Niềm tin của sinh viên không chuyên tiếng anh về chuẩn hóa năng lực ngoại ngữ tiếng anh

CEFR-V standards/ Vietnam national standards on foreign language proficiency framework...28 2.5.4.. LIST OF FIGURESFigure 2.1: SBE framework - external accountability...13 Figure 3.1: Re

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

*********************

NGUYỄN DIỆU LINH

NON-ENGLISH MAJOR UNDERGRADUATES’ BELIEFS ABOUT ENGLISH PROFICIENCY STANDARDIZATION

(Niềm tin của sinh viên không chuyên Tiếng Anh

về chuẩn hóa năng lực ngoại ngữ Tiếng Anh)

M.A MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01

HANOI – 2018

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

*********************

NGUYỄN DIỆU LINH

NON-ENGLISH MAJOR UNDERGRADUATES’ BELIEFS ABOUT ENGLISH PROFICIENCY STANDARDIZATION

(Niềm tin của sinh viên không chuyên Tiếng Anh

về chuẩn hóa năng lực ngoại ngữ Tiếng Anh)

M.A MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Lê Văn Canh

HANOI – 2018DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Non-English major undergraduates’ beliefs about English proficiency standardization” is entirely

my own research work and has not been taken from the work of others save and tothe extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of mywork

Hanoi, 2018

Nguyễn Diệu Linh

I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Associate Professor LeVan Canh, my supervisor, for his valuable guidance, professional advice andconstant encouragement he gave me throughout the whole process of my research

He gave me many constructive suggestions and enthusiastic instructions whenever Iencountered any difficult concepts or any challenges about my research Withouthis keen supports, this study could not have been fulfilled I am thankful for havinghim as my supervisor His academic expertise as well as his incredible criticalthinking will certainly be a great source of inspiration for my future academiccareer

I also wish to extend my sincere thanks to my colleagues at Faculty ofEnglish, Hanoi National University of Education who were willing to give megenerous assistance and to all 122 undergraduate students who participated in thesurvey for this research project Without their passionate participation andcooperation, the survey could not have been successfully conducted

Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my dearest parents,

my wonderful partner, and my best friends Throughout my years of study andthrough the process of researching and writing this thesis, I sometimes feltdisheartened and depressed, but their boundless love and continuous encouragementhelped me quickly eliminate those negative emotions and motivated me to keepmaking progress This accomplishment would not have been possible without them

The recent foreign language education policy in Vietnam regarding Englishproficiency standardization has led to heated debates from all stakeholders about itseffectiveness and appropriateness since its first launch in 2014 However, there hasbeen lack of empirical research into beliefs and understandings of students, who aremost affected by the policies, about the English standards for graduation The studywas thus conducted in an attempt to bridge this gap in the literature The aim of theresearch was to examine undergraduates’ understandings and judgements on thecurrent education policies of standardization of English proficiency to universitystudents in Vietnam A survey using questionnaires was carried out with theparticipation of 122 university undergraduates The data collected from thestudents’ responses were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively

Results from the questionnaire data revealed students’ great confidence intheir possibility of achieving the university outcome standards They were alsofound to possess sufficiently positive beliefs and strong approval to the requiredEnglish proficiency level and the process of standardizing English proficiency inVietnam However, English proficiency standardization is still problematic Besidesvarious beneficial facets of the CEFR-V implementation, this study raised somecritical problems and challenges that policymakers and language teachers need toface with and overcome to improve students’ performances, and more importantly,

to make the English proficiency policy more practical and suitable Through thefindings, the indispensable role of teachers as an assistant, a companion of thestudents in their language learning journey was also highlighted Finally, somesuggested solutions and implications were made to inform policymakers, educatorsand teachers of necessary changes to better the foreign language policy andmaximize students’ learning performances

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENT iv

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Aims of the study 2

1.3 Research questions 3

1.4 Scope of the study 3

1.5 Significance of the study 3

1.6 Organization of the thesis 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Language proficiency 5

2.1.1 Definition of language proficiency 5

2.1.2 Types and levels of proficiency 7

2.2 Standards-based education and language proficiency standardization 9

2.2.1 Standards-based education 9

2.2.2 Language proficiency standardization 16

2.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 17

2.4 Beliefs 20

2.4.1 Definition 20

2.4.2 Significance of learners’ beliefs in language learning 22

2.5 Context of the study 25

2.5.1 English language teaching and learning in Vietnam 25

2.5.2 The National Foreign Language 2020 Project (Project 2020) 27

2.5.3 CEFR-V standards/ Vietnam national standards on foreign language proficiency framework 28

2.5.4 Mandated outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 30

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 32

3.1 Research site 32

3.2 Participants 34

3.2.1 Sampling 34

3.2.2 Background information of the questionnaire participants 35

3.3 Data collection instruments 37

3.4 Data collection procedures 39

3.5 Data analysis 40

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 42

4.1 Undergraduate students’ beliefs about English proficiency standardization 42

4.1.1 Students’ explanations for agreeing with the English proficiency standardization 43

4.1.2 Students’ explanations for disagreeing with the English proficiency standardization 46

4.2 Undergraduate students’ understandings about the CEFR-V 49

4.2.1 Students’ self-evaluation of their understandings toward the CEFR-V 49

4.2.2 Students’ understandings about the purposes of the CEFR-V 50

4.2.3 Students’ usage of the CEFR-V 51

4.2.4 Students’ recognition of level three (B1) in the CEFR-V 55

4.3 Undergraduate students’ beliefs about the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 57

4.3.1 Undergraduate students’ level of approval of the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 58

4.3.2 Undergraduate students’ beliefs about the achievement of the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 60

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 69

5.1 Conclusion 69

5.2 Implications 70

5.3 Limitations of the study 72

5.4 Further research suggestions 73

REFERENCES 74 APPENDIXES I APPENDIX 1: CEFR – Global scale I APPENDIX 2: Student questionnaire III

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: The 6 levels of the CEFR-V 29

Table 4.1: Students’ self-evaluation of their understandings to the CEFR-V 50

Table 4.2: Students’ understandings about the purposes of the CEFR-V 51

Table 4.3: Students’ usage of the CEFR-V 51

Table 4.4: Results of students’ level of approval of the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 59

Table 4.5: Students’ beliefs about the achievement of the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 62

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: SBE framework - external accountability 13

