Pre-Service Teachers' Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High

Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about teaching speaking at high school in Vietnam

CHIEM KHANG MAI

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Education

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

October 2016

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname or Family name: MAI

First name: CHIEM KHANG Other name/s:

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: School of Education Faculty: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Title: Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about teaching speaking at high school in Vietnam

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

Although research on teacher cognition has become a well-established domain of inquiry for language teaching over the past few decades, very few in-depth case studies have explored teachers’ beliefs on their pedagogical practices in classrooms in an under-resourced EFL context like Vietnam, where overly large classes, poor equipment, inadequately trained teachers, time constraints and written grammar-focused examinations are the norm (Hoang, 2011; Le, 2011; Le, 2013; Nguyen, Fehring & Warren, 2015).

The present qualitative case study seeks to occupy such a research space. Specifically, it aims to explore and understand the perceptions of a small group (N=8) of Vietnamese pre-service teachers, undertaking the same teacher education programme, about the teaching of speaking and how they go about teaching speaking in practice. It also aims to investigate what underlines the participants’ perspectives in order to gain insights into the factors that affect and shape their instructional decisions in the classroom. Data obtained for this study were from multiple sources including semi-structured interviews, document analysis, classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews. Following a data-driven approach, themes were developed and used in analysis for drawing a constant comparison among the participants (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Merriam, 2009). From analysis of the data, the findings of the study showed that the eight pre-service teachers strongly valued the learning of speaking and favoured communicative methods for the teaching of speaking. However, due to the influence of various contextual factors, for example, students’ low motivation for learning English for communication, teaching materials, large class-size and school teachers’ supervision, the participants’ stated perceptions appeared to diverge in practice.

Although the findings of this research cannot be generalized beyond the context in which the data were collected, it contributes to academic understanding of teachers’ cognitions and their instructional strategies in practice in the context of Vietnam, and possibly in other similar contexts, and adds to studies in teacher cognition. Drawing on the findings of this study, implications for teacher education and language policy are discussed.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

18/11/ 2018 Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to those who helped make this study possible. First of all, I am deeply grateful to my principal supervisor, Professor Anne Burns, for her invaluable guidance, support and encouragement throughout the study. She spent a great amount of time reading my drafts and providing insightful comments and feedback. I learned a lot from her not only about the field of my study but also about mentorship. I highly appreciate everything that she has done for me during my candidature. I am greatly indebted to my co- supervisor, Dr. Neville Ellis, who also generously gave his time, encouragement and comments along the way.

I would also like to acknowledge the staff of the School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Australia who supported and provided me with full facilities to help me carry out this thesis. I also wish to express my deep gratitude to the Board of Directors of the university and the Head of the high school in Vietnam who allowed me to approach and recruit participants for my study. I owe thanks to the participants for sharing their experiences, perceptions, beliefs and knowledge which mean a great deal to this research.

I greatly appreciate the Australian Government for their financial support for my study at UNSW. My sincere thanks go to my relatives, colleagues and my home friends who always motivated and encouraged me to complete the research. I also thank my friends in Sydney for their friendship and kindness.

Finally, my heart-felt appreciation goes to my wife, Pham Thi Hoai Thanh, and my beloved children, Mai Thi Hong Linh and Mai Tuan Linh, for their sacrifices, patience, support and understanding during the last four years.

ABSTRACT

Although research on teacher cognition has become a well-established domain of inquiry for language teaching over the past few decades, very few in-depth case studies have explored teachers’ beliefs on their pedagogical practices in classrooms in an under- resourced EFL context like Vietnam, where overly large classes, poor equipment, inadequately trained teachers, time constraints and written grammar-focused examinations are the norm (Hoang, 2011; Le, 2011; Le, 2014; Nguyen, Fehring & Warren, 2015).

The present qualitative case study seeks to occupy such a research space. Specifically, it aims to explore and understand the perceptions of a small group (N=8) of Vietnamese pre-service teachers, undertaking the same teacher education programme, about the teaching of speaking and how they go about teaching speaking in practice. It also aims to investigate what underlies the participants’ perspectives in order to gain insights into the factors that affect and shape their speaking instructional decisions in the classroom. Data obtained for this study were from multiple sources including semi-structured interviews, document analysis, classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews. Following a data-driven approach, themes were developed and used in analysis for drawing a constant comparison among the participants (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Merriam, 2009). From analysis of the data, the findings of the study showed that the eight pre-service teachers strongly valued the learning of speaking and favoured communicative methods for the teaching of speaking. However, due to the influence of various contextual factors, for example, students’ low motivation for learning English for communication, teaching materials, large class-size and school teachers’ supervision, the participants’ stated perceptions appeared to diverge in practice.

Table of Contents

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ...... i COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ...... ii AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii ABSTRACT ...... iv Table of Contents ...... v List of Abbreviations ...... x List of Tables ...... xi List of Appendices ...... xii Conference papers presented ...... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background of the study ...... 1 1.2. Purpose and research questions ...... 5 1.3. Methodology overview ...... 5 1.4. Significance of the study ...... 6 1.5. Structure of the thesis ...... 7

CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ...... 9 2.1. History, language and culture of Vietnam ...... 9 2.1.1. History ...... 10 2.1.2. Language and culture ...... 11 2.2. Education in Vietnam ...... 15 2.2.1. The nature of Vietnamese educational system ...... 15 2.2.2. English teacher education programmes ...... 21 2.3. English language teaching ...... 24 2.3.1. The role of English ...... 24 2.3.2. English language teaching ...... 26

iii

2.4. Summary ...... 38

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 40 3.1. The teaching of speaking ...... 40 3.1.1. Definitions and features of speaking ...... 41 3.1.1.1. What is speaking? ...... 41 3.1.1.2. Features of speaking ...... 43 3.1.2. Issues in the teaching and learning of speaking ...... 45 3.1.2.1. The importance of speaking ...... 45 3.1.2.2. Approaches to the teaching of speaking ...... 47 3.1.2.2.1. The grammar-translation method ...... 47 3.1.2.2.2. The direct method ...... 49 3.1.2.2.3. The audio-lingual method ...... 50 3.1.2.2.4 Communicative language teaching ...... 52 3.1.2.2.5. Task-based language teaching ...... 55 3.2. Teacher cognition ...... 56 3.2.1. The nature of teacher cognition ...... 57 3.2.2. Factors that affect and shape language teacher cognition ...... 59 3.2.2.1. Schooling experiences ...... 60 3.2.2.2. Teacher education programmes ...... 61 3.2.2.3. Contextual factors ...... 63 3.2.3. Teacher cognition and classroom practices ...... 65 3.3. Previous studies on teacher cognition about speaking instruction ...... 68 3.4. Summary ...... 71

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 73 4.1. The nature of qualitative research ...... 73 4.1.1. Definitions of qualitative research ...... 73 4.1.2. Characteristics of qualitative research ...... 75 4.2. The advantages of qualitative research ...... 77

4.3. Case study: A research approach ...... 79 4.4. Ethical issues ...... 82 4.5. Pilot study ...... 83 4.6. The main study ...... 85 4.6.1. Research setting ...... 85 4.6.2. Research participants ...... 86 4.7. Research methods ...... 90 4.7.1. Semi-structured interviews ...... 90 4.7.2. Document analysis ...... 92 4.7.3. Classroom observations ...... 93 4.7.4. Stimulated recall interviews ...... 94 4.7.5. Focus group interviews ...... 96 4.8. Data analysis ...... 97 4.9. Trustworthiness of the research ...... 102 4.9.1. Credibility ...... 103 4.9.2. Transferability ...... 105 4.9.3. Dependability ...... 106 4.9.4. Confirmability ...... 107 4.10. Summary ...... 107

CHPATER 5: CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DATA ANALYSIS ...... 109 5.1. Practicum, roles of supervising teachers and textbooks ...... 110 5.1.1. Practicum ...... 110 5.1.2. Roles of school supervising teachers ...... 112 5.1.3. Textbooks ...... 113 5.2. Expectations of teacher educators and supervising teachers about classroom speaking instruction ...... 114 5.2.1. Teacher educators’ expectations about the teaching of speaking ...... 115 5.2.1.1. Focusing on fluency ...... 115 5.2.1.2. Focusing on accuracy ...... 116

5.2.1.3. Focusing on complexity ...... 118 5.2.2. Supervising teachers’ expectations about the teaching of speaking ...... 119 5.2.2.1. Providing new language items ...... 119 5.2.2.2. Focusing on accuracy ...... 121 5.3. Summary ...... 122

CHPATER 6: PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE TEACHING OF SPEAKING ...... 123 6.1. Experiences in learning English ...... 123 6.2. Perceptions about the teaching of speaking ...... 127 6.2.1. Importance of the teaching of speaking ...... 128 6.2.2. Approaches to the teaching of speaking ...... 133 6.2.2.1. Communicative approach ...... 133 6.2.2.2. Roles of the teacher and learners ...... 136 6.2.3. Content of the teaching of speaking ...... 143 6.2.3.1. Providing new language items ...... 143 6.2.3.2. Focusing on accuracy ...... 145 6.2.3.3. Focusing on fluency ...... 147 6.3. Summary ...... 149

CHAPTER 7: PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN TEACHING SPEAKING ...... 150 7.1. Classroom practices ...... 150 7.1.1. Providing vocabulary as communicative input ...... 150 7.1.2. Dialogue-model practice ...... 157 7.1.3. Corrective feedback ...... 177 7.2. Factors that affected and shaped the participants’ classroom practices ...... 189 7.2.1. Students’ motivation for learning speaking ...... 189 7.2.2. Teaching materials ...... 193 7.2.3. Class-size ...... 197

7.2.4. School teachers’ supervision ...... 198 7.3. Summary ...... 200

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSIONS OF THE FINDINGS ...... 202 8.1. Pre-service teachers’ perceptions ...... 202 8.2. Pre-service teachers’ classroom practices ...... 206 8.2.1. Providing language input ...... 207 8.2.2. Focusing on language accuracy ...... 208 8.3. Factors that affected the participants’ classroom practices ...... 212 8.4. Summary ...... 218

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION ...... 220 9.1. Summary of the study ...... 220 9.2. Contributions of the study ...... 223 9.3. Implications of the research ...... 225 9.3.1. Implications for teacher education ...... 226 9.3.2. Implications for language policy ...... 227 9.4. Limitations of the study ...... 229 9.5. Recommendations for further research ...... 230 9.6. Concluding remarks ...... 232

References ...... 235 Appendices ...... 277

vii

List of Abbreviations

MOET Ministry of Education and Training EFL English as a foreign language ESL English as a second language ELT English language teaching CLT Communicative language teaching TBLT Task-based language teaching USA The United States of America ASEAN The Association of Southeast Asian Nations SEAMEO The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization AFAT The ASEAN Free Trade Area ASEM The SEAN-Europe Meeting APEC The Asia-Pacific Economic Community WTO The World Trade Organization UNSC The United Nations Security Council USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics SSEC The Secondary School Educational Certificate NUEE The National University Examination Entrance SLA Second language acquisition CEFR The Common European Framework for Reference for languages PISC The participant information statement and consent UNSW The University of New South Wales

viii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Characteristics of qualitative research ...... 76 Table 4.2 Background information of the participant pre-service teachers ...... 88 Table 4.3 Profiles of the participant school supervisors ...... 89 Table 4.4 Profiles of the participant teacher educators ...... 90 Table 5.1 Expectations of the four teacher educators about the teaching of speaking . 115 Table 5.2 Expectations of the four supervising teachers about the teaching of speaking ...... 119 Table 6.1 Themes emerging from the data regarding the participants’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking ...... 128 Table 6.2 Roles of the teacher ...... 137 Table 6.3 Roles of the learners ...... 141 Table 6.4 Content of the teaching of speaking ...... 143

List of Appendices

Appendix A English teacher education programme ...... 277 Appendix B Ethics approval number ...... 281 Appendix C Informed letter of approval ...... 282 Appendix D The high school principal’s approval letter ...... 284 Appendix E The participant information statement and consent ...... 285 Appendix F Pre-service teachers’ supervisors’ information statement ...... 288 Appendix G Teacher educators’ information statement ...... 291 Appendix H Semi-structured interview guidelines ...... 294 Appendix I Sample of semi-structured interview ...... 296 Appendix J Sample of classroom observation ...... 304 Appendix K Stimulated recall interview guidelines ...... 314 Appendix L Sample of stimulated recall interview ...... 315 Appendix M Focus group interview guidelines (school supervisors) ...... 323 Appendix N The focus group interview (the school supervisors) ...... 324 Appendix O Focus group interview guidelines (teacher educators) ...... 331 Appendix P The focus group interview (the teacher educators) ...... 332 Appendix Q Sample of lesson plan ...... 342 Appendix R Compulsory subjects at high schools in Vietnam ...... 345 Appendix S Transcription conventions ...... 347 Appendix T Sample of textbook lesson ...... 348

Conference papers presented

Mai, C. K. (2016). Teaching speaking in practicum: What challenges do Vietnamese pre-service teachers face? Paper presented at the 12th Annual CamTESOL Conference 20-21, February, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Mai, C. K. (2015). Factors affecting pre-service teachers’ speaking instruction in practicum: A case study in Vietnam. Paper presented at the International Journal of Arts & Sciences’ (IJAS) Asian American Conference for Teaching and Education, 13-16 January, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Mai, C. K. (2014). English Teaching Methodology in Vietnamese Pedagogical Contexts: A challenging issue. Paper presented at the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA), International Conference, 30 September - 3 October 2014, Melbourne, Australia.

