3 2 1
16. Giáo viên được hỗ trợ thường xuyên và chuyên nghiệp
từ các chuyên gia trong quá trình ứng dụng CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Các đặc tả của CEFR cần dược cụ thể hoá thêm. 5 4 3 2 1
162
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
18. Khung CEFR có thể tạo ra thay đổi tích cực trong việc
giảng dạy tiếng Anh. 5 4 3 2 1
19. Các mục tiêu có thể đạt được trong thời gian quy định. 5 4 3 2 1
20. Việc áp dụng CEFR vào giảng dạy tiếng Anh ở Việt
Nam hiện nay là cần thiết vì: 5 4 3 2 1
a. CEFR là một khung năng lực quốc tế chi tiết toàn diện. 5 4 3 2 1
b. Giáo viên đã sẵn sàng cho việc áp dụng này. 5 4 3 2 1
c. Sinh viên đã sẵn sàng cho việc áp dụng này. 5 4 3 2 1
d. Khung CEFR đã được áp dụng thành công ở nhiều
quốc gia trên thế giới. 5 4 3 2 1
e. Trường tôi đã có đủ các nguồn lực cần thiết cho
việc áp dụng CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
f. Khung CEFR có thể giúp nâng cao chất lượng
giảng dạy của trường. 5 4 3 2 1
g. Trường tôi có thể nâng cao danh tiếng. 5 4 3 2 1
h. Việc áp dụng CEFR giúp nâng cao năng lực ngoại
ngữ của người học. 5 4 3 2 1
C. Các phát biểu sau đây nhằm tìm hiểu về Phản hồi của quý thầy/ cô đối với
việc áp dụng CEFR cho SV không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Huế. Vui lòng đọc các
phát biểu và chọn con số đại diện cho mức độ đồng tình của quý thầy cô với
mỗi phát biểu.
5: luôn luôn; 4: thường xuyên; 3: thỉnh thoảng; 2: đôi khi; 1: không bao giờ
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1. Tôi sử dụng việc đánh giá để giúp SV chuẩn bị cho các
bài thi theo CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
2. Tôi sử dụng các bài kiểm tra theo định dạng CEFR như
một phần trong tài liệu giảng dạy của mình. 5 4 3 2 1
3. Tôi dựa vào các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR để lựa 5 4 3 2 1
163
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
chọn hoạt động giảng dạy phù hợp.
4. Tôi sử dụng các đặc tả của CEFR để phản hồi cho sinh
viên về khả năng của các em. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Tôi sử dụng việc đánh giá để lấy điểm học phần cho
SV. 5 4 3 2 1
6. Các hoạt động kiểm tra đánh giá được thiết kế dựa trên
các bài thi tương ứng với trình độ của CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
7. Cả bốn kỹ năng đều được đánh giá. 5 4 3 2 1
8. Tôi nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của tính tự chủ của
người học. 5 4 3 2 1
9. Việc kiểm tra đánh giá trên lớp được dùng để phát
triển năng lực của người học. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Các hoạt động dạy tập trung vào việc giúp sinh viên
đậu kỳ thi. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Tôi khuyến khích SV sử dụng các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của
CEFR để tự đánh giá năng lực ngôn ngữ của bản thân. 5 4 3 2 1
12. Việc dạy của tôi bị ảnh hưởng lớn bởi chuẩn đầu ra
theo CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
13. Tôi sử dụng các bài thi theo định dạng CEFR trong
quá trình kiểm tra trên lớp của mình. 5 4 3 2 1
14. Tôi khuyến khích sinh viên sử dụng các đặc tả CEFR
để đánh giá năng lực của các em. 5 4 3 2 1
15. Tôi dạy theo định hướng bài thi (test-oriented). 5 4 3 2 1
16. Các chủ đề chủ điểm trong sách được điều chỉnh. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Tôi dạy cho SV chiến lược làm bài thi theo CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
18. Tôi điều chỉnh tài liệu giảng dạy:
a. Tôi sử dụng tài liệu bổ trợ tương thích với các
đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
164
No. Statements 5 4 3 2 1
b. Tôi điều chỉnh tài liệu giảng dạy để tương thích
với chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
c. Tôi ưu tiên giảng dạy những phần trong giáo trình
tương thích với các đặc tả ngôn ngữ của CEFR. 5 4 3 2 1
19. Khi điều chỉnh tài liệu giảng dạy,
a. Tôi trao đổi với đồng nghiệp về việc sử dụng
giáo trình và tài liệu bổ trợ như thế nào cho tốt. 5 4 3 2 1
b. Tôi giải thích cho SV lý do cho việc điều chỉnh. 5 4 3 2 1
165
APPENDIX C: THE PILOT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL-
VIETNAMESE VERSION
Mở đầu
Đầu tiên, cám ơn thầy/ cô đã sẵn lòng tham gia vào buổi phỏng vấn hôm nay.
Như tôi đã trình bày với thầy/ cô trước đây, nghiên cứu của tôi nhằm tìm hiểu
việc ứng dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Huế.
Mục đích của nghiên cứu là tìm hiểu nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo viên không
chuyên ngữ với việc áp dụng khung CEFR như là một chính sách cải cách ngoại
ngữ ở Việt Nam. Buổi phỏng vấn của chúng ta sẽ kéo dài khoảng 30 phút, trong
thời gian đó tôi xin phép được hỏi thầy/ cô các câu hỏi liên quan đến nhận thức
của thầy/ cô về triết lý của CEFR, sự sẵn sàng và cần thiết của khung này với
việc áp dụng, các công việc liên quan đến quá trình áp dụng nó, cũng như phản
hồi của thầy/ cô trong việc thay đổi chương trình học theo CEFR, điều chỉnh
việc kiểm tra đánh giá, v.v…
Bây giờ tôi sẽ gửi thầy/ cô thư chấp thuận. Vui lòng đọc thư này và hỏi bất kỳ câu
hỏi nào trước khi phỏng vấn. Tôi cũng xin nhắc thầy/ cô rằng, thầy/ cô không bị bắt
buộc phải trả lời bất kỳ câu hỏi nào mà thầy/ cô không cảm thấy thoái mái.
[đọc, thảo luận và ký thư chấp thuận]
Thầy/ cô vừa ký vào thư chấp thuận trong đó cho phép tôi ghi âm cuộc nói chuyện
này. Vui lòng báo cho tôi vào bất kỳ thời điểm nào của buổi nói chuyện trong
trường hợp thầy/ cô muốn tôi dừng thu âm hoặc bỏ một phần nào đó câu trả lời của
thầy/ cô khỏi bản ghi âm.
Trước khi chúng ta bắt đầu buổi phỏng vấn, thầy/ cô có câu hỏi nào cần hỏi không?
[thảo luận câu hỏi nếu có]
Nếu có câu hỏi nào nảy sinh trong quá trình phỏng vấn, mong thầy/ cô cứ hỏi, tôi
rất vui lòng được trả lời.
Phần câu hỏi phỏng vấn
Thông tin chung
Hãy bắt đầu với một số câu hỏi chung về bản thân thầy/ cô, trường của thầy/ cô và
chương trình áp dụng CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ.
166
1. Thầy/ cô đã dạy sinh viên không chuyên ngữ bao lâu?
2. Chương trình học dựa theo CEFR đã được áp dụng ở trường thầy cô trong
bao lâu?
3. Các trình độ nào được áp dụng, cho các đối tượng nào?
Nhận thức của giáo viên
+ về khung CEFR và giá trị của nó: Vui lòng cho tôi biết về quá trình đưa ra quyết định
liên quan đến việc áp dụng CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại trường thầy/ cô.