Figure 3.1: Result of sample size calculator 35

Figure 3.2: Participants’ gender 36

Figure 3.3: Participants’ purposes of using English after graduation 37

Figure 4.1: Students’ beliefs about language proficiency standardization 42

Figure 4.2: Students’ main explanations for agreeing with the foreign language standardization 43

Figure 4.3: Students’ reasons for using the CEFR-V 52

Figure 4.4: Students’ reasons for not using the CEFR-V 54

Figure 4.5: Students’ recognition of B1 level to the CEFR-V 56

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

HNUE Hanoi National University of Education

SBE Standards-based Education

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CEFR-V Vietnam national standards on foreign language proficiency frameworkMOET Ministry of Education and Training

IELTS the International English Testing System

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

English has been undoubtedly the most widely-used language in the world

As a result, English has become a core requirement of for employment, especiallytransnational incorporations Also, it is believed to be a passport to better future life

to many individuals

Unsurprisingly, recent years have witnessed significant educational reformswhose focus is on developing and increasing the foreign language and especiallyEnglish proficiency of students so that they can confidently and effectively engageand participate in the international labor market Vietnam is not an exception

Since 1986, English has been expanded rapidly within Vietnam It becomesthe most popular foreign language and also plays a special role in various fields,especially in employment and education The spread of English in Vietnam is sostrong that people tend to regard its appearance as a common thing On the streetsfrom either urban or rural cities, it is not unusual to come across numerous signs orpaintings in shops, restaurants, clothing haul, entertainment spots, transport, etc are

in English, or at least, have an English word in them English is also a gatekeepingtool for job promotions, a pay rise or an opportunity to get a training course abroad

In 2008, Vietnam started its ambitious project to increase foreign languageproficiency among its people It was called The National Foreign Language 2020Project (Project 2020) Its initial aim was ‘to renovate the teaching and learning offoreign languages within the national education system’ (Socialist Republic ofVietnam, 2008) It is expected that by 2020, most Vietnamese students graduating

from secondary and vocational schools, colleges, and universities can use a foreignlanguage in their daily communication.

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) was adopted formeasuring and assessing language proficiency In an attempt to localize the CEFR,Vietnam develops a six-level of proficiency, which is called Vietnamese CommonEuropean Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR-V) Many universities inVietnam have implemented it as a supporting tool to direct their curricula, practices

in teaching and learning, and evaluation Gradually, it has been standardized andhas been utilized to set an outcome standard of English proficiency for tertiarystudents in Vietnam According to the new policy, university students in Vietnamare expected to achieve level 3 in CEFR-V in order to graduate Theappropriateness and reasonableness of this decision, however, are still matters fordebate

Although there is a great deal of research studying the perspectives ofteachers and students about the effectiveness and impacts of the CEFR-V (thestandards) on various aspects of teaching and learning, there is insufficient qualifiedresearch investigating process of English standardization through the use of CEFR-

V as an outcome standard and its practicability, especially those focusing onattitudes of the students who are experiencing the pressure of achieving certain level

of English according to the framework With the significant paradigm shift inpedagogy from teacher-centeredness to learner-centeredness, students nowadays areregarded as the most important stakeholder in education Therefore, it is utterlycrucial that every educational innovation or policy listens to students’ voices, totheir wills and beliefs so as to gain better alignment with the current approach ineducation

All these conditions henceforth offered the researchers a chance to conduct astudy investigating further into the undergraduate students’ beliefs about theEnglish proficiency standardization

1.2 Aims of the study

This study attempted to investigate students’ understandings of theVietnamese version of the CEFR proficiency standards, in terms of its objectivesand the contents of each level More importantly, this study was aimed to provided

an account of the students’ opinions about the English proficiency standardizationfor Vietnamese university students

(2) How do they understand the CEFR-V and the proficiency standards defined inthe CEFR-V?

(3) What are their opinions about the English proficiency standards to CEFR-V forthe tertiary level? Why do they believe that way?

1.4 Scope of the study

The study limits itself to the investigation of the opinions and understandings

of a group of university students who were learning English as a compulsory courseregarding the policy of standardization of English proficiency to Vietnameseuniversity undergraduates

1.5 Significance of the study

Students are important stakeholders in educational innovation In case of newrequirements of English proficiency, the students are the ones who are mostinfluenced by the policy Without understanding their opinions and attitudes as well

as concerns, the innovation is unlikely to achieve its goals Although the policy ofEnglish standardization has been implemented in Vietnam for years, there is stilllittle empirical information about the university undergraduates’ opinions of therequired English proficiency standards Therefore, the findings from this study caninform policy makers and language teachers of relevant changes to make theEnglish proficiency requirements more realistic

1.6 Organization of the thesis

The thesis is composed of five following chapters:

Chapter 2 – Literature review – provides the theoretical background of the study inregard of language proficiency, standards-based education, the CEFR and students’beliefs

Chapter 3 – Methodology – shows a detailed description of the method applied,subject selection, data collection and analysis

Chapter 4 – Findings and discussion – reports and examines the main findingsaccording to the research questions

Chapter 5 – Conclusion – summarizes major findings, limitations of the study andsuggestions for further research

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a thorough description and discussion over major concepts related to the study including language proficiency, standards-based education, foreign language proficiency standardization and beliefs Besides, a detailed review of the current Vietnam educational context that is directly related to the study are also included.

2.1 Language proficiency

2.1.1 Definition of language proficiency

The term ‘language proficiency’ is far from novelty to foreign languageeducators, researchers and learners through the universal widespread of a largerange of language proficiency tests such as the Cambridge English: ProficiencyExam (CPE), the International English Testing System (IELTS), the Test of English

as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Test of English for InternationalCommunication (TOEIC) and also because achieving ‘proficiency’ is generallyconsidered to be the goal of foreign language teaching and learning, as is argued byStern (1991) Nevertheless, there is still no clear consensus about the definition oflanguage proficiency among the researchers or the professionals in the languageteaching field

