MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

LÊ THỊ THANH HẢI

IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES
AT TERTIARY LEVEL IN VIETNAM:
GENERAL ENGLISH TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSES

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND
METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

HUE, 2019


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

LÊ THỊ THANH HẢI

IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES
AT TERTIARY LEVEL IN VIETNAM:
GENERAL ENGLISH TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSES

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND
METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
CODE: 9 14 01 11

I would like to acknowledge the forbearance of my supervisor Associate
Professor Doctor Pham Thi Hong Nhung, who provided instruction and feedback to
various steps of the study and to various versions of this dissertation with the
support and words of wisdom. I was exceptionally fortunate to have her as a
mentor for this work. Her encouragement allowed me to continue to grow as a
person and a researcher. She helped me keep things prioritized and in focus.
Without her, this work would not have taken its final shape.
I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to teachers, lecturers and
professors of University of Foreign Languages, Hue University for patiently and
wholeheartedly guiding me through the process required to complete my program of
study. Their support, encouragement, and willingness to serve as academic
committee members were of huge benefit to me. Their knowledge and wisdom
inspired me to broaden my scope of investigation.
I also thank my dear and best friend whom without her support, I would
possibly have not accomplished this personal goal. A special mention also goes to
my colleagues whose understanding, sympathy, and support were invaluable
spiritual strength for me during the process of completing this work. I owe a great
debt to many English teachers at the home university who voluntarily and patiently
answered the questionnaire and took part in the in- depth interviews during the data
collection process of this study.
This journey was made possible through the love and support of my mother,
my husband and children. I would like to express my deep gratitude to my family.
To my husband, for his unconditional love, support, and encouragement. He
encouraged me unfailingly, provided ongoing support and kind words, motivated

ii


me, and had confidence in me. To my mother whose life demonstrated that honor is
found in hard work and sacrifice. I thank her for loving me unconditionally and for

assigned textbooks. The CEFR-aligned tests were favored and students‘ self and peer
assessments were focused. GE teachers were found to teach ―test-taking strategies‖ and
instant techniques to aid students achieving the required learning outcome. Due to the
limited timeframe, an emphasis on blended learning and learner autonomy was
recognized and started to take hold. From the findings, methodological and pedagogical
implications are made for improvements of the adoption of the CEFR on the
implementation level.

iv


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


SPSS

: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

S.D

: Standard deviation

v


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

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
implementation process..................................................................................................89
vii


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


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.



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

2008-2020 (Vietnamese government, 2008), now extended to 2025 (Vietnamese
government, 2017). The most significant part of NFL 2020 Project is the adoption

1


of the CEFR, a global framework, into Vietnamese local context of language
teaching and learning as a ―quick-fix‖ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004) solution to
restructure the national foreign language education system.
On the basis of the CEFR, a Vietnamese version of the CEFR was
developed, approved and legitimated by Vietnamese authorities (MOET, 2014a;
MOET, 2014b). It is utilized to set standards for teacher professionalism. It is also
used to set standards for learning outcomes at different levels of education, from
primary to high schools and universities. This adoption of the CEFR as standardbased outcomes and professionalism in Vietnam, underpinned by NFL 2020 Project
has been hoped to bring positive, radical changes in the national foreign language
education system as it is clearly stated in Decision 1400 of the government
(Vietnamese government, 2008). In effect, this has led to the renewal and
modification of language curricula, language teaching materials, as well as testing
and assessment in different levels of educations, for different types of learners and
at different schools, universities and institutions nationwide.
The home university, where this research was conducted, is a regional
university in Central Vietnam. Its non-English major students come from the
Central Highlands and the provinces and cities in the centre of the country.
According to their major field of study, students attend different colleges of the
home university. They vary in terms of social backgrounds, major fields of study
chosen, and English proficiency, but most enter university at the age of 18 years.
Teachers also differ in origin, experiences, qualifications and expertise. MOET
mandated that, as a state-run university, the home university must have its nonEnglish major students achieve CEFR B1 level as one condition for being granted a
university graduation degree. Under the impacts of this innovative national foreign
language (mainly English) policy, in 2012, an official document was issued by the

(Bonnet, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Little, 2007; Nguyen & Hamid, 2015; Pham, 2012;
2017) especially in countries where English is taught as a foreign language. A
number of Asian countries have witnessed the implementation of the CEFR in
national contexts as an attempt to reform the system of language teaching in the
country. Vietnam is not an exception. However, it has been warned that the success
of this ambitious language policy can be threatened by its unfamiliar and top-down
nature (Little, 2006; 2007; Pham, 2017).