1. Xin cho biết lý do của việc đưa CEFR vào áp dụng cho sinh viên không
chuyên ngữ là gì?
2. Ai là người quyết định áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên
ngữ tại trường thầy/ cô?
3. Những người như phụ huynh và cộng đồng có liên quan như thế nào trong
việc áp dụng này?
4. Vui lòng cho biết vai trò của thầy/ cô trong việc áp dụng khung CEFR tại
trường thầy/ cô là gì?
5. Thầy/ cô tham gia vào chương trình này ở giai đoạn nào?
6. Thầy/ cô cảm giác như thế nào: ủng hộ hay cảm thấy bị đánh giá?
+ sự sẵn sàng cho việc áp dụng: Thầy/ cô vui lòng cho biết mức độ sẵn sàng của
việc áp dụng CEFR ở trường thầy/ cô.
1. Thầy/ cô có nghĩ rằng các đặc tả CEFR phù hợp với trình độ của sinh viên
không chuyên ngữ? Vui lòng giải thích rõ.
2. Thầy/ cô có nghĩ rằng nhân lực ở trường thầy/ cô đã sẵn sàng cho việc áp
dụng CEFR? Xin vui lòng giải thích rõ.
3. Vui lòng nói rõ về cơ sở hạ tầng (trang thiết bị, sách vở, giáo trình, v.v…) và
các vấn đề về bồi dưỡng nhân lực, vật lực để áp dụng CEFR cho sinh viên
không chuyên ngữ ở trường thầy/ cô.
+ sự cần thiết của khung CEFR: Thầy/ cô vui lòng cho tôi biết về sự cần thiết của
việc áp dụng khung CEFR ở trường thầy/ cô.
1. Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường thầy/
cô có cần thiết không? Theo cách nào?
167
2. Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tác động đến
năng lực tiếng Anh của các sinh viên này như thế nào?
+ việc áp dụng khung CEFR: vui lòng mô tả quá trình áp dụng khung CEFR cho
sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường thầy/ cô.
1. Chương trình dùng để áp dụng CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ có
cấu trúc như thế nào?
2. Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ có được áp dụng
theo lộ trình? Vui lòng cho biết ý kiến về vấn đề thời gian biểu và các thay
đổi trong quá trình thực hiện.
3. Mối liên hệ giữa việc áp dụng CEFR và chính sách nâng cao năng lực ngoại
ngữ của Bộ giáo dục và Đào tạo là gì?
4. Với việc áp dụng này, có mối liên hệ nào từ nhà trường ra cộng đồng bên
ngoài và với Việt nam?
Phản hồi của giáo viên
1. Xin vui lòng cho biết kinh nghiệm của thầy/ cô khi tham gia vào việc áp
dụng CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ?
2. Thầy/ cô hợp tác với đồng nghiệp ở mức độ nào để áp dụng chương trình học
theo CEFR một cách hiệu quả?
3. Thầy/ cô giúp sinh viên không chuyên ngữ đạt được chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR
bằng cách nào?
4. Thầy/ cô đã làm gì với giáo trình được cung cấp? Thầy/ cô có điều chỉnh gì
không? Nếu có thì như thế nào?
5. Thầy/ cô đã triển khai các hoạt động dạy như thế nào?
6. Sinh viên không chuyên ngữ đã nhận được những hỗ trợ gì để đạt được
chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR?
7. Hoạt động kiểm tra đánh giá được điều chỉnh như thế nào để phù hợp với
chương trình mới?
8. Ngoài ra, thầy/ cô đã làm những gì để đổi mới chương trình học theo CEFR
cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ?
9. Thầy cô gặp phải những khó khăn trở ngại gì trong quá trình áp dụng?
168
10. Thầy/ cô đã làm gì để khắc phục những trở ngại đó?
Trước khi chúng ta kết thúc buổi phỏng vấn này, có câu hỏi hay thắc mắc gì thầy/ cô
muốn nói mà thầy/ cô chưa có dịp nói trong suốt buổi phỏng vấn hôm nay không?
Tôi xin cám ơn thầy/ cô. Tôi xin ghi nhận và tri ân các chia sẻ và kinh nghiệm của
thầy/ cô cho nghiên cứu này. Bản ghi âm này sẽ được ghi lại thành bản viết trong
thời gian sớm nhất, và tôi sẽ xin gửi thầy/ cô bản ghi này để kiểm tra lại tính chính
xác của nó.
169
APPENDIX D: THE OFICIAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL-
VIETNAMESE VERSION
Mở đầu
Đầu tiên, cám ơn thầy/ cô đã sẵn lòng tham gia vào buổi phỏng vấn hôm nay. Như
tôi đã trình bày với thầy/ cô trước đây, nghiên cứu của tôi nhằm tìm hiểu việc ứng
dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học
Huế. Mục đích của nghiên cứu là tìm hiểu nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo viên
không chuyên ngữ với việc áp dụng khung CEFR như là một chính sách cải cách
ngoại ngữ ở Việt Nam. Buổi phỏng vấn của chúng ta sẽ kéo dài khoảng 30 phút,
trong thời gian đó tôi xin phép được hỏi thầy/ cô các câu hỏi liên quan đến nhận
thức của thầy/ cô về triết lý của CEFR, sự sẵn sàng và cần thiết của khung này với
việc áp dụng, các công việc liên quan đến quá trình áp dụng nó, cũng như phản hồi
của thầy/ cô trong việc thay đổi chương trình học theo CEFR, điều chỉnh việc kiểm
tra đánh giá, v.v…
Bây giờ tôi sẽ gửi thầy/ cô thư chấp thuận. Vui lòng đọc thư này và hỏi bất kỳ câu
hỏi nào trước khi phỏng vấn. Tôi cũng xin nhắc thầy/ cô rằng, thầy/ cô không bị bắt
buộc phải trả lời bất kỳ câu hỏi nào mà thầy/ cô không cảm thấy thoái mái.
[đọc, thảo luận và ký thư chấp thuận]
Thầy/ cô vừa ký vào thư chấp thuận trong đó cho phép tôi ghi âm cuộc nói chuyện
này. Vui lòng báo cho tôi vào bất kỳ thời điểm nào của buổi nói chuyện trong
trường hợp thầy/ cô muốn tôi dừng thu âm hoặc bỏ một phần nào đó câu trả lời của
thầy/ cô khỏi bản ghi âm.
Trước khi chúng ta bắt đầu buổi phỏng vấn, thầy/ cô có câu hỏi nào cần hỏi không?
[thảo luận câu hỏi nếu có]
Nếu có câu hỏi nào nảy sinh trong quá trình phỏng vấn, mong thầy/ cô cứ hỏi, tôi
rất vui lòng được trả lời.
170
Phần câu hỏi phỏng vấn chính
Thông tin chung
Chúng ta hãy bắt đầu với một số câu hỏi chung về bản thân thầy/ cô, trường của
thầy/ cô và chương trình áp dụng CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ.
1. Thầy/ cô dạy sinh viên không chuyên ngữ bao lâu rồi?
2. Có các hội thảo, tập huấn về CEFR không? Do ai tổ chức? Tổ chức ở đâu?
Thầy/ cô có được tham gia vào các tập huấn này hay không?
3. Khung chương trình theo CEFR được áp dụng ở trường thầy/ cô từ khi nào?
Những cấp độ học nào được chọn?
Nhận thức của giáo viên
1. Thầy/ cô hiểu gì về khung CEFR? Nó là gì? Được biên soạn nhằm mục đích
gì?
2. Theo thầy/ cô, vì sao khung CEFR được chọn áp dụng ở trường?
3. Thầy/ cô biết và tham gia gì vào quá trình quyết định áp dụng khung CEFR
cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường?
4. Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường thầy/
cô có cần thiết không? Vì sao?