Mai, C. K. (2014). Teaching speaking skills in Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Paper presented at the 34th Thai TESOL International Conference, 17-18 January 2014, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Mai, C. K. (2013). English Language Teaching in Vietnamese Pedagogical Contexts: A methodological consideration. Paper presented at the NSW IeR Student Research Conference, 8 November, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Australia.

Mai, C. K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching speaking: A case study of EFL pre-service teachers at high schools in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Postgraduate Conference, 21-22 November 2013, The University of New South Wales, Australia.

Mai, C. K. (2013). Teaching speaking: A challenging issue for English language teachers in Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Paper presented at the Student-led Conference, 8 November, The University of New South Wales, Australia.

Mai, C. K., Edwards, E., Vu, N.T.T. & Rith, S. (2013). Going on a PhD journey: Experiences and Perspectives. Paper presented at the Student-led Conference, 8 November, The University of New South Wales, Australia.

xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the study

With the increasing pace of international integration and globalization in recent decades, the English language has become widespread in many parts of the world. English is no longer seen as the private property of those who own and speak it as native speakers, but as a means of communication for the international community. English is now viewed as a global language (Bruff-Grifler, 2002; Crystal, 2003; Jang, 2014; Moore & Bounchan, 2010; Nguyen, 2011; Nunan, 2003b; Pan & Block, 2011; Ton & Pham, 2010) or a lingua franca (Bayyurt & Akcan, 2015; Jenkins, 2006, 2012). With the pervasive use of the English language, governments of many countries seriously take its role into consideration and are aware of its profound effects on all areas of scientific, technological, commercial and educational endeavour (Baker & Westrup, 2003; Chang & Goswami, 2011; Goh & Chen, 2014; Hayes & Chang, 2014; Nguyen, 2004; Pham, 2014; Vu & Burns, 2014). As the language of globalization and international communication, English is considered “the leading foreign language enjoying a prestigious position in many countries,...[and] it is the most widely taught foreign language at all stages of educational system” (Karahan, 2007, p.74).

Drawing on its important role and benefits, in English language teaching (ELT), learners’ oral competence is the target that needs to be developed for real-life communication. In other words, students are expected to develop their ability to use the language for a variety of communicative purposes. This focus has been recognized for some time. For example, Eckard and Kearny (1981, p.1) strongly emphasise that a major goal of teaching English is to help students “to speak English well enough to converse spontaneously and naturally with native and non-native speakers”. Sharing the same view, more recently, various authors (e.g., Davies & Pearse, 2000; Huang, 2010; Richards, 2008; Shen, 2013) point out that developing the ability of language learners to communicate in English is the main goal of an English language course. At the end of the course, they argue that the learners should be able to “communicate effectively in

English outside the classroom for study, work, or leisure” (Davies & Pearse, 2000, p.71). Similarly, Goh and Burns (2012) stress that nowadays the primary goal of second language teachers is to help language learners become competent speakers of the language.

In the context of Vietnam, English is taught as a foreign language and has been mandated as a compulsory subject for students at all schools and colleges. This issue will be further discussed in Chapter 2, Context of the study. The goal of teaching English is to develop students’ speaking ability and enable them to communicate effectively in the spoken language (Dang, Nguyen & Le, 2013; Nguyen, 2011; Nguyen & Tran, 2015; Pham, 2014). This goal is clearly reflected in a new curriculum issued by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) (2006) as well as in the following comment taken from Mai’s (2007) work:

In Vietnam, together with the economic open-door policy of the Vietnamese Government in recent years as well as the process of integrating into the world community, a great change has been implemented in the educational system for giving more chances to the Vietnamese people to learn English. Therefore, methodology for teaching and learning English as a foreign language has been considerably changing in order to enhance the abilities of English language users, especially speaking English to meet the needs required by their work. (Mai, 2007, p.1)

In response to these changes, tremendous efforts to introduce and apply various new approaches, methods and techniques to teaching and learning English in Vietnam have been made by many methodologists, language teachers and international and local organizations. In particular, a large number of Vietnamese teachers of English from different areas of the whole country have been invited to attend seminars, workshops, or training courses, aimed at changing their attitudes towards and practices in English instruction. As a result, there is a renewal occurring, which involves shifting from a traditional methodology to a communicative approach with a view to including greater ‘learner-centeredness’ in English language teaching and learning. However, as numerous researchers (e.g., Bernat, 2004; Dang et al., 2013; Le, 2001, 2007; Le, 2011;

Le, 2013; Le & Barnard, 2009; Nguyen, 2012; Pham, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2007; Tomlinson & Bao, 2004) argue, even today in many classrooms, the grammar- translation method, focusing on the acquisition of grammar and vocabulary rather than the development of communicative speaking skills, is still employed. Moreover, in the classroom, teachers are the controllers of classroom activities remaining “a donor of knowledge and corrector of learner errors” (Patil, 2008, p.227). Students are required to develop ‘meta-linguistic’ and ‘literary competence’, with the result that the English speaking ability of most Vietnamese students remains unchanged, failing to enable them to communicate in the target language in the real world (Le, 2011; Le, 2013; Pham, 2014).

According to the results of recent educational research, most Vietnamese English language learners have a low ability in speaking English in daily communication although they learn English for a long time, nearly ten years from lower-secondary school to university (Do, 2006; Le, 2011; Mai, 2007; Nguyen & Tran, 2015; Vietnamnet, 2011; Vu & Nguyen, 2004). This means that, after graduation, a large number of students still have much difficulty expressing themselves effectively. As Le (2011, p.3) claims, learners are unable to “communicate in English with others in basic daily life situations”, which accounts for “a phenomenon known as mute English” (Zhang, 2009, p.32). This result generally reflects the fact that, as Nation and Newton (2009, p.x) note, “Where English is taught as a foreign language, fluency development is often neglected”. Consequently, the quality of teaching and learning English at both general and tertiary levels in Vietnam is still very low, which is “far from meeting the demand of socio-economic development of the country at the moment” (Le, 2013, p.66).

Given the generally poor outcomes in the teaching and learning of English in the Vietnamese situation, a major aim of Vietnamese educational policy is, therefore, to identify more effective ways to teach Vietnamese English language learners to be able to communicate in the target language effectively in real-life situations. Speaking, as several authors confirm (e.g., Bailey, 2005; Burns, 2006; Goh & Burns, 2012; Richards, 2008; Una, 2016), is an integral part of language learning and teaching, and the ability to produce spoken language effectively in daily communication is the ultimate goal of

learners and of their success later in every phase of their life (Goh & Burns; 2012; Kayi, 2006; Huang, 2010; Nazara, 2011; Richards, 2008). However, the teaching of speaking in the educational context of Vietnam is still undervalued. In speaking lessons, most Vietnamese English instructors do not teach their students the skills and strategies to develop their oral accuracy and fluency although students are required to take part in speaking activities. Goh and Burns (2012) highlight this situation as a common phenomenon in many classes that claim to teach speaking:

Although speaking activities occur frequently in their classrooms, learners seldom have the opportunity to learn the skills and strategies and the language to improve their speaking. While learners do a lot of talking in class activities, there is often insufficient teaching of speaking as a language communication skill...Speaking occur[s] frequently in class, but the teaching of speaking [does] not. (Goh & Burns, 2012, pp.2-3)

Given the realities of teaching speaking in Vietnam, and in particular, in line with recent education innovations, there is a need for teacher education to offer opportunities for professional preparation. In this regard, as many scholars argue, the standard of language education has prompted calls for reform to pre-service teacher education (Dang et al., 2013; Ha, 2003; Le, 2014; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010), in which efforts primarily focus on developing their teaching practices during the practicum. Similarly, Jang (2014) stresses that reform in pre-service teacher education must focus on “increasing the emphasis on the role of actual practice as a measure of teacher quality” (p.17). However, the literature indicates that there is a dearth of research on teacher learning through initial teaching practice related to teacher cognition (see Chapter 3) in the area of spoken English, while a number of studies have been conducted to examine pre-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning in general education during their teacher education programmes (Dikici, 2012; Kagan, 1992b; Mak, 2011; Mascalister, 2012; Peacock, 2001; Zheng, 2009). Therefore, exploring what pre-service teachers perceive about teaching speaking and how they actually perform their speaking instruction in practice within a specific socio-cultural context is crucial for an understanding of how teachers construct and develop the process on learning to teach speaking (Mak, 2011; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010; Jang, 2014). Nevertheless, this area of

investigation has remained unexplored in the Vietnamese educational context, in which the purpose of learning English as a foreign language (EFL) for most Vietnamese students is to acquire a good knowledge of grammar and a wide vocabulary in order to “pass formal examinations to move to further study” (Denham, 1992, p.65). Hence, it can be argued that the present study is the first attempt to gain answers to these essential matters and aims to fill an important gap in this field of study.

In the following sections of the chapter, the purpose and research questions are presented. Then, the methodological overview and significance of the study are described, and finally the organization of the dissertation is provided.

1.2. Purpose and research questions

Based on the reasons expressed above, the present study aims to undertake an in-depth exploration of the perceptions about teaching speaking of a group of Vietnamese pre- service teachers undertaking the same English teacher education programme and working in the same high school environment. A more specific goal of this study is to investigate how these teachers go about teaching speaking in the classroom and what underlines their perspectives. The research also intends to gain insights into the factors that affect and shape their speaking instructional decisions in the classroom. Specifically, the research questions for the study are:

1. What are the perceptions of Vietnamese pre-service teachers about teaching speaking in the classroom? 2. To what extent are these perceptions reflected in their practice of teaching speaking? 3. What are the factors that influence their teaching of speaking in the classroom?

1.3. Methodology overview

The current study was designed to work within a qualitative methodology, within which a case study was adopted as an appropriate approach in order to obtain deep

understanding and gain a thick description and interpretation of what these pre-service teachers perceived and actually did in their speaking instruction in practice. Multiple research methods were employed for data collection such as semi-structured interviews, document analysis, classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews. Employing multiple data sources, according to Nguyen, Newton and Crabbe (2015), provides “a rich basis for triangulation to enhance consistency and accuracy of the findings” (p.174). The research methodology of the study including the methodological choices, research setting and participants, procedures for participant recruitment and data collection, method of data coding, and others will be explained and described in detail in Chapter 4.

1.4. Significance of the study

As stated in Section 1.1, the current case study is the first to be carried out in the field of teaching speaking at secondary schools in Vietnam. By investigating the perceptions of pre-service teachers about teaching speaking in the current challenging situation in the Vietnamese educational context and exploring how these pre-service teachers go about teaching speaking in practice, the findings of this study are significant in a number of ways.

First, the study raises a major concern for not only the language teacher, but also learners about the importance of teaching and learning speaking in Vietnam, and not simply including speaking activities in the programme. This is because the purpose of teaching and learning a language such as English, for example, is not merely to pass examinations, but importantly it is to meet learners’ communication needs, the requirements of employment recruiters as well as the development of the society (Baker & Westrup, 2003; Goh & Chen, 2014; MOET, 2006, 2007; Nguyen & Tran, 2015; Pham, 2007). Second, the study can provide valuable data for teacher professional development with reference to the teaching of speaking in my local context and the broader language teaching community as well. Next, the findings of the study will have important implications both for teacher education and language policy. Finally, it is hoped that the present study will be helpful in providing a knowledge basis for those

interested in researching in this field in the future in the diverse educational contexts in EFL countries.

1.5. Structure of the thesis

This thesis is organized into nine chapters. This first chapter provides the background of the study, its purposes and the research questions, its overall methodology and its significance.

Chapter 2 presents a detailed description of the context in which the study was conducted. In this chapter, the educational history of Vietnam and the role of English as well as ELT in its educational system are set out. In particular, the chapter describes the nature of the Vietnamese teacher education programme in which the participants studied, aiming to highlight the potential impact and influence on the pre-service teachers’ perceptions and practices with regard to the teaching of speaking.

Chapter 3 presents a review of the relevant literature, focusing on the teaching of speaking and teacher cognition. This review aims at providing the conceptual framework underpinning the study, and also accounts for the identification of a research gap that this thesis seeks to occupy.

Chapter 4 deals with the choice of research methodology, the research design, and the instruments for data collection. The description of the research setting and participants of the study, procedures for participant recruitment and data collection, method of data coding, analysis and interpretation are provided. In addition, the ethical considerations regarding the research are also taken into account in this chapter.