One of the fundamental sources of the disagreement among educators andlanguage education professors over the concept of language proficiency is lying in

its complex and multidimensional conceptualization Several researchers believethat language proficiency refers to the degree of skill and ability of learners to use alanguage For instance, Briere (1972) defines language proficiency as “the degree ofcompetence or the capability in a given language demonstrated by an individual at agiven point in time independent of specific textbook, chapter in book, orpedagogical method” (p 322) In addition, Richards, Platt and Platt (1992) statedthat proficiency refers to the degree of skills such as listening, reading, writing andspeaking, with which a person can use a language However, those definitions arelikely to be indeterminate and not informative enough Further explanation andclarification about which components are included in learners’ competence orcapability, or in what context learners using language are regarded as beingproficient should be added The similar issue can be found in Brumfit’s definition oflanguage proficiency (1984), in which proficiency is "the maximally effectiveoperation of the language system so far acquired by the student" (p 543) Underanalysis, this definition is reasonable and comprehensive when it highlights thestudent’s full ability to use different language components effectively but it is stillrather vague as it fails to clarify what are included in the ‘language system’

One widely adopted classification of proficiency initiated during the 1960s isthe 'four skills' classification, i.e listening, speaking, reading and writing (Stern,1991) To another group of researchers, being proficient in language would be equal

to mastering linguistic knowledge such as phonology, vocabulary and grammar(Stern, 1997) However, until around 1970, the components of proficiency areevaluated in a more comprehensive way, which focus on actual languageperformance rather than just merely language knowledge It is worth mentioning theinfluential Communicative Competence Model developed by Canale and Swain(1990) This model determined two components of communicative competence,which are knowledge (both conscious and unconscious) and the skills to use thisknowledge in actual communication Five constituents of communicative

competence in this model are grammatical (ability to create grammatically correct

utterances), sociolinguistic (ability to produce sociolinguistically appropriate utterances), discourse (ability to produce coherent and cohesive utterances), and

strategic (ability to solve communication problems as they arise) While this model

was developed to measure learners’ communicative competence not proficiencyitself, the model was used widely as an instrument to assess learners’ proficiency inEnglish This problem has been raised by scholars For example, Clark (1975)claimed that language proficiency is the use of language for real-life purposes,which do not concentrate on the process of learning and acquiring language.Richards (1978) argued that the definition of proficiency, apart from those basiclexical and grammatical rules, also bears semantic, discourse, and context elements.Unlike scholars who focused on discrete components, Carter and Nunan (2001)defined proficiency more generally as the ability to apply the second language forcommunicative purposes Despite these developments, ‘proficiency’ remains to be

an abstract construct

Nevertheless, in an attempt to address the limitations of Canale and Swain’s(1980) model, Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) reconceptualized the construct ofcommunicative ability A major achievement of this model over other previous onesseems to be its emphasis on the ‘intertwinedness of pragmatic, textual, strategic, andgrammatical competences and their mutual dependence on context, persons, andpurpose’ (Harsh, 2017, p.251) According to this reconceptualization, learners orusers of languages are proficient when they are able to not only show their greatcommunicative competencies but also apply those competencies purposefully andappropriately to different situations

According to Harsh (2017), the concept of proficiency involves two mainaspects, namely ‘knowing how’, which means the ability to perform a language, and

‘knowing what’, which refers to the understanding about the language Accordingly,language proficiency encompasses a language learner’s or user’s communicativeabilities, knowledge systems, and skills This is translated in the ‘can do’ statements

in the CEFR, according to which proficiency refers to ‘what someone can do/knows

in relation to the application of the subject in the real world’ (p.183)

2.1.2 Types and levels of proficiency

In response to real-life situations, according to Cummins (1979), languageproficiency can be divided into two main types, which are Basic InterpersonalCommunication Skills (BICS) and Communicative Academic Language Proficiency(CALP) The former refers to the ability to communicate and interact effectively innormal social situations, while the latter is about the academic skills and knowledge

to solve scholarly tasks and perform successfully in academic contexts such asformal schooling or educational institution One of the most globally well-knownand reliable proficiency test called IELTS also follows this classification as it isdeveloped into two versions to test two different types of proficiency: the IELTSGeneral Training and the IELTS Academic exam

Another debated issue concerns whether language proficiency is unitary ordivisible The debate was initiated by Oller’s (1979) claiming that proficiency isindivisible which means its levels are applied across all skills equally However,this claim was refuted by, for example, Palmer and Bachman (1981), who regardedproficiency as a divisible concept which could be broken down into smaller parts,such as different skills (for example speaking or writing) and different aspects ofcompetence (for example pragmatic or linguistic competences) Current syllabusand curriculum designs tend to follow the latter way of perceiving proficiency

In response to the level of language proficiency, a vast number ofclassifications are available Stern (1991), for example, introduces five languageproficiency levels ranging from zero to native-like proficiency, including (1)elementary proficiency; (2) limited working proficiency (3); minimum professionalproficiency; (4) full professional proficiency: and (5) native or bilingualproficiency Vossoughi and Javaherian (2000), on the other hand, presented theguidelines describing four proficiency levels of language learners as novice,intermediate, advanced, and superior Nowadays, a relatively complex and

multidimensional conceptualization of language proficiency which acknowledgesthat there are different communicative skills, communicative strategies, and avariety of linguistic competences (for example vocabulary, grammar, socio-pragmatic) has been widely accepted This complex conceptualization isrepresented in one of the most influential frameworks for language teaching,learning, and assessment, the Common European Framework of Reference forLanguages (CEFR) (Council of Europe) Further information about this frameworkwill be provided in details later in the thesis.

2.2 Standards-based education and language proficiency standardization

2.2.1 Standards-based education

Over the last decades, tireless efforts have been made by constantlyexperimenting, researching and innovating a great number of approaches andmethods so as for the improvement of the quality of schools and education.Standards-based education (SBE) is a model of education and an educationalphilosophy which has achieved growing popularity and success and has beenadopted by various schools and educational systems around the world There are afew of the other common synonyms of standards-based education includingoutcomes-based, or proficiency-based education, instruction, or learning, but in thisthesis, the term standards-based education will be mainly used

2.2.1.1 Definition of standards-based education

It is certainly of necessity to get a solid grasp of the meanings underneath theterm Standards-based education There is considerable confusion regarding thedefinition of SBE and the existence of its various versions which results fromdifferent ways of implementation and adaptation to the model However, onestraightforward but comprehensive definition of SBE was stated in Willis andKissane (1995) in which they indicate that the fundamental features of standards-based education center around the word ‘based’

