Ứng dụng khung tham chiếu Châu Âu về ngôn ngữ ở bậc đại học ở Việt Nam - Nhận thức và phản hồi của giáo viên dạy tiếng Anh cơ bản

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 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 standardbased 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 nonEnglish 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,

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

2.5.1 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

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

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

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

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

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,

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)

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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 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

non-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

(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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

re-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

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 European languages, for both L1 and L2 teaching/ learning, at all educational levels with different stakeholders all over the world

non-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 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)

free-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

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 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

socio-―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

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

(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)

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

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

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 R) pattern is reinforced (rewarded), the individual is conditioned to respond (Skinner, 1974) This idea was later on elaborated by other psychologists

(S-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,

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