Chapter 5 addresses contextual considerations for data analysis. In this chapter, three contextual issues comprising (i) the practicum, (ii) the roles of school supervising teachers and (iii) the textbooks used to teach English at high schools in the Vietnamese educational system are examined and presented. Also, in order to further contextualize the discussion of the study findings, expectations of both groups of teacher educators

and school supervising teachers about pre-service teachers’ speaking instruction in classroom practices are provided.

The findings of the study are presented in Chapter 6 and 7. Chapter 6 addresses the first research question in relation to the participants’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking, while Chapter 7 deals with the second and third research questions regarding the extent to which these perceptions are reflected in their classroom practices, and the factors that affect and shape the participants’ instructional pedagogies in the classroom teaching context.

Chapter 8 discusses the findings with reference to each of the research questions with reference to the literature reviewed in Chapter 3. The thesis ends with Chapter 9. In this chapter, the key findings of the study are first recapitulated, followed by a discussion of the implications of the study; a critical identification of the limitations of this study is also acknowledged, and the possibilities for further research are posed.

In the following chapter, Chapter 2, I present the contextual background that sets out details of where the research took place, with the aim to provide deeper understanding of the research presented in this thesis.

CHAPTER 2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Phan (2009) suggests that an investigation into Vietnamese teachers’ perceptions about language teaching and learning should be “positioned within the complexity of the context of Vietnam” (p.170). Contexts, concerning “the social, institutional, instructional and physical settings” (Borg, 2006, p.275) or “a culture with particular assumptions and expectations” (Gibbons, 2002, p.2), are recognized as having a major impact upon teachers’ instructional practices in their classrooms (Baecher & Dang, 2011; Burns, 1996; Freeman, 2002; Johnson, 1994; Nishimuro & Borg, 2013).

The present research is a case study conducted at an upper-secondary school in Vietnam. Therefore, in order to contextualize the study and its findings, this chapter first provides brief information with reference to Vietnam’s history, language and culture. It next describes the nature of Vietnam’s educational system as well as the English teacher education programmes inherent in that system. Then, English language teaching in the Vietnamese context is discussed. In this section, the role of English and the development of the teaching of English in Vietnam are examined and addressed.

2.1. History, language and culture of Vietnam

Shaped like an elongated S, Vietnam is a tropical country in Southeast Asia, occupying approximately 127,243 square miles, equivalent to 329,560 square kilometres. It is bordered by China to the north, Laos to the northeast and centre, and Cambodia to the southwest. Vietnam also has about 2,135 miles (3,444 kilometres) of coastline running from its border with Cambodia on the Gulf of Thailand along the South China Sea to its border with China. Vietnam is known as home to fifty-four official ethnic groups, in which the largest group is the ethnic Vietnamese (Kinh), who account for over 85 percent of the national population. The current population of Vietnam is over 90 million composed almost exclusively of these indigenous peoples. Vietnamese is the dominant and national language, which is regarded as a tonal Mon-Khmer language with strong Chinese lexical influences. The six-toned dialect is considered as the foundation for the

standard form of the language; however, significant dialectical variations exist between different regions in terms of the number of tones, accents, and vocabulary. Specified as the official language, Vietnamese is taught in schools and other educational institutions throughout the country. To further capture an understanding of the context for the present study, it is necessary to examine the establishment and development of Vietnam in relation to its history, language and culture, which are in turn presented in the next sections.

2.1.1. History

Many Vietnamese archaeologists, historians and researchers confirm that Vietnam has its own history of more than 4,000 years of civilization. The ancient Vietnamese people were tribal groups who inhabited the western regions of the Red River delta. About 2,700 years ago, a tribal group identified by the cultural characteristics of Dong Son were living in the territory known as the kingdom of Van Lang ruled by the Hung kings. The people of Van Lang were referred to the Lac Viet or the Lac. Towards the end of the third century B.C, the king of Tay Au-Thuc Phan defeated the last of the Hung kings, and began his campaigns to merge the territories, uniting the two kingdoms of Tay Au and Lac Viet into a new nation ‘Au Lac’ (Dao, 1994; Pham, 1995).

From 111 B.C to 938 A.D, Vietnam was under the domination of the Chinese feudal emperors. During this period, Chinese emperors imposed their rule over the territory of Vietnam. It was not until 938 when Ngo Quyen defeated the Southern Han troops at the battle of Bach Dang river and declared national independence that Vietnam ceased to be dominated by Chinese imperialistic rule, which had lasted nearly 1,000 years. However, during the following centuries, Vietnam was continually invaded and ruled by the Chinese until the French invasion of Vietnam in the mid-19th century. After liberation from French occupation with the victory at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the country was temporally divided into two parts (North and South Vietnam) at the 17th parallel in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The North remained as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, adopting communism, while the South followed capitalism, influenced greatly by the United States of America (USA). The resistance war against

the USA ended in 1975, which led to the reunification of the nation known today as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Vietnam is now at peace and maintains diplomatic and economic relations with more than 170 nations and territories all over the world. Fraser (1995) noted over twenty years ago that Vietnam was “embarking on a new era of educational, scientific, and commercial co-operation with many countries” (p.xiii). Since that time, Vietnam has joined the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); participated in the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), the ASEAN-Europe Meeting (ASEM), and the Asia- Pacific Economic Community (APEC); it has implemented the Vietnam-US Bilateral Trade Agreement, and become the 150th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Kieu, 2010).

2.1.2. Language and culture

Over its 4,000 years of civilization, Vietnam has been constantly dominated by powerful foreign countries such as China, France and the USA. Consequently, these dominating forces have contributed to great changes in shaping the language and culture that strongly characterize the Vietnamese people.

According to Le (2011), language is one of the elements that indicates the strength or identity of a nation. As with most countries, Denham (1992) and Nguyen (2016) argue, the linguistic history of Vietnam reflects its political history. During the long period of Chinese domination which lasted for 1,000 years (from 111 B.C to 938 A.D), Chinese administrators established schools in both public and private systems, mainly to train their children to assume roles as functionaries for their state administrative and ruling machinery (Nguyen, 2012; Pham, 1995; Tran, 2002). With a view to assimilate the Vietnamese nation, all teaching materials and textbooks used for instruction in schools were written in Han, the Chinese script. Consequently, Chinese was used as the medium of instruction in the Chinese feudal education system and became the official language of the state (Goh & Bang, 2004; Karnow, 1991; Woods, 2002). However, the Vietnamese language was still in use as a spoken form in daily life among the populace (Le, 2011).

From about the thirteenth century, a new writing system of Vietnamese language known as “Chu Nom” was developed on the basis of borrowing the Chinese characters. Both writing systems of Chu Han and Chu Nom existed together until around the nineteenth century (Karnow, 1991; Le, 2011). Chu Han was used for official government documents such as law, business, scholarship and administrative correspondence, while Chu Nom was popularly used for literature (Goh & Bang, 2004; Pham, 1995; Phan, 2009). The development of Chu Nom in the thirteenth century indicated “the desire of the Vietnamese to assert their cultural freedom from the Chinese invaders” (Phan, 2009, p. 171). Therefore, a number of valuable literary works were written in Chu Nom (Nguyen, 2012; Pham & Fry, 2004; Phan, 2009), and a large number of the Vietnamese people were able to read Chu Nom when the French invaded Vietnam in 1858 (Karnow, 1991; Phan, 2009). The creation and innovation of Chu Nom, according to Pham (1995), is one of “considerable significance and carried implications for later social and educational developments in Vietnam” (p. 45).

In the late seventeenth century, many missionaries from Portugal, the Philippines and France arrived in Vietnam. Since they encountered many difficulties in their mission to translate and write Catholic religious materials in Vietnamese, a notable French Jesuit, Alexandre de Rhodes (1591-1660), created a new script to devise “Chu Quoc Ngu” based on the Roman script phonetic alphabet. Through many codifications and elaborations, Chu Quoc Ngu developed into the national written code of today (Do, 2006; Karnow, 199; Pham, 1995). According to Pham and Fry (2004), this new language writing system exerted a profound influence on the evolution of Vietnamese education as well as on both political and social changes. In addition, perhaps unintentionally the development of Chu Quoc Ngu laid a strong foundation for the Vietnamese to have access to the written forms of both French and English later (Goh & Bang, 2004; Le, 2011).

In terms of culture, Vietnam is heavily influenced by Chinese ideologies and religious beliefs, which are reflected in a blending of three doctrines, namely Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism (Ashwill & Thai, 2005; Dao, 1994; Karnow, 1991; Nguyen, 2002; Phan, 2008; Tran, 2002; Woods, 2002). As Goodman (2005) argues, Chinese culture dominates “the Vietnamese moral code, aesthetic values, social etiquette and

philosophy” (p.30). Other researchers (e.g., Brick & Louie, 1984; Pham, 1995; Pham & Fry, 2004; Nguyen, 2002) also assert that behaviours, attitudes and actions through which the Vietnamese people interact with each other in daily life are strongly influenced by Chinese principles. These principles together with other beliefs intertwine, assimilate, and result in certain characteristics of the Vietnamese people such as politeness, compassion, humility, tolerance, hospitality, animism, and even superstitions. In particular, the hierarchical principles of Confucianism place strong emphasis on the moral virtues and social status which powerfully construct and guide both the thoughts and actions of the Vietnamese people in personal and social life (Goodman, 2005; Nguyen, 2002; Phan, 2008). The Chinese Confucian principles are briefly described as follows:

Confucianism emphasises social behaviour, duty, and hierarchy…Its code of ethics demands loyalty of government to the emperor, obedience of children to parents, and submission of wives to husbands. It asserts that everyone has the same potential for achieving happiness, attained by improvement through education. Confucian ideals also promote ancestor worship, the ritual expression of filial piety. (Ashwill & Thai, 2005, p.13)

The strong influence of Confucianism on the Vietnamese may be due to the educational content that was taught at schools during the period of 1,000 years under the Chinese invasions. Researchers such as Tran (2002) and Pham (1995) note that the curriculum taught in that period consisted of the set of four Confucian classical principles (the Analects, Great Learning, Golden Means, Mencius) and the five Confucian classical books (the Odes, the Annals, the Book of Mutations, the Book of Rites and Ceremonies, the Spring and Autumn Annals), that is, the essential contents of Confucianism. In addition, other books on Taoism and Buddhism were also introduced into but “not officially used at schools and in examinations except for social contact and popular literature” (Tran, 2002, p.4). Consequently, Confucian ideologies and philosophies were ingrained in Vietnamese minds, which still heavily guide their view of the world, code of conduct, notions of hierarchy, performance of rituals, and educational philosophies and practices (Pham & Fry, 2005). These ideologies are mentioned in Goodman’s (2005) study:

The Vietnamese view of the world and how it worked, of family and society and the roles of its members, and of concepts of duty and virtue, all bore a heavy resemblance to the Chinese, specifically Confucian, interpretation of life. (Goodman, 2005, p.31)

In 1858, the French colonialists invaded Vietnam and they began to implement a language policy, which aimed to minimise the influences of Chinese culture and language on the Vietnamese (Denham, 1992, 1997; Nguyen 2006). The authorities of French colonialism undertook a reconstruction of Vietnam’s school system, aiming to serve colonial imperatives more efficiently (London, 2011). French was prioritized in education, especially higher education and quickly became the official language of the nation (Dang, 1986; Nguyen, 2012). Nguyen (2012) also reports that using French for daily conversations and adopting French culture were “part of the French colonization plans set for the Vietnamese people” (p.260). However, the involvement of the USA in the South of Vietnam in 1954 brought some changes to the Vietnamese culture. As Nguyen (2002) points out, the advent of French colonialism and the American intervention in Vietnam also added “some Western elements to the traditional Vietnamese culture, as reflected in arts, architecture, music, attire, schooling system, literature, sexual equality and social mores” (p.2).

In relation to such a historical and cultural context, the influence of foreign invaders’ cultures, especially Chinese cultures in terms of Confucianism, heavily shape not only the material and spiritual life of the nation, but also the characteristics and psychology of the Vietnamese (Ashwill & Thai, 2005; Pham & Fry, 2004). As a result, Vietnamese people have a traditional culture of respecting teachers, elders and authorities and being responsible to their families and society. As Pham and Fry (2004, p.201) assert:

Fondness for learning and an emphasis on morality in education have been important traditional Vietnamese values. Since respect for learning and teachers have been enduring traits of the Vietnamese people throughout its civilization, these values have contributed fundamentally to the shaping of Vietnamese culture, history, and its people.

However, despite a thousand years of Chinese rule (111 B.C - 939 A.D), a century of French colonialism (1858-1954), and twenty-one years of the intervention from the USA (1954-1975) traditional Vietnamese culture has still survived and “is not without its own national identity” (Nguyen, 2002, p.1). Researchers (e.g., Ashwill & Thai, 2005; London, 2011; Nguyen, 2002) document that the influences of Chinese and Western ideologies and philosophies on the Vietnamese people are unavoidable, but “nationhood, independence, unification and language preservation have always been uncompromising allegiances of the Vietnamese people” (Nguyen, 2002, p.2).