Firstly, SBE can be understood as an educational process that is based onstudents’ achievement of certain learning standards as they progress through theireducation Learning standards are clear learning results, bodies of knowledge andskills that students are expected to master and perform at the end of a learningperiod After having decided on the expected capabilities or qualities that studentswill be able to do or to understand, other aspects of an educational process includingcurriculum and syllabus design, material development, teaching methods, teachinginstructions as well as assessment all need designing to make sure that studentsultimately gain those expected standards Basically, SBE ‘means clearly focusingand organizing everything in an education system around what is essential for allstudents to be able to do successfully at the end of their learning experiences’(Spady, 1994, p.12) Secondly, SBE also implies that the learning progress of eachindividual student and the effectiveness of a course, a school system or aneducational policy are assessed and evaluated basing on the extent to which studentsactually achieve the standards

One of the leading advocates of SBE, Spady William, criticized thetraditional education system as being time-based and has regarded SBE as aparadigm in education According to Spady (1994), in SBE, ‘WHAT andWHETHER students learn successfully is more important than WHEN and HOWthey learn something’ (p.19) By mentioning this, the author contents that teachersand educators in traditional schools may want students to learn different contents orskills, but they just typically allocate a certain amount of time in the schedule to letstudents study a topic and then move on without paying any serious attention towhether their students have really mastered it or not In contrast, SBE maintains itsfocuses on clearly-defined performance expectations for students and ensures thatstudents can ultimately increase their performance abilities to the highest possiblelevel before graduation Besides this fundamental premise There are some otherkey principles laying the foundation for SBE

2.2.1.2 Basic principles of standards-based education

Spady (1994) compared the four organizing principles are like the heart ofSBE which will guide the actions and decisions of SBE practitioners The shorthandform of those principles are known as clarity of focus, expanded opportunity, highexpectations and design down These principles are summarized as follows

a) Clarity of focus is the most important and fundamental among the four.This principle emphasizes that a clear picture of the desired standards has to beestablished and that all teaching and learning activities must systematically alignwith the broad and specific outcomes identified for the educational program.Besides, the standards and outcomes must be clearly identified for students Theseoutcomes need to be introduced, explained and modeled to students since the firstday so that students can fully aware of their learning goals and can work togetherwith their teachers to achieve them

b) Expanded opportunity presents one of the required conditions forsuccessful SBE, in which teachers and schools must provide students more chances

to allow for achievements of standards in a variety of ways Spady (1994) suggestedfive dimensions of opportunity which can significantly help maximize students’chances for success, namely time, methods, modalities, operational principles,performance standards, and curriculum access and structuring This principle isdeveloped from the previous view about learners differences that different learnersmay take different routes, and different amounts of time or different numbers ofattempts, to achieve the same outcome As a result, SBE allows students toexperience different ways of learning, trials and failures until they can grasp themost suitable way to help them achieve the learning standards

c) High expectations are needed for all students Spady (1994) explained that

“High expectation implies a desire to have students perform at higher levels, andworking with them to increase the likelihood that it happens” (p.28) Therefore, thisprinciple requires teachers to constantly raise the level of challenge of their teachingcontent as well as the learning standard so as to generate students’ higher level of

motivation to strive for success With this principle, there is a greater chance thatstudents’ level can even exceed the expected outcomes Additionally, the principlehighlights that there is no limit number of students who can meet the learningrequirements This idea is a complete contradiction to the bell-curve or quotagrading systems of some previous models of education.

d) A backward syllabus design provides a clear path for students to followand achieve the learning standards It means that the curriculum and syllabus havebeen developed in a consistent and systematic manner It may start from the broadstandards to more specific one, and then narrows down to class lesson activities Inthis way, the program of study for a student within and across year levels wouldhave a smooth connection to curriculum goals

The four above principles form the firm basis for SBE However, theyare quite flexible in application There is no one single fixed way to implementthese principles to achieve SBE’s purposes In other words, this also means thatthere can be several models of SBE In fact, plenty of different versions of SBEimplementation are available and their reviews will be presented in thefollowing part

2.2.1.3 Different frameworks of SBE and external accountability

Since SBE is more of a philosophy than a fix sequence of practices, there arevarious ways that SBE theory and principles can be implemented In fact, eachcountry, state, district and school may opt for different forms of SBE However,according to Spady (1994), all of those forms can be grouped based on theirparticular patterns and then classified into four major frameworks or ‘configurations

of practice’ (p.79) He named them classroom reform, program alignment, externalaccountability, and system transformation This classification is ranged from thesmallest unit of implementation - reform inside the classroom to the mostcomprehensive version of SBE - system transformation which requires the wholeeducational system to transform to meet all principles of SBE Each of the fourframeworks has its own characteristics, strengths as well as weaknesses, which

would be difficult to be discussed thoroughly within the limited scope of this thesis.Therefore, the author will only make more assiduous efforts on reviewing the thirdframework - external accountability owing to its similar features to the Vietnameseversion of SBE implementation

Figure 2.1: SBE framework - external accountability (Spady, 1994)

As suggested by the diagram, this version of SBE is the combination of threeelements illustrated by three triangles The smallest triangle represents theimplementation of SBE within classrooms and the bigger triangle on the rightrevealed a greater scope of implementation in which instructions in classrooms arealigning with the curriculum Finally, the third triangle on the left represents theunderlying ideology of this version of SBE - external accountability which meansthe involvement the requirements from authorities for better results and clearerevidence of students’ actual learning from the system These requirements wouldeasily influence performance standards, graduation requirements, the credentialing

of student learning and achievement, and the accreditation of schools Basically, thecore of this SBE framework is that it is the policy-makers or authorities who makedecisions on what standards should be and these standards define what students

must achieve to graduate from school and what schools have to act to assurecontinued authorization

Among the four frameworks mentioned earlier, this framework is the mostcontroversial because, besides several advantages, it also possesses a wide range ofshortcomings In what follows, both the strengths and limitations of this SBEframework are discussed

2.2.1.4 Benefits and drawbacks of SBE

Since SBE approach has been widely adopted as an illustration of reformefforts in several education systems around the world, its benefits and practicalityare undeniable

