INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the study
Rationale for the study
The perception of learning outcomes is crucial in the teaching and learning process, as it influences curriculum development at the institutional level Learning outcomes clarify expectations for learners, outlining the skills, competencies, and understanding they will gain upon completing their studies By understanding these outcomes, students can enhance their awareness of the learning process, establish personal learning goals, and systematically work towards achieving them (Adam, 2006, p 8).
Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning can be achieved by increasing learners' awareness of their expected outcomes Therefore, research is essential to explore this issue This study aims to investigate how non-English major students perceive and understand the learning outcomes they are expected to achieve.
The research seeks to determine if students are fully aware of the required learning outcomes, if they understand the learning outcomes for each educational stage, and if the instructional content aligns with assessment practices.
And with so many problems and difficulties that exist the researcher want to know if there any feasible measures to improve the situation
The aims and research questions
This research aims to explore the perceptions of non-English major students at Hue University regarding the challenges they face and their preparations to achieve the expected language outcomes of the CEFR-B1 level.
The project particularly tries to find out answers to the following research questions:
1 What are non-English major students’ perceptions of the CEFR-B1 level as their expected language learning outcomes?
2 How do they prepare for the set learning outcomes?
Research Methodology
The research will employ a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative methodologies Data collection will involve questionnaires and interviews, followed by analysis through both qualitative and quantitative techniques The analysis will occur in two phases: initially, categories will be developed from student responses to identify key themes, and subsequently, data associated with each theme will be organized into relevant categories.
Scope of the study
This study examines the perceptions of non-English major students in their second year at Hue University regarding their language learning outcomes and their preparations for achieving CEFR-B1 level in English Utilizing questionnaires and interviews for data collection, the research highlights the students' views as key stakeholders in the language policy.
In addition, the researcher has also tried to collect certain related comment and suggestions from the participants for the purpose of improving
4 the current situation of teaching English to non-English major students at Hue University.
Structure of the thesis
This thesis consists of five main chapters, not counting the Appendices and References
Chapter One – Introduction outlines the study's background, rationale, objectives, and significance It also details the research questions, defines the scope, and presents the overall structure of the thesis.
Chapter Two of the Literature Review focuses on examining relevant literature for the study, defining key terms, and discussing standard-based learning outcomes alongside the importance of learners' perceptions of these outcomes It introduces the Common European Framework for Reference of Languages (CEFR), highlighting its role in language teaching and its application within Vietnam The chapter concludes by assessing the current state of English education for non-English major students at Hue University and reviewing pertinent research related to the study.
Chapter Three – Methodology outlines the research approach, detailing the data collection tools such as questionnaires and interviews, as well as identifying the participants involved It further explains the research procedures and the data analysis techniques employed in this study.
Chapter Four – Findings and Discussions – outlines the key findings derived from the analysis of data collected through questionnaires and interviews with second-year non-English major students This data is categorized into three main areas: the students' perceptions of the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes, their preparation efforts to achieve these outcomes, and their feedback and suggestions regarding the CEFR-B1 learning objectives.
Chapter Five concludes the study by summarizing its findings and offering suggestions for future research Additionally, it presents an online platform created by the researcher to provide non-English major students with an overview of the English CEFR-based learning outcomes for A1, A2, and B1 levels, along with valuable details.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining key terms
Learning outcomes are defined as the competencies achieved by students, as outlined in the ECTS Users' Guide by the European Union (2015) These outcomes represent what a learner knows, understands, and can do upon completing a learning process They are crafted by academic staff in collaboration with students and other stakeholders, emphasizing the importance of assessment in verifying these competencies.
Learning outcomes focus on the achievements of learners rather than the intentions of teachers, as highlighted by Adam (2004) These outcomes can vary in scope, being either broad or narrow, and are distinct from aims and objectives, which primarily address teaching goals.
Learning outcomes are essential in education, encompassing knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation achieved by learners (Adam, 2004) They establish a clear connection between educational levels, descriptors, credits, and the processes of teaching, learning, and assessment When formulated, learning outcomes are aligned with institutional, national, and international benchmarks, ensuring the maintenance of standards and quality in education (Adam, 2004).
According to the European Qualification Framework, learning outcomes are defined in terms of knowledge, skills, and competences:
Knowledge is the result of assimilating information through learning and encompasses the facts, principles, theories, and practices relevant to a specific field of work or study.
Skills means the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems
Competence refers to the demonstrated ability to effectively utilize knowledge and skills in both work and study contexts, as well as in personal and professional growth A crucial element of competence is the level of autonomy and responsibility that individuals exhibit when applying their knowledge and skills (Grün, 2009, p 3).
In this paper, learning outcomes refers to the level of competences, knowledge and skills expected and required of learners by the end of a course or a program
Standard-based education encompasses instructional methods, assessment practices, grading systems, and academic reporting that focus on students demonstrating their understanding and mastery of essential knowledge and skills throughout their educational journey.
Standard-based learning outcomes are clear and concise statements outlining what students should know and be able to do at various educational stages These outcomes set the objectives for lessons or courses, guiding teachers in their instructional planning to ensure that students meet the established learning expectations.
Standard-based learning outcomes, as discussed in this paper, are defined by a specific set of standards established by national authorities and are applicable to all learners at the same educational level For example, high school graduates within a country are required to achieve the learning outcomes outlined by these established standards.
