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

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAININGHUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES LÊ THỊ THANH HẢI IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES AT TERTIARY LEVEL

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

CODE: 9 14 01 11

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND

METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

Supervisor

Assoc Prof Dr Pham Thi Hong Nhung

HUE, 2019

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

LÊ THỊ THANH HẢI

ỨNG DỤNG KHUNG THAM CHIẾU CHÂU ÂU VỀ NGÔN NGỮ

CỦA GIÁO VIÊN DẠY TIẾNG ANH CƠ BẢN

MÃ SỐ: 9 14 01 11

LUẬN ÁN TIẾN SĨ

LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC

PGS.TS PHẠM THỊ HỒNG NHUNG

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 Englishlanguage teaching, is the result of my own research, and that, to the best of myknowledge 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 thedissertation

Signature:

I would like to acknowledge the forbearance of my supervisor AssociateProfessor Doctor Pham Thi Hong Nhung, who provided instruction and feedback tovarious steps of the study and to various versions of this dissertation with thesupport and words of wisdom I was exceptionally fortunate to have her as a mentorfor this work Her encouragement allowed me to continue to grow as a person and aresearcher She helped me keep things prioritized and in focus Without her, thiswork would not have taken its final shape.

I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to teachers, lecturers andprofessors of University of Foreign Languages, Hue University for patiently andwholeheartedly guiding me through the process required to complete my program ofstudy Their support, encouragement, and willingness to serve as academiccommittee members were of huge benefit to me Their knowledge and wisdominspired me to broaden my scope of investigation

I also thank my dear and best friend whom without her support, I wouldpossibly have not accomplished this personal goal A special mention also goes to

my colleagues whose understanding, sympathy, and support were invaluablespiritual strength for me during the process of completing this work I owe a greatdebt to many English teachers at the home university who voluntarily and patientlyanswered the questionnaire and took part in the in- depth interviews during the datacollection 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 Heencouraged me unfailingly, provided ongoing support and kind words, motivated

me, and had confidence in me To my mother whose life demonstrated that honor isfound in hard work and sacrifice I thank her for loving me unconditionally and forproviding me with encouragement in my educational pursuits My thanks go to mychildren, who are a source of strength to me Along the way, they constantly madesacrifices 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 beforever grateful and inspired by their love

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 itsapplication process Also, it explores teachers’ responses to the use of the CEFR torenew the general English curriculum, reflected in how they changed their teachingactivities, adapted the assigned textbooks and modified their assessment practice.The study was a case study applying the mixed method sequential explanatorymodel (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 structured in-depth interviews were conducted

semi-The findings revealed that GE teachers were knowledgeable about the CEFRand its implementation at the research site Specifically, they highly perceived thevalues 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, theywere dissatisfied with the work involved in its implementation process Encounteredchallenges included time constraints, incompatible teaching materials, andmismatch between students’ admission level of proficiency and learning outcome

To deal with the challenges, GE teachers made adaptations and modifications in theteaching activities, teaching materials and classroom assessment practice, albeit theactivities were merely used as coping strategies In particular, teaching activitieswere 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 GEteachers were found to teach “test-taking strategies” and instant techniques to aidstudents achieving the required learning outcome Due to the limited timeframe, anemphasis on blended learning and learner autonomy was recognized and started totake hold From the findings, methodological and pedagogical implications aremade 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 moreindispensable to the development of any country It has become the first foreignlanguage to be taught and a compulsory subject for both undergraduates andgraduates at tertiary level in Vietnam (Vietnamese government, 2008) Nonetheless,English language education has encountered great difficulties in catching up withthe social need The heavy reliance on the explicit teaching of grammatical rulesand grammar-based testing which have long characterized English teaching inVietnam 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 theforeign (especially English) language teaching system, among which is the NFL