One of the greatest benefits of SBE is that, compared to traditional educationmodels, it offers more coherent and holistic education frameworks whose desiredlearning outcomes or standards are more specific and focused SBE is a design-down approach In other words, there is a thread that runs from collecting needs toset an aim (standard) for the programme, goals for syllabus themes, then selectingcontent and materials, and finally assessing the learning outcomes in terms of theset learning objectives Learning objectives are described in terms of Bloom's(1956) cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains and set according to whatlearners can actually do to achieve the standard Therefore, not only can bothteachers and students understand clearly which exact goals they need to reach, butthey can also evaluate how well they are doing by looking at their progress towardsstandards Moreover, the holistic design of SBE programs can ensure continuousdevelopments in learners’ capabilities from a low level to a higher one Attaininglearning objectives is therefore not an end in itself; it provides building blocks forachieving higher-level standard (Malan, 2000)

Another benefit of SBE model is related to external accountability With thestandards being published, everyone can see what the schools are aiming to teachand what students must learn Therefore, it would be easier for supervising andevaluating school quality in teaching and learning This, in turn, leads to the fact

that schools and teachers become more aware of their responsibility and might takestudents’ learning more seriously Some research (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; Raymond

& Hanushek, 2003; Hanushek & Raymond, 2005) have found positive connectionsbetween strong accountability policies and increase in student achievement,although such improvements have not been as significant as had been expected

Even though SBE have proved some exceptional merits, this educationmodel has been suffered from some major drawbacks Firstly, critics worry thataccountability pressures may lead to increased use of test results to redirectinstructional efforts, extensive test preparation practices, and increasing use ofstandardized and benchmark tests administered periodically to monitor progresstoward mastery of standards In reality, the implementation of standards hasfrequently resulted in a policy of test-based accountability, whereby test items oftenbecome ways to measure the standards Some people argued that this may affectteachers’ instruction that focuses too intensively on ‘teaching the tests’ and rotelearning rather than on more creative, critical and individualized education.Learners of English who are under pressure of reaching a standard level, forinstance, may only concentrate on learning test-taking skills and doing differentproficiency tests rather than practicing and appreciating English in use

Secondly, people criticized that SBE may cause inaccurate and unfair testingand assessment Spady (1994) protested that some administrators have beendisillusioned with the apparent lack of accuracy, validity, and reliability of teachergrades and with what serve as valid indicators of educational quality In otherwords, many misunderstand that having students achieve high results instandardized tests is equal to possessing high-quality education More seriously, thisdisbelief would even trigger immoral and dishonest behaviors such as cheating andadjusting students’ results

Thirdly, SBE and accountability have been harshly criticized for advocating

a “one size fits all” education (Soto, 2007) The idea that students are accountablefor achieving at least a defined minimum conditions for graduation is lack of

differentiation, individuality and fairness It is completely unrealistic to set astandard that can suit every student of different needs, interests, regions, andconditions Therefore, standards are frequently put under criticism for showing biastowards a specific group of students who are usually more dominant in power

Standards typically reward those children who hail from homes whose norms, values, and background knowledge are most closely aligned with those in power; conversely, standards punish those from differing backgrounds, such as those in linguistically, culturally, and economically diverse homes (Soto, 2007, p.420)

It has been believed that if SBE is properly done, it can open more doors forequity in which all learners are able to achieve the standards, not just middle-class

or fortunate ones However, in reality, standards-based reforms have not yet beenimplemented in a way that adequately reflects original intentions Educationadministrators tend to impose standards without offering sufficient support to make

it possible for standards to be met, especially in the poor and unfortunate regions.Hence, SBE is sound in its theory but seems unrealistic and overambitious when itcomes to reality

2.2.2 Language proficiency standardization

As aforementioned, standards are public statements about what studentsshould know and be able to do at the end of the unit or term Outcome standards orexit standards are used to specifically refer to a defined set of requirements studentsare expected to achieve to graduate In foreign language teaching, the term

‘language proficiency standards’ means the minimum level of language proficiencystudents are required to achieve to be considered qualified enough for a certainqualification

People tend to be confused between the term ‘standards’ and

‘standardization’ Some even believe that these two terms are the same, but they aredifferent ‘Standardization’, according to the Cambridge Online Dictionary, isdefined as ‘the process of making things of the same type have the same basic

features’ In other words, standardization is the process of implementing andimposing standards, making things as close to the standards as possible.Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify that standards do not always necessarily goalong with standardization because, in fact, there have been several standards thatare not standardized There are published sets of national standards, and some citiesand local communities can also create their own Therefore, the term ‘languageproficiency standardization’ can be understood as the process of imposing languageproficiency standards to language learners and language users of a nation or acertain area

2.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

The “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)was officially published in 2001 by Council of Europe, after many years ofresearching, developing, modifying and supplementing by a group of internationalexperts It is a reference tool which forms a solid starting point for the development

of language syllabuses, curriculum guideline, assessment forms and textbooks inEuropean countries According to Council of Europe (2001), the CEFR is developed

in order to “promote and facilitate cooperation among educational institutions indifferent countries; provide a sound basis for mutual recognition of languagequalifications; [and] assist learners, teachers, course designers, examining bodiesand educational administrators to situate and coordinate their efforts” (p.5) It wants

to develop a standardized, reliable and language-neutral description of languagelevels which are shared among people of different countries and can be applied toany foreign languages

This framework includes a descriptive scheme covering different types ofgeneral competencies (knowledge, skills, existential competence, and ability tolearn), communicative language competences (linguistic, pragmatic, socio-linguistic, and sociocultural), language activities (reception, production, interaction,and mediation) and domains of language use (public, personal, educational andoccupational domain) Additionally, it also comprises a set of common reference

levels which classify proficiency into three broad levels of basic user (A1 =Breakthrough; A2 = Waystage); independent user (B1 = Threshold; B2 = Vantage);and proficient user (C1 = Effective Operational Proficiency; C2 = Mastery).