As outlined above, for centuries, Vietnam experienced an extreme political history, which has had a direct influence on the educational system for centuries (Fry, 2009; London, 2011; Pham & Fry, 2004; Reddy, 2012), and has left “an indelible cultural and educational impact upon Vietnam which persists to this very day” (Pham & Fry, 2004, p.200). Such impacts have strongly shaped both Vietnamese teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about teaching and learning styles in classroom practices. Therefore, in order to provide a better understanding for the study, in the next section, Section 2.2, an examination of the Vietnamese educational system is presented.

2.2. Education in Vietnam

As indicated in Chapter 1, this study aimed to explore the perceptions of a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers, undertaking the same teacher training courses, about the teaching of speaking. Therefore, in this section, I first discuss the nature of the Vietnamese educational system. Then, an examination of English teacher education programmes inherent in this system is provided.

2.2.1. The nature of Vietnamese educational system

In Vietnam, education plays an essential role and is thought to be “critical to individual advancement and to the wellbeing of the nation” (Taylor, 2011, p.vii). According to Le (2009), the Vietnamese educational system reflects “the power structure of the social context” (p.220). With such cultural beliefs, teachers are highly valued and teaching is regarded as the most honoured profession. It is believed that learners should be

submissive and listen to and learn from what the teacher provides. Learning follows “the hierarchy of first listening to the teacher, then repetition, then copying models” (Le, 2001, p.36). Interrupting, arguing or challenging teachers risks being rude and resistant against the traditional cultural values. All children and youth must ‘first learn how to behave, and then learn the subject’ (Vietnamese saying). Chinese Confucian education thereby constructs and supports teacher-centred methods or teacher-led classes, which account for the tacit beliefs that teachers are regarded as always correct (Ashwill & Thai, 2005). A teacher must be an “all knowing person” (Littlewood, 2000, p.34), and what the teacher says is “unquestionably the standard” (Le, 2001, p.35). Therefore, in the classroom, there is little or no debate and the teacher has complete authority (Ashwill & Thai, 2005; Brick & Louie, 1984). Teachers are supposed to be providers of knowledge and models of morality and wisdom. The way teachers dress and behave is considered important because of the teacher’s influence on the students. Listening, taking notes, memorising and reciting lessons are viewed as typical daily routines and the correct behaviour of a good student (Ashwill & Thai, 2005; Brick & Louie, 1984; Nguyen, 2002). Consequently, in the English classroom, such thinking and beliefs have resulted in “rote learning of rules, with little or no encouragement of using English for communicative purposes and little development of creative or independent thinking” (Le, 2004, p.29). This educational philosophy still exists and has become predominant in the Vietnamese classrooms of today (Le & Barnard, 2009).

At the end of the nineteenth century and the first years of the twentieth century, as discussed in the previous section, the French colonialists began to develop their colonial education system in Vietnam. However, like the Chinese Confucian education system, the curricula developed and the educational systems designed in the period of French colonialism were restricted to the elite, training both the children of the local French colonists and a small number of Vietnamese to become personnel for the administrative machinery of the colonial regime (Goh & Bang, 2004; Pham & Fry, 2004; Pham, 1995). As Ashwill and Thai (2005) corroborate, the main purpose of the colonial education model was to “create a tiny elite of Vietnamese who could assist in the administration of their own country as a French colony” (p.34). As a result, only just over two percent of the Vietnamese population attended school and were exposed to the French colonialist education system (Pham, 1995; Woods, 2002).

During the period from 1954 to 1975, when the country was divided into North and South Vietnam, the North of Vietnam was independent and received much assistance from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for national reconstruction and the fight against America for the reunification of the whole country (Pham, 1995; Phan, 2009). With respect to education, Pike (1987) documents that:

The USSR now is the major, and, in some instances only, source of advanced and specialized training for Vietnamese learners. Increasingly, educational institutions in Vietnam rely on Soviet sources for everything, from textbooks to school buildings. (Pike, 1987, p.154)

Therefore, education in North Vietnam in this period was somewhat similar to Soviet education (Goh & Bang, 2004), consisting of a ten-year system: primary education (4 years), lower secondary education (3 years), and upper secondary education (3 years). In addition, various vocational secondary schools, vocational training centres, colleges and universities were continuously established and expanded to both provide personnel for the state sectors and to meet the national demands for the labour market (Duggan, 2001).

Meanwhile in the South of Vietnam, the American involvement also accounted for major changes in the educational system. In contrast to the French, the USA invested a greater budget in education, expanded higher education, and particularly made education at all levels become more practical and technological, following the twelve- year system of the American education model (Pham & Fry, 2004).

When the country became united in 1975, the two separate education systems of North and South Vietnam were unified under a national system. Since then, Vietnam has experienced considerable changes in its educational system in an attempt to meet the objectives of national socio-economic development and to keep pace with regional and international advanced education systems (London, 2011; Tran, 2002). In the early 1990s, the Communist Party of Vietnam considered education as a national priority, and investment in education was important for both social and economic development (Duggan, 2001; Le, 2009; Tran, 2002). Significantly, the MOET (1995) considered

educational reform in Vietnam as a process of renovation, in which investment in education and training must be viewed as “one of the main targets for development investment” (MOET, 1995, p.14). Consequently, with the major educational reforms of recent years, Vietnam’s contemporary education environment may have become “a relatively fully-fledged system” (Tran, 2002, p.vii). According to Vietnamese Education Law (2005), the Vietnamese educational system is now divided into a four-tiered one, consisting of pre-primary education, general education, professional education and higher education. This new educational system is, as Le (2009) argues, “more comprehensive and flexible” (p.220), and enables the Vietnamese to “access new social ideology and to develop their analytical thinking” (Le, 2001, p.37). The components of the educational system will be discussed next.

In the first stage of the educational system, pre-primary education consists of nursery and kindergarten schooling, which admit children from the age of around eighteen months to five years. The objectives of pre-primary education are “to help children develop physically, emotionally, intellectually and aesthetically, in order to shape the initial elements of personality as well as to prepare children for the first grade” (Vietnamese Education Law, 2005, p. 9).

During the general education stage, three levels of education including primary education, lower-secondary education and upper-secondary education are provided. Primary education is conducted over five years (Grades 1-5) and is compulsory for all children. Normally, children start their first year of schooling at the age of six. After completing the primary educational programme and meeting the requirements set by the MOET, primary students are permitted to go directly to lower-secondary education, without taking any formal provincial examinations. Lower-secondary education is offered over four years (Grades 6-9), which is directed towards consolidating and further developing the content learned at the primary education level. In addition, new techniques and career orientation are also integrated into the educational programme so that students are likely to enter either upper-secondary education, professional secondary education, vocational training, or the workforce. After the completion of their lower-secondary education, those students who wish to enter upper-secondary education must pass a selective examination held by the local Department of Education and

Training. Upper-secondary education is provided over three years (Grades 10-12). After completing the upper-secondary educational programme, students are required to sit for the formal national examination administrated by the MOET in order to get the Secondary School Education Certificate (SSEC).

At the professional education stage, there are two types of education which consist of professional upper-secondary education and vocational training. Professional upper- secondary education is carried out in three to four years of study for learners with lower-secondary education diplomas, and in one to two years of study for those with upper-secondary education diplomas. Professional upper-secondary education, according to Vietnamese Educational Law 2005, is directed towards “the training of working people with basic knowledge and practical skills of a profession, having ability to work independently and creatively as well as to apply technology into work” (p.13). In contrast, vocational training is conducted in less than one year for the preliminary vocational programme and in one to three years for the vocational upper secondary and college programme. The objectives of vocational training are concerned with “the training of technical workers directly participating in production and service to have the practical ability of a profession adequate to the relevant training qualification” (Educational Law, 2005, p. 13). Thus, after completing professional education, students are educated to become potential workers who are equipped with knowledge, professional skills, morals, discipline awareness and physical health, and also with the ability to undertake further study to improve their professional qualifications, meeting the needs of socio-economic development (Vietnamese Education Law, 2005).

Following this stage, higher education in Vietnam is patterned after Western models (Woods, 2002), comprising college, university, master and doctoral education. College education is introduced, depending on the discipline, from two to three years of study for persons with upper secondary education diplomas or professional secondary education diplomas; and from one and a half to two years of study for persons with professional secondary education diplomas in the same disciplines. University education is constructed, depending on the discipline, from four to six years of study for persons with upper secondary education diplomas or professional secondary education diplomas; and from two and a half to four years of study for persons with professional

education diplomas in the same disciplines; from one and a half to two years of study for persons with college diplomas in the same disciplines. The present study is based on the four-year programme of university education, which will be discussed in detail in the next section (Section 2.2.2). Master’s education is provided from one to two years of study for those holding undergraduate degrees. Doctoral education is offered over four years of study for persons with university degrees; and from two to three years of study for those with master degrees. In special cases, the duration of doctoral education could be extended as stipulated by the MOET.

In order to be admitted as a university student, upper-school students have to take a national university entrance examination (NUEE) and to gain high results. In Vietnam, as in other countries with elite higher education systems, the NUEE is extremely important but exceedingly difficult and stressful for most upper-school students. As a Confucian society, Vietnam places a high value on education, and especially has “a long tradition of higher education” (Fry, 2009, p.240). Entering an institution of higher education and getting a university degree is thought to “lead to more respect, more money, and a better life” (Ashwill & Thai, 2005, p.65). Therefore, Vietnamese parents constantly motivate and encourage their children to study hard to reach as high a level as possible in formal education. They are ready to sacrifice everything to achieve such a goal so that their children have access to a university education (Ashwill & Thai, 2005). Failure in exams, especially in the NUEE, is viewed as “academic incompetence and, therefore, a face-losing misfortune” (Le, 2001, p.36).

In summary, as the discussion so far has detailed, the development of the Vietnamese educational system is closely linked to Vietnam’s historical development. Through remarkable changes, Vietnam’s education system has accomplished significant achievements over the past four decades, with the goal of providing human resources for the nation. In relation to the purpose of the study, in the following section I discuss English teacher education programmes within the higher education system in Vietnam. The provision of time for training and the training goals for these programmes are also examined.

2.2.2. English teacher education programmes

In Vietnam, there are two separate education systems for training English language teachers: the college and the university. At the college level, teacher training offers programmes of three years and is responsible for educating primary and lower secondary teachers for grades 1-9. In contrast, at the university level, teacher training courses conducted over four years provide qualifications for upper-secondary teachers of grades 10-12. However, graduate students from universities are likely to have more opportunities to work as teachers of English at all school levels, even at tertiary institutions.

The present study relates to the four-year English teacher-training programme of a university situated in the central area of Vietnam (see Appendix A). According to MOET stipulations for higher education and the requirements of the university’s teacher-training programme, pre-service teachers are provided with three standard components of knowledge during their training: (1) foundation knowledge (Educational psychology, Socialism, Marxism-Leninism, History of the Communist Party, Military Education, Ho Chi Minh’s ideology, Informatics); (2) subject-matter knowledge (the four English macro-skills of reading, listening, speaking and writing; English linguistics, that is phonology, semantics, discourse analysis, grammar; American and British literature, culture and societies; Translation), and (3) pedagogical knowledge, or knowledge of how to teach (teaching methodology and the practicum period). Working within a four-year timeframe, the programme is divided into eight semesters consisting of 146 credits. Of these, 27 credits are offered for foundation knowledge, accounting for 18.4 %, and 119 credits for both subject-matter knowledge and professional knowledge make up 81.6%. Each credit is conducted in 15 hours of instruction.

With regard to the practicum, which will be discussed in detail in Section 5.1.1, various researchers (e.g., Farrell, 2003, 2007; Gan, 2013; Gao & Benson, 2012; Gebhard, 2009; Le, 2014; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010; Yuan & Lee, 2014) argue that teaching practice is recognized as one of the most essential aspects of teacher education programmes, and has a profound impact on pre-service teachers’ future professions (Chiang, 2008; Myles, Cheng & Wang, 2006; Le, 2014; Rozelle & Wilson, 2012). Richards and Crookes

(1988) also argue that the central expectation of the practicum is to provide “the major opportunity for the student teacher to acquire the practical skills and knowledge needed to function as an effective language teacher” (p.9). Likewise, Gebhard (2009, p.251) points to the value of teaching practice, which enable pre-service teachers to:

gain practical classroom teaching experience; apply theory and teaching ideas from previous course work; discover from observing experienced teachers; enhance lesson-planning skills; gain skills in selecting, adapting and developing original course materials; expand awareness of how to set their own goals related to improving their teaching; question, articulate, and reflect on their own teaching and learning philosophies, which include an amalgamation of assumptions, beliefs, values, educational, and life experiences; and see their own teaching differently by learning how to make their own informed teaching decisions through systematic observation and exploration of their own and other’s teaching.