2020 Project and the adoption of the CEFR Specifically, in 2008, the VietnameseGovernment launched a national project named “Teaching and learning foreignlanguages in the national educational system for the 2008-2020 period”, oftenreferred to as NFL 2020 Project as a national strategy so as to renovate the foreignlanguage teaching and learning in the national education system during the period2008-2020 (Vietnamese government, 2008), now extended to 2025 (Vietnamesegovernment, 2017) The most significant part of NFL 2020 Project is the adoption

of the CEFR, a global framework, into Vietnamese local context of languageteaching and learning as a “quick-fix” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004) solution torestructure 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 toset standards for learning outcomes at different levels of education, from primary tohigh schools and universities This adoption of the CEFR as standard-basedoutcomes and professionalism in Vietnam, underpinned by NFL 2020 Project hasbeen hoped to bring positive, radical changes in the national foreign languageeducation system as it is clearly stated in Decision 1400 of the government(Vietnamese government, 2008) In effect, this has led to the renewal andmodification of language curricula, language teaching materials, as well as testingand 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 regionaluniversity in Central Vietnam Its non-English major students come from theCentral Highlands and the provinces and cities in the centre of the country.According to their major field of study, students attend different colleges of thehome university They vary in terms of social backgrounds, major fields of studychosen, and English proficiency, but most enter university at the age of 18 years.Teachers also differ in origin, experiences, qualifications and expertise MOETmandated 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 auniversity graduation degree Under the impacts of this innovative national foreignlanguage (mainly English) policy, in 2012, an official document was issued by thehome 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 thanEnglish was also modified A 7-credit general English curriculum was compelledfor non-English major students before their B1 CEFR-aligned examination Ineffect, non-English major students have a total of 105 teacher-led hours of Englishclasses in their first three semesters, divided into 30-30-45 hours respectively, andare expected to achieve level B1 Two series of textbooks, English Elements byHueber and later on Life by Cengage were chosen as the required teaching materialsfor the respective students by the Faculty and University Detailed syllabi for threesemesters, together with the forms and formats of the final examinations were alsomade available GE teachers at the home university, as implementers, have to bondlearners, materials, teaching practice and assessment altogether so that non-Englishmajor students can achieve the required CEFR-aligned learning outcome B1 withinthe 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 respectnot 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 beenrecognized to extend far beyond Europe to Latin America, the Middle East,Australia and parts of Asia (Byram & Parmenter, 2012) Outside the Europeancontexts, as a “supranational language education policy” (Little, 2007, p.645), theCEFR 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 Anumber of Asian countries have witnessed the implementation of the CEFR innational contexts as an attempt to reform the system of language teaching in thecountry 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-downnature (Little, 2006; 2007; Pham, 2017)

Firstly, since adapted from the CEFR whose original purpose is not for thediversified contexts of the world but revolves around Europe, this alien frameworkmay 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, languagelearning and teaching conditions, qualifications of language teachers andproficiency levels of learners as well as their expectations and purposes, theappropriateness of the CEFR-aligned framework in Vietnam may be questionable.Nearly 10 years after its first introduction in Vietnam, the adoption of the CEFR stillfaces challenges and obstacles from “limited human resources” (Pham, 2017) to

“deficits in teacher professionalism” (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015) The need for moreresearch on the CEFR adoption in Vietnam, its impacts on teachers, students andEnglish language teaching and learning process, its successes and limitations hasnever been ceased for the benefits of its future practices

Secondly, regarding the CEFR implementation in Vietnam, the use of theCEFR has been recognized in different domains from setting teacherprofessionalism standards, setting student learning outcomes, renewing languagecurriculum, adapting teaching materials to modifying language assessment practice(Vietnamese government, 2008) However, the Vietnamese CEFR-alignedframework has been forwarded to lower levels for implementation withoutexplanation for its adoption (Pham, 2017) nor consultation with the ultimatelanguage 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 noofficial document or research evidence about the involvement of teachers andstudents in the process of making decisions of applying the CEFR in Vietnam.When teachers’ perceptions or their students’ need and wants are not taken intoaccount, it is synonymous that teachers’ ownership of innovation was denied andthe possibility of teachers’ feedback was minimal (Hyland & Wong, 2013)