5. Thầy/ cô có nghĩ rằng khung CEFR đã đủ chi tiết hoá và phù hợp cho sinh
viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường? Theo cách nào?
6. Thầy/ cô nghĩ gì về việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên
ngữ ở trường? Vì sao?
7. Những thách thức và khó khăn nào thầy/ cô đã gặp phải bấy lâu nay do việc
áp dụng khung này? Lý do của những khó khăn này là gì?
8. Thầy/ cô có đề nghị gì để việc áp dụng khung CEFR hiệu quả hơn ở trường
và những bối cảnh tương tự?
Phản hồi của giáo viên
1. Xin vui lòng cho biết kinh nghiệm của thầy/ cô khi tham gia vào việc áp
dụng CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ?
2. Thầy/ cô đã triển khai các hoạt động dạy như thế nào? Thầy/ cô có điều
chỉnh gì? Vui lòng giải thích rõ.
171
3. Thầy/ cô giúp sinh viên không chuyên ngữ đạt được chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR
bằng cách nào?
4. Thầy/ cô đã làm gì với giáo trình được cung cấp? Thầy/ cô có điều chỉnh gì
không? Nếu có thì như thế nào?
5. Sinh viên không chuyên ngữ đã nhận được những hỗ trợ gì để đạt được
chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR?
6. Thầy/ cô hợp tác với đồng nghiệp ở mức độ nào để áp dụng chương trình học
theo CEFR một cách hiệu quả?
7. Ngoài ra, thầy/ cô đã làm những gì để đổi mới chương trình học theo CEFR
cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ?
Trước khi chúng ta kết thúc buổi phỏng vấn này, có câu hỏi hay thắc mắc gì thầy/
cô muốn nói mà thầy/ cô chưa có dịp nói trong suốt buổi phỏng vấn hôm nay
không?
Tôi xin cám ơn thầy/ cô. Tôi xin ghi nhận và tri ân các chia sẻ và kinh nghiệm của
thầy/ cô cho nghiên cứu này. Bản ghi âm này sẽ được ghi lại thành bản viết trong
thời gian sớm nhất, và tôi sẽ xin gửi thầy/ cô bản ghi này để kiểm tra lại tính chính
xác của nó.
172
APPENDIX E1: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET AND
CONSENT FORM-ENGLISH VERSION
Full Title: Implementing the CEFR at Tertiary Level in Vietnam: General
English Teachers’ Perceptions and Responses
Investigator: Ms. HAI LE THI THANH, PhD Student in Theory and
Methodology of English language teaching
University of Foreign Languages, Hue University
E-mail: [email protected]
Thank you for taking your time to read this information sheet. As many of you may
be aware, I am currently working on my doctorate at University of Foreign
Languages, Hue University. I am at the stage of beginning to gather data for my
dissertation. The title of my study is Implementing the CEFR at Tertiary Level in
Vietnam: General English Teachers’ Perceptions and Responses. You are invited to
take part in this study because you have been teaching non-English major students
with the CEFR-aligned curriculum since 2013. Please read this form and ask any
questions you have before agreeing to participate in the survey and in-depth
interview.
Background Information
The purpose of this study is to collect teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to the
implementation of the CEFR-based curriculum for non-English major students at
University of Foreign Languages, Hue University.
Procedures
Please note that the researcher has obtained the Rector and Dean‘s permission and
approval to conduct the survey and interview.
If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire which
consists of two separate parts. The first part of the questionnaire deals with some
demographics of the participants. The second one, which is also the main part of the
questionnaire, consists of 52 five-Likert scale questions focusing on your
173
perceptions of and responses to the issue under investigation.
Furthermore, you may be invited to take part in an audio-recorded interview, lasting
30-45 minutes, conducted at the convenience of the participant, and in a setting of
your choosing. The interview will be conducted in Vietnamese for you to freely
express your ideas and information. Each of you will be given a written transcript
for you to review and advise me of any necessary changes.
Voluntary Nature
Participation is purely voluntary. This means that everyone will respect your
decision of whether or not you want to be in the survey and interview. No one at
your school will treat you differently if you decide not to be in the survey/
interview. If you decide to join the survey/ interview now, you can still change your
mind later. You can withdraw at any time without explanation, and have all or some
of your data withdrawn from the study at your request: please contact me and state
the reference number, which will be given to you before the interview. If you feel
stressed during the interview, you may stop at any time. You may skip any
questions that you feel are too personal.
Possible risks and benefits
The risk of being in this study is minimal. Participation in this study will not place
participants at risk or criminal or civil liability or be damaging to their financial
standing, employability or reputation. If you feel stressed during the interview, you
may stop at any time.
The information you provided will be documented in a doctoral study. The results
may be used to improve the CEFR implementation at tertiary level in general and at
our university in particular.
Confidentiality
The information gathered during this study will be recorded by the researcher in
such a manner to ensure confidentiality of the subjects. The researcher will not use
your information for any purposes outside of this project. The researcher is sensitive
to the fact that we are all HU-UFL teachers. All the information provided by you
will be anonymous. You are assured that the researcher will not share with any your
174
participation in this project. The researcher will not share your answer and/ or
transcript with other participants or anybody else but you in way which can identify
the respondent (i.e. you). All questionnaires and tapes, and a copy of this form will
be stored in a file cabinet accessible to the researcher only in her home office.
If you agree to participate in this study, please complete the statement of consent.
Statement of Consent
I have read the above information. I have received answers to any questions I
have at this time. I consent to participate in the survey and the interview. I agree to
answer all interview questions honestly and agree not to share interview questions or
answers with others.
Signature: __________________________________
(Participant)
Date: _______/_______/_______
175
APPENDIX E2: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET AND
CONSENT FORM -VIETNAMESE VERSION
THƯ CHẤP THUẬN
Tên đề tài: Áp dụng CEFR ở bậc Đại học ở Việt Nam: Nhận thức và phản hồi
của giáo viên không chuyên ngữ
Người nghiên cứu: Bà LÊ THỊ THANH HẢI, nghiên cứu sinh ngành Lý luận và
Phương pháp giảng dạy tiếng Anh
Đại học Ngoại ngữ- Đại học Huế
E-mail: [email protected]
Xin cảm ơn qúy thầy cô vì đã bỏ thời gian đọc bảng thông tin này. Như nhiều quý
thầy cô đã biết, hiện tại tôi đang làm luận án tiến sĩ tại Đại học Ngoại ngữ- Đại học
Huế. Tôi đang tiến hành lấy số liệu cho luận án của mình. Tên đề tài luận án của tôi
là: Áp dụng CEFR ở bậc Đại học ở Việt Nam: Nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo
viên không chuyên ngữ. Quý thầy cô được mời tham gia nghiên cứu này vì quý
thầy cô hiện đang giảng dạy cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Huế với
việc áp dụng chương trình dạy theo chuẩn đầu ra CEFR từ năm 2013. Vui lòng đọc
bảng thông tin này và hỏi kỹ thêm thông tin trước khi chấp thuận tham gia vào khảo
sát và phỏng vấn sâu (nếu có).
Mục đích
Mục đích của nghiên cứu này là tìm hiểu nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo viên đối
với việc áp dụng chương trình học theo CEFR cho SV không chuyên ngữ tại Đại
học Ngoại ngữ- Đại học Huế.
Quy trình
Thưa qúy thầy cô, tác giả đã có được sự chấp thuận từ của Ban giám hiệu cũng như
Ban chủ nhiệm khoa để tiến hành khảo sát và phỏng vấn.
