VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES BÙI VĂN HẬU
THE INFLUENCE OF VIETNAMESE LEARNING CULTURE
ON UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES
TOWARDS COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES IN LEARNING ENGLISH

(Tác động của văn hóa học tập ở Việt Nam đến thái độ
của học sinh trung học phổ thông đối với các hoạt động học
tiếng Anh theo đường hướng giao tiếp) M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.140.111

HANOI - 2014


i

DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY

This work is submitted as partial requirements for the Master‟s Degree in English
Language Teaching Methodology by the University of Languages and International Stud-
ies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. I declare that the work presented is to the best of
my knowledge original, except as acknowledged in the script, and that the material has not
been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or other educational institu-
tions.

Signed: _______________________________________________ Date: May 2014

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to people who have, in various ways, contrib-
uted to the completion of this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to give my most sin-
cere thanks to Dr. Le Van Canh, my supervisor, for not only his responses to any of my
questions but also for his encouragement at any time of my hardship.
I would like to thank Nguyen Viet Hung, my friend, a PhD student at the University,
for helping me much with advice and encouragement.
I am grateful to the students and teachers at my researched Upper-Secondary School
for their cooperation during my data collection period.
I owe a great debt to my wife, daughter and my families for the patience and encour-
agement I have had from them.
I believe that with all contribution of the people mentioned, I have an improved final
thesis; however, there are unavoidably remaining weaknesses in this thesis, all of which
belong to my responsibility, and all of which I should learn from.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II
ABSTRACT III
TABLE OF CONTENT IV
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES VI
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale of Study 1
2. Research Aims and Questions 2
3. Methods of Study 3
4. Scope of Study 3
5. Significance of Study 3
6. Organisation of the Thesis 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
1.1. Introduction 4
1.2. Communicative Language Teaching: Principles and Characteristics 4
1.3. Learning Activities in Light of CLT 6
1.4. Communicative Activities 7
1.5. Role of Teacher and Learner in CLT 8
1.6. Culture, Attitude and Behaviour 9

APPENDIX 4: STUDENTS‟ CONCEPTIONS OF HOW LEARNING SHOULD TAKE PLACE VII
APPENDIX 5: STUDENTS‟ BELIEF ABOUT THE ROLE OF TEACHER AND LEARNER VIII
APPENDIX 6: STUDENTS‟ PREFERENCE FOR ENGLISH LEARNING ACTIVITIES IX vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures

Figure 1. Culture – Attitude – Behaviour 10
Figure 2. Respondents’ Gender 24
Figure 3. Respondents’ English Proficiency 24 Tables

Table 1. Questionnaires Delivered and Collected 24
Table 2. Students’ Conceptions of Learning 25
Table 3. Students’ Belief about the Role of Teacher and Learner 30
Table 4. Students’ Preference for English Learning Activities 33
Table 5. Students’ Most Favoured, Most Disfavoured and Home Activities 35

1

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of Study
Since the time of Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman philosopher, and later in the Ren-
aissance theories, until now all languages have been considered to be of equal status (Pym,