Perception is a multifaceted concept explored across various disciplines, including philosophy, sociology, psychology, and anthropology, leading to diverse definitions In this study, perception is defined as a cognitive and physical ability that enables individuals to recognize, interpret, and understand events, encompassing intuitive judgment and personal beliefs formed through awareness and insight This definition highlights the spectrum of perception, from the initial sensory registration of stimuli to the comprehensive understanding of experiences, emphasizing the importance of interpretation and meaning-making in the perception process.
The term perceptions adopted for the current paper refers to non-
English major students‟ understanding and evaluation of the standard-based learning outcomes.
Standard-based learning outcomes
2.2.1 Standard-based learning outcomes in education
Standard-based education utilizes defined standards to outline the knowledge and skills students should acquire at each educational level These standards serve as a framework for designing teaching programs and assessing student progress, focusing on individual performance relative to the standards rather than peer comparisons By establishing clear learning outcomes, educators can set goals, monitor student achievement, and create supportive programs to enhance learning Additionally, understanding students' experiences and the efforts they put forth is crucial for evaluating their overall progress and success (Tapia, 2013, p 4).
Standard-based education involves several key steps: selecting and analyzing the required standards or outcomes, designing assessments that allow students to demonstrate mastery, identifying the knowledge and skills needed for success, planning and delivering lessons that provide ample learning opportunities, and evaluating student performance to inform future instruction (Tapia, 2013, p 7).
The curriculum should encompass essential knowledge, skills, and attributes that schools aim for students to acquire, as these learning outcomes form the foundation for assessment tools (Stanovich & Stanovich, 2013) Additionally, instructional methods must align with the designed curriculum to ensure effective teaching and learning.
10 lead to students learning the outcomes that are the focus of the assessment standards.”
2.2.2 Standard-based learning outcomes in language education
Standard-based language education emphasizes the proficiency of students in their target language, assessing what they know and can do Learning outcomes must be clear, measurable, observable, and well-defined to ensure effective evaluation of language skills.
Standard-based language education in the United States focuses on five key goal areas known as "The Five C's": communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities These areas outline the essential purposes of language learning, as established by the Task Force of the National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project in 2006 (Cockey, 2014).
Learners can effectively communicate in both oral and written forms to diverse audiences for various purposes, utilizing three key modes: interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational communication They develop an understanding of their own culture and others by exploring perspectives, practices, and products Additionally, learners make connections across subject areas, gaining information and diverse viewpoints to effectively use language in academic and career contexts By recognizing cross-cultural similarities and differences, they enhance their cultural competence for meaningful interactions Ultimately, learners engage with multilingual communities, both locally and globally, fostering effective communication and interaction.
Each goal is defined by specific standards, such as communication, which includes three key aspects: first, learners engage in spoken, signed, or written interactions to convey information and express feelings (interpersonal mode); second, they comprehend and analyze diverse content through listening, reading, or viewing (interpretive mode).
Learners effectively communicate information, concepts, and ideas across diverse topics through various media, tailoring their presentations to engage different audiences, whether they are listeners, readers, or viewers.
Each standard includes sample progress indicators and can-do statements that assist learners in recognizing the communicative functions necessary for achieving specific proficiency levels (Cockey, 2014).
In Europe, language learning outcomes are primarily guided by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), established by the Council of Europe to promote consistency in foreign language education among its Member States Officially published in 2001 during the European Year of Languages, the CEFR has been translated into nearly 40 languages, facilitating its widespread adoption This framework outlines essential competencies that learners must acquire to communicate effectively in a foreign language.
The Council of Europe has released a recommendation advocating for the integration of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) into educational systems and the promotion of plurilingualism among Member States (Broek, 2013).
2.2.3 The significance of learners’ perceptions of learning outcomes
Students' understanding of learning outcomes is crucial for their academic success, as it clarifies course expectations and necessary competencies (Hall & Keynes, 2007) By clearly outlining the curriculum and assessment methods, educators foster independent and lifelong learning, equipping students to adapt in a dynamic social and economic landscape This clarity not only builds students' confidence but also enhances their ability to engage in both formative and summative assessments Ultimately, a strong grasp of learning outcomes enables students to effectively evaluate their progress and identify areas where they require assistance (Hall, 2007).
The CEFR and language education
The CEFR, or The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, was developed by a Council of
Europe during 1993-1996 to promote transparency and coherence in language learning and teaching in EU constituent states It was officially published in
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), established in 2001 and translated into numerous languages, offers a comprehensive framework for language use and learning It includes detailed scales of proficiency across various parameters, enabling partners to effectively plan, deliver, and assess language education and progress (Martyniuk, 2006).
This article outlines an action-oriented approach to language learning, detailing six proficiency levels with defined outcomes It offers a comprehensive summary of language proficiency descriptors, encompassing both language knowledge and skills, as articulated by Martyniuk.
(2006, p 6), “were developed scientifically and take the form of a descriptor bank that can be added to, updated and edited to meet present and future needs.”