Nếu quý thầy cô đồng ý tham gia vào nghiên cứu, quý thầy cô sẽ hoàn thành một
bảng hỏi gồm 2 phần. Phần thứ nhất của bảng hỏi tìm hiểu một số thông tin của
người tham gia. Phần thứ hai cũng là phần chính của bảng hỏi gồm 52 câu hỏi được
176
soạn theo thang đo 5 bậc tập trung vào nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo viên đối với
vấn đề đang được nghiên cứu.
Ngoài ra, quý thầy cô có thể được mời tham gia vào một buổi phỏng vấn có thu âm,
kéo dài 30-45 phút, được thực hiện tại thời gian và địa điểm do quý thầy cô lựa
chọn. Buổi phỏng vấn sẽ sử dụng tiếng Việt để quý thầy cô có thể dễ dàng hơn
trong việc trao đổi thông tin và chia sẻ ý tưởng. Quý thầy cô sẽ được cung cấp bản
ghi âm trên giấy để kiểm tra lại cũng như chỉnh sửa nếu cần.
Tính tự nguyện
Việc tham gia hoàn toàn mang tính chất tự nguyện. Quyết định có tham gia vào khảo
sát và phỏng vấn hay không của quý thầy cô hoàn toàn được tôn trọng. Thái độ của
mọi người tại nơi làm việc của quý thầy cô sẽ không khác gì dù quý thầy cô không
tham gia vào nghiên cứu này. Nếu quyết định tham gia bây giờ, quý thầy cô vẫn có
thể thay đổi quyết định sau này. Quý thầy cô có thể rút lui tại bất kỳ thời điểm nào mà
không cần giải thích, và sẽ thu lại toàn bộ thông tin mà quý thầy cô đã cung cấp tại
thời điểm rút lui: vui lòng liên lạc với tôi để lấy lại dữ liệu. Nếu bị căng thẳng trong
quá trình phỏng vấn, quý thầy cô có thể dừng lại bất kỳ lúc nào. Quý thầy cô cũng có
thể bỏ qua bất kỳ câu hỏi nào nếu cảm thấy quá nhạy cảm hoặc riêng tư.
Nguy cơ và lợi ích
Nguy cơ từ việc tham gia vào nghiên cứu này hầu như không có. Việc tham gia vào
nghiên cứu này không gây ra bất kỳ nguy cơ, tội ác, trách nhiệm pháp lý hay các tổn
thất về mặt tài chính, công việc hay danh tiếng. Nếu bị căng thẳng trong quá trình
phỏng vấn, quý thầy cô có thể dừng lại bất kỳ lúc nào.
Kinh nghiệm và các trao đổi của quý thầy cô sẽ được ghi lại trong luận án tiến sĩ.
Kết quả của nghiên cứu này có thể được dùng để thay đổi việc áp dụng CEFR ở bậc
Đại học nói chung và tại Đại học Ngoại ngữ Đại học Huế nói riêng.
Sự bảo mật
Thông tin thu thập được qua khảo sát này sẽ được lưu giữ bởi tác giả theo cách có
thể đảm bảo độ bảo mật của chủ thể tham gia. Tác giả sẽ không sử dụng thông tin
của quý thầy cô cho bất kỳ mục đích nào khác. Tác giả cũng ý thức về việc tất cả
chúng ta đều là giáo viên của trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Đại học Huế. Tất cả thông
177
tin của quý thầy cô cung cấp sẽ được khuyết danh. Tác giả xin đảm bảo sẽ không
chia sẻ câu trả lời cũng như bản ghi âm của quý thầy cô với bất kỳ ai. Toàn bộ bảng
hỏi, bản ghi âm và các thông tin liên quan sẽ được lưu trữ trong hộc tủ tại phòng
làm việc ở nhà của tác giả và chỉ mình tác giả mới có thể mở được.
Nếu quý thầy cô đồng ý tham gia vào nghiên cứu này, vui lòng hoàn thành thư chấp
thuận bên dưới.
Chấp thuận
Tôi đã đọc toàn bộ các thông tin trên. Tôi đã nhận được câu trả lời cho bất kỳ câu
hỏi nào của bản thân tại thời điểm này. Tôi đồng ý tham gia vào khảo sát và phỏng vấn.
Tôi đồng ý trả lời bảng hỏi và tất cả các câu hỏi phỏng vấn một cách trung thực và
đồng ý không chia sẻ thông tin về câu hỏi và câu trả lời phỏng vấn với bất kỳ ai.
Ký tên: __________________________________
(Người tham gia)
Date: _______/_______/_______
178
APPENDIX F: SAMPLE OF INTERVIEW CODING AND THEMING
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
Thông tin chung
Nhận thức của giáo viên
Thầy/ cô hiểu gì về khung CEFR? Được biên soạn nhằm mục đích gì?
Nôm na CEFR là khung tham chiếu về năng lực NN của Châu Âu do
Cambridge soạn thảo. Trong ĐANN 2020 Việt Nam có áp dụng khung
này trong bối cảnh dạy và học cho học sinh SV Việt Nam.
Khung CEFR có được điều chỉnh lại cho phù hợp với điều kiện thực tế
đào tạo tiếng Anh ở VN và và áp dụng cho VN với tên gọi khung
NLNN 6 bậc. Khung NLNN 6 bậc của VN có một số điều chỉnh về đối
tượng, các đặc tả ngôn ngữ, lược bỏ, bổ sung cho phù hợp với đặc
điểm của đối tượng là SV-HS VN. Hiện tại thật ra với xu hướng toàn
cầu hóa, tiếng Anh ngày càng trở nên quan trọng. Nếu VN không
muốn tụt hậu, nếu VN muốn gia nhập các tổ chức, các hiệp hội trên
thế giới thì đương nhiên ngoại ngữ, mà đặc biệt là tiếng Anh là cực kỳ
quan trọng nên những nổ lực hiện tại của MOET, trong đó có đề án
NN2020 và việc áp dụng khung CEFR vào việc dạy và học ngoại ngữ
là một tất yếu. Hoặc nếu không là CEFR thì chắc chắn Bộ GD cũng sẽ
phải chọn một khung nào đó thôi. Nên đây là vấn đề xã hội, đây là
việc nâng cao năng lực ngoại ngữ cho người VN. Chỉ là áp dụng cái gì
và áp dụng ntn thôi.
Thì đó, tôi biết CEFR và ĐANN là như vậy, còn hỏi cụ thể là như thế
nào thì tôi cũng khó mà nhớ được chi tiết.
Understand quite clearly the
CEFR
Can distinguish the CEFR
and the Vietnamese
framework
Understand the purposes of
the CEFR implementation
Ts‘ understanding of
the CEFR
Ts‘ understanding of
the CEFR‘s values
Theo thầy/ cô, vì sao khung CEFR được chọn áp dụng cho sinh viên
không chuyên ngữ ở trường?
Thực ra thì điều này nằm trong mục tiêu chung của Bộ GD ĐT nhằm
nâng cao năng lực NN cùa học sinh SV VN đến năm 2020 đạt được
trình độ NN nhất định theo mục tiêu chung, đáp ứng trình độ NN của
khu vực. Và với mục tiêu chung đó thì họ chọn khung tham chiếu Châu
MOET‘s policy
Ts‘ understanding of
its values
179
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
Âu vào việc dạy và học NN ở VN.
Việc áp dụng CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ thay đổi nhiều
thứ. Thứ nhất là các ngữ liệu giảng dạy, hầu hết các GV có xu hướng
áp theo các định dạng mà SV sẽ gặp trong kỳ thi cho nên trong quá
trình giảng dạy GV sẽ lựa chọn như thế nào đó để có thể hỗ trợ SV để
giúp SV nắm được cấu trúc đề thi.