2

learning are said to be behind in comparison with communicative approaches (Bax, 2003,
p.281).
Vietnam is not an exception from the spread of CLT. Although CLT was introduced
into the country rather later than into other countries in the neighbourhood (Canh and Bar-
nard, 2009), it has been rhetorical in the whole school system of the country, especially at
the general education level. However, scholars and researchers have reported the unsatis-
factory implementation of this approach in Vietnam (Canh, 2004; Canh, 2011; Canh and
Barnard, 2009; Barnard and Viet, 2010; Nguyen and Franken, 2010; Thinh, 2006; Phu,
2008; Van, 2010; Son, 2011; Hung, 2011; Vietnamnet, 2012; Toan, 2013; Khang, 2014).
One of the reasons for the failure of CLT implementation in Vietnam is that the ap-
proach is imposed without taking into consideration the students‟ learning culture, which
influences students‟ attitudes towards learning activities, learning behaviours, and learning
habits. However, this issue has often been ignored. I believe that for the success of innova-
tion, the first step to be taken should be the understanding of learners‟ learning culture so
that teachers can decide what aspects of the intended innovation fit the students‟ learning
culture, and what aspects of the students‟ learning culture should be changed to accommo-
date the intended pedagogical innovation. This is the rationale for my study.
2. Research Aims and Questions
Being inspired by all the above mentioned rationales and my preliminary interest,
this survey study aims to explore the influence of Vietnamese learning culture on attitudes
of the upper-secondary school students in a mountainous area toward CLT. Information
gained from this study is aimed to help teachers to make their teaching more learner-
centred by modifying the principles of CLT to the students‟ learning culture for better edu-
cational results. With this aim in mind, the study was designed to seek answers to the fol-
lowing research questions:
1. What is the students‟ belief about language learning?
2. How do their beliefs about language learning affect their opinions of the teacher‟s
role and student‟s role in the English language classroom?

dure of data collection and analysis, findings and discussions of the findings (Chapter 2).
Part C – the Conclusion – presents the concluding remarks drawn from this survey as well
as the recommendations for adapting CLT in the researched school and other similar
schools. 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Introduction
First introduced in the 1970s by British applied linguists as a reaction away from
grammar-based language teaching approaches, CLT is a multi-perspectival approach that
builds on several disciplines that include, at least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, so-
ciology, and educational research (Savignon, 1991, 2002; Hu, 2002; Dornyei, 2009; Asass-
feh et al., 2012). Beside this widely accepted view, there have been many attempts in ac-
counting for the formation of CLT; nevertheless, for personally logical reason, this paper
presents a combined view of these scholars and some others on the background of CLT.
1.2. Communicative Language Teaching: Principles and Characteristics
CLT is resulted from a shift in the way language is viewed. Accordingly, while lan-
guage is still considered as consisting of vocabulary, structures and rules with which,
through learning, learners can make grammatically correct sentences, it is not a static sys-
tem of interconnected units but social behaviour, which is used purposefully, and always in
context (Savignon, 1991, 2002). Its primary function is for interaction and communication:
people communicating with others to accomplish some course of action. Therefore, lan-
guage is said to be instrumental to communicative functions such as making, expressing,
exchanging and negotiating meaning (Ma, 2009; Hu, 2002). The assumption is that there is
always interdependence between form and meaning, or between structural and functional
aspects of language within a language (Hu, 2002). Thus, knowing a language means not

2009, p.41). Canale and Swain (1980) conceive it more broadly by relating it with the con-
cept of social behaviour: communicative competence is the ability to interpret and enact
appropriate social behaviours which requires the active involvement of the learner in the
production of the target language. For this reason, communicative competence plays a not
only necessary but very important role in language proficiency. It is even identified as “the
most important linguistic ability”, which helps to “produce or understand utterances which
are not so much grammatical but, more important, appropriate to context in which they are
made” (Campbell and Wales, 1970, p.247, cited by Canale and Swain, 1980, p.4, italics in
original). Communicative competence consists of four components, including grammatical
competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence
(Ma, 2009; Canale and Swain, 1980; Latha and Rajan, 2012; Beale, 2002; Richards, 2006).
The grammatical (or linguistic) component refers to the knowledge of lexis, syntax,
morphology, phonology and the like. It concerns the language users‟ understanding about
how phonemes are combined into words, how words come together to form phrases,
clauses or sentences, and how sentences are sounded with stresses and with different into-