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) serves as a foundational tool for educational stakeholders, including administrators, course designers, and teachers, to clearly outline objectives, content, and teaching methods By reflecting on their practices, these professionals can better align their efforts with the actual needs of learners, thereby increasing the transparency of courses and qualifications This alignment fosters international cooperation in modern language education.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) encompasses three key dimensions: language activities, domains, and competences It categorizes a language user's competences into general competences—such as knowledge, skills, existential competence, and the ability to learn—and communicative language competences, which include linguistic, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and sociocultural skills Language activities are classified into four types: reception (listening and reading), production (spoken and written), interaction (spoken and written), and mediation (translating and interpreting) These activities take place across various domains, including educational, occupational, public, and personal contexts.
A language user can develop various degrees of language proficiency in each of the four domains, and to help describe them the CEFR has provided
The Common Reference Levels, consisting of six stages (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2), outline the expected competencies of language learners Each level features specific can-do descriptors that detail the skills and abilities learners should possess across various language activities.
Table 2.1: CEFR levels and can-do-statements
Source: Council of Europe (2001, p 24) Level Can-do descriptors
- Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type
An individual can effectively introduce themselves and others while also engaging in conversations that involve asking and answering questions about personal information This includes details such as their place of residence, acquaintances, and possessions Mastering these communication skills is essential for building connections and enhancing social interactions.
- Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help
- Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment)
- Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters
- Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need
- Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school,
- Can deal with most situations likely to arise while travelling in an area where the language is spoken
- Can produce simple connected text on topics that are familiar or of personal interest
- Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans
- Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation
- Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party
- Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options
- Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognize implicit meaning
- Can express ideas fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions
- Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes
- Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices
C2: - Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or
- Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation
- Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations
Language users from A1 to A2 levels are referred to as basic user, from B1 to B2 independent users, and from C1-C2 proficient users
2.3.2 The use of the CEFR in language teaching
The CEFR emphasizes foreign language teaching and learning for communication, offering a variety of options without endorsing specific methods Its action-oriented framework encourages a task-based approach, advocating for the target language to be the primary medium of instruction Additionally, it recognizes that learning a second language involves both metacognitive and communicative aspects (Little, 2012, p 3).
The CEFR fosters a close interdependence among curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment through its action-oriented approach to language proficiency Each "can do" descriptor serves as a foundation for setting learning targets, creating activities and materials, and designing assessment tasks Additionally, learners can engage in this dynamic process by utilizing "I can" checklists for goal setting and self-assessment (Little, 2012, p 4).
It is increasingly common for national curricula to associate intended learning outcomes with one or more of the CEFR‟s proficiency levels In
France a ministerial decree of 2005 states that school leavers should achieve
The curriculum guidelines for foreign language education specify B2 proficiency for the first language and B1 for the second; however, they do not effectively utilize the CEFR's descriptive framework to define learning outcomes As a result, the connection to specific proficiency levels remains largely unsubstantiated (Little, 2012, p 5).
In conclusion, while the CEFR does not prescribe specific actions for education leaders, curriculum designers, and language teachers, its action-oriented framework strongly encourages the adoption of a task-based approach and emphasizes the use of the target language as the primary medium of instruction.
2.3.3 The application of the CEFR in Vietnam: The 2020 Project and standard-based learning outcomes for non-English major students
In 2008, the Vietnamese government launched the 2020 Project to enhance the quality of foreign language teaching and learning within the state educational system This initiative adopted the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) to establish professional standards for language teachers and to define foreign language learning outcomes across all educational levels (Pham, 2015, p 1).
On September 30, 2008, the Prime Minister of Vietnam approved Decision No 1400/QD-TTg, establishing the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as the standard for foreign language education This initiative is part of the "Scheme on foreign language teaching and learning in the national education system for the period of 2008-2020," which aims for most Vietnamese youth to independently use a foreign language by 2020, enhancing their communication skills and increasing opportunities for study and employment.
Vietnam's integrated and multicultural environment, characterized by a rich diversity of languages, presents a significant advantage for its people This linguistic diversity supports the country's goals of industrialization and modernization, enhancing its global competitiveness.
In 2013, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) in Vietnam issued guidelines to universities aimed at enhancing the training of language teachers and foreign language courses, promoting active involvement in updating curricula, teaching methods, and assessment practices As part of these reforms, language teachers in primary, secondary, and tertiary education are required to attain B2, C1, and C2 proficiency levels, respectively Additionally, university graduates majoring in languages are expected to achieve a C1 level, while those in other fields should reach at least a B1 level In 2014, MOET introduced the "Six-level framework for foreign language proficiency in Vietnam," which is a modified version of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Pham, 2015).
The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) in Vietnam mandates that all university degree programs for non-English majors must include a minimum of 140 credits, equating to 2,100 contact hours, with each credit representing 15 hours of instruction Among these credits, seven are allocated for foreign language learning, primarily focusing on English, in accordance with CEFR-based learning outcomes.
The current state of English education for non-English major
Since Hue University of Foreign Languages (HUFL) was established in
2005, as a constituent of Hue University, it has been in charge of teaching English to students from other colleges of Hue University
The English curriculum includes both general English and English for specific purposes (ESP), with general English being a mandatory component that provides only five credits through 105 teacher-led hours Achieving the CEFR B1 level typically requires 350 to 400 contact hours of instruction, structured over the first three semesters of university programs in a 2-2-3 credit ratio The first semester covers Level 1 English (CEFR A1) for two credits, followed by Level 2 (CEFR A2) in the second semester, and Level 3 (CEFR B1) in the third semester After completing general English, students have the option to enroll in a 30- or 45-hour ESP course tailored to their major (Pham, 2015, p 3).