As such the adoption of the CEFR can be considered to follow the “topdown” 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 tocreate some mismatches between the adopters, those who sanction the innovation(government officials) and the implementers (teachers) (Chang, 2007) The need forresearch on the field of the national CEFR adoption language policy and issues ofits implementation has emerged

Thirdly, within the current context, the CEFR-aligned curriculumimplementation for non-English major students at the home university is very muchconcerned As it is suggested that approximately 200 guided learning hours benecessary for a language learner to progress from one level of the CEFR to the next andfrom 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 andthe required B1 learning outcome for non-English majors set by MOET arequestionable Moreover, considering the factors that may lengthen or reduce theexpected 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-Englishmajor students in Vietnam at the moment Finally, since MOET sets the learningoutcomes for learners independent of curricula and teaching materials, the burden onthe shoulders of state-run universities, teachers and students becomes heavier as theyhave to innovate all those related domains to meet the new learning outcome

Besides, studies have demonstrated that while the key implementers of alllanguage education policies, teachers did not always do what was told nor did theyalways act to maximize policy objectives (Cohen & Ball, 1990; McLaughlin, 1987).Problems and failure of the implementation phase may thus come from teachersthemselves due to their attitudes and behavior, which were proven to “interact bi-dimensionally” with each other (Borg, 2009, p.164) Firstly, teachers have beendiagnosed as “resistant to change” (Wang, 2008, p.3) or not willing to actuallyimplement a teaching innovation despite their positive attitudes towards it

(Kennedy, 1999; Keranen, 2008, as cited in Waters, 2009) Secondly, althoughteachers’ perceptions and attitudes are not always reflected in what teachers do inthe classroom, they do influence practices (Borg, 2009) The necessity ofunderstanding teachers’ perceptions of and responses to this language policyimplementation has been obvious Yet limited research has been found on the issueunder investigation As the implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam is bothcomprehensive and profound (Vietnamese government, 2008), the need for moreresearch 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, theeffectiveness of such changes in (foreign) language policy, is longed for For thatreason, the current research is an effort to explore the CEFR implementation fromgrass-root level in Vietnam.

1.3 Purpose of the study and research questions

The study aims to explore the perceptions, knowledge and responses of GEteachers (i.e teachers who teach English to non-English major students) at the homeuniversity 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 tertiarylevel 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 theCEFR within their school context, that is what they do in terms of action and whatfactors are influential to their response The findings of the study are hoped toprovide the solid ground on which methodological and pedagogical implicationscan be made to supplement GE teachers with methodology, techniques, andprocedures to modify the CEFR-aligned curriculum in order to match theory andpractice, 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 English major students at a university in Vietnam?

non-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 theCEFR implementation for non-English major university students It adopted themixed method sequential explanatory model by Creswell and Clark (2007) Thedata 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 theCEFR for non-English major students The results of the pilot phase were used tomodify the questionnaire and interview protocol for the official round

The research setting was a university in Central Vietnam, where the researcherhas been working for more than fifteen years All English language teachers, who havebeen teaching general English for non-English major students of the home universityfor more than one semester, were invited to participate in the survey research Eight ofthe teacher participants took part in in-depth interview sessions

The literature review and theoretical concepts relevant to the research fieldwere generalized and summarized to build up the conceptual framework for thepresent study Utilizing this information, together with results from the pilot phase,

a forty-nine item questionnaire was made to explore how GE teachers perceived theCEFR and its implementation, and how they responded to the CEFR-alignedcurriculum implementation regarding their teaching activities, the assignedtextbooks and the classroom assessment practice For the semi-structured in-depthinterview, an interview protocol consisting of fifteen main questions was sketched

to guide the interview sessions and make sure the validity and consistency of thedata collected

Quantitative data were analyzed via Statistical Package for the SocialSciences (SPSS) version 20 In determining the reliability of the questionnaire,Cronbach’s alpha values of the whole questionnaire and sub-clusters were above 70and ranged from 819 to 873 Descriptive statistics including the mean scores andstandard deviation of each item were generated After the data of the questionnairehad been collected and analyzed, the interview sessions were successively carriedout and coded Qualitative data were then themed, compared and contrasted withquantitative findings.