6

nations. Briefly speaking, grammatical competence is the cognition of linguistic rules,
which enables people to create and understand grammatically correct sentences.
Sociolinguistic competence implies knowing what is expected socially and cultur-
ally by members of the speech community. This element transcends its linguistic counter-
part because with knowledge of language alone, people cannot use language appropriately,
and therefore, effectively. They need to know about sociolinguistic rules, which stipulate,
for example, what to say to people of different statuses and different relationships in dif-
ferent circumstances. This knowledge is also about how to response nonverbally in particu-
lar ways basing on the purpose of the interaction. It enables people to vary their use of lan-
guage according to the setting and the participants.
Discourse competence is related to the logical meaning relationship between sen-
tences, that is to say, in a text or a discourse. It concerns the ways, for instance, how sen-

Furthermore, the input language must also be rich, meaning that it is complex in terms of
not only language but also quality, quantity, variety, genuineness, and relevance.
In addition, since CLT activities are required to involve real communication, they
must promote cooperative and collaborative learning. As pointed out by Vygotsky (1978),
teacher‟s assistance and social interactions play a crucial role helping learners reach a po-
tential that exceeds their current level of development; therefore, conversational interaction
must be used as a means of developing communicative competence, which relies on learn-
ers‟ own ability to interactively negotiate meaning with each other.
Norris et al. (1998, p.31) explain that:
the best way to learn and teach a language is through social interactions. [. . . they] al-
low students to work toward a clear goal, share information and opinions, negotiate
meaning, get the interlocutor‟s help in comprehending input, and receive feedback on
their language production. In the process, learners not only use their inter-language,
but also modify it, which in turn promotes acquisition.
Savignon (1991) shares this view and comments that communicative tasks determine
the opportunities for language use, for the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of
meaning.
1.4. Communicative Activities
By definition, communicative activities are those which focus on practice in using
language within a real communicative context, in which real information is exchanged, and
in which the language used is not totally predictable (Richards, 2006). They have some of
the following typical characteristics (Richards, 2006, p.23):
 They seek to develop students‟ communicative competence through linking gram-
matical development to the ability to communicate.
 They create the need for communication, interaction, and negotiation of meaning
through the use of activities such as problem solving, information sharing, and role
play.

8


attention and viewed not as impediments to learning but as resources to be recognized, ca-
tered to, and appreciated. Learning language with CLT, learners have to participate in
classroom activities which are based on a cooperative rather than individualistic approach

9

to learning. They have to become comfortable with listening to their peers in group work
or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a model. They are expected to take
on a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning (Richards, 2006).
On the other hand, teachers in CLT classroom no longer play a dominant role in the
classroom; they are not authorities, like the Titans or Atlas of Greek mythology, who bear
the burden of the whole class and learners‟ learning on their shoulders. They are no longer
viewed as the source of all knowledge (and the model or exemplar of morality as in the
case of Vietnam), who fill, through teaching-as-modelling-and-explanation, receptacle
learners with knowledge (and virtue). The role of teachers in the CLT classroom is that of
a facilitator, who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides
opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on language use
and language learning. Rather than being models for correct speech and writing and ones
with the primary responsibility of making students produce plenty of error-free sentences,
teachers have to develop a different view of learners‟ errors and of their own role in facili-
tating language learning (Richards, 2006). Besides, teachers can also play the role of an
independent participant within the learning-teaching group, a researcher and learner, or
that of an analyst, a counsellor, and a group process manager (Richards and Rodgers,
1987).
For this reason, CLT has been considered to be a learner-centred approach to lan-
guage teaching; it takes into account learners‟ backgrounds, language needs, and goals and
allows learners some creativity and role in instructional decisions (Canale and Swain,
1980; Beale, 2002).
1.6. Culture, Attitude and Behaviour
It is undeniable that culture is an omnipresent entity (Kramsch, 1993, cited by Jabeen