Hue University comprises eight constituent schools and colleges, including the Hue Teacher Training College, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Foreign Languages, University of Sciences, College of Arts, University of Agriculture and Forestry, College of Law, and College of Economics Additionally, non-English major students at these institutions receive general English courses through the Hue University of Foreign Languages.
These students are major in different fields other than English They have been noticed to vary greatly in terms of English language proficiency
In 2015, a report from Hue University of Foreign Languages revealed that students typically begin their English studies at the age of 20, with their motivations for learning the language differing significantly among individuals.
The current English curriculum for non-English major students aims to achieve Level 3 English, equivalent to CEFR B1, along with essential English for Specific Purposes (ESP) relevant to their academic and professional needs The teaching objectives encompass knowledge and skills, emotional and attitudinal development, learning strategies, and cultural awareness However, due to time constraints, the focus is often limited to specific language knowledge and skills, making self-study crucial in the learning process To enhance this, a modified self-assessment grid is necessary, providing students with an effective tool to evaluate their progress and identify areas for improvement to reach the required B1 level.
2.4.3 Procedure of setting and stating standard-based learning outcomes
Before enrolling in an English course, students undergo a "fast track" proficiency test to assess their language skills Those achieving a B1 level are allowed to bypass the general English course and may proceed directly to English-for-Specific-Purposes (ESP) courses if offered in their degree program Students with A1 and A2 levels are assigned to A2 and B1 English courses, respectively, while others are placed in A1 classes Additionally, students have the option to enroll in any English courses during their first three semesters, regardless of their fast track test results.
In 2012, CEFR B1 level, equivalent to level 3 in the Six-level framework for foreign language proficiency in Vietnam, was set as a
In 2017, Hue University implemented a policy requiring all students from its eight constituent colleges, who are not majoring in English, to attain a B1 level of proficiency in English as a prerequisite for graduation This requirement affects students enrolled since 2013, particularly those in four-year programs and those in longer programs at the Hue Universities of Medicine and Pharmacy, ensuring that non-English majors meet essential language skills for their degrees.
2.4.4 The choice of teaching materials
The selected materials for the English proficiency program will be a textbook series covering A1-B1 levels, emphasizing alignment with the CEFR standards Key considerations include cost-effectiveness regarding copyright authorization and the availability of online support for each series Given budget limitations, HUFL has opted for the German-authored series.
English Elements is an affordable series that includes copyright and online support In 2013, HUFL adopted this new curriculum along with the English Elements series for first-year non-English major students at Hue University.
Online resources offer a valuable solution for non-English major students to enhance their self-study time, addressing the gap between the 105 actual contact hours of English instruction and the recommended 350-400 hours needed to reach B1 level proficiency (Pham, 2015, p 4) Since the start of the 2015-2016 academic year, a new English proficiency series, Life by National, has been introduced to support this initiative.
Geographic Learning publisher has been introduced as another alternative to
2.4.5 The curriculum and teaching plan
The general English course for non-English major lasts for three semesters In the first semester (A1 level), students have to complete the
22 twelve units of English Elements 1 for 30 teacher-led hours and 90 hours of self-study
According to the CEFR skill descriptors and self-assessment guidelines for the A1 level, the Department of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at HUFL has integrated specific language outcomes into the A1 level syllabus (ESP Department, 2016 a).
For speaking skill, after A1 course students can:
- ask and answer questions about their personal information, things they own or use in everyday life, places where they live, acquaintances, friends;
- describe their likes, dislikes, interests, ask for and give directions;
- arrange meetings, ask for help, make suggestions, ask for permission, for advice;
- tell the time, day and date, can count and ask prices
For listening skill, after A1 course students can:
- identify individual words when listening;
- understanding short dialogues at the airport, railway station, and simple social exchanges;
- understanding the gist of a short announcement
For writing skill, after A1 course students can:
- write short informal letters, e-mail, a piece of a message to a friend or relative;
- write about their work, hobbies and skills
For reading skill, after A1 course students can:
- understand the main points of short pieces of news, advert, message, note;
- understand a short text, article, conversation
In the second semester at the A2 level, students are required to complete twelve units of English Elements 2, which includes 30 hours of teacher-led instruction and 90 hours of self-study The Department of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at HUFL has outlined the language outcomes for this level in the syllabus, aligning with the CEFR skill descriptors and self-assessment criteria for A2, as detailed in Appendix 2 (ESP Department, 2016 b).
For speaking skill, after A2 course students can:
- talk about the place (town, city, village) where they live;
- describe their hobbies, interests (favourite sports, music, books);
- talk about the plans for the weekend or upcoming holiday;
- ask and answer questions in different situations of everyday life (ask for and give personal information, give advice, give opinion, make suggestions)
For listening skill, after A2 course students can:
- understand short dialogues at the airport, railway station, and simple social exchanges;
- understand the gist of short announcements at the airport, railway station
For writing skill, after A2 course students can:
- write a piece of message to a friend to provide or ask for information about (notes, e-mails, letters);
- write about themselves (personal life, study, work, hobbies, interest, ability and skill);
- rewrite short sentences without changing their meaning
For reading skill, after A2 course students can:
- understand the gist of short pieces of text (news, articles);
- obtain specific information from short pieces of text
In the third semester (B1 level), students are required to complete twelve units of English Elements 3, which includes 45 hours of teacher-led instruction and 135 hours of self-study The Department of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) at HUFL has outlined the language outcomes for this level in the syllabus, referencing the CEFR skill descriptors and self-assessment criteria for B1, as detailed in Appendix 3 (ESP Department, 2016 c).