3


Firstly, since adapted from the CEFR whose original purpose is not for the
diversified contexts of the world but revolves around Europe, this alien framework
may give rise to paradoxes (Le Van Canh, 2015) if it is not well contextualized
(Pham, 2017). With the remarkable differences in terms of social needs, language
learning and teaching conditions, qualifications of language teachers and
proficiency levels of learners as well as their expectations and purposes, the
appropriateness of the CEFR-aligned framework in Vietnam may be questionable.
Nearly 10 years after its first introduction in Vietnam, the adoption of the CEFR
still faces challenges and obstacles from ―limited human resources‖ (Pham, 2017) to
―deficits in teacher professionalism‖ (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015). The need for more
research on the CEFR adoption in Vietnam, its impacts on teachers, students and
English language teaching and learning process, its successes and limitations has
never been ceased for the benefits of its future practices.
Secondly, r

the use of the

CEFR has been recognized in different domains from setting teacher
professionalism standards, setting student learning outcomes, renewing language


current

context,

the

CEFR-aligned

curriculum

implementation for non-English major students at the home university is very much
concerned. As it is suggested that approximately 200 guided learning hours be
necessary for a language learner to progress from one level of the CEFR to the next
and from 350 to 400 hours of instructions for a learner to achieve B1 Level
(Desveaux, 2013), the CEFR-aligned curriculum within the duration of 105 teacherled hours and the required B1 learning outcome for non-English majors set by MOET
are questionable. Moreover, considering the factors that may lengthen or reduce the
expected time such as learners‘ language learning background, intensity of learners‘
study, the amount of study/ exposure outside of lesson times (Desveaux, 2013),
MOET‘s requirement becomes more challenging for GE teachers and non-English
major students in Vietnam at the moment. Finally, since MOET sets the learning
outcomes for learners independent of curricula and teaching materials, the burden on
the shoulders of state-run universities, teachers and students becomes heavier as they
have to innovate all those related domains to meet the new learning outcome.
Besides, studies have demonstrated that while the key implementers of all
language education policies, teachers did not always do what was told nor did they
always act to maximize policy objectives (Cohen & Ball, 1990; McLaughlin, 1987).
Problems and failure of the implementation phase may thus come from teachers
themselves due to their attitudes and behavior, which were proven to ―interact bidimensionally‖ with each other (Borg, 2009, p.164). Firstly, teachers have been
diagnosed as ―resistant to change‖ (Wang, 2008, p.3) or not willing to actually

procedures to modify the CEFR-aligned curriculum in order to match theory and
practice, to assist educators and administrators during the process of contextualizing
a global framework in a local English language teaching and learning situation.

6


In particular, this study seeks to answer the following two research questions:
1. What are GE language teachers‘ perceptions of the CEFR and its use for
non-English major students at a university in Vietnam?
2. What are GE language teachers‘ responses to the use of the CEFR on the
implementation level?
1.4. Research design overview
The current study examines teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to the
CEFR implementation for non-English major university students. It adopted the
mixed method sequential explanatory model by Creswell and Clark (2007). The
data collection procedure consisted of two phases, the pilot and the official phases.
The aim of the pilot phase was to test the research instruments and get baseline data
on general English teachers‘ perceptions of and responses to implementing the
CEFR for non-English major students. The results of the pilot phase were used to
modify the questionnaire and interview protocol for the official round.
The research setting was a university in Central Vietnam, where the researcher
has been working for more than fifteen years. All English language teachers, who have
been teaching general English for non-English major students of the home university
for more than one semester, were invited to participate in the survey research. Eight of
the teacher participants took part in in-depth interview sessions.
The literature review and theoretical concepts relevant to the research field
were generalized and summarized to build up the conceptual framework for the
present study. Utilizing this information, together with results from the pilot phase,
a forty-nine item questionnaire was made to explore how GE teachers perceived the

teachers‘ responses to the CEFR-aligned curriculum renewal. Specifically, how GE
teachers modified their teaching activities, how they adapted the assigned
textbooks, and how they changed their classroom assessment practice. The results
of the study, therefore, can be generalized to similar contexts in the same field only.
The generalizations may not necessarily be applicable to other contexts and
situations far different from the present one.
In particular, the present study explores a top-down policy of adopting a
global framework to local contexts without much explanation and piloting (Pham,
2012). The results of the study are from teachers‘ perspectives. It does not involve