Thứ 2 là phương pháp: rèn luyện tập trung kỹ năng nhiều hơn và rèn
luyện cả 4 kỹ năng vì khi thi là thi cả 4 kỹ năng. Thứ 3 về chương trình
ĐT: chương trình ĐT gồm 7 tín chỉ dành cho NNKC. Nhưng ngoài ra
có thêm phần TATC ngoài các học phần AVCB cho SV KCN.
Thứ tư về chuẩn đầu ra: có CEFR làm cho chuẩn đầu ra rõ ràng cụ
thể, GV nắm rõ chuẩn đầu ra của mỗi lớp là gì nên việc dạy sẽ dễ
dàng hơn.
Confusion bw CEFR as a
framework and as descriptors
Impacts of CEFR on
assessment/ teach towards
tests
Teach 4 skills more equally
Make outcomes more specific
Teaching and learning
become more test-oriented
Ts‘ understanding of
the CEFR
Ts‘ understanding of
the CEFR‘s values
Thầy/ cô có nghĩ rằng khung CEFR đã đủ chi tiết hóa và phù hợp cho
SV KCN ở trường? Theo cách nào?
Xét về phương diện có phù hợp hay không thì mình nghĩ rằng chưa
hẳn là phù hợp, độ chênh còn rất nhiều,
bởi vì lộ trình chưa đảm bảo, mà lại đang áp dụng đại trà cho cả
nước,
và mục tiêu đầu ra đặt kỳ vọng quá nhiều nên sẽ gây nhiều khó khăn
cho người dạy và người học, nên tính hiệu quả chưa đạt được như
mong muốn.
Theo tôi, CEFR khá chi tiết cho việc đổi mới chương trình, giáo trình,
kiểm tra đánh giá, về mặt lý thuyết. Vì khung này cũng là được chuyển
đổi từ các đặc tả năng lực về ngôn ngữ của khung tham chiếu Châu
Âu về ngôn ngữ qua. Tuy nhiên các đặc tả này quá nhiều, đề cập đến
quá nhiều mục
CEFR-descriptors are not
appropriate for non-English
major students
The CEFR‘s implementation
was not itinerary
Mismatch bw outcomes and
Ss‘s language prociciency
levels
CEFR-descriptors are too
comprehensive
CEFR‘s readiness for
application
Dissatisfaction with
the implementation
process
Dissatisfaction with
the implementation
process
Inappropriateness of
the CEFR
180
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
trong khi GV dạy ngoại ngữ thì khá là bận rộn nên nếu tính tới dựa
vào các đặc tả đó để họ (GV) lựa chọn các tài liệu ngữ liệu dạy hay là
thay đổi phương pháp giảng dạy thì về thực tế e rằng không phải như
vậy. Có nhiều đặc tả nghe rất cụ thể nhưng lại không cụ thể tí nào cả.
Ví dụ tôi nhớ có những đặc tả như “có thể giao tiếp một cách cơ bản
các vấn đề quen thuộc trong cuộc sống hằng ngày”. Vậy thì thế nào là
cơ bản? thế nào là quen thuộc? Lý thuyết thì lý tưởng như vậy nhưng
thực tế có quá nhiều đặc tả chưa đạt được theo như yêu cầu đặt ra,
không phù hợp với bối cảnh Việt Nam hoặc SV KCN. Và giáo viên khó
mà lựa chọn hoặc theo sát được với các yêu cầu này. Ví dụ với kỹ
năng nghe, một kỹ năng mà hiện nay SV gặp nhiều khó khăn. GV cũng
gặp khó khăn vì thời lượng của môn học quá ít không đủ để GV rèn
luyện cho các em đạt được về kỹ năng nghe. Trong khung năng lực
CEFR, các đặc tả về kỹ năng nghe rất nhiều. Mỗi cấp độ như vậy từ
A1 đến B1, các đặc tả mô tả SV có thể làm được cái này cái kia, rất
rất nhiều nhưng thực tế về mặt năng lực và trong các kỳ thi hết cấp độ
lẫn kỳ thi lấy chứng chỉ ngoại ngữ thì đa số SV vẫn chưa làm được.
Vậy tính hiệu quả chưa đạt được.
Ts are too busy
CEFR-descriptors are not
totally transparent
CEFR is inappropriate for
non-English major students
Difficulty during
implementation process
Limited timeframe
Doubtfulness of CEFR‘s
efficiency when applying for
non-English major students
Inappropriateness of
the CEFR
Inappropriateness of
the CEFR
Dissatisfaction with
the implementation
process
Inappropriateness of
the CEFR/ CEFR is
not ―a bible‖
Thầy/ cô nghĩ gì về việc áp dụng CEFR (A1-B1) cho SV không
chuyên ngữ?
Tôi nghĩ khung CEFR hơi cao hơn so với trình độ của SV hiện nay. Nó
khó hơn bởi vì là nó không tương thích với kiến thức nền mà sinh viên
đã học được ở phổ thông. Khi học ở phổ thông thì SV không có nhiều
cơ hội để thực hành nghe nói, cho nên kỹ năng đó thì hầu như bị bỏ
ngõ nhưng khi lên đến bậc ĐH khi học chương trình tiếng Anh CB
dành cho SV KCN thì SV lại được yêu cầu thực hành kỹ năng nghe
nói, áp dụng theo các yêu cầu đặt ra theo từng cấp độ như vậy nhưng
mà thời lượng để học là quá ít nên họ không có đủ thời gian để thực
hành và cái kỳ vọng quá cao cho nên việc không đạt được hiệu quả
CEFR are difficult for non-
English major students
Mismatch in curricula bw
high schools and university
Time is not enough
Inappropriateness of
the CEFR
Mismatch bw the
CEFR and the context
of application
Limited timeframe
181
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
như mong muốn là điều tất nhiên.
Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường
thầy/ cô có cần thiết không? Cần thiết như thế nào? Vì sao?
Áp dụng CEFR cần thiết hay không thì trước đây, không có CEFR hay
khung NLNN 6 bậc thì SV cũng được yêu cầu thực hành các kỹ năng
như vậy và cả người dạy lẫn người học cũng thục hiện chương trình
như vậy và theo tôi kết quả trong quá khứ thậm chí còn tốt hơn hiện
tại nữa. Cái thời điểm mà chưa có đề án ngoại ngữ hoặc là chưa áp
dụng Khung năng lực ngoại ngữ thì cũng đã áp dụng theo chuẩn do
Bộ đặt ra, như hồi đó là TOEIC chẳng hạn thì vẫn được mà. Nên bây
giờ CEFR bây giờ thật ra nếu hỏi có cần thiết hay không thì cũng cần
nhưng nếu mà không có nó mà áp dụng một khung khác. Không có nó
thì vẫn cứ dạy và học như vậy nên có hay không CEFR thì cũng vậy
thôi. Nếu không phải CEFR mà một chuẩn khác thì điều quan trọng là
cần phải có lộ trình cho việc áp dụng và cần phải có thời gian cho
người dạy và người học chứ không nhất thiết phải là CEFR hay không.
CEFR is not really necessary
for non-Englsish major
students
CEFR in comparison with
other standard tests
The importance of the
implementation process
CEFR and its
necessity
CEFR and its
necessity
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tác động
đến năng lực tiếng Anh của các sinh viên này như thế nào? Có giúp
các em nâng cao năng lực ngôn ngữ hay không?
Có, có một phần nào, chưa đáng kể nhưng có. Ít nhất là các em có
chịu học hơn so với trước đây. Vì yêu cầu của kỳ thi phải đạt B1 cho
nên đa số SV những em có động cơ học tập tốt thì các em có tập trung
thời gian rèn luyện hơn. Còn với các em không có động cơ học tập tốt
thì kiểu gì các em cũng không chịu học. Nên với chuẩn CEFR này bắt
buộc các em phải học.