After the interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative data, anintegration of both groups of data was made The findings were presented withrespect to the research questions, the sub-clusters of the questionnaire, and theemerging themes from the interview sessions Finally, detailed discussions,conclusions and pedagogical implications with regard to the conceptual frameworkwere made and reported

1.5 Scope of the study

The primary goal of this study is to investigate the status of implementing theCEFR-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, thenecessity and readiness for its application for non-English major students, as well asthe work involved in the CEFR application process Next, the researcher exploresteachers’ responses to the CEFR-aligned curriculum renewal Specifically, how GEteachers 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 Thegeneralizations may not necessarily be applicable to other contexts and situations fardifferent from the present one

In particular, the present study explores a top-down policy of adopting aglobal 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 beapplicable 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 insightsinto the reality of the CEFR implementation at the home university, whetherteachers encountered any challenges and how they dealt with those difficulties Theultimate purpose is to make insightful methodology and pedagogical implicationsfor GE teachers There may be some differences in the results and implications ifthe implementation process is perceived from the perspectives of administrators orstudents The scope of the present study is, therefore, limited to language educationand 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 arenot the same as of language-major students The timeframe, textbooks, assessment,and even teaching activities are totally different Therefore, its results cannot begeneralized 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 biggercities of the country As a result, while the findings of the study may be applicablefor other regional universities sharing similar backgrounds, the generalizationsshould not be made for universities in the North or the South of Vietnam, nor canthey 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 theexisting knowledge of top-down implementation policies in foreign languageeducation It also provides useful understanding on the impacts of such a policy ondifferent 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 languageteaching and learning in Vietnam, including the adoption of global educationalpolicies into the local contexts such as the CEFR Like many other languageeducational reforms in Vietnam, the policy is very much top-down, without takinghuman resources and facilities at grass-root level into consideration Researchingand exploring such a policy have thus been significant in providing a betterunderstanding and valuable lessons especially for MOET and policy makers.

Secondly, the findings of the study are expected to shed light on theimplementation of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major universitystudents at tertiary levels It is expected that the voice and perceptions of teacherswill provide insights into the achievement and drawbacks of the policy, theadvantages and disadvantages during the implementation process, as well as thechallenges faced and lessons gained The study helps the home University andrespective Faculty re-evaluate the policy, figure out what to do next, what tomaintain, 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 andadministrators They will be better aware of their roles and importance in theimplementation process They will know the strengths and weaknesses of the policyand the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students; what challengesthey encountered and why they encountered such challenges

The ultimate purpose of all the afore-mentioned suggestions for changes andmodifications is to ameliorate students’ English proficiency and their learningoutcome The present study is thus of great help and usefulness for non-Englishmajor students, who need to achieve the CEFR B1 certificate as the precondition fortheir 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 ofthe study.

Chapter Two provides a critical review of literature relevant to the CEFR andits 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 providesthe conceptual framework of the study

Chapter Three describes the methodology employed in the present study Itstarts with a description of the research approach and mixed method design of thestudy Next, it presents research questions and research setting It then describes indetails issues related to data collection and analysis The chapter ends with ourdiscussion of the validity, reliability and ethical considerations of the selectedresearch design

Chapter Four reports and interprets detailed findings on the basis of dataanalysis results It then presents the findings regarding GE teachers’ perceptions of theCEFR and its implementation Specifically, it describes how GE teachers perceived thevalues of the CEFR, its readiness for application, the reasons and necessity ofimplementing the CEFR for non-English major students, and the work involved in itsapplication process Next, the chapter describes GE responses to the CEFRimplementation in three different domains: teaching activities, teaching materials andclassroom assessment Emerging themes on both GE teachers’ perceptions of and theirresponses to the CEFR implementation are also refined and addressed