8


administrators and students during the data collection process. It cannot be
applicable to any policy that goes beyond these bounds.
Secondly, the study focuses on what and how teachers, as key implementers,
perceived and responded during the implementation process. It aims to get insights
into the reality of the CEFR implementation at the home university, whether
teachers encountered any challenges and how they dealt with those difficulties. The
ultimate purpose is to make insightful methodology and pedagogical implications
for GE teachers. There may be some differences in the results and implications if
the implementation process is perceived from the perspectives of administrators or
students. The scope of the present study is, therefore, limited to language education
and methodology for teachers rather than language policy and planning.
Thirdly, the subject of the study is the CEFR-aligned curriculum for nonEnglish major university students whose motivation and language proficiency are
not the same as of language-major students. The timeframe, textbooks, assessment,
and even teaching activities are totally different. Therefore, its results cannot be
generalized to English-major students of the same university.
Finally, the research setting is a regional university in Central Vietnam,
where culture and other socio-economic factors may differ from those of bigger

maintain, what needs to be improved or changed, what to aid teachers and students,
etc. so that the curriculum implementation becomes more effective and successful.
Above all, the study is beneficial to teachers and non-English major students.
The results of the study provided valuable information to teachers and
administrators. They will be better aware of their roles and importance in the
implementation process. They will know the strengths and weaknesses of the policy
and the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students; what challenges
they encountered and why they encountered such challenges.
The ultimate purpose of all the afore-mentioned suggestions for changes and
modifications is to ameliorate students‘ English proficiency and their learning
outcome. The present study is thus of great help and usefulness for non-English
major students, who need to achieve the CEFR B1 certificate as the precondition for
their university graduation being granted.
1.7. Organization of the study
The present study consists of five chapters.
Chapter One describes the territory of the research by presenting the

10


background context, procedures, the aims and importance, as well as the structure of
the study.
Chapter Two provides a critical review of literature relevant to the CEFR and
its implementation. It addresses theoretical concepts fundamental to the study,
including teachers‘ cognition, teachers‘ behavior and their mutual relationship.
Next, the chapter discusses the CEFR in language education and its implementation
as change/ innovation. From the theories and studies reviewed, the chapter provides
the conceptual framework of the study.
Chapter Three describes the methodology employed in the present study. It
starts with a description of the research approach and mixed method design of the

then an overview of the CEFR in language education from its definition, purpose,
content, limitations and suggestions for good use, followed by its spread in
language education. The chapter also pinpoints the CEFR implementation as
change management in English language education and emphasizes the role of the
CEFR in innovating English language curriculum. The chapter ends by reviewing
relevant studies in the world and Vietnam with an aim to establish the space for the
present study and the research questions formulated.
2.1. Definitions of the key terms
The following list of definitions assists in understanding the study and its
data. Those terms were used throughout this study and are currently used in the
educational field. Some key terms will also be defined in the coming sections in the
literature review, and in that occurrence sources are cited.
Change. Change is a movement out of a current state, through a transition state, to a
future state. Educational change can involve systematic transformation of the
education system or structural change in organization, policy, programs, courses,
etc. (Fullan, 2001b). Change can be more successful if the concerns of teachers are
considered (Hall & Hold, 1987).
Curriculum. The term curriculum is used here to refer to ―the overall plan or
design for a course and how the content for a course is transformed into a blueprint
for teaching and learning which enables the desired learning outcomes to be
achieved‖ (Richards, 2013, p.6).

12


General English teachers. The term ―General English‖ is introduced to distinguish
with ―English for Specific Purposes‖. General English, English for General
Purposes (Far, 2008) or English for Educational Purposes (Strevens, 1977) refers to
contexts such as schools where needs cannot readily be specified. It accounts for a
school-based learning of a language as a subject element within the overall school