For speaking skill, after B1 course students can:
- make simple conversations on the phone with the people they know;
- ask for and give directions and instructions (way to the station, how to use an ATM…);
- express their opinions, agreement, disagreement, offer, request, briefly explain and justify their views, check their partner‟s understanding, change the topic, interrupt into a conversation;
- make a short presentation in familiar topics and answer questions from the audience
For listening skill, after B1 course students can:
- understand the gist of everyday conversations, dialogues and monologues;
- understand talks of familiar topics, spoken clearly with occasional repetition or clarification;
- understand some simple technical talks, such as operating manuals for some familiar devices, gadgets, machines, or equipment
For writing skill, after B1 course students can:
- write a paragraph or short text of familiar topics;
- write the simple formal letters to ask for or give information
For reading skill, after B1 course students can:
- understand the gist of simple texts on different familiar topics sufficiently to be able to talk about them later;
- find and obtain necessary information from brochures, advertisements and notices, and announcements;
- understand the gist of short articles in newspapers or magazines
A comparison of the CEFR A1, A2, and B1 level descriptors with the learning outcomes in the HUFL Department of ESP syllabus reveals that only a few skills from the CEFR have been incorporated into the courses for non-English major students This limitation is attributed to the restricted time available for each level and the students' low initial English proficiency Consequently, several crucial skills have been overlooked, and many descriptors lack detail, particularly in speaking and writing, making it challenging for students to use them for study planning or self-assessment.
2.4.6 Current teaching and learning facilities
Students enrolled in general English courses at HUFL are placed in classes of 30-40 individuals Each classroom is equipped with essential technology, including a CD player, computer, and projector, while campus-wide internet access enhances the learning experience Additionally, students benefit from a well-stocked library, two language laboratories, and a photocopy stand.
2.4.7 Assessment for non-English major students
Ongoing assessment in language courses is conducted by teachers both formally and informally, primarily through a mid-term test after 20 contact hours for A1 and A2 classes, and after 30 contact hours for B1 classes This test evaluates reading, writing, and listening skills and is essential for eligibility to take the end-of-semester test Additionally, A1 and A2 classes include a speaking test in the last two contact hours, which contributes 20% to the overall score of the end-of-semester assessment.
Review of relevant research on perceptions of learning outcomes
So far, there have not been many studies concerning learners‟ perception of learning outcomes, especially in language education
A study conducted by Walker in 2008 involving 80 university students revealed that teachers frequently overlook students' perspectives on learning outcomes for various reasons.
Students often rely on their own expertise or that of others to shape their curricula and course objectives, leading to a perception that learning is frequently disconnected from classroom activities Courses that prioritize achieving learning outcomes, as defined by both faculty and students, are viewed as more valuable than those focused solely on content Additionally, beyond task-based assessments, it is crucial for students to have opportunities to identify, evaluate, and reflect on their learning expectations throughout their college experience Allowing students to articulate their expected learning outcomes is essential, as these expectations significantly influence their educational experience and can directly impact classroom instruction and overall learning.
Lewis and Basturkmen (2000) conducted a research project that examined the differing interpretations of task outcomes among three groups: task designers, teachers, and students of English Their findings revealed notable differences both between and within these groups regarding how adult learners perceive task effectiveness.
The study revealed significant differences in students' understanding of task outcomes, both across and within classes, with students often selecting outcomes that differed from those intended by task designers This indicates a lack of a direct correlation between tasks and specific intended outcomes, as the same task can be interpreted differently by various teachers and designers Additionally, students may utilize a single task for multiple purposes, highlighting the individualized nature of learning and the diverse perceptions of educational objectives.
Outcome-based assessment involves evaluating student learning against established outcomes, yet there exists a disparity between these outcomes and students' perceptions of their actual learning experiences.
Students may be evaluated on outcomes they have not achieved or may lack awareness of their accomplishments, indicating a significant issue This raises critical questions regarding the fairness of assessing students on predetermined outcomes if they have not met them by the end of a class task Furthermore, it prompts consideration of whether it is feasible to acknowledge the outcomes as perceived by learners and adjust assessments accordingly.
Lewis and Basturkmen (2000) highlight the importance of a negotiated syllabus in language teaching, which allows learners to influence the program's content When students are unaware of their achieved outcomes, there is a need for consciousness-raising regarding task results Teachers can gather students' perceptions of their learning from specific tasks, thereby enhancing their awareness of the purpose behind these tasks and clarifying the intended outcomes.
Recent research by Pham (2015) involving 102 non-English major students from the Teacher Training College of Hue University revealed that students have a limited understanding of language learning outcomes They often link these outcomes to passing end-of-semester tests or completing textbooks, viewing standard-based learning outcomes as abstract concepts When asked about the CEFR levels A1, A2, and B1, most students struggled to provide accurate descriptions, perceiving these levels merely as course names rather than distinct proficiency benchmarks.