Chapter Five summarizes the key findings of the study Major conclusionsregarding the CEFR and its implementation for non-English major universitystudents are drawn out Pedagogical and methodological implications, together withthe 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 itsdata Those terms were used throughout this study and are currently used in theeducational field Some key terms will also be defined in the coming sections in theliterature 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 theeducation system or structural change in organization, policy, programs, courses,etc (Fullan, 2001b) Change can be more successful if the concerns of teachers areconsidered (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 blueprintfor teaching and learning which enables the desired learning outcomes to beachieved” (Richards, 2013, p.6)

General English teachers The term “General English” is introduced to distinguish

with “English for Specific Purposes” General English, English for GeneralPurposes (Far, 2008) or English for Educational Purposes (Strevens, 1977) refers tocontexts such as schools where needs cannot readily be specified It accounts for aschool-based learning of a language as a subject element within the overall schoolcurriculum For this study, General English is limited to subjects to developstudents’ 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 fornon-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 anyfield 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 whichprovides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculumguidelines, 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 isoften referred to as the CEFR It provides a “descriptive scheme” (CoE, 2001, p.21) ofdefinitions, categories and examples that language professionals can use to betterunderstand and communicate their aims and objectives The present section willprovide an overview of the CEFR, including its definition, content, purpose, limitationsand 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 descriptivescheme” (Little, 2006, p.167) or exactly what its title says “a framework ofreference” which “describes language learners’ ability in terms of speaking, reading,listening and writing at six reference levels” (Cambridge, 2011, p.3) It is “languageneutral” (English Profile, n.d.) and “language independent” (Little, 2006, p.178) andthus can be adapted for use to different foreign language learning situations

The CEFR adopts the action-oriented approach which views users andlearners of a language as individuals and as social agents whose developingcompetence reflects various kinds of cognitive processes, strategies and knowledge(Cambridge, 2011, pp.7-8; CoE, 2001) The CEFR therefore looks at both languagecompetencies and communication strategies with the principles that in order forlearners to successfully perform communication acts, they need to choose effectivelinguistic resources with appropriate strategies

The CEFR is expected to provide a comprehensive, transparent and coherentplanning tool Attempting to clarify language knowledge, skills and use asspecifically as possible so that all users can refer their objectives to it, the CEFR isthought to be “comprehensive” Since its information is clearly formulaic and

explicit, it is “transparent” And as its description does not contain “internalcontradictions” 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 tomake 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 documentand as a framework For the purpose of the present study, the term CEFR is mainlyused 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 ofcommunicative proficiency in three bands: basic, independent or proficient user viathe “can do” descriptors With these “can do” statements, the CEFR is thought toprovide comprehensive views of what people can do with language and supposed to

be very useful in setting truly communicative, functional goals for learners It isconcluded as being “accessible to learners, […] curriculum designers, textbooksauthors, teachers and examiners” (Little, 2006, p.168)

The horizontal dimension, called the “self-assessment grid” is concernedwith the learner’s communicative language competences and strategies to achievethese competences It enables us to consider how the capacities of the languagelearner, the different aspects of language activity, and the conditions and constraintsimposed 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 ofEurope as an attempt to facilitate co-operation, “achieve greater unity among itsmembers” (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 languageproficiency In other words, it caters for all domains of language learning and is “astraightforward 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 culturalbackgrounds to “facilitate the mutual recognition of qualifications gained indifferent 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 encouragepractitioners’ reflection and discussion and describe diversity in language teachingand 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 encouragespractitioners 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 allEuropeans for the challenges of intensified international mobility and closer co-operation”, “promote mutual understanding and tolerance”, “maintain and furtherdevelop the richness and diversity of European cultural life through greater mutualknowledge”, “meet the needs of a multilingual and multicultural Europe byappreciably developing the ability of Europeans to communicate with each otheracross linguistic and cultural boundaries” (CoE, 2001, p.3) It aims to “promote andfacilitate co-operation among educational institutions in different countries” (CoE,