In the practice teaching setting, pre-service teachers are required to “take full teaching responsibility for the classes they are assigned” (Le, 2014, p.204) under the guidance of their school supervising teachers (see Section 5.1.2). In the practicum period, pre- service teachers are also expected to observe lessons taught by their school supervising teachers, peers and other experienced teachers. It is noted that pre-service teachers are also required to participate in many educational activities held for students after school hours such as quizzes for learning, traffic safety contests and celebrations of International Women’s Day (8th March) and the Ho Chi Minh Youth Union (26th March). After completing their teacher-training courses, pre-service teachers are qualified to teach English at secondary schools. This issue will be further addressed in Section 2.3.

However, various educational administrators, trainers and researchers point out that English teacher education programmes at colleges and universities in Vietnam face many problems (Dang et al., 2013; Ha, 2003; Hoang, 2011; Le, 2002; Pham & Fry, 2004; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010), which may affect and limit the quality of training pre- service teachers. The most crucial of these problems are extensively discussed and criticized by (Le, 2002, p.33) below. It is noted that although this source is a decade old, it presents positions on the state of education in Vietnam that are generally regarded to be still relevant.

The training provided is not focused toward the national curriculum, and the teachers-to-be are not given adequate practical training in the application of current methodologies to the secondary school classroom;

Although a larger percentage of university teachers are...well-qualified and in many cases highly motivated, they are unable to consistently employ communicative methodologies in their teaching, and so often do not provide modelling or visible input for trainees;

Trainers face crowded classrooms, hidden student agendas, and a serious shortage of materials and resources. Course books are often old or photocopied, and supplementary resources available at each institution are limited;

Specialists trainers for methodology and linguistics are employed internally, based on the completion of advanced degrees rather than on actual secondary school teaching experience; and

There is no application of a formal system of performance assessment for teacher trainers. They are rarely observed, and administrators rely on student feedback to gauge trainer performance.

Referring to the limitations of the training of secondary school teachers in Vietnam, Ha (2003) also argues that teacher education programmes are not systematic in terms of co-

ordination between theoretical and pedagogical knowledge, which thus impedes the effectiveness of the training. For example, Ha indicates that Psychology and Pedagogy are two subjects taught separately without reference to language teaching and training, and also taught in Vietnamese by educators who do not have expertise in teaching languages. Consequently, he contends that pre-service teachers are not “aware of the inter-relations between these subjects and the Methods course in improving their actual teaching practices” (Ha, 2003, p.10).

2.3. English language teaching

In this section, the role of English in Vietnam will be first discussed, followed by a discussion of the teaching of English at schools in Vietnam.

2.3.1. The role of English

In Vietnam, English has played an essential role since the Vietnamese government issued the economic innovation policy (doi moi), as part of the transition from a Stalinist centrally planned to a market-oriented economy in 1986. In particular, as indicated earlier, since Vietnam joined the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) in 1991, the ASEAN in 1995, the APEC in 1998, and the WTO in 2006, and became a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2007, the role of English has been considered as a key factor to regional and global integration (Kieu, 2010; Nguyen, 2004). For example, Nguyen (2004, p.47) indicates that:

The government fully recognizes that English has become an international language and that it is the language for business, commerce, computer science and efficient use of the internet, which is indispensable in the modern world.

Researchers such as Do (2006), Vuong (2010) and Nguyen (2012) also stress that the impact of foreign languages, especially English, has contributed to considerable changes in many aspects of Vietnamese society, helping the country take ‘a short cut’ to

national economic development through the process of industrialization and modernization (Le, 2002; Le, 2012; Nguyen, 2004). According to Baker and Westrup (2003), the development of a country may be largely dependent upon the number of people who are proficient in English language speaking. They stress that good speakers of English will be in “a strong position to help their country’s economic, social and political development” (Baker & Westrup, 2003, p.5). For the reasons outlined here, at the Vietnamese Central Party Committee meeting in December 1996, English was officially confirmed as the first foreign language to be taught in Vietnamese schools. Since then, the MOET has also committed to reforming general education and promoting English as the first foreign language in the national curriculum (Dang et al., 2013; Nguyen, 2012). This critical issue will be further dealt with in Section 2.4.2.

Given its important role as a world language and the opportunities it provides to work in foreign companies, tourism, and many other enterprises, English has been much more widely chosen than other foreign languages to study at schools and tertiary institutions in Vietnam. For example, in a survey, Do (1999) reported that the majority of students (73.3%) studied English at high schools as their preferred foreign language, while 16.1% studied Russian, 3.1% studied French, and 7.0% did not study any foreign languages at all. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of 96.9% students studied English at university level. Similarly, other researchers (Nguyen, 2004; Loc, 2005; Do, 2006) indicated that approximately 90% of Vietnamese students from lower-secondary school to university chose English as their preferred foreign language to study. In 2008, Dang and Nguyen examined the use of English among 270 English major students and 242 non-English major students at nine universities in Ho Chi Minh City. The study findings showed that 85.8 % of the major students agreed that English should be the main language taught in colleges. Surprisingly, 87% of the non-major students also shared the same idea. Referring to the reasons for their choice of English learning at universities, 83% of students pointed out that English was important for international communication. 75.5% of students believed that English would help them obtain a good job. 71% agreed that English was the most popular foreign language in Vietnam, and 39% learned English to study in English-speaking countries (Dang & Nguyen, 2008).

Recently, in 2010-2011, the MOET issued guidelines for the piloting of the primary curriculum in which English is a compulsory subject and taught as a foreign language at primary level from grade 3 to grade 5. Therefore, English is now a compulsory subject taught from elementary school up to tertiary levels in Vietnam’s education system (Dang et al., 2013; Le, 2013; Nguyen, 2011; Nguyen, 2012; Nguyen, Fehring & Warren, 2015), and one of the three national compulsory examination subjects that students must pass if they want to earn the SSEC before moving up to their higher education or professional education. Although the role of English in the international context of integration and globalization is crucial and the number of learners who choose English for their study at all school levels in Vietnam has dramatically increased (Do, 1999; 2006; Hoang, 2011; Le, 2007), teaching English in the Vietnamese pedagogical context is still viewed as a challenging issue. This point will be elaborated and addressed in the next section, Section 2.3.2.

2.3.2. English language teaching

In order to understand ELT in the contemporary Vietnamese context, it is useful to review its history. Teaching and learning foreign languages in general and English in particular in Vietnam’s education system are connected to its socio-political and economic situation (Denham, 1992, 1997; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2007). The political environment has contributed to changes in the policies promoting foreign language learning and has determined which foreign language is to be dominantly taught in schools (Do, 2006; Le, 2011; Le, 2012). As Denham (1992, p.61) observes, politics strongly influences “not only the choice of medium of instruction but also the foreign languages studied in schools and tertiary institutions”. In addition, many authors (e.g., Dang et al., 2013; Do, 2006; Nguyen 2011; Nguyen, 2012) point out that social changes will result in foreign language changes, which entail attitudes and job changes.

English was introduced to South Vietnam in the 1950s following the American intervention. It was quickly regarded as an important tool for communication because a considerable number of Southern people studied English to work for the American administration and to provide services for American soldiers (Duiker, 1983; Phan, 2009). More interestingly, many Southerners realized that their children could have a

better life in the future if they were proficient in English, gaining access to American politics, the army or business (Le, 2011). As a result, English became the most commonly taught foreign language in schools and universities in the South of Vietnam (Dang, 1986; Wright, 2002). However, in the North, Russian remained as the language with a leading status and played major political and economic roles, reflecting Vietnam’s alliance with the USSR (Denham, 1992; Phan, 2009), while English was only offered as a pilot subject in some selected universities.

With the withdrawal of the American army and the fall of the Saigon regime in 1975, the Vietnamese Government began to set targets for foreign language study within its educational system (Denham, 1992). English thus became less popular in comparison with other foreign languages, and doubtless, Russian was much more important and became the main foreign language studied in secondary schools and tertiary institutions across the country. The main reasons for the decline of learning English in Vietnam at this time, according to Trinh (2005, p.10), were (1) the nationalization of all schools that offered Russian as the first foreign language, and (2) the weakening of all commercial transactions with capitalist nations. However, the position of English in Vietnam has changed remarkably thanks to the initiation of Vietnam’s economic open- door policy in 1986. In this renovation policy, foreign languages, particularly English, have been seen as critical to the national development in terms of industrialization, modernization and international integration (Dang, Nguyen & Le, 2013; Pham, 2014). English, therefore, has been officially acknowledged and regained its dominant role (Dang et al., 2013; Pham, 2014).

The re-emergence of English has driven the desire of thousands of Vietnamese to learn English. As Shapiro (1995, p.8) describes it: “More English language books became available in the country and a greater desire for specialized study of English became apparent as more Vietnamese desired these language skills for specific work environments”. As such, the teaching of EFL in contemporary academic situations in Vietnam has taken on special attention from not only the learners, learners’ parents, teachers, and educators but also language policy makers, course designers and the government. In order to meet the demands of socio-economic development and employment recruiters, the Vietnamese government has launched substantial initiatives

in all domains of the educational system, mainly by pursuing “an agenda of educational reform by means of curriculum reform” (Duggan, 2001, p.193). According to Hamano (2010, p.397):

The central issue for improving the quality of education in Vietnam is the effective implementation of the new curriculum introduced in 2002... Teachers must learn new teaching content and methods so that they can grow out of the conventional type of teaching, and ‘teacher education’ needs to be upgraded so that they can acquire such new teaching methods.

In the case of ELT, Le (2003, p.40) suggests that within these newer approaches English should be taught both as “an integrative discourse and empowering discourse through a curriculum that reflects the cultures, values, and lives of students and provides them with knowledge of the cultural values, and daily lives of the people with whom they are likely to interact”. Such discourses were officially institutionalized by the MOET, which asserted “communicative skills are the goals of the teaching of English at the secondary school while formal knowledge of the language serves as the means to the end” (MOET, 2006, p.6).

As a key part of the educational reform, a new English curriculum was introduced in 2002. According to Hoang (2011), English, a compulsory subject, is now taught from grades 3 to 5, with two periods a week for 35 weeks of the year, providing a total of 210 periods at the primary education level. At the lower-secondary level, English is taught three periods a week for 35 weeks in grades 6, 7, and 8, and two periods a week for 35 weeks of the year in grade 9, accounting for the total of 385 periods. And at the upper- secondary level, English is taught three periods a week for 35 weeks of the year, making a total of 315 periods. In all grades, an English lesson equivalent to a period is only 45 minutes (Le, 2012; Hoang, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2015)

It has also been noted that teaching English closely follows the prescribed textbooks (Le, 2002, 2008, 2012; Le & Barnard, 2009; Nguyen & Franken, 2010). With regard to textbooks in the new curriculum, a set of English textbooks was locally written, based on theme-based and skilled-based approaches, adopting the “two currently popular

teaching approaches, i.e. the learner-centred approach and the communicative approach” (Hoang et al., 2006, p.12). The themes, skill development and the time provided for section instructions in units of the textbooks are described in Le and Barnard’s (2009) study, as follows:

The specific contexts, or themes, covered in the textbook series include education, community, nature and environment, and recreation. In terms of skill development, each of the 16 didactic units follows a standard pattern comprising five sections: reading, speaking, listening, writing and language focus. The last [section] explicitly focuses on key grammatical structures and phonetic features, some of which have been previously introduced in the reading and listening texts and practised in the speaking and writing sections. Each of these sections is to be dealt with in one 45-minute lesson. (Le & Barnard, 2009, p.23)

According to MOET (2006, 2007), after the completion of the upper-secondary programme, English language learners will be able to:

Use English as a means of communication at a certain level in four macro- skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing, and to be able to read materials at the same level of their textbook, using a dictionary;

Master the basic formal knowledge of English (phonetics and grammar), and acquire the minimum of around 2500 vocabulary items of English;

Have general understanding of, and a positive attitude towards, the cultures of English speaking countries, becoming aware of cross-cultural differences in order to be better overall communicators, to better inform the world of the Vietnamese people, their history and cultures, and to take pride in Vietnam, its language and cultures.

However, after thirty years since the open-door policy was implemented in 1986 and the endless efforts and input of the MOET, as well as of other parties involved, to enhance

the quality of teaching and learning English at all school levels in Vietnam, English language learning outcomes at the end of schooling do not seem to have improved, especially in terms of speaking ability (see Section 1.1). In other words, Vietnamese learners’ English performance does not meet “the foreign language requirement of the recruiters” (Le, 2013, p.66). For example, in the late 1990s, in a survey of 621 English language learners at both university and high school levels, Do (1999) found that a large number of the students (66.8%) only had the ability to understand English but not to speak well, and 12.6% of them understood a little, but were not able to speak. Five years later, Vu and Nguyen (2004) carried out a larger survey of 952 third-year students at five universities in Ho Chi Minh City. The findings of the survey showed that the mean score of the students was only 3.5 out of 9.0 points (IELTS) or between 360 and 370 out of 677 (TOEFL). Comparing this score against the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) the two researchers concluded that students could hardly participate in daily communicative activities such as initiating a discussion, negotiating, and turn taking; they were able to understand only simple information in familiar situations.

