ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES OF THE CEFR-ALIGNED LEARNING OUTCOME IMPLEMENTATION FOR NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HUE UNIVERSITY

Lê Thị Thanh Hải

Abstract


The study was carried out to explore the issues related to the CEFR-aligned learning outcome implementation for non-English major students at Hue University. Its focus was on the advantages and challenges during the implementation process perceived by general English teachers. Qualitative approach was chosen with the data being collected by means of in-depth interview. Ten general English teachers who have experienced teaching non-English major students at Hue University took part in the study. The findings have shown that the CEFR-aligned learning outcome implementation process for non-English major students at Hue University has gained a number of advantages but still faced some challenges. The advantages included appropriate teacher training, modern facilities and resources, teacher sound understanding of the policy, and positive changes in teaching methodology. The challenges were more related to the imbalance among students’ proficiency, assigned textbooks, teacher-led hours and required learning outcome and assessment practices.


Keywords


CEFR; learning outcome; language policy implementation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alderson, J.C. (2002). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Case Studies. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

Bérešová, J. (2011). The impact of the common European framework of reference on teaching and testing in central and eastern European context. Synergies Europe, 6, 177-190.

Block, D. (1991). Some thought on DIY materials design. ELT Journal, 45(3), 211-217.

Bonnet, G. (2007). The CEFR and education policies in Europe. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 669-672.

Byrnes, H. (2007). Developing national language education policies: Reflections on the CEFR. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 679-685.

Casas-Tost, H., & Rovira-Esteva, S. (2014). New models, old patterns? The implementation of the Common European framework of reference for languages for Chinese. Linguistics and Education, 27, 30-38.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Council of Europe (n.d.). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved on April 12th, 2016 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4 /linguistic/cadre1_en.asp.

Cambridge, E.S.O.L. (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of good practice. Cambridge ESOL.

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Despagne, C., & Grossi, J.R. (2011). Implementation of the CEFR in the Mexican Context. Synergies Europe, 6, 65-74.

Education First (2013). “EF English proficiency index 2013”, available at: www.ef-australia.com.au/epi/ (accessed 10 August 2015).

English Profile (n.d.). What is the CEFR. Retrieved on April 15th, 2016 from http://www.englishprofile.org/the-cefr.

Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011a). The power of “Can Do” statements: teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a Second Language Classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 1-19.

Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S., Brown, P., & Smith, M. (2011b). Teachers’ reactions to CEFR’s task-based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies Europe, 6, 109-120.

Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485. Oxford University Press.

Freeman, D. (2016). Education second language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). Eight forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 54.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663-667.

Hyland, K., & Wong, L.C. (2013). Innovation and change in English language education. USA, Canada: Routledge.

Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2009). European language policy: Assessment, learning, and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51-63.

Kaplan, R.B., Baldauf Jr, R.B., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2011). Why educational language plans sometimes fail. Current issues in language planning, 12(2), 105-124.

Little, D. (2006). The common European framework of reference for languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167-190.

Little, D. (2007). The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-655.

Little, D. (2011). The common European framework of reference for languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 44(3), 381-393.

Mison, S., & Jang, I.C. (2011). Canadian FSL teachers’ assessment practices and needs: Implications for the adoption of the CEFR in a Canadian context. Synergies Europe, 6, 99-108.

MOET (2011). Dispatch No. 20/ ĐANN Guidance on improving language proficiency for teachers. Hanoi, October, 2011.

MOET (2014). Circular No. 01/TT-BGDĐT Issuing Six-level framework for foreign language proficiency in Vietnam. Hanoi, January, 2014.

Nagai, N., & O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education in Japan. Synergies Europe, 2011, 141-152.

Nguyen, V.H. & Hamid, M.O. (2015). Educational policy borrowing in a globalized world: A case study of common European framework of reference for languages in a Vietnamese University. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(1), 60-74.

Pham, T.H.N. (2012). Applying the CEFR to the teaching and learning English in Vietnam: Advantages and challenges. Journal of Foreign Language Studies, 30, 90-102.

Pham, T.H.N. (2015). Setting the CEFR-B1 level as learning outcomes: Non-English major students’ voices. Paper presented at the proceedings of Regional Conference on Interdisciplinary Research in Linguistics and Language Education Hue, Vietnam (pp.53-62). University of Foreign Languages, Hue University.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2005). The future for ELT materials in Asia. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2), 5-13.

Tono, Y., & Negishi, M. (2012). The CEFR-J: Adapting the CEFR for English language teaching in Japan. Framework & Language Portfolio SIG Newsletter, 8, 5-12.

Westhoff, G. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of the CEFR for reimagining foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 676-679.

White, R.V. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Ernst KlettSprachen.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.