31 specific textbook volumes in English Elements series The students assume that the CEFR-B1 level is a test rather than degrees of ability to use language
The author highlighted a significant mismatch between instruction and assessment, indicating a lack of coherence between the instructional content, textbook tasks, and end-of-semester tests This disconnect diminishes students' motivation to learn English, as they find little relevance to the assessments Participants recommended a slower teaching pace and increased teacher-led instruction to enhance their learning experience.
Chapter summary
The chapter defines two key terms: learning outcomes, which are statements detailing what a learner knows and can do after completing a learning process, and perception, the ability to recognize and interpret events It emphasizes the importance of learners' perceptions of learning outcomes in enhancing their education by clarifying expectations and success criteria The discussion on standard-based learning outcomes in language education introduces the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), which outlines language use and competencies along with proficiency scales The CEFR's influence has extended beyond Europe, reaching countries like Vietnam, where the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) launched a national framework for foreign language proficiency in 2014, based on the CEFR with some adaptations.
Since 2012, non-English major students at Hue University have been required to achieve a B1 level in English by 2017 to qualify for their degrees This section discusses the current state of English education for these students, highlighting the development of a new curriculum focused on standard-based learning outcomes, the selection of the English Element series as teaching material, and the establishment of teaching plans and assessment procedures The remainder of the chapter reviews research on students' perceptions of learning outcomes and their preparedness for English language learning.
METHODOLOGY
Research questions
The literature review highlights a gap in research regarding non-English major students' perceptions of CEFR-based learning outcomes, particularly in Vietnam, where the implementation of CEFR is still in its early stages Consequently, this study aims to explore this area by addressing specific research questions.
1 What are non-English major students‟ perceptions of the CEFR-B1 level as their expected language learning outcomes?
2 How do they prepare to achieve the set learning outcomes?
The objective of the questions is to gather valuable insights that will help non-English major students better comprehend standard-based learning outcomes and develop a realistic learning plan to meet those standards effectively.
Research design
The study on student‟s perceptions of their expected learning outcomes employed a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches
Qualitative research, as defined by Dornyei (2007), involves collecting open-ended, non-numerical data analyzed through non-statistical methods, focusing on how individuals interpret their experiences This study employs a qualitative approach to explore and describe participants' perceptions of their learning outcomes, allowing for a rich understanding of their diverse viewpoints By adopting a bottom-up methodology, the researcher aims to generate new theoretical insights from the data gathered during fieldwork, without preconceived notions about the subject matter.
Qualitative research, as noted by Dornyei (2007), is a valuable method for exploring new and uncharted areas, particularly when there is limited knowledge about a specific topic This approach is essential for investigating the nature of phenomena and related factors In this study, we examine students' opinions on their standard-based learning outcomes, a topic that is as novel as the implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam.
Quantitative research is employed in studies where predictable answers can be numerically analyzed and presented through statistics As noted by Dornyei (2007, p 24), this approach involves data collection procedures that yield primarily numerical data, which are analyzed using statistical methods Conversely, qualitative research focuses on verbal data rather than numerical, leading to different expected findings.
35 usually not determined a priori but are left open and flexible to be uncovered during the process of investigation
The two distinct research approaches can be effectively integrated, resulting in a third method known as the mixed approach This research strategy combines both qualitative and quantitative techniques during either the data collection or analysis phases.
This study, therefore, can be referred to as mixed-method research, in which there is a combination of open-ended, close-ended question and in- depth interview.
Participants
The participants of this research are 303 non-English major students from the Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Table 3.1 gives some information about the participants
Table 3.1 Participants of the study
Major No Gender Starting level Taking
At the time of the study, all participants were second-year university students in their fourth semester, having completed their third semester of general English They were enrolled in an ESP (English for Specific Purposes) course, instructed by EFL teachers from Hue University of Foreign Languages, utilizing the English Elements curriculum.
36 series Most of the participants were major in medicine (143), followed by students of medical technology (63) preventive medicine (55) and pharmacy
A third of the second-year students at Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, totaling 32 individuals, participated in various classes of general English while adhering to a unified curriculum and textbook selection.
The majority of participants in the General English course began at the A1 level, accounting for 76%, while 21% started at A2 and only 3% at B1 Out of 303 participants, only twelve, consisting of seven males and five females, had previously taken a B1-Level Test at HUFL, and all successfully passed.
Data collection methods/instruments
To serve the purpose of research, the instruments employed to collect data consist of questionnaire and in-depth interview
3.4.1 Questionnaire as data collecting tool
The qualitative study employed a questionnaire featuring open-ended and semi-close-ended questions to investigate students' perceptions of their expected learning outcomes and the challenges they encounter Close-ended questions were included for sections requiring numerical data, while semi-close-ended questions allowed for specific textual responses, which respondents could provide in addition to selecting from suggested answers.