In 2006, Bui, a teacher of English at the Vietnam National University, revealed that over three quarters of graduate students were unable to communicate verbally in English (Bui, 2006). More specifically, Mai’s (2007) survey with 230 students at four upper- secondary schools in Quang Tri province revealed that “73% of students were bad at speaking English while 21% were rather good, and only 6% had good English speaking ability” (Mai, 2007, p.34). In support of this finding, Kieu (2010, p.119) also notes that a large number of fresh university graduates “have not been employed by foreign enterprises because of their poor English listening and speaking skills”. In late 2011, one of the reports released by the British Council and Apollo Education Centre indicated that Vietnamese students ranked 8th out of 20 surveyed countries in Asia in reading and writing skills, but ranked 18th in listening and speaking (Vietnamnet, 2011). Recently, Le (2013) reported that “many school leavers cannot read simple texts in English nor communicate with English speaking people in some most common cases” (p.66). Thus, it can be seen that all the surveys and studies mentioned above show that ELT at both secondary and tertiary levels in Vietnam have not met the MOET’s requirements, which leads to dissatisfaction and disappointment not only on the part of

the learners, learners’ parents, and educators but also employers (Dao, 2006, Do, 1999, 2006; Le, 2001, 2004; Le, 2011; Le, 2013; Mai, 2007). This situation is attributed to a number of factors that are explained below.

Teacher quality: With the fast progress of globalization since the country opened its doors to the broader world in 1986, demand for learning English by the Vietnamese people has dramatically increased and outstripped supply (Do, 2006; Hoang, 2011; Mullock, 1992; Nguyen, 2011), which has caused the nation to face a serious problem of teacher shortage (Le & Barnard, 2009; Pham, 2001). According to Nguyen (2004), every year 4,000 English language teachers are needed for schools in Vietnam. In order to address this problem, over the years many policies and strategies have been made by the Vietnamese government and the MOET. Among the most urgent solution was the employment of Russian language teachers, who previously taught 60% of high school students, who were retrained and officially assigned as English language teachers to schools (Denham, 1992, 1997; Do, 2000, 2006; Nguyen, 2011; Pham, 2001). In addition, increasingly more foreign language universities and colleges were set up in big cities, aiming to train and provide pre-service teachers to the country every year; and off-campus or distance education English training courses were also offered in provinces to students who had failed in the NUEE (Le & Barnard, 2009). Although many courses of this extension training were not effectively delivered and the quality of the training was not completely controlled, all of these students were qualified with a Bachelor Degree after completing their training programme and promoted as English language teachers at all school levels (Do, 2006; Le, 2007; Le & Barnard, 2009). Consequently, many teachers received “deficit training” (Le, 2013, p.67), and are not likely to be sufficiently competent to deliver the curriculum.

More challengingly, Hamano (2008) and Le (2002, 2004) stress that teacher-training courses in Vietnamese universities place a focus on knowledge about the subject and on Marxism-Leninism, the history of the Communist Party, and Ho Chi Minhism, while little attention is paid to teaching methods. These problems are well identified and criticized by (Le, 2002) as follows:

In a similar vein, in his study Pham (2001) mentioned that:

To meet the great demand for English teaching, a considerable number of young teachers of English have been recruited in haste, without undergoing careful consideration of their skills or abilities. It is a universal problem at most institutions in Vietnam that university graduates become teachers overnight without adequate preparation in TEFL methodology. Many young, unqualified teachers are given demanding teaching schedules and do not have much opportunity to get involved in any activity for professional development. Many lack confidence in teaching methodology. This problem is understandable because their undergraduate courses were often based on linguistics and literature and dealt very little with teaching practice. In general, Vietnamese teachers of English have little opportunity to obtain further training in teaching methodology after graduation (p.2).

Thus, it appears that the quality of English language teachers in Vietnam is low not only in language proficiency but also in pedagogical skills, leading to a lack of quality in teaching and learning English in general and speaking skills in particular (Do, 2006; Le, 2001, 2007; Le, 2013; Le & Barnard, 2009; Nguyen, 2012; Pham, 2000, 2001; Vu & Burns, 2014).

Teaching materials and time constraints: In Vietnam, English textbooks and teaching materials are underdeveloped (Denham, 1997; Le, 2001, 2002, 2011, 2012; Le & Barnard, 2009), and especially are “scarce outside the large cities” (Mullock, 1992,

p.80). Le (2001) reported that in secondary schools teachers rarely have access to resources for teaching the target language. He stresses that “[n]ot a single secondary school in Vietnam has ELT resources and materials available to teachers. The only teaching materials that are at their disposal are a textbook, a couple of practical grammar books, some test samples, and a dictionary” (Le, 2001, p.36). Likewise, ten years later, Hoang (2011) argues that there are material constraints in teaching and learning English in most Vietnamese schools. He then concludes that:

Tape recorders, electric equipment, and language lab do not exist in average schools except in the cities and in affluent private institutions. The only sure aids available are the blackboard and sometimes a cassette player, and the frequent voice heard is the teacher based on what she makes of the day’s textbook lesson”. (Hoang, 2011, p.16)

The severe problem of insufficient textbooks and teaching resources remains a barrier to the promotion of the quality teaching and learning English (Hoang, 2011; Le, 2001). As Kam (2004, p.18) contends, “the shortage of the textbooks and teaching materials especially in remote areas of Vietnam makes any attempt to improve ELT in Vietnam a special challenge to education authorities”. To make matters worse, at the general education level, textbooks used to teach English are tightly controlled and promulgated by the MOET (see Chapter 5). The syllabus or the textbook, once approved by the MOET, becomes part of the “laws that must be strictly observed” by the School Principal Board from the beginning to the end of the academic year (Le, 2001, p.37). The textbook is, therefore, “gridlocked and rigid”, and teachers are “locked into the practice where the textbook provides the subject content” (Duggan, 2001, p.208).

In this regard, Adams and Newton (2009) stress that top-down curricular policies have had limited “overall impact on English language teaching, which remains traditional with an explicit grammar-teaching focus” (p.2). In addition, as discussed in Section.2.3.2, the time allocation for English is only 45 minutes, and is restricted to three periods per week, and each period is equivalent to one section of the textbook (see Appendix T). Working within such time constraints and textbook-driven requirements, English language teachers often feel discouraged and also experience pressure in

teaching the linguistic knowledge required for examinations. The inadequacy of instructional time, according to Le & Barnard (2009), obviously challenges teachers in their language teaching, specifically in speaking instruction in the classroom.

Teaching methods: Over the two past decades, although there have been stronger and clearer high-level policy and planning decisions regarding language teaching (Le, 2013), mainly favouring English, little improvement in classroom teaching in terms of adopting a communicative approach has been noticed in the Vietnamese pedagogical context (Hoang, 2011; Le, 2001, 2007; Le, 2013; Pham, 2005, 2007). Nguyen (2004, p.450) also notes that:

It is largely true that the pedagogical legacy of the traditional methods of teaching languages has had a stronghold on ELT in the modern English classroom in Vietnam, in which grammar, translation and drills dominate.

Given that teacher quality and effective teaching approaches are two major factors in improving the quality of teaching and learning English, English language teachers at secondary schools are required to enrol in training courses with “a focus on training communicative teachers in a bid to address the faults of teaching methodologies” (Hoang, 2011, p.16). During the period of training, the majority of these teachers tend to show interest in the new teaching methodologies. However, after returning from the training courses, typically they continue to teach English by employing traditional approaches (Hoang, 2011; Le, 2001, 2002; Le, 2011; Pham, 2006). This common phenomenon in teachers’ classroom practices is described by Pham (2002) as follows:

It is often the case that teachers, after having obtained their knowledge of communicative language teaching through a short-term workshop or training course, attempt to use the methodology in their classes. However, their attempts are formulaic in that they strictly adhere to the processes that they had recently learned at the workshop. When they realize that not all of the ideas of the new methodology can work for their students, they lose confidence and decide not to use any of it (p.37).

Thus, the goal of adopting more communicative language teaching (CLT) approaches remains elusive, and unfortunately, many of the efforts of the textbook innovation and pre-service and in-service teacher education programmes do not affect day-to-day practice (Le, 2002, 2008). These initiatives, according to Le (2004) often struggle against “tradition, cynicism, and claims of cultural differences” (p.28), which cause teachers not to wish to change their teaching methodologies in the classroom (Tomlinson & Bao, 2004). Research (e.g., Le, 2001; Pham, 2005, 2006, 2007) reveals that although many Vietnamese English language teachers strongly perceive and believe in the value that CLT bring to their teaching, they have considerable difficulty in transferring these teaching approaches into classroom practice due to contextual influences. Modern teaching methodologies, according to Pham (2000), need to be “applied with a close and careful consideration of the cultural values of Vietnam” (p.33).

As noted previously in Section 2.1.2, Vietnamese society is typically characterised by collectivism, and the educational system of Vietnam is also seen as a closed system and knowledge-centred. The pedagogy, therefore, in English classes in Vietnam is heavily influenced by the Chinese Confucian style, in which teachers as the embodiment of knowledge provide learners with textbook content unilaterally in classes, and this in turn engenders emphasis on rote memorization, repetition and a passive learning attitude (Brick & Louie, 1984; Hamano, 2008; Nguyen & Tran, 2015). Such models of teaching and learning have been documented and criticized in recent studies conducted by various researchers (Duong, 2006; Le, 2002; Le & Barnard, 2009; Nguyen, 2002; Pham, 2001, 2007). These research findings showed that instead of creating a communicative environment for students to practise using the target language teachers often spend most of their lesson time explaining grammar rules, exploring the meaning of texts sentence by sentence, and guiding students in choral readings. Kennett and Knight (1999) likewise point out in their report that Vietnamese schools work powerfully in favour of teacher-centred methods, where “of all the information transmitted by teacher to learners, information about language (or explicit grammar teaching) is one of the most valued” (Mack & Lewis, 2003, p.32).

Class-size: It is common to find that schools in Vietnam are situated in noisy areas, with poor libraries, lack of conducive facilities, and an average number of 50 students per class (Denham, 1997; Duong, 2006; Hoang, 2011; Le, 2001; Le, 2011; Mullock, 1992; Nguyen, 2004; Nguyen & Franken, 2010). Classrooms are narrowly arranged with fixed seats and tables, in which students sit in rows, facing the teacher. This arrangement makes the classroom atmosphere consistently formal, and the prevailing model of teaching and learning is that teachers teach and students learn. As Le (2001, p.37) observes:

Inside the classroom, students sit in long rows with five students in each row, leading to immobility for any planned communicative activities. At the same time, the teacher is under pressure to cover the allocated syllabus in the time allowed.

In addition, controlling order and discipline in large classes is constantly an inherent challenge for teachers because classroom acoustics in Vietnam are often so poor that too much noise from learning activities may affect neighbouring classrooms (Carless, 2004; Li, 1998, Mullock, 1992). Moreover, together with large classes, mixed-levels of students’ English proficiency are also a challenge that teachers have to take into consideration. This situation poses difficulties for teachers to choose, design and organize communicative activities to meet their student needs. With such uncomfortable and inconvenient teaching conditions, English language teachers feel under pressure when attempting to create a supportive speaking environment for students in their classrooms. As a result, students lack opportunities to develop practical skills, leading to their inability to use English for communication (Le, 2011).

Examination system and assessment: There is a considerable mismatch between testing and teaching English in Vietnam’s educational system. As described previously, teaching and learning English at all school levels must follow the national framework and curriculum which have adopted a CLT approach. In contrast, the national testing system is strictly designed in written form, focusing on measuring students’ reading comprehension, vocabulary, structures, grammar and translation, and not on testing speaking and listening skills (Hoang, 2011; Le, 2011, Le & Barnard, 2009; Mullock,

1992; Nguyen, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015). Particularly, in preparing their students to pass important examinations at the national level, English language teachers tend to apply grammar translation methods rather than communicative approaches in their classroom teaching. This model of classroom instruction is delineated by Duong (2006, p.35) as follows:

...in class, [students] try to understand what the teacher and textbook says, and then repeat this information as correctly as possible in an examination. Teachers provide information for students to learn by heart for examinations...Therefore, the knowledge learned is limited, and the students are not motivated to learn beyond the exam.