The fundamental approach adopted in the CEFR is an action-orientedapproach in which users and learners of language are viewed as ‘social agents’ whoare members of a society and have to perform different tasks in a specific situationand environment (Council of Europe, 2001, p.9) Therefore, the reference levels inthe framework are defined primarily in what the learners or users of language ‘cando’ in different stages of their learning rather than the specific linguistic knowledgerequired for the language The global scale of Common Reference Levels whichprovides general and holistic descriptions of each level of proficiency is included inAppendix A This scale is recommended by Council of Europe (2001) to non-specialist users and especially to teachers and curriculum planners who want astarting point in understanding the framework

Additionally, the CEFR also develops 54 other scales which provideillustrative descriptions of what learners can do across various sub-skills andspecific areas of competence: the five language skills (spoken interaction, spokenproduction, listening, reading and writing), communication strategies (e.g turn-taking, asking for clarification, planning), working with text (e.g note taking,processing text) and communicative language competence (e.g phonologicalcontrol, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary range) Therefore, it would be highlyefficient and convenient for language learners to understand clearly therequirements of different aspects of learning English and then decide what should

be improved by comparing their expected levels to their current ones In the CEFR,speaking skill is broken into two types, namely spoken interaction and spokenproduction, which shows the careful consideration about both learners’ ability toproduce language independently and to effectively communicate with others inconversations or discussion

It is undeniable that the CEFR has made significant influences on Europeaneducation systems and its impact has even spread beyond the borders of Europe toAsia and Latin America It has been translated to 38 languages since its publication

in 2001, according to the Cambridge University Press’s Introductory Guide to theCEFR for English Language Teacher (2013) Additionally, this framework hasaffected various aspects of language education such as curricula, syllabuses,textbooks, teacher training courses, and examination (Anderson, 2007).Nevertheless, its effects on testing appear to be the most apparent compared tocurriculum design and pedagogy (Little, 2007) After the 6-level scales of the CEFRappeared, there were several language tests developed on the basis of theproficiency descriptors of the CEFR, such as tests of the Association of LanguageTesters in Europe or those of the DIALANG project funded by the EU When itcomes to the impact of the CEFR’s descriptive scheme on curricula and curriculumdesign, Little (2007) classified into two main ways of using the CEFR The firstway is that policy-makers might use the common reference levels to set standardsfor teachers and language users For example, by the end of compulsory education,France students are expected to achieve B1 in their first foreign language Theother way is that the descriptive scheme is used to identify the needs of a specificgroup of learner so that appropriate curriculum and pedagogical methods can bedeveloped The illustrations of the second way would be a curriculum for adultrefugee immigrants to Ireland (little, Simpson, & O’Connor, 2002), or a curriculumfor learners of English as a second language in Irish primary schools (Little, 2005;Little & Simpson, 2004) The educational policy in Vietnam on foreign languageteaching and learning tends to follow the former way in which standards andexpected outcomes for teachers and graduated students are established inaccordance with the CEFR

Despite its undeniable influences on foreign language education around theworld, concurrently, the CEFR also poses several potential challenges There arethree future problems mentioned in Little (2007) The first one derives from the fact

that the levels in the CEFR intend to address the proficiency of second language(L2) learners rather than that of first language (L1) learners Therefore, not every

‘can do’ descriptor in the framework can be applied to L1 proficiency Regardingthe second issue, it is claimed that the CEFR’s scales are difficult to adapt to theneeds of younger language learners, especially the higher levels of proficiency fromB2 to C1 and C2 This is because such high levels require higher degrees ofcognitive thinking which would be beyond the cognitive capacity of children andeven many adolescents The third challenge is the lack of empirical research toprove the validity or the positive impact on teaching and learning This view isadvocated by some other scholars such as Alderson (2007), Hulstijn (2007)

Although it is clearly emphasized at the beginning of the CEFR (Council ofEurope, 2001) that its purpose is to provide a framework for practitioners to definetheir current levels of teaching, learning and assessment, rather than states anyobjectives that they should attain or methods they should follow, there is stillcriticism that the CEFR is being used to oblige teachers to follow indefinite ways(Fulcher, 2004; McNamara, 2006)

‘Politicians and civil servants, usually uninformed about language but muchless about language learning, teaching, and assessment, have unfortunately beeneager to use the CEFR to define standards There are claims that school leaversmust achieve B1 (as Little mentions for France), that university degrees inlanguages must be at level C2, and that migrants wishing to become citizens of agiven country must attain level A2 (in the case of the Netherlands) or B1/2 (in thecase of Denmark), without any thought being given to whether these levels might beachievable or justified.’ (Alderson, 2007, p.662)

2.4 Beliefs

2.4.1 Definition

The concept of beliefs has been defined in numerous studies However, since

it is a complicated term, it is difficult to formulate a fixed and universal definition

It seems that no prevailing consensus about the meaning of beliefs has been

achieved among researchers and scholars so far Pajares (1992) compared definingthis term is like “a game of player’s choice” (p.309) and also provided a list of otherwords which are usually used to refer to beliefs in the literature They are: “attitude,values, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions conceptualsystems, preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, explicit theories, personaltheories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice, practicalprinciples, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy”(p 309).Those words and phrases all share some similar shades of meaning with the conceptbeliefs, which makes clarifying this term becomes even more challenging.

Beliefs were defined by Cabaroglu and Roberts (2000) as “a set ofconceptual representations which signify to its holder a reality or given state ofaffairs of sufficient validity, truth or trustworthiness to warrant reliance upon it as aguide to personal thought and action” (p 388) Richardson (1996) defined beliefs aspsychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world thatare felt to be true Puchata (1999) also claimed that beliefs “are generalizationsabout cause and effect, and they influence our inner representation of the worldaround us They help us to make sense of that world, and they determine how wethink and how we act” (pp 68-69)

Although each researcher may have different ways of defining the term

‘beliefs’, there are some common characteristics of beliefs which are agreed bymost of them Firstly, beliefs are abstract thoughts existing inside human minds.That is why this term is usually referred to words like conceptual, cognitive,psychological or internal mental Secondly, beliefs are subjective and personalbecause they are based and built upon a person’s own opinions rather than facts.Therefore, beliefs may be different from individual to individual and not universallyaccepted This feature might explain for the individual differences observed evenamong learners having the same level of language proficiency in Mori (1999).Additionally, for this characteristic of beliefs, it is necessary to highlight thedistinction between beliefs and knowledge, the two terms causing great confusion

among researchers about whether they are the same or not Pajares (1992)concluded the major difference between these two terms is that “Belief is based onevaluation and judgment; knowledge is based on objective fact” (p 313).