As can be seen in figure 1, overt behaviours not only are influenced (the solid ar-
rows) by cultures through the two paths of attitude and subjective norm but also give feed-
back (the dashed arrow) to the actor‟s cultural values and normative beliefs. This may in-
spire some implications for implementation of CLT at the researched school, which will be
discussed later Part 3.
Bearing a similar view to Ajzen‟s and Fishbein‟s but specific to the field of second
and foreign language learning, Spolsky (1989, p.131) proposes that social factors, which
include culture, influence second language learning in two indirect but essential ways (Ap-
pendix 1). Firstly, they play a major role in developing in the learner the set of attitudes
towards the language being learned, its speakers and the language learning situation (in
the case of this study, communicative activities) that are hypothesised to directly influence
motivation. Secondly, they determine the social provision of language learning situations
and opportunity of various kinds.
So far, what has been aroused is that learners‟ attitudes toward communicative activi-
ties in English learning are very much likely to be affected by Vietnamese culture of learn-

Culturally
determined
values

Attitude

Subjective
norm

Behavioural
intentions

Normative

some issue needing explicating, they will simply wait thinking that the teacher will proba-
bly mention it later. In case it is not mentioned, it is because the issue is not worth men-
tioning, and leaners will probably ask questions to the teacher individually after the class
time. Learners‟ respect to teachers can also be seen in other ways learners behave in class-
room. They would all stand up to greet the teacher at the beginning of the lesson and would
remain standing until being allowed to sit. When they want to go out, they are expected to
ask the teacher for permission to do so. This is similar to the case when they have some-
thing to say: they have to raise their hand and wait for the teacher‟s allowing them to
speak.

12

1.8. Beliefs of Learning in Vietnamese Culture
It can be said that learning in Vietnam is influenced, firstly, by face-saving and har-
mony-maintaining culture. This features the collectivist nature of Vietnamese culture. In
Vietnam, each member of the community sees themselves as belonging to an in-group;
they do not want to stand out from this collective and do not want to be seen as the “nail
that sticks up” (Anderson, 1993, cited by Littlewood, 2000). For this reason, they are reluc-
tant to participate in discussions, in which people have to challenge each other‟s ideas to
reach agreement on certain issues. By doing so, they can avoid the risk of their ideas being
vetoed by other members or their vetoing others‟ ideas, through which they can save face
for not only themselves but also for others, and maintain a harmonious relationship with
and among members (Littrell, 2005; Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996; Qiao and Tan, n.d.; Lit-
tlewood, 2000; Phuong-Mai et al., 2006; Trang and Baldauf, 2007; McCornac & Chi,
2005; Lee, n.d.; Lewis and McCook, 2002; Huong, 2008). Since losing face inflicts ex-
tremely serious personal damage, and one should try to avoid it at any price (Hofstede and
Hofstede, 2005, cited by Phuong-Mai et al., 2006), there is an intense fear of making mis-
takes among Vietnamese people; these are reflected in common proverbs that serve as
maxims for interpersonal communication. Examples include “twisting your tongue seven
times before speaking out your thought” (Uốn lưỡi bảy lần trước khi nói), or “words cost

phy) (Phu, 2008; Cortazzi and Jin, 1996; Littrell, 2005; An, 2002; Biggs, 1998; Huong,
2008; Lee, n.d.). For this reason, the focus of teaching is not on how teachers and students
can create, construct, and apply knowledge in an experiential approach, but on how extant
authoritative knowledge can be transmitted and internalised in a most effective and effi-
cient way. This conception can also be explained with the respect that people have for
knowledge as well as knowledgeable men. Therefore, the importance is attached to knowl-
edge and memory over creativity as the dominant method of acquiring knowledge (Lee,
n.d.; Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996). This way of learning has been reckoned as “passive
learning”, “rote learning”, “silent learning” or “memorisation”, through which knowledge
is “poured” into the students‟ heads without them having any real opportunity to exercise.
However, an interesting feature of Vietnamese learners is that though they are thought of
learning by rote or memorisation, they are only silent and inactive in the surface. The sur-
vey conducted by Duong Thi Hoang Oanh and Nguyen Thi Hien (2006) showed that both
teachers and students at the tertiary level emphasised memorization as an important strat-
egy for learning grammar and vocabulary.
Vietnamese learners prefer learning through exemplars or models. This leads to the
importance of the textbook and, especially, the teacher as the model of not only knowledge
but also morality, who learners have to strive to become alike. Therefore, Phuoc (1975),
cited by An (2002), comments that the Confucian teaching model is “teacher-centred,
closed, suspicious of creativity, and predicated on an unquestioning obedience from the
students”.