Due to the importance of examinations, teachers inevitably pay attention to how many students pass, rather than to the quality of teaching (Le, 2011). The pass rate of students is considered to reflect the teachers’ teaching ability. Therefore, most teachers hold a strong belief that they should follow exactly what the schools and the MOET prescribe and assign in the curriculum and textbooks so that their students are more likely to pass examinations with high scores. This perception inevitably leads to a situation where teachers are less likely to provide other types of practice activities in the classroom. Consequently, students may “achieve the highest scores in the exams but fail to show their excellence in real life performance” (Hoang, 1999, p.79).

Teacher salary: According to various commentators (e.g., Hoang, 2011; Mullock, 1992; Nguyen, 2012; Pham, 2001, 2006; Woods, 2002), teachers in Vietnam are poorly paid although they are required to work from 60 to 70 hours per week. Based on the official statistics of the Vietnamese Ministry of Labour, War Invalids and Social Affairs, Tuoitre News (2012) reported that the average monthly salary of teachers in Vietnam in 2011 was a mere VND3.8 million (US$185). Recently, a study conducted by a former university vice president and her team at 34 elementary, secondary and high schools in seven provinces and cities in Vietnam showed that fresh graduates earned an average salary of VND2 million (US$93.87) per month, and 50 percent of current teachers made between VND3 and 3.5 million (US$140-164) a month, including allowances (Thanhnien News, 2012). Due to the low salary, most school teachers are

forced to find other jobs to survive and feed their families (Pham, 2001, 2006). As the authors of the above study concluded, the current salaries and allowances are insufficient for teachers to live on, particularly for those who live in urban areas. The additional teaching carried out by English teachers in Vietnam is described as follows:

After the mandated teaching hours to maintain their positions at the universities [or schools], many teachers use the rest of their time for additional teaching at other institutions, where their work is paid by the hour. Consequently, the teacher of English works like a “teaching machine”. It is not uncommon to find a teacher who teaches five hours in the morning, five hours in the afternoon, and two more in the evening. Many teachers even give private classes on Sunday (Pham, 2001, p.2).

Thus, with an overload of teaching hours, English teachers seem to have little or no time for their lesson preparation before class. This is also a challenge to the improvement of English teaching quality in Vietnam.

2.4. Summary

ELT practices in Vietnam cannot be interpreted thoroughly without taking its sociocultural and educational context into consideration. An understanding of the context in which language teachers are working is significant in exploring teachers’ perceptions about their classroom teaching (Borg, 2006, Burns, 1996; Burns, Freeman & Edwards, 2015; Farrell & Lim, 2005; Johnson, 1994, 2006, 2009, 2015). This chapter has provided an overview of Vietnam’s history, language and culture, which have powerfully shaped its people’s characteristics and values not only in social life but also in education. In the Vietnamese educational philosophy, teachers are thought to be transmitters of knowledge and placed in a position of absolute authority, while learners are considered passive, obediently listening to teachers and learning what is preached in the classroom (Ashwill & Thai, 2005; Brick & Louie, 1984; Brownrigg, 2001). The chapter also demonstrates the features of the Vietnamese educational system and its inherent English teacher education programmes. Significantly, and in order to contextualize the current study further, the chapter critically discusses the role of

English in the new socio-economic context of Vietnam, analyses the present textbooks used for English instruction at high schools, and addresses factors that challenge and result in the current situation of teaching and learning English in Vietnam. These factors, including teacher quality, teaching materials and time constraints, teaching methods, class-sizes, the examination system and assessment, and teacher salary, may affect and potentially shape or explain the perceptions and instructional classroom behaviours of the participants in this study with reference to the teaching of speaking.

The next chapter, Chapter 3 reviews the literature on the teaching of speaking and on teacher cognition about language teaching, aiming to create a conceptual framework for the study.

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW

As explained in the previous chapter, this study aimed to uncover how a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers went about teaching speaking and what underlay their perspectives in order to gain insights into the factors that affected and shaped their speaking instruction in the classroom. Therefore, in this chapter, the literature pertinent to the teaching of speaking and to teacher cognition respectively will be reviewed to provide a conceptual foundation for the study. In the first section of the chapter, Section 3.1, I will first briefly review definitions and features of speaking. Then, I will examine and discuss major issues regarding the teaching and learning of speaking. In the next section, Section 3.2, the concept of teacher cognition, the factors that affect and shape teacher cognition in language teaching, and the interconnections between teacher cognition and practices will be discussed. Previous research on teacher cognition related to the present study will be reviewed and summarized in Section 3.3. In particular, the research gap, which the current study aims to fill, will also be identified in this section. In the final section, Section 3.4, a summary of the chapter will be provided.

3.1. The teaching of speaking

In teaching and learning a language, speaking is considered to be an important communication skill for learners (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012; Boonkit, 2010; Goh & Burns, 2012; Huang, 2010; Nazara, 2011; Nguyen & Tran, 2015; Talley & Tu, 2014; Una, 2016). However, as Mahmoodzdeh (2012) and Socheath (2010) argue, most language learners often find it difficult to deal with speaking in the target language. This is because, besides cognitive demands and affective factors, speaking consists of “producing systematic utterances” (Bailey, 2005, p.2) that require students to acquire a wide range of skills and knowledge to convey meaning. Therefore, in order to contribute to an understanding of speaking and how to teach speaking effectively in the classroom, I will first review definitions and features of speaking in Section 3.1.1. Then, in Section 3.1.2, two major issues related to the teaching and learning of speaking will

be examined and discussed: the importance of speaking and approaches to the teaching of speaking.

3.1.1. Definitions and features of speaking

In this section, I will first consider the question, “What is speaking?” followed by an examination and discussion of its features.

3.1.1.1. What is speaking?

It has been pointed out in the literature that speaking is understood and interpreted in many different ways. As Nazara (2011, p.30) argues, speaking is “a multifaceted construct”, and is “intertwined with daily interactions”. For example, viewing it as the vehicle for people to establish their social relationships, and also as a means for teachers and learners to conduct the teaching and learning process in the classroom, Bygate (1991, p.vii) defines speaking as follows:

Speaking is the skill by which [speakers] are most frequently judged, and through which they make or lose friends. It is the vehicle par excellence of social solidarity, of social ranking, of professional advancement and of business. It is also a medium through which much language is learnt, and which for many is particularly conducive for learning.

In contrast, Chaney and Burk (1998) consider speaking as a process, in which information for communication in a variety of contexts is identified, constructed and conveyed through the use of verbal and non-verbal symbols. Sharing the same view, Brown (2007a) and Thornbury (2012) propose that spoken language refers to an interactive process of negotiating meaning, which is concerned with producing, receiving and processing information.

From perspectives in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature, speaking is seen as one of the productive skills (Bailey, 2005; Brown, 2007a, Harmer, 2007; Nunan, 2003a; Ur, 2012) that all language learners need to master. In this light, according to

Thornbury (2012), speaking a language is often “synonymous with knowing a language” (p.198). However, he also argues that knowing a language and speaking it fluently in real-life situations are a different matter (Thornbury, 2005, 2012). More recently, Goh and Burns (2012, p.140) argue that speaking is “a combinational skill; that is, an ability to do various things at the same time - attend to content, language and rules of use - all under the constraint of limited cognitive processing capacity”.

Based on such definitions, it is thus seen that speaking can be understood and defined through different concepts, for example as a medium, a vehicle, a process or a skill. For the purpose of the study, speaking is defined as and refers to a fundamental communicative skill related to language teaching and learning, which requires learners “to produce words or language or to express ideas orally. It is used to communicate between one to another by speech or saying” (Socheath, 2010, p.62). In particular, speaking requires practice, and is largely different from knowledge about speaking (Brown, 2007a; Thornbury, 2012). As Bygate (1991) points out, the distinction between knowledge and skill in the teaching of speaking is crucial for teachers and learners. Language educators, therefore, need to pay attention to this difference when teaching speaking to their learners in the classroom.

Being an effective speaker, according to various educators (e.g., Goh, 2007; Goh & Burns, 2012; Richards, 2006), is to understand that the form and meaning of speaking depend upon the communication situation in which it occurs, including the participants, the physical setting, and the purposes for speaking. As Florez (1999, p.2) argues, speaking requires that language learners “not only know how to produce specific points of language such as grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary but also that they understand when, why, and in what ways to produce language”. In other words, speaking is considered the most challenging of the four language skills (Baleghizadeh & Shahri, 2014; Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; Martínez-Flor, Usó-Juan & Alcón Soler, 2006; Nguyen, 2010; Nguyen & Tran, 2015; Nunan, 2003a; Pham, 2014; Zhang, 2009), since it has its own features and conventions that differ from written language (Brown, 2007a; Bygate, 2001a, 2006; Goh & Burns, 2012; Hughes, 2013; Thornbury, 2012). Therefore, by having an awareness of these features, language teachers can understand how learners’ speaking competence develops in order to plan speaking activities and

create conditions in which learners can acquire relevant language forms and improve their oral communication skills. With such purposes in mind, in the next section, Section 3.1.1.2, I will review and examine features that characterise speaking.

3.1.1.2. Features of speaking

In this section, three major components of speaking, that is accuracy, fluency and complexity, will be reviewed and discussed. As Goh and Burns (2012) and Housen and Kuiken (2009) argue, accuracy, fluency and complexity are the outcomes of language teaching and learning, and they are frequently used as criteria to measure learners’ speech production (Skehan, 2009). Therefore, these features, as Goh and Burns (2012, p.139) suggest, play “a central position” in the teaching of speaking.

Referring to speakers’ linguistic competency, accuracy, according to Bailey (2005, p.5), means “the ability to speak properly - that is, selecting the correct words and expressions to convey the intended meaning, as well as using the grammatical patterns of [a language]”. Ellis (2009a, p.475) also argues that accuracy refers to “the ability to avoid error in performance, possibly reflecting higher levels of control in the language as well as a conservative orientation, that is, avoidance of challenging structures that might provoke error”. In this regard, accuracy can be thought of as the correct use of vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation in spoken language (Brown, 2007a; Davies & Pearse, 2000; Harmer, 2007).

According to Hedge (2000), accuracy is the target in controlled or non-communicative activities in the classroom. The objective of accuracy practice is intended to ensure correctness in the production of new items (Davies & Pearse, 2000; Harmer, 2007). However, Goh (2007) and Richards and Rodgers (2014) argue that accuracy could be developed either before or after fluency work. They advocate that, based on learners’ performance on a fluency activity, the teacher could promote accuracy work to “deal with grammatical or pronunciation problems the teacher observed while students were carrying out the task, or develop a follow-up focus on appropriacy of language use” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p.97).

In accuracy practice, errors could lead to the formation of bad habits for learners (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). Therefore, according to Davies and Pearse (2000), errors should be dealt with immediately. By correcting students’ errors, teachers could convey the meaning that accuracy (or correctness) in spoken language is very important since without accuracy, as Thornbury (2006a) argues, language learners will increase the risk of being unintelligible.

In contrast to accuracy, the term fluency relates to the production of language. Fluency involves having “the capacity to use language in real time, to emphasize meanings, possibly drawing on more lexicalized systems” (Ellis, 2009, p. 475). According to Nunan (2003a, p.55), fluency is “the extent to which speakers use the language quickly and confidently, with few hesitations or unnatural pauses, false starts, word searches, etc”. The objective of fluency practice is to focus on the process of automisation (Thornbury, 2006a), which helps learners to use new items more naturally in communication (Davies & Pearse, 2000). In fluency activities, errors should be tolerated and seen as a natural outcome of the development of communication (Hughes, 2013; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). However, many language teachers and educators (e.g., Davies & Pearse, 2000; Harmer, 2007) argue that although teachers should not interrupt students to correct errors in fluency practice, they should note the errors, and return to them at a later point (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011).

Complexity, according to Goh and Burns (2012), is understood as a combination of meaning and form, in which language learners are able to use more advanced grammatical forms such as “subordination and clausal embeddings, which are appropriate for speech in relation to the social and cultural context, as well as the roles of, and relationships with, interlocutors” (p.43). Similarly, Ellis (2009, p.475) argues that complexity is “the capacity to use more advanced language, with the possibility that such language may not be controlled so effectively. This may also involve a greater willingness to take risks, and use fewer controlled language subsystems”. Thus, the complexity in language learners’ speech in essence refers to properties of language features (patterns, structures, rules) or subsystems (syntactic, lexical) thereof, and depends upon different aspects of the socio-cultural contexts, in which the speech occurs.

In summary, language learners’ speaking is not “a monolithic construct” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p.45). It is developed with reference to these three aspects of language performance: accuracy, fluency and complexity. The development of accuracy could occur during controlled practice and either before or after fluency-oriented activities (Goh, 2007; Harmer, 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014), since accuracy may bring fluency and fluency brings further accuracy (Willerman, 2011). Otherwise, the increase in fluency, which focuses on communicative activities, may occur at “the expense of the development of accuracy and complexity due to the differential development of knowledge analysis and knowledge automatization in [language] acquisition” (Housen & Kuiken, 2009, pp.4-5). As such, a proficient speaker, according to Ellis (2009a), is a person who has the ability to produce speech fluently and accurately, using complex language.

