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: haingocquy@gmail.com

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: haingocquy@gmail.com

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