The questionnaire, which consists of four parts, has a total of thirty questions
Part 1 - Personal information - is for collecting information about the respondent, including his/her names, gender, e-mail or phone number, major, college, their entry level of English and whether he/she passed the B1 test
Part 2 - Perceptions of the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes - with eight questions, is aimed to gather information about the respondent‟s understanding of their expected B1 learning outcomes (what it is, its significance, its necessity…), how they obtain the information concerning the learning outcomes (where, where, from whom)
Part 3 - Preparation to achieve the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes - consists of fourteen items, designed to collect information about what students have done in preparation for achieving the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes, including the way they use learning outcomes as a kind of reference (for selecting tasks, learning materials, etc.), the time they have spent on self- study, the resources they can access to and what they have prepared for the B1 test
Part 4 - Comments and suggestions - is of eight questions, devised to mobilise the participants‟ comments about various aspects related to the B1 learning outcomes such as the way it is communicated to them, the services or support provided to them The participants are also encouraged to make suggestions for their teachers, for their own university and for HUFL (See Appendix 4 for full form of the questionnaire)
3.4.2 In-depth interview as data collecting tool
Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted to gather additional insights and clarify information from the questionnaire, focusing on individuals' perceptions of their language outcomes This study utilized interviews as a key data collection method to enhance understanding of the required learning outcomes and to further explain and clarify the suggestions and comments provided by students in section 4 of the questionnaire.
The semi-structured interviews conducted by the researcher involved a predetermined set of questions tailored for each participant, allowing for deeper clarification and discussion on relevant topics This flexible approach enabled the researcher to gather information that a standard questionnaire could not capture and to explore specific issues in greater detail Each interview followed a unique trajectory, with the researcher skillfully guiding conversations back to the core questions as needed Active listening was emphasized, encouraging interviewees to express their opinions freely (refer to Appendix 5 for the complete list of major interview questions).
Data collection procedure
To facilitate the completion of the questionnaire, bilingual copies in English and Vietnamese were provided to the participants in class Students were instructed to fill out the questionnaire and return it within 20 to 25 minutes.
The researcher collaborated with EFL teachers from Hue University of Foreign Languages to motivate students to engage in the study by completing a questionnaire and participating in in-depth interviews Initially, a draft of the questionnaire was distributed to twenty respondents, and based on their feedback, the researcher refined it to produce a finalized version.
The in-depth interview process began with the development of a sampling strategy and the creation of a guide featuring essential questions The researcher then initiated contact with selected respondents to arrange the interviews collaboratively Each interview typically lasted around 20 minutes.
The researcher utilized Facebook inbox as a communication tool to facilitate scheduling interviews with students participating in the survey This method allowed for flexible arrangements, with most interviews conducted at night when participants had more free time.
Data analysis methods
The qualitative data was analyzed using thematic content analysis, a method that organizes data into categories based on themes, concepts, or similarities This approach reduces and categorizes large data sets into meaningful units for easier interpretation The analysis occurred in two phases: first, categories were developed from student responses to identify major themes, and second, data related to each theme was classified into relevant categories (Forbes et al., 2001).
The collected numerical data was manually analyzed and processed using basic statistics with Microsoft Office Excel 2005 The primary statistical task involved counting the observations in each category and expressing them as percentages of the total sample size, with the processed questionnaire data presented in tables.
Chapter summary
This chapter outlines the methodology of the study, employing both qualitative and quantitative approaches Participants were drawn from the University of Medicine and Pharmacy, where no prior research on this topic had been conducted The study successfully utilized surveys through questionnaires and interviews, facilitated by the cooperation of students and language teachers.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The participants’ perception of the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes
Understanding students' perceptions of learning outcomes begins with examining relevant background data This data includes the timing of when students became aware of the established learning outcomes and the methods through which they received this information.
Table 4.1 The point of time students knew about the set learning outcomes
Point of time Number Percentage
1 During the first semester at university 245 81
4 After finishing all general English courses 39 13
A significant 81% of students at Hue University reported being informed about the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes early in their studies, highlighting the importance of transparent communication in the educational process (Fullan, 2008) However, 13% of participants remained unaware of these outcomes until completing their general English courses, which is noteworthy given the sample size of 303 This underscores the critical role that awareness of learning objectives plays in student success Additionally, teachers were identified as the primary source of information for 61% of the students, as indicated in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Sources of information on CEFR-B1 learning outcomes
Source of information Number Percentage
This article presents an analysis of students' perceptions regarding the expected outcomes of achieving the CEFR-B1 level Key areas of focus include their understanding of the CEFR-B1 framework, the significance of setting this level as a learning goal, and its role in their educational journey Additionally, it explores how these learning outcomes facilitate communication, the necessary contact hours for reaching this level, and students' overall attitudes towards the CEFR-B1 as a benchmark for their language proficiency.
(1) Students’ understanding of the CEFR-B1
Table 4.3 indicates that a significant portion of respondents have a relevant understanding of the CEFR-B1 level, with 30% associating it with proficiency across four language skills and 43% recognizing it as part of the Common European Framework for Languages This is a positive outcome; however, 27% of participants still misunderstand the CEFR-B1, mistakenly viewing it as a type of test (20%) or a curriculum (7%).
Table 4.3 Students‟ understanding of the CEFR-B1
Students’ understanding of the CEFR-B1 Number Percentage
1 It‟s an English proficiency test 58 20
2 It‟s a level of proficiency with 4 language skills 93 30
3 It‟s a level in the Common European Framework for References of language
4 It‟s an English teaching curriculum 23 7
Interviews reveal that some students mistakenly believe that the CEFR test is similar to the TOEIC, TOEFL, or IELTS exams, which were previously used as final assessments for non-English majors As a result, they focus on completing sample tests rather than understanding the language outcomes Initially, most participants struggled to recall the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes introduced in their first semester due to a lack of documentation and note-taking However, their understanding improved over the subsequent two semesters, leading to a clearer grasp of the CEFR-B1 requirements.