2001, p.5) and is intended for such uses as the planning of “language learningprograms”, “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 isnot without limitations Firstly, Cambridge acknowledges that the CEFR is a “work inprogress”, 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) Theidea 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 statedclearly in the CEFR document that the framework itself is neither context- norlanguage-specific (CoE, 2001) As it is claimed to be language-independent and makes

no reference to specific languages, the application of the framework to specificlanguages 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 iscomplained 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 CEFRscales 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 givenlevel can complete all the tasks of the levels below it; and (3) learners achieving theoverall skills of a given level possess the same quality in terms of linguistic skills ofthe same level

Finally, due to its non-directive ethos (Little, 2006), the CEFR is criticized torefrain from saying how language should be taught or how communicativeproficiency should be assessed North (2007) is concerned with its “absence ofsocio-cultural aspects” (p.657), which may lead to flaws in its implementations indifferent 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 beensuccessively published, among which is “Using the CEFR: principles of goodpractice” 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 internationalstandard” or “seal of approval” (Cambridge, 2011, p.4) but open to amendment andfurther development (Cambridge, 2011, p.xi); and should be considered aframework 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 mustseriously take into consideration their purposes, contexts, conditions and the likebefore its adaptation or adoption

re-Embedded in the documents are key principles of good practice for not onlyteaching and learning, assessment, but also development and use of reference leveldescriptors For all users, from teachers to administrators, policy-makers and testdevelopers, it can be noticed that the first and above all principle to bear in mind isthe idea of adaptation The principle of “adapting the CEFR to fit the context” ismentioned twice, for both teaching/ learning and assessment Besides, for those whoaim 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” incertain 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, itwas published in English and French, and then was almost immediately translatedinto German (Little, 2006, p.167) At the time of writing, it has been translated intothirty-nine languages (English Profile, n.d.), and its power and enthusiasm for thedocument extends far beyond Europe to Latin America, the Middle East, Australiaand 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 adaptedand adopted the CEFR, especially the six-level scale (commonly known as theglobal scale) as the salient guideline for their language teaching and learningcontext, which resulted in the use of the CEFR to be commonplace in alleducational 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, immigrationauthorities] 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 levelswith 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 languagesaiming at helping learners to familiarize themselves with the six- reference- leveltests (Figueras, 2007; Little, 2007)

free-Outside the European contexts, the CEFR has been observed to have suchmajor influences in language policy planning (Bonnet, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Little,2007; Nguyen & Hamid, 2015; Pham, 2012) that it is called a “supranationallanguage education policy” (Little, 2007, p.645) especially in countries whereEnglish is taught as a foreign language Specifically, Asian countries have witnessedthe implementation of the CEFR in national contexts as an attempt to reform thesystem of language teaching in the country In Japan, a newly-developed frameworkcalled 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 toadopt the CEFR as a language policy to renew the national foreign languageeducation system (Vietnamese government, 2008) Similar impacts have also beenfound 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 thereconstruction of curricula using the CEFR’s descriptive apparatus was scarcedespite its declared purposes of “elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculumguidelines” (CoE, 2001, p.1) However, in contexts where the CEFR as a globalframework is adopted as a local standard in language planning policy, its impact oncurriculum development has been observed to start prevailing In specific, theinfluence of the CEFR on curricula is mainly related to setting desired languagelearning 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 beensparse (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 andofficially launched six years later through Circular No 1 on January 24, 2014 ThisCEFR-based reference framework was stated to be developed “on the basis of theCEFR 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 iscriticized to be merely “a translation of the original CEFR with limitedmodifications and adaptations” (Pham, 2015, p.54) and “still embryonic” (Nguyen

& Hamid, 2015, p 64) Besides, although first introduced in 2008, not until 2014was the Vietnamese version of the CEFR-based framework officially promulgatedand is still subject to more adjustment in the future (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015)