14

Besides, the notion that learning is a process of accumulating knowledge spontane-
ously leads to the belief that learning is a hard and serious undertaking, which requires a
full commitment and painstaking efforts (Phu, 2008; Ha, 2013). Learning is a life-long job;
it involves learners‟ perseverance and patience “to grind an iron bar into a needle” (Hu,
2002) and not concerning to or associated with light-heartedness (Phu, 2008). For this rea-
son, Vietnamese learners are expected to be hard-working and willing to participate in ac-

language-driven, and argues that there should be a context-driven approach which can suit
learners of different cultures and in different conditions. On this line, he stresses that the
learning context, including learner variables, is the key factor in successful language learn-
ing, and methodology, such as CLT should only be placed in second place. In assessing the
appropriateness of CLT in Asia, Ellis (1996) maintains that a number of aspects of Canale
and Swain‟s model are unsuitable for Asian learners and teachers. She exemplifies that the
focus of CLT on meaning rather than form ignores the observance of rituals in the “collec-
tivist societies” of Asia and the reverential attitude towards the mastery of individual lin-
guistic forms. McKay (2003) discovers that in many countries, such as Chile, China, Japan,
and Korea, the appropriateness of CLT in light of the local context and learners‟ needs has
been challenged. On this basis, they recommend that when selecting a methodology for a
particular context, it is vital that teachers consider the local needs of the students rather
than assume that a method that is effective in one context is effective in all contexts. Bar-
nard and Viet (2010) review a large amount of literature which shows that in many Asian
contexts, including Hong Kong, China, Korea, Japan, and Thailand, there has been a great
mismatch between the tenets of CLT as well as Task-Based Language Teaching and local
cultures of learning.
Taking a step closer to the issue, Hu (2002) analyses that CLT takes the drudgery out
of the learning process and injects elements of entertainment, such as various language
games, with a view to making learning become a light-hearted, pleasant experience in
learning. However, it is inappropriate for CHC learning context in terms of teacher-learner
relationship, learning methods and learning content. It is because CLT aims to create an
egalitarian communicative learning environment and practices in which the relationship
between teacher and learner is not the one of hierarchy but equality, and learning is not
concerned with hardness and serious-undertaking but with light-heartedness. Besides, CLT
downplays the importance of memorisation as the philosophy of CHC learning, stress ver-
bal interaction (often at the expense of inner activity), and encourage speculation (e.g.
guesswork) and tolerance for ambiguity. Hu (2010) also agrees that one of the main obsta-
cles of CLT implementation in China is the teachers‟ authority and students‟ passive role.
The passivity is generalised to learners of other Asian countries and is said to be a cultural

(Khoi and Iwashita, 2012). In addition, CLT is unfamiliar to Vietnamese learners in the
sense that too much noise is made during learning activities while it is perceived that the
school should be a place where students keep silent while listening to teachers and copying
from the board (An, 2002). In terms of group learning, Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) ob-
serve that “the associations students form are more akin to Western notions of „family‟
than „classmate‟”, which they maintain close relationship throughout their lives, forming
ties that encompass financial, familial, and social obligations. In this respect, whole class
activities would be preferred, and it would be divisive and detrimental to learning to divide
the class into subgroups.

17

So far, this current chapter has presented a review of the extant literature on CLT,
culture, the connection between culture, attitude and behaviour. It has also referred to a
brief about Vietnamese culture of learning as well as implementation of CLT under the in-
fluence of learning culture. This is hoped to be a theoretical basis for the empirical research
into the claimed field.