CEFR ameliorate students‘
learning
CEFR outcomes and Ss
motivation
CEFR can make
change
CEFR can make
change
Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường
thầy/ cô tác động đến các thầy cô như thế nào? Có giúp thầy cô nâng
cao chuyên môn, nghiệp vụ, kỹ năng giảng dạy, …hay không?
Việc áp dụng CEFR hay khung năng lực NN 6 bậc dành cho học sinh
CEFR changes Ts‘ teaching
CEFR can make
182
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
sinh viên VN có nhiều tác động đến GV. Thứ nhất GV phải nỗ lực tìm
cách giúp các em vượt qua kỳ thi. Rồi phải tìm tài liệu phù hợp, rồi
phải thiết kế lại nội dung bài dạy như thế nào cho phù hợp với mục
tiêu yêu cầu, làm sao để khi SV làm bài phải làm bài được, rồi thi học
kỳ thi chứng chỉ phải đạt, phương pháp giảng dạy phải thay đổi cho
phù hợp, ngữ liệu giảng dạy phải lựa chọn cho phù hợp với mục tiêu.
Đó là những tác động của việc áp dụng chương trình học theo CEFR
cho SV KCN. Tuy nhiên việc áp dụng khung này hay không thì việc
dạy và học ngoại ngữ ở trường vẫn diễn ra và mặc dù mục tiêu cụ thể
của khung chương trình này là tập trung vào 4 kỹ năng theo các tiêu
chí đánh giá. Nhưng khi học ngoại ngữ nếu không có khung chương
trình này thì cũng phải đạt được kỹ năng giao tiếp với 4 kỹ năng như
vậy nên việc áp dụng hay không áp dụng khung CEFR thì cũng không
ảnh hưởng gì đến danh tiếng, chất lượng giảng dạy của trường cả.
practice
CEFR changes assessment
CEFR affects material
development
CEFR does not change
university‘s reputation
change
CEFR can make
change
CEFR can make
change
CEFR can make
change?
Thầy/ cô biết và tham gia gì vào quá trình quyết định áp dụng khung
CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường?
Việc chọn khung CEFR là do chỉ đạo ở trên, chủ trương của Bộ GD
ĐT, rồi triển khai thực hiện ở các trường ĐH và đây là nhiệm vụ
chung của cả GV và SV theo chỉ đạo chung của Bộ thôi. Về việc chọn
CEFR thì bản thân mình cũng không tham gia vào việc chọn CEFR
hay không. Nhưng khi đã được chọn thì mình có tham gia ở mức độ
chuyên môn như soạn đề cương chi tiết, xây dựng các định dạng đề
thi, tham gia ở mức độ chuyên môn mà thôi. Còn ở mức độ quản lý
như đề xuất hay quyết định chọn khung này hay không thì mình không
được tham gia.
Top-down policy
Ts were not involved
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
Việc áp dụng khung CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở trường
thầy cô có được thử nghiệm trước? Có thực hiện theo lộ trình?
Về lộ trình thì theo tôi biết thì đối với SV các khoá trước 2013 hay
2014 gì đó, theo đề nghị của các trường thành viên trong ĐHH thì đề
CEFR implementation was
itinerary
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
183
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
nghị chưa áp dụng chuẩn đầu ra B1 mà chỉ áp dụng chuẩn đầu ra B1
từ sau năm 2014 vì do chuẩn này cao so với trình độ của SV, làm ảnh
hưởng đến tỷ lệ SV tốt nghiệp của trường họ. Tuy nhiên có một số
trường tỷ lệ tốt nghiệp không được tốt lắm do ảnh hưởng của chứng
chỉ B1 thì họ cũng đề nghị giãn lộ trình. Do đó trong 2 năm vừa rồi
chỉ yêu cầu A2 và trong thời gian sắp tới thì sẽ B1 trở lại. Tuy nhiên
việc giãn lộ trình này chỉ phần nào giải quyết kết quả, mang tính chiến
lược, chứ không thục sự mang lại hiệu quả về việc thay đổi trình độ.
Việc áp dụng này được áp dụng ngay, không được thực hiện thí điểm ở
một số trường hay nhóm. Mình có được làm việc với một số chuyên
gia nước ngoài thì họ cũng ngạc nhiên vì sao một sự thay đổi chương
trình lớn như vậy mà lại không được thực hiện thí điểm mà áp dụng
đồng loạt trên phạm vi cả nước ngay từ đầu thì họ cũng có nghi ngờ về
khả năng thành công của chính sách. Đó có lẽ cũng là một vấn đề mà
trong nhiều hội thảo cũng đã có khá nhiều góp ý về vấn đề đó.
CEFR implementation
process was not effective
CEFR curriculum was not
piloted
Ts were not satisfied with the
implemention process
process
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
Những thách thức và khó khăn nào thầy/ cô gặp phải khi áp dụng
CEFR? Xin vui lòng giải thích rõ (nhận thức của SV và GV, năng lực
tiếng của GV và SV).
Khi mới áp dụng khung năng lực CEFR này cho bối cảnh dạy học
ngoại ngữ ở VN, đa số người dạy và người học đều bị shocked khi GV
bị tested về năng lực ngôn ngữ trước, kể cả GV PTTH lẫn GV ĐH. Họ
phải tham gia các kiểm tra đánh giá lại để xem năng lực ngôn ngữ của
họ đến đâu. Còn bây giờ thì mọi người đã bình thản đón nhận khung
chương trình này với các lộ trình đào tạo. Vì vậy theo tôi nó cũng có
ảnh hưởng đến thái độ, tâm lý của GV và mức độ tác động thì tùy theo
từng giai đoạn. Giai đoạn đầu thì đa số GV đều bị sốc và giai đoạn
sau này khi họ thấy áp dụng đại trà, rồi học được đi tập huấn này nọ
thì họ thấy quen hơn.
Về cơ sở hạ tầng (trang thiết bị, sách vở, giáo trình, v.v…) thì sao? Có
Ts and Ss‘s pressure
Change in Ts‘ awareness
Pressure, reluctance to
change an adaptation
CEFR can make
change
184
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
đáp ứng cho việc áp dụng khung CEFR?
Với cơ sở đào tạo là trường ĐHNN phụ trách đào tạo ngoại ngữ cho
toàn ĐHH thì CSVC là khá tốt. Thời gian đầu thì còn một số thiếu sót,
CSVC chưa đầy đủ, cần nâng cấp nhưng bây giờ thì tất cả các phòng
học đều có trang thiết bị đầy đủ, máy tính được nối mạng, có cài các
phần mềm để học tiếng. Tài liệu dạy thì bây giờ đã chuyển dần sang
bộ GT có hỗ trợ học trực tuyến cho nên trang thiết bị, CSVC, GT bây
giờ ổn ơn.
The university‘s
infrastructure is ready for the
implementation process
Readiness for
application
Thầy/ cô có đề nghị gì để việc áp dụng khung CEFR hiệu quả hơn?
Hiện tại, về việc áp dụng chương trình học theo khung CEFR, Khoa có
hỗ trợ, ví dụ như cung cấp đề cương chi tiết cụ thể cho GV, định dạng
đề thi, các hướng dẫn về ôn tập, ra đề; có đề cương ôn tập dành cho
chuẩn đẩu ra B1. Về CSVC, Ban CSVC của trường cũng hỗ trợ trong
suốt quá trình dạy, nếu gặp bất kỳ trở ngại hoặc khó khăn gì thì họ sẵn
sàng hỗ trợ.Về quản lý, có thắc mắc gì về cách tổ chức giảng dạy thì
BGH cũng sẵn sàng giải đáp các thắc mắc nếu có.