Thirdly, beliefs are what depicts the way we see and understand the worldaround us They work inside our mind “as very strong filters of reality” (Arnold,

1999, p.256) It is the representation of the reality built up by thinking formed insidethe human mind Lastly, beliefs play a crucial role in determining and guiding ourbehaviors because people usually act according to what we think is true andtrustworthy For instance, if a teacher held a belief that students learn better ingroups, it would come as no surprise that he or she might involve cooperativelearning activities very regularly during his or her lessons Reversely, things would

be completely different if the teacher believes that students learn best by workingalone Then, individual activities would definitely be utilized more often

2.4.2 Significance of learners’ beliefs in language learning

In the context of language teaching and learning, many scholars andresearchers (Horwitz, 1985, 1987, and 1999; Abdi & Asadi, 2015; Mantle-Bromley,1995) have emphasized the importance that teachers can acknowledge andunderstand their students’ beliefs so as to assist, motivate and facilitate students’learning experience and outcomes Furthermore, in accordance with the shift ineducational paradigm from teacher-centeredness to learner-centeredness, thatlearners have chances to contribute their thoughts and their voices to differenteducation innovations has become even more essential Therefore, it is absolutelynecessary to give serious consideration and investigation toward learners’ beliefsand perspectives besides those of other stakeholders in education such as teachers,parents or policy-makers

It was found that students form a set of beliefs about language and languagelearning inside their mind before even having any experiences of those (Horwitz,1988) For beliefs, in general, plays a critical role in determining human insightsand actions, the same thing happens when it is applied to language learners since

beliefs are proved to influent learners’ learning behaviors and their expectationstoward language learning (Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Wenden, 1987; Oxford, 1990a).According to Stevick (1980), learners consider beliefs as if they were facts and basetheir actions on them regardless of whether other people agree with such beliefs ornot This feature, however, is not completely beneficial since not all beliefs arecorrect and helpful It has been argued that while some beliefs may have afacilitative effect on learning, others can hinder it In other words, students beliefsmay leave positive or negative effects on their learning outcomes, experience andachievement Those that have positive impacts are usually regarded as positive,helpful, encouraging or productive beliefs whereas those with negative ones arecalled negative, harmful or counter-productive beliefs

Numerous studies have revealed the merits and strengths of learners beliefs

to their learning Generally, learners owning productive beliefs tend to be moresuccessful and efficient in language learning One of the most evident benefits ofhaving realistic and positive beliefs is that they can better language achievementand proficiency (Bernat, 2006; Banya and Chen, 1997) It was suggested in Dienerand Dweck (1988, as cited in Mori, 1999) that students who believe in the growth ofintelligence can ultimately outperform those who are initially equal or even superior

in ability but believe that intelligence is unchangeable Furthermore, learners withstrong beliefs in their own ability shows more persistent in difficult learningsituations and they tend to study harder and more proactive both in and out of classthan those who do not (Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Mori, 1999) Beliefs, apart fromaptitude and language proficiency, may also have facilitating impacts on otherfactors of individual learner such as motivation, anxiety and learning strategies.Banya and Chen (1997) found that students with positive beliefs about foreignlanguage learning were likely to have stronger motivation, use more strategies andexperience a lower level of anxiety Anstey (1988) and Mori (1999) also supportedthe claim that effective learners hold thorough beliefs about selecting and utilizinglanguage learning strategies that may compensate for possible weaknesses or

limited ability Therefore, it is undeniable that beliefs play an important role inpromoting students’ achievement, motivation and learning methods.

On the other hand, some beliefs could truly detrimental to students learningand can result in unsatisfactory outcomes It is quite obvious that negative orcounterproductive beliefs may cause low motivation, frustration, or anxiety towardlearning experiences (Puchta,1999; Horwitz et al., 1986) For example, if an adultlearner holds an unrealistic belief that only young children can learn languagesuccessfully and be proficient in using language, there will be a high chance that he

or she finds age as an excuse for the little improvement in learning achievement,and long enough this can make the learner irritated and even afraid of learning thelanguage Moreover, poor learning autonomy can possibly be another adverseconsequence from which learners of language might suffer if they espouse harmfulbeliefs about language learning This view is supported by some authors such asGregersen & MacIntyre (2013) and Victori & Lockhart (1995) Gregersen &MacIntyre (2013) asserted that “some beliefs can prevent embracing a responsible,proactive position to learning and limit the independence of the learner” (p.34).Individuals who believe that teacher is the main factor contributing to their success

of learning may have to depend on their teachers more regularly In contrast, thosewho believe that they themselves have to take the main responsibility for their ownlearning would certainly achieve a higher level of learning autonomy

To foreign language teachers, it is essential to have a clear understanding ofthe beliefs of the learners owing to some reasons Firstly, understanding learnersbeliefs about different aspects of learning such as their approaches to languagelearning and their use of learning strategies will help teachers plan appropriateinstruction which is more likely to meet the needs, interests and learning styles ofthe learners (Horwitz, 1999) Secondly, when understanding thoroughly aboutlearners beliefs, teachers can develop effective ways to not only strengthen thepositive beliefs but also adjust the negative ones It is important thatcounterproductive and unrealistic beliefs of learners are noticed by teachers and

transformed into facilitating thinkings (Gergersen & MacIntyre, 2013), otherwisethose negative beliefs may actually be harmful to their success in the classroom.Lastly, several problems may arise as a result of the gaps between teachers andlearners beliefs Those problems, as suggested by Horwitz (1988), include learners’lack of confidence and satisfaction with language class, as well as their reluctance

to engage in communicative activities

In sum, beliefs are indispensable parts of human psychology and they havesubstantial, both positive and negative, effects on students’ learning experience,progress, and outcomes Therefore, it is of necessity that foreign language teachersare able to understand accurately and adequately about their learners’ set of beliefsabout language learning, so as to decide suitable instructions as well as bridge thegap in beliefs between teachers and learners

2.5 Context of the study

Similar to a great number of countries in the world, Vietnam is alsoimplementing the CEFR into the foreign language education system, with the aim toboost the language proficiency levels of every Vietnamese youth, which in turn,hopefully, can open more doors in economic development as well as internationaltrade To gain better comprehension over the Vietnamese version of the CommonEuropean Framework of Reference of Language Proficiency (CEFR-V), it isessential to commence reviewing about the use of English as well as Englishlanguage teaching and learning situation in Vietnam

2.5.1 English language teaching and learning in Vietnam

In Vietnam, some phrases such as ‘international language’ or ‘globallanguage’ no longer sound unfamiliar to the Vietnamese since most of themregardless of their ages, proficiency levels or backgrounds somehow show a certainrange of awareness and understanding toward learning English or a foreignlanguage besides their mother tongue Vietnamese (Tran, 2017) Since Doi Moi