Since 2011, three years after its first introduction in Vietnam, the CEFR hasbeen widely applied in language education from setting teacher professionalismstandards and student learning outcomes to renewing language curriculum, adaptingteaching materials and modifying language assessment practice This has causedgreat concern and worries among not only English language teachers themselvesbut 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 andimplemented by a top-down policy without taking into consideration teachers’ voiceand opinion, English teacher resources, the disparity of English competency betweenteachers 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 officiallypromulgated The CEFR implementation in Vietnam at present is criticized to beoverambitious 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 foreignlanguage policy, MOET has undoubtedly been well aware of the important role offoreign language teachers, which is reflected in the fact that retraining andimproving language competencies for foreign language teachers is considered themajor 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 foreignlanguage teachers and lecturers at all education levels to “standardize [teachers’]training level under regulations” (Vietnamese government, 2008, p.3) Althoughthere have been no official documents stipulating the language proficiencystandards for English teachers, it was implied that the language proficiency ofEnglish teachers must be two levels higher than the required level of the learnersthey are in charge of.

Specifically, primary and secondary English language teachers need to getLevel 4- B2 of the CFER, English language teachers at high schools, continuingeducation centers, vocational schools and universities need to attain Level 5- C1 In

2013, Dispatch No 5201/ BGDĐT- GDĐH notified English language teachersexempted from language proficiency review They include teachers with equivalentinternational certificates, teachers graduated their Bachelor, Master or Doctor in anEnglish-speaking country and senior teachers (over 50-year-old female teachers andover 55-year-old male teachers) (MOET, 2013)

In the end of 2011, Dispatch No 826/ TB-BGDĐT announced the six foreignlanguage institutes of excellence in Vietnam authorized by MOET to be responsiblefor reviewing in-service foreign language teachers’ English proficiency, assessingthe pool of English language teachers and retraining them (MOET, 2011a) Sincethe end of 2011, English language teachers nationwide were tested their Englishproficiency to check if they were eligible for teaching students at a particularproficiency 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 thelanguage proficiency requirement for different school levels Specifically, Level 1- A1

is compulsory for learners after primary education, Level 2- A2 for learners aftersecondary education, and Level 3-B1 for high school leavers and learners of non-English major university students Graduate students of foreign language majors atjunior colleges are required to obtain a Level 4-B2 certificate, whereas those at seniorcolleges 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-wideregardless of the current stakeholders’ real capacity, the differences in infrastructurebetween big cities and remote areas, the local and regional culture varieties andlearners’ 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 thatone of the overall objectives of Project 2020 is to “implement new foreign languageteaching and learning programs at different education levels” with its specifictargets of “a 10-year foreign language teaching program” at general education, “anintensive foreign language training program” in vocational education and tertiaryeducation, and a renewal of foreign language teaching and learning in thecontinuing education program With changes in the training program, the resultantchanges or amendment to its curricula, teaching practice, assessment, etc becomeobvious

Together with a modification in English language curriculum for generaleducation levels, a set of new English textbooks from grade 3 to 12 for generaleducation have been published and piloted since 2010- 2011 school year and will beapplied on large scales from 2018-2019 school year (Vietnamese government, 2008,p.1) As for foreign language training programs for non-foreign language majors attertiary education, the shift from school-year based to credit-based training atuniversities approved by MOET since 2007 has reduced the total number of on-sitehours of the whole university program for all disciplines The number of teacher-ledhours of foreign (English) language subject has thus been shortened to 105 periods,

or 7 credits on-site (Pham, 2015) Beside this compulsory seven-credit foreignlanguage (mainly English) subject, it is encouraged that students take optionalintensive English training subject to help them achieve the required learningoutcomes (MOET, 2014c)