The university has support for
the implementation process
Readiness for
application
Phản hồi của giáo viên
Xin vui lòng cho biết kinh nghiệm của thầy/ cô khi áp dụng khung
CEFR: Có sự mất cân bằng/ bất hợp lý giữa các lĩnh vực: chương
trình, giáo trình, hoạt động dạy, kiểm tra đánh giá trong quá trình áp
dụng khung CEFR hay không?
Có. Bất hợp lý ở đây như mình đã đề cập đó là sự bất hợp lý về thực
trạng của người học. Năng lực của SV hiện nay chưa đạt đến mức như
vậy nhưng yêu cầu đặt ra là cao so với đối tường SV KCN. Đó là cái
bất hợp lý thứ nhất. Cái bất hợp lý thứ hai là về chương trình dạy. Ví
dụ chương trình học ở PH yêu cầu đó là hết cấp 1 phải đạt A1 về ngôn
ngữ, hết cấp PHCS là phải đạt A2, hết PHTH SV đã phải có B1. Tuy
nhiên lên ĐH lại quay trở lại các cấp độ đó nữa nên có sự chồng chéo
và bất cập về yêu cầu năng lực ngoại ngữ ở bậc PT và ĐH, chưa giải
Mismatch bw Ss language
proficiency and outcomes
Mismatch in curricula bw
high schools and university
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
185
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
quyết được sự đồng bộ đó cho nên dẫn tới chất lượng dạy và học nó
rất là khác biệt và không hiệu quả.
Inefficiency in teaching and
learning
Disatisfaction during
the implementation
process
Thầy/ cô đã triển khai các hoạt động dạy như thế nào? Có điều chỉnh
gì so với trước đây về phương pháp dạy học? Hoạt động dạy học?
Nói chung trước đây, với một lớp theo niên chế, thời lượng cho môn
Tiếng Anh nhiều, và thời đó chưa có chuẩn đầu ra hay khung năng lực
nào áp vào cả. Cho nên GV có nhiều đất diễn. Thời đó mình có thể dạy
nghe bằng bài hát, rồi làm đủ mọi hoạt động mà SV rất thích. Còn bây
gìơ do áp lực của việc phải làm thế nào cho SV đạt được kỳ thi nên GV
không có nhiều thời gian cho các hoạt động nâng cao năng lực mà cứ
phải luôn trăn trở là làm thế nào cho SV thi tốt. Do đó không có nhiều
thời gian cho các hoạt động thú vị khác nhưng mà cái mục tiêu giao
tiếp thì vẫn có được đưa ra. Phương pháp dạy giao tiếp ở đây thì bây
giờ là exam-oriented, định hướng kỳ thi. Việc dạy theo định hướng
exam-oriented được ở mặt là hỗ trợ tốt cho các em trong các kỳ thi
nhưng lại mất đi tính hứng thú cho các em trong các hoạt động bởi vì
GV không có thời gian để thiết kế các hoạt động thú vị như họ muốn
mà GV phải dành phần lớn thời gian để trang bị cho SV các kiến thức
cần thiết cho kỳ thi mà thôi.
Limited classroom
interactions
pressure of testing and
assessment on Ts and Ss
limited timeframe
time constraints
test-oriented teaching
teach towards tests
Time constraints
Impacts of CEFR on
testing and assessmen
Time constraints
Time constraints
Teach towards tests
Teach towards tests
Thầy/ cô giúp SV không chuyên ngữ đạt được chuẩn đầu ra theo
CEFR bằng cách nào? Có cho các em làm bài kiểm tra theo CEFR
không? Để làm gì?
Chắc chắn là Có, bởi vì đây giống như các bài mẫu để SV làm quen
với các dạng câu hỏi, bài thi. Cũng thông qua các bài này GV có thể
luyện cho SV cả 4 kỹ năng nghe nói đọc viết. Tuy nhiên vấn đề của GV
là một khoá học này không phải là một khoá luyện thi nên nếu GV lấy
toàn bộ các đề thi thì cũng không được mà họ phải dạy lồng ghép,
cung cấp cho các em kỹ năng ngôn ngữ, kiến thức ngôn ngữ nữa, tức
Use CEFR-aligned tests
Teach 4 skills equally
Impacts of CEFR on
teaching
186
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
language input nữa. Do đó, từ đề cương chi tiết của khoa và trường,
rồi dựa vào giáo trình chính mà khoa và trường quy định, GV phải
mềm dẻo, flexible trong việc lựa chọn ngữ liệu giảng dạy phù hợp. Ví
dụ, nếu GV thấy hoạt động nào đó không phù hợp thì GV hoàn toàn có
thể thay bằng một bài khác hoặc lựa chọn một hoạt động khác phù
hợp hơn phục vụ cho việc nâng cao năng lực để thi hơn. Ví dụ với các
bài đọc chẳng hạn, thay vì lấy 1 bài đọc trong giáo trình Elements,
mình thấy không phù hợp thì mình bỏ và mình lấy một bài đọc khác
photo từ trong bộ đề KET, PET để thay thế. Tính phù hợp mà tôi đề
cập ở đây được quy chiếu theo nhiều tiêu chí. Thứ nhất là chuẩn đầu
ra, độ dễ và khó so với trình độ của SV. Thứ nhất là phải tính đến
chuẩn đầu ra vì mục tiêu đầu tiên của mình là phải hướng tới chuẩn
đầu ra. Phù hợp thứ 2 là về độ dễ và độ khó so với trình độ của SV. Có
những bài đúng theo chuẩn đầu ra hoặc có trong yêu cầu của đầu ra
thật nhưng bài đó lại quá khó so với trình độ của SV thì họ làm cũng
không được thì SV sẽ rất dễ chán nản. Ngoài ra còn phải phù hợp với
hứng thú và sở thích của SV. Việc lựa chọn và quyết định này hơi
mang tính chủ quan, nếu công phu hơn hoặc như trước đây, mặc dù
chưa áp dụng chương trình học theo khung CEFR này nhưng thời
lượng cho môn học này nhiều, ví dụ 45 hay 60 tiết thì thường vào buổi
đầu tiên khi các em chưa có GT thì mình sẽ dùng buổi đó để tìm hiểu
về các em. Mình chuẩn bị một số câu hỏi và cho SV làm survey. Hoặc
mình chuẩn bị 1 test nhỏ để xem năng lực trình độ của SV đến đâu rồi
sau đó mình có chiến lược triển khai. Nhưng nói thực vì thời lượng sau
này quá ít, chỉ có 30 tiết bao gồm cả kiểm tra giữa kỳ và thi nói nữa
thì không có thời gian cho việc đó nên sau này chủ yếu mình dựa vào
kinh nghiệm của chính mình qua việc áp dụng. Ví dụ năm này mình
tiến hành như thế này nhưn nếu năm sau mình thấy không phù hợp
nữa thì mình lại phải thay đổi.
Ts were more flexible in
material selection
Modifying textbooks by
supplement CEFR-aligned
tests
Ts based on experienced
rather than theories on
material development to
adapt and modify textbooks
Ts were subjective in
adapting textbooks
Time is limited
Impacts of CEFR on
materials adaptation
Impacts of CEFR on
materials adaptation
Impacts of CEFR on
materials adaptation
Impacts of CEFR on
materials adaptation
Time constraints
187
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
Thầy/ cô đã làm gì với giáo trình được cung cấp? Thầy/ cô có điều
chỉnh gì không? Nếu có thì như thế nào?