1986 when the government started applying the open-door policy, this event hastriggered a substantial need in terms of using English as the main foreign language

for better success and the English language has also gradually expanded itsinfluences on different fields ever since

With regard to foreign language education, the rapid expansion of English orthe so-called “English Fever” (Johnson, 2009), in general, has significant impacts

on teaching and learning English in Vietnam Over the past few years, a number ofchildren are exposed to English or start learning English at a very young age, sincekindergarten Vietnamese parents consider this as an ‘early investment’ that helpstheir children learn the language easier and more natural Although the answer tothe question about when should be the best time to learn a foreign language has notreached an agreement among scholars, many people hold a belief that their childrenshould be introduced to English as early as possible

In the curriculum of General Education, English is introduced nationally as acompulsory subject from secondary level and as an elective subject at elementarylevel The 2006 report of Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training showsthat there were 67% of students at junior high schools, and 86% of students at highschools in Vietnam had more than three hours of English lessons every week.Moreover, English is one of the national examinations that students have to pass tograduate from high schools and get admission to higher education

At tertiary level, English is a compulsory subject for both undergraduate andgraduate program In a report by Huong & Hiep (2010), non-English major students

at Vietnamese universities had to study 200 hours of English during their four years

at college Some tertiary institutions even offer undergraduate, graduate anddoctoral programs in English in which English is used as a medium of instructionfor some fundamental science subjects or some specialized ones Additionally, inrecent years, standardized tests such as TOEIC, TOEFL, IELTS, or various tests inthe CEFR are widely favored and considered as a means of evaluation forgraduation in universities (TOEIC test, or CEFR tests), and a selection criterion formost jobs and scholarship opportunities (CEFR tests, TOEFL, and IELTS)

Regarding the Vietnamese students’ purposes of learning English, Hoang(2010) revealed three main reasons, namely have better employment, study abroadand pass the exams However, he also emphasized that despite such differences instudent needs for learning English, English is still an indispensable language forinternational exchange and better-paid jobs.

Similar to English in the formal education system, English outside publicschools and educational institutions has also been spreading its influences rapidly.Various English centers, private schools, international schools have beenmushroomed all over the nation, especially in big cities, which creates favorableconditions for continuously improving the quality of English teaching and learning

in Vietnam

2.5.2 The National Foreign Language 2020 Project (Project 2020)

In an effort to raise the rank level in English proficiency of Vietnam andmake this foreign language as an advantage for Vietnamese people, on 30September, 2008 , Vietnamese Prime Minister announced Decision No 1400/QĐ-TTg on officially approving and launching the ten-year education program namedNational Foreign Language Project scheme for the period of 2008-2020 (Project2020) The general goal of this project is that ‘by the year 2020 most Vietnameseyouth whoever graduate from vocational schools, colleges and universities gain thecapacity to use a foreign language independently’ If this goal can really beattended, it is about to open up plenty of opportunities for not only the country todevelop but also each individual to integrate themselves into multiculturalenvironments

So as to make such an ambitious goal happen, more specific tasks arepresented Accordingly, English is enforced as a compulsory subject from grade 3

to grade 12 in the whole nation Besides, foreign language enhancement trainingprogram for vocational and undergraduate education are required to be implemented

so that more and more students have chances to expose to foreign languagelearning Additionally, Project 2020, lays a great emphasis on learners’

communicative competence and learners’ needs As a result, curricula, teaching andlearning materials, teaching methodology and testing-and-assessment all have to berevised and even rewritten to better suit the renovation objectives as well as ensure

a coherent organization in language training among different school levels of theeducation system Last but not least, the Project highlight the necessity ofconstructing a detailed and unified Vietnamese version of language proficiencyframework Detailed descriptions of the framework will be included as followed

2.5.3 CEFR-V standards/ Vietnam national standards on foreign language proficiency framework

Acknowledging the necessity of a common language framework, Project

2020 indicates one of its major tasks is to develop and release a detailed and unifiedlanguage proficiency framework which comprises 6 levels This framework wouldplay a role as a backbone of the entire foreign language training systemsnationwide, which can ensure the smooth interconnection between schools levelsfrom elementary to higher education The specific requirements for a Vietnameseversion of language proficiency are stated clearly in the Decision No 1400/QĐ-TTg:

Language proficiency framework helps to define clearly certain requirements for competency, capacity in listening, speaking, reading and writing These requirements should be compatible with criteria that define 6 levels in a framework, namely Common European Framework of Reference (KNLNN for short), issued by Association of Foreign Language Test in Europe in which level 1 is ranked as lowest and 6 as highest

On 24 January 2014, the Vietnam Minister of Education and Trainingofficially promulgated Circular No.01/2014/TT-BGDĐT on the CEFR-V standards.This framework is a localized version of the CEFR introduced by Council of Europe

in 2001 and its purposes are clearly stated at the beginning of the Circular,including:

- To unify the language proficiency of all foreign languages taught in thenational education system.

- To serve as a basis to develop curriculum and syllabus, to compile or toselect textbooks, teaching plans, other foreign language teaching materialsand to develop criteria for testing, examination and evaluation, ensuring theinter-connection in foreign language education at different levels

- To provide a basis for teachers and lecturers to select and deploy contents,teaching methods, tests and assessments so that learners can meet therequirements of the training programs

- to help learners understand the content, requirements for each level offoreign language proficiency and enable them to self-rate their levels

- Create favorable conditions for educational cooperation and exchange aswell as the recognition of qualifications and certificates among countriesapplying the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)

Similar to the CEFR, this framework also consists of three broad proficiencylevels, namely Basic User, Independent User, and Proficient User Each level is

divided into two sublevels, forming a 6-level framework as in Table 1 In the

CEFR-V, both general and detailed descriptions of language activities for eachspecific levels are clearly demonstrated Moreover, a self-assessment grid whosecontents are various ‘I can’ statements are available at the end of the framework.Language learners are encouraged to use this grid to evaluate their current Englishproficiency level, determine their goals and trace their learning progress so thatnecessary adjustments can be made

A- Basic user 1 (A1) Breakthrough or beginner

2 (A2) Waystage or elementaryB- Independent user 3 (B1) Threshold or intermediate