Engaging in sample tests sequentially enhances understanding of CEFR-B1 learning outcomes Consequently, respondents exhibit varying levels of comprehension regarding the CEFR, particularly among those who have previously encountered it online.
(2) The meaning of setting the CEFR-B1 as learning outcomes
The respondents had varying perceptions of the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes, with 43% believing it will aid in standardizing language testing, while 44% see it as a motivational factor for their language learning Additionally, 13% anticipate that it will help bridge the gap between language teaching and testing.
Many participants may not fully understand what CEFR-B1 entails, yet they recognize its significant impact on language testing and learning They also acknowledge the crucial connection between language teaching, learning, and assessment.
Table 4.4 Students‟ perceptions of the meaning of setting the CEFR-B1 as their learning outcomes
Meaning of setting the CEFR-B1 as learning outcomes
1 It helps to standardize the testing 130 43
2 It encourages the students to improve their language competence
3 It helps to bridge the gap between language teaching/learning and testing
(3) Students’ perceptions of the role the CEFR-B1 as their learning outcomes
A significant 83% of participants acknowledge the importance of learning outcomes in their English education Specifically, 58% believe these outcomes help them establish suitable learning targets, while 22% find them beneficial for self-assessing their language skills Additionally, 20% of participants feel that learning outcomes promote a communicative approach to language acquisition.
Participants consistently recognize the significance of learning outcomes in their language acquisition, emphasizing the importance of goal-setting, self-assessment, and a communicative approach, as illustrated in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Students‟ perceptions of the role this level plays as their learning outcomes a) The number of participants knowing the role played by their learning outcomes
Knowing the role of learning outcomes Number Percentage
2 No 51 17 b) Students‟ perceptions of the role played by their learning outcomes
Role played by their learning outcomes Number Percentage
1 Help students to set targets 145 58
2 Help students to assess language competence 55 22
3 Cause students to pay more attention to communicative skills
(4) Students’ perceptions of how the learning outcomes are used for communication
This is an open-ended question and the participants‟ responses fall into
3 trends: 47% correctly assume that English learner at CEFR-B1 level can use it for everyday communication whereas 46% think they can use it as means of
45 studying their major There are a few of the respondent (7%) seeing CEFR-B1 as a means for scientific research and beyond
Table 4.6 Students‟ perceptions of the use for communication of the learning outcomes
Use for communication Number Percentage
3 As a means for scientific research and beyond 20 7
(5) Students’ perceptions of the minimum contact hours required to achieve B1 level
Students' perceptions regarding the minimum contact hours needed to reach a B1 level varied significantly According to Table 4.7, only 20% of students selected the correct range of 300 to 400 hours, while 50% were unsure about the recommended hours, and 27% provided incorrect answers.
Table 4.7 Students‟ perceptions of the contact/learning hours required to achieve B1 level
Required contact hours Number Percentage
6 It depends on each individual 6 2
In the context where the curriculum only provides 105 contact hours the students‟ ignorance of the minimum contact hours required to achieve the
Establishing required learning outcomes of 300-400 hours is essential for ensuring students can adequately prepare for the necessary proficiency levels Interview data indicates that students primarily rely on the internet, particularly Wikipedia, for information rather than their English teachers, highlighting a gap in effective guidance.
(6) Students’ general perception of the CEFR-B1 as their language outcomes
A significant gap exists in students' attitudes toward their language outcomes, as shown in Table 4.8 Only 12% of participants demonstrate a solid understanding of the CEFR-B1 learning outcomes, while 25% lack complete comprehension Additionally, nearly three-quarters of the students either disregard the outcomes (17%) or are primarily motivated by the desire to pass the B1 test (46%).
Table 4.8 Students‟ general perception of or attitude towards the CEFR-B1 as their outcomes
General perception/attitude Number Percentage
1 Confident that I understand the expected learning outcomes very well
2 Not so sure about the learning outcomes 76 25
3 Not think much about the learning outcomes 50 17
4 Just want to pass the B1 test 140 46
According to Table 4.8, a significant portion of students (88%) exhibit an unsuitable attitude toward their learning outcomes This includes 25% who are unaware of the specific requirements, 17% who do not utilize the outcomes to steer their learning, and others who mistakenly view passing the language proficiency test as the ultimate goal Such attitudes can adversely affect students' short- and long-term learning.
Interview data indicate that many students lack awareness of their learning outcomes, with some disregarding general English in favor of medical English, believing it to be more beneficial for their studies and careers.
Chapter summary
This chapter presents key findings from a survey conducted through questionnaires and interviews, revealing participants' perceptions of CEFR-B1 learning outcomes as insufficient, vague, and uncertain These perceptions negatively impact their preparation for CEFR-B1, particularly their language self-study abilities, which do not meet the required learning outcomes The chapter concludes with participant suggestions for improvement, notably the development of a website to provide essential information on CEFR-A1, CEFR-A2, and CEFR-B1, ensuring non-English majors have accessible resources when needed.