Cũng tùy vào giáo trình nào nữa. Hiện tại khoa đang sử dụng song
song hai giáo trình. Đó là giáo trình EE của nhà XB Huber của Đức
thì đúng là GT này có nhiều vấn đề cần phải bàn tới. Và có rất nhiều
phần cần phải thay thế vì không phù hợp. Thì với giáo trình EE, tôi chỉ
sử dụng 30-40% thôi, phải thay rất là nhiều. Với GT thứ hai mà khoa
cũng đang triển khai sau một quá trình thí điểm là GT Life của NXB
Cengage. Thì với GT này có rất nhiều ưu điểm. Nhưng tất nhiên không
có GT nào là hoàn hảo cả. Đối với GT Life, các bài học tập trung
nâng cao năng lực để thi và các hoạt động thì có tính exam-oriened
rất cao, bài tập hướng đến kỳ thi hơn nhưng vấn đề mà GV gặp phải
lại là thời lượng. Thời lượng giảng dạy quá ít trong khi ngữ liệu và
khối luợng kiến thức yêu cầu lại quá nhiều, do đó tôi cũng phải lược
bỏ bớt, phải cân nhawsc bỏ phần nào lấy phần nào. Nên với GT này,
tôi sử dụng khoảng 70-80%
Life is better than EE
Life is thought to be more
exam-oriented
Limited timeframe, mismatch
bw time allowance and
syllabus
Material evaluation
and adaptation
Material evaluation
and adaptation
Time constraints
-Thêm tài liệu bổ trợ? Tài liệu gì?
Tài liệu bổ trợ Chủ yếu là bộ đề thi KET, PET của ĐH Cambridge. Để
khỏi lặp lại thì tôi liên tục cập nhật bằng cách lên thư viện mượn để
cập nhật các versions mới hoặc lên Internet để down về. Ví dụ như vừa
rồi tôi có download được cuốn Exam booster cho trình độ A1, A2 rồi
một số bài đọc từ nhiều nguồn khác nhau miễn sao mình thấy phù hợp.
Nếu tiến hành hoàn toàn trên lớp thì không có đủ thời gian. Chủ yếu
thời gian trên lớp dành cho việc hướng dẫn và hoàn thành các yêu cầu
trong GT bởi bì GT là cái mà các em đã có sách và như vậy các em
thuận lợi tron việc theo dõi ngữ liệu. Với các bài tập làm thêm này tôi
cho các em tự học ở nhà, lên lớp tôi chỉ sửa bài hoặc nếu không có
thời gian để sửa hết tất cả bài thì mình cho SV trao đổi bài lẫn nhau
để làm peer review, để chấm và kiểm tra chéo. Ngoài ra với GT Life
CEFR-aligned practice tests
were favoured
Ts‘ strategies in dealing with
challenges
Encourage Ss‘ self-learning,
self-assessment and peer
assessment
Apply blended learning
Teach towards tests,
impacts of CEFR on
supplementary
material selection
Ts effort and
strategies to deal with
challenges
Assessment renewal
Teaching mofidication
188
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
có phần hỗ trợ học trực tuyến tôi cũng có lập ra các khóa học trực
tuyến và cho các em tự học và bản thân tôi vào kiểm tra xem các em
thực hiện đến ngang đâu, bao nhiêu SV có vào làm, có theo học.
Việc kiểm tra đánh giá được điều chỉnh như thế nào để phù hợp với
chương trình theo CEFR?
Tôi sử dụng các bài tests trong KET, PET cho sinh viên tự học. Các
bài tập mà tôi cung cấp cho SV làm thêm này thì tôi cũng có tiến hành
đánh giá và cho điểm nhưng để theo dõi SV chứ còn hiện tại điểm đó
không được tính vào điểm thi. Nhưng để SV lo học mình không công
bố công khai mà mình yêu cầu SV tự học và mình ghi nhận lại và cộng
vào điểm quá trình để động viên SV thôi.
Ngoài ra, về hoạt động đánh giá thường xuyên, sau mỗi bài học, tôi
thường cho bài tập về nhà, ví dụ cho viết email chẳng hạn trong đó có
ứng dụng các điểm ngữ pháp vừa học. Các email này được thiết kế
tương thích với các bài viết trên KET, PET vì phần đó SV sẽ gặp lại
khi thi. Mình dặn trước ới SV rằng đến buổi học tiếp theo tôi gọi ngẫu
nhiên 5 em lên chấm thì toàn bộ SV đều phải làm. Sau đó mỗi tuần
mình luân phiên gọi 5 em lên chấm và sửa bài cho cả lớp để các em
biết được mình sai ở chỗ nào.
CEFR-aligned tests ans Ss
self-learning
Formative assessment was
modified in such a way that
can aids Ss in taking exams
Impacts of CEFR on
testing and assessment
Teaching test-taking
strategies
Thầy/ cô hợp tác với đồng nghiệp ở mức độ nào để áp dụng chương
trình học theo CEFR một cách hiệu quả?
Có, về kiểm tra giữa kỳ, nêu tôi tìm được hoặc soạn được đề nào hay
và có GV nào có nhu cầu thì tôi sẵn sàng chia sẻ. Rồi về mặt ngữ liệu,
nếu cứ sử dụng lui tới bộ 6 cuốn KET đó thì nhàm chán và đa số SV
cũng biết đáp án cả rồi nên nếu mình tìm được tài liệu gì mới mà đồng
nghiệp quan tâm thì mình cũng sẵn sàng chia sẻ. Rồi việc thiết kế bài
dạy, nếu mình làm được các slides hay đôi khi cũng có trao đổi. Người
này làm được slides cho bài này, người kia làm slides cho bài kia thì
mình cũng có trao đổi với đồng nghiệp.
Teacher collaboration
Teacher collaboration
during the CEFR
implementation
process
189
TRANSCRIPTION CODE/ SUB-THEME CATEGORY/
THEME NOTES
Các chia sẻ với đồng nghiệp ở cả hai dạng formal và informal. Khoa
có tổ chức khoảng 2 HT cấp khoa/ năm để GV trình bày tham luận,
trao đổi. Sau đó họ có minh họa hoặc tài liệu TK nếu mình thấy hay
thì mình có thể xin họ. Còn có dạng informal như chúng tôi cũng
thường trò chuyện, trao đổi với nhau một cách không chính thức.
Workshops and seminars on
CEFR
Personal talks
Ngoài ra, thầy/ cô đã làm những gì để đổi mới chương trình học theo
CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ?
Có. Đó là ứng dụng CNTT vào việc dạy và học. Nói thì có vẻ to tát
nhưng thật ra việc này cũng nhỏ và đơn giản thôi. Xét về tính mới thì
cũng không có gì mới. Đôi khi mình học được và mình muốn tăng
động cơ học cho SV và tạp hứng thú một chút thì mình có một số
techniques sử dụng. Vì có sự hỗ trợ về mặt kỹ thuật của trường, ban
CSVC đã trang bị máy tính có nối mạng và máy móc đầy đủ, nên mình
có thể tải về một số clips hữu ích với việc dạy. Với việc áp dụng
CEFR, ví dụ như ở kỹ năng nói, nếu SV không biết phải nói như thế
nào thì tôi có thể tôi chọn một số clip nói phù hợp với trình độ và chủ
đề, có hướng dẫn, mở cho các em nghe, tham khảo, phân tích xem họ
nói như thế nào về chủ đề đó. Khi SV thấy học được nhìn được nghe
được xem như vậy thì họ thích thú hơn. Tôi cũng cho các em một số
trang webs hỗ trợ các kỳ thi, mình cho các em các đường links hỗ trợ
bài thi, demo cho các em và hướng dẫn cho các em về nhà tự làm.
Xin cảm ơn quý thầy/ cô.
Apply IT in teaching
Use clips, websites, moodles,
Ss‘ self learning
The appearance of
applying IT and
blending learning