Unlike general education, however, there have not been any regulations byMOET about textbooks for university students Based on the learning outcomes set

by MOET, state-run universities develop the curriculum and select the textbooks fortheir non-English major students Nonetheless, since it is hard to find an availabletextbook 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 andhave 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 thehome university) and its implementation, the duty of textbook adaptation andmaterial development belongs to general English teachers, the direct practitionerswho clearly know all the issues of contextualization, individual needs,personalization and timeliness (Block, 1991; Tomlinson, 2005) The success orfailure of material development can be said to be dependent on general Englishteachers, their understanding of the CEFR or the six-level framework and theirwillingness to create such changes or adaptations

In short, since its first commercial publication in 2001, the CEFR has caughtworld-wide interest and applications of the CEFR have been found in differentdomains for different purposes in various countries Despite its attempt to becomprehensive, its descriptions are claimed to be never exhaustive nor total(Cambridge, 2011; Little, 2006) Besides, its comprehensiveness also poses achallenge to language education across countries, whose adaptation andimplementation require cautions and careful consideration

Applying the CEFR into English education is both a language policy foreducation innovation (Freeman, 2016) and classroom grass-root intervention as itsteps in different major areas in language teaching from curriculum to teachingmaterials to assessment and teacher education As such the implementation of theCEFR into a specific education can be considered as change For profoundunderstanding of the perceptions of responses to this change of the stakeholders,especially teachers involved in this change process, we need to have insights intoeducational change management in the areas in which the CEFR intervenes The

following section then presents the theoretical framework on how educationalchange should be implemented Whenever relevant, references to theimplementation 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 becomeaware of something through the senses It is a way of regarding, understanding, andinterpreting something (a mental impression) More specifically, perception refers tothe process “whereby people select, organize, and interpret sensory stimulations intomeaningful 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 ameaningful experience of the world” (Lindsay & Norman, 2013, p.161) In brief,perception refers to a person’s interpretation and understanding about thesurrounding environment

Together with the development in cognitive psychology, mainstreameducational research has witnessed a shift in language teaching studies from “whatteachers do” to “what teachers think” since 1970s (Borg, 2003, p.81) because it wasrecognized that teachers’ behavior and action could be influenced by their thinkingand 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 teacherpsychological 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 meaningand can be used interchangeably (Kagan, 1992; Mansour, 2009; Nespor, 1987;Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Tomchin & Impara, 1992) Meanwhile, whatteachers 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 theformer is subjective, emotional but stable and non-flexible, the latter is moreobjective, 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 andunderstanding of its importance and necessity and their perceptions of itsapplication 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 ofoperant conditioning of Skinner (1904-1990), one of the most influential Americanpsychologists His theory is based upon the idea that learning is a function of change

in overt behavior, which is the result of an individual's response to stimuli that occur

in the environment When a particular Stimulus-Response

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

Specifically, Brink (2008) defines that when an organism (a person) perceives astimulus, s/he creates a response It is what a person thinks, feels or does to thestimuli (p.7) In other words, a response is a broad term consisting of not onlybehavioral component (predisposition to act) but also cognitive component (beliefs)and affective component (emotions, feeling), which overlaps with the notionsrelated to cognition, perceptions and attitudes To avoid confusing and overlapping,for the present study, the concept of teachers’ responses mainly focuses on thebehavioral component Teachers’ responses are thus similar to teachers’ practices,which can be understood as what teachers do (Borg, 2003) and can be categorizedinto two main areas: the instructional strategies teachers use in the classroom andthe collaboration, cooperation and teamwork with peers and colleagues outside theclassroom (Isac, da Costa, Araujo, Calvo & Albergaria-Almeida, 2015).

For the purpose of the present study, teachers’ responses are defined asteachers’ actions or behavior to foster the CEFR implementation, reflected in whatthey do in the process of developing teaching materials, modifying their teachingactivities 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 thecomplexity in relationship between what people do and what they think In languageteaching, 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 aboutclassroom instruction in light of theoretical beliefs they hold about teaching andlearning 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; andteachers are not mechanical implementers of external prescriptions, but active,