3.1.2. Issues in the teaching and learning of speaking

In this section, two major issues related to the teaching and learning of speaking will be reviewed and discussed: the importance of speaking and approaches to the teaching of speaking.

3.1.2.1. The importance of speaking

As discussed and presented in Chapter 2, over the last century and particularly in recent decades, English has become widespread in many parts of the world and is used as a means of communication for the international community. Therefore, the role of speaking skills has become more dominant in EFL teaching and learning environments. Authors such as Nguyen and Tran (2015), Ur (2012) and Zaremba (2006) argue that of all the four macro English skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing), speaking seems to be the most important, and plays an integral part in the process of language teaching and learning. Such a claim is also supported by other authors (e.g., Bahrani & Soltani, 2012; Harmer, 2007; Huang, 2010; Hughes, 2013; Khamkhien, 2010; Mahmoodzadeh, 2012; Thornbury, 2005, 2012; Wang, 2014). Sharing the same view, Richards (2008, p.19) also points out that mastering speaking skills in English is “a priority for many second-language or foreign-language learners”. In particular, Goh and

Burns (2012, p.16) argue that the importance of speaking is not just considered as an oral skill, but also as “a means of facilitating the acquisition of the target language and the learning of academic content”.

Similarly, Byrne (1989, p.11) stresses that speaking is “a good source of motivation” for most language learners to learn other skills and achieve academic learning as well as professional development (Baker & Westrup, 2003; Goh, 2007; Mahmoodzadeh, 2012; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006). In addition, when asked why speaking was important, teachers, as described in the work of Goh and Burns (2012, p.1), often expressed the view that “they should be doing more to help their students develop their speaking abilities and, therefore, are keen to know how they can teach speaking better”.

Placing emphasis on the importance of speaking skills in teaching and learning English, scholars such as Baker and Westrup (2003) advise that it is crucial for students to learn to speak English well, and for teachers to learn to teach speaking English effectively. They also argue that if language learners are proficient in English speaking, they will be able to achieve substantial benefits in their lives since:

Students who can speak English well may have a greater chance of further education, of finding employment and gaining promotion.

Speaking English well helps students to access up-to-date information in fields including science, technology and health.

By learning to speak English well, students gain a valuable skill, which can be useful in their lives and contribute to their community and country. (Baker & Westrup, 2003, p.5)

Considering such benefits, over the last decade, increasing emphasis has been given to the role of speaking skills over other language skills (Boonkit, 2010; Socheath, 2010), and speaking is considered as a central aspect of language teaching and learning (Burns, 2006; Kayi, 2006). This view is strongly supported by Richards (2008) who argues that

the teaching of speaking has come to occupy “a prominent place in language programs around the world today” (p.1).

Thus, it can be seen that speaking is widely perceived as an important part of teaching and learning a language in both communication and language acquisition, and academic development. This is because the major goal of teaching speaking is “communicative efficiency” (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012, p.25). Through the teaching of speaking, students’ communicative abilities can be developed and strengthened so that they will be able to express their feelings or ideas to others and to communicate effectively and appropriately in communicative situations (Bailey, 2005; Huang, 2010; Richards, 2008; Socheath, 2010). Nevertheless, as discussed in Section 3.1.1.1, speaking can also be regarded as the most difficult of the four language skills. This point may challenge language teachers’ instructional pedagogies in teaching speaking. As Bahrani and Soltani (2012) argue, how to help language learners develop their speaking skills is one of the main concerns of many language teachers in EFL contexts. Therefore, in the next section, I review and discuss approaches to the teaching of speaking.

3.1.2.2. Approaches to the teaching of speaking

A variety of approaches have been used to teach English over the years. However, as various researchers (e.g., Bailey, 2005; Freeman, 2002; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Zheng & Davison, 2008) argue, four approaches have dominated language teaching over the past century: the grammar translation method, direct method, audio-lingual method and communicative language teaching. Therefore, in this section, I will briefly review each approach with the aim of focusing specifically on how speaking has been taught, which may be shown to influence the teaching of the participants in the research context of this study.

3.1.2.2.1. The grammar-translation method

Originating from the classical method, which was used in the teaching of classical languages such as Latin and Greek (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014), the grammar-translation method gained in popularity and was adopted

as the chief means for language teaching and learning in the 19th century (Brown, 2007a). The principal characteristic of the grammar-translation method could be perhaps best summarized as ‘what is taught is what is learned’ (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). This meant that language learning was viewed as “an intellectual activity” (Zheng & Davison, 2008, p.17), involving rule learning and the memorization of grammatical structures. In other words, the focus of the grammar-translation method was on the grammatical rules, which were used for the acquisition of the skills necessary to read and understand the language (Bailey, 2005; 2007; Harmer, 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). In the grammar-translation method, according to Brown (2007a) and Richards and Rodgers (2014), the medium of classroom instruction was the learners’ native language, and the focus was on introducing new language items of the target language. Typically, grammatical structures were presented through individual sentences, which exemplified these points (Burns & Joyce, 1997; Harmer, 2007). Thus, knowledge of the grammar in this teaching method was studied in a deductive way, placing emphasis on accuracy, which was considered to be the central feature in the process of teaching and learning (Thornbury, 2006b; Zheng & Davison, 2008).

In summary, the aim of the grammar-translation method was primarily to help language learners produce complete (and often isolated) sentences and gain reading proficiency in the language, but not primarily to prepare them to speak the target language. Consequently, as Bailey (2005, p.16) argues, the grammar-translation method was “not entirely appropriate for students who want to improve their speaking skills”. With such inadequacies of the grammar-translation method in preparing students to use the target language communicatively, opposition to this method gradually developed in several countries in Europe, which laid the foundation for the development of new ways of teaching and learning languages (Brown, 2007a; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). This reform movement, according to Richards and Rodgers (2014, p.11), referred to “what have been termed natural methods”, and then ultimately resulted in the development of what came to be known as the direct method, that will be examined in the next section.

3.1.2.2.2. The direct method

As presented above, since the grammar-translation method was not very effective in supporting students to communicate in the target language, the direct method gained popularity. In contrast to the focus of the grammar-translation method on written text, the characteristics of the direct method, according to various scholars such as Bailey (2005), Brown (2007a), Harmer (2007) and Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011), were that (1) it emphasised everyday vocabulary and sentences; (2) lessons were conducted exclusively in the target language; (3) no translation was allowed; (4) grammar was taught inductively; and (5) correct pronunciation and grammar were all important. In the direct method, according to Richards and Rodgers (2014, p.12), speaking was stressed in the way that “new teaching points were introduced orally” rather than in writing (Bailey, 2005). However, as Brown (2007a) argues, in direct method lessons, speaking was simply built up “around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students” (p.21). Consequently, the development of speaking skills of language learners in the direct method was viewed as “systematic attention to pronunciation” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p.12). With such limitations, like the grammar-translation method, the direct method was also criticised for failing to produce language learners who were able to speak the target language.

By the end of the first quarter of the 20th century, according to Brown (2007a) and Richards and Rodgers (2014), the direct method decreased in popularity both in European and American schools. At this time, as Brown (2007a) argues, most language curricula returned to the grammar-translation method, and quickly dominated public school and university language teaching and learning in the USA (Ariza et al., 2002) and elsewhere. However, the outbreak of World War II forced the USA into a worldwide conflict, which heightened the needs for Americans to “become orally proficient in the languages of both their allies and their enemies” (Brown, 2007b, p.74). To meet such purposes, the universities in America were asked to develop intensive foreign language programs, which focused substantially on oral skills. Based on behaviouristic psychology (Ariza et al., 2002), which emphasised that “language mastery is represented as acquiring a set of appropriate language stimulus-response chains” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p.64), the direct method was, therefore, revived

and developed into the audio-lingual method (Bailey, 2005; Brown, 2007a, 2007b; Harmer, 2007), which is reviewed and examined, below.

3.1.2.2.3. The audio-lingual method

As a number of authors (e.g., Brown, 2007a; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013; Lee & VanPatten, 2003; Linse, 2005) argue, language learning in the audio-lingual method was interpreted as a process of habit formation. Habits, according to Lee and VanPatten (2003, p.9), are formed through “repetition, imitation, and reinforcement”. In other words, the assumption underpinning this theory in the audio-lingual method was that language learners learned to speak “by producing grammatical structures until producing those structure has become automatic” (Bailey, 2005, p.17). To help learners form good habits, Bailey (2005) and Harmer (2007) claim that language lessons had to involve constant repetition and correction of utterances through the model of ‘stimulus- response- reinforcement’ (Harmer, 2007; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Zheng & Davison, 2008). In addition, in contrast to the grammar-translation method, neither the teaching of grammatical rules nor language translation was found in the classroom. Also, like the direct method, pronunciation error correction became the focus of the teaching and learning process. “When errors do occur, they should be immediately corrected by the teacher” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p.42).

Hence, it could be claimed that the teaching and learning of speaking in the audio- lingual method depended heavily on the use of numerous drills such as repetition, backward build-up, chain, substitution, transformation, and question-and-answer that were conducted through the sentence patterns in the dialogue (Brown, 2007a; Harmer, 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Zheng & Davison, 2008). Through such drill techniques, it was assumed that learners would be able to use the target language through conversations. However, as Ellis (1990, p.30) argues, the memorization of patterns “did not lead to fluent and effective communication in real-life situations”. Consequently, speaking in the audio-lingual method was taught just by “having students repeat sentences and recite memorized dialogues from the textbook” (Bailey, 2005, p.17). With such shortcomings and dissatisfaction, like the grammar-translation method and the direct method, the audio-

lingual method was also criticized by various language educators, setting the stage for another shift in methods, that is, to communicative language teaching, discussed in the next section, with its fundamental view that “a language can only be learned if it is used in a meaningful way” (Zheng & Davison, 2008, p.20).

Although the three methods, the grammar-translation method, the direct method and the audio-lingual method were limited in supporting students to use the target language appropriately “when genuinely communicating outside of the classroom” (Larsen- Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p.115), they may have assisted learners to produce language forms accurately. These three approaches remain extant in language teaching in many parts of the world (Jin & Cortazzi, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). For example, Jin and Cortazzi (2011, pp.558-559) argue that the grammar-translation method and other traditional teaching methods “have persisted for longer in most developing parts of the world than in more economically developed ones, due to the slower development of educational systems and language teacher training, cultural perceptions and different ways of change, limited learning resources and finance”.

In an EFL context like Vietnam, as Le (2011) argues, different types of methods such as the grammar-translation method, the direct method, the reading method, the audio- lingual method and the communicative approach or communicative language teaching have all been used to teach languages.

[In Vietnam], the direct method is mostly used in schools in which students’ major is English while the GTM [grammar-translation method] is the main method used in the others. Translation, lists of bilingual vocabulary, and the study of grammar are still essential in the teaching process. Therefore, the GTM is still popular. For those who read books and materials in foreign languages, the reading method is used in order to do their research. The audio-lingual method has been used in Vietnam but it requires expensive teaching resources, which are often not available. Because they are most familiar with it and materials are available, teachers tend to use GTM most frequently although CLT is growing in popularity due to acknowledgement that communication is the key in language use. (Le, 2011, p.10)

Other researchers (e.g., Le, 2013; Nguyen, 2004; Pham, 2007, 2009) also argue that the grammar-translation method has been a deeply rooted teaching method used to teach languages in the Vietnamese educational system since the goal has been to focus on accuracy to help learners pass their required written examinations (Le, 2013; Pham, 2009). Thus, it is probable that the use of the grammar-translation method and other teaching methods, as mentioned previously, are still dominant in language teaching in Vietnam today. In other words, elements of these methods may affect the way that the participants in my research will teach speaking skills in the classroom, even though the current goal of language teaching in Vietnam is to develop learners’ communication skills in order to meet the needs of its learners and society through the use of communicative language teaching (Le, 2011).

3.1.2.2.4. Communicative language teaching

As discussed above, the results obtained through classroom practice, regarding the teaching of speaking in the three methods, the grammar-translation method, the direct method and the audio-lingual method, were disappointing in several ways. In the late 1960s, Chomsky proposed a model of linguistic competence. In this model, Chomsky (1965) argued that children were born with an innate ability to acquire language. His assumption was that speakers had internalized a system of rules, which could help them transform structures and generate hypotheses about the use of new language by employing a variety of cognitive strategies (Burns & Joyce, 1997; Martinez-Flor et al, 2006; Nunan, 2003a). This assumption pointed to the fact that the mental system and cognitive processes in language learning were very important in helping learners generate sentences. As Littlewood (1992) argues, Chomsky’s (1965) theory refers to one of the most important aspects of language learning, concerning “the development of an internal cognitive system; that is; an internalized grammar of the language” (p.39). Based on this model, the mental system is seen as a device of language acquisition, and the ability to acquire language is conceived as linguistic competence. Linguistic competence, according to Chomsky (1965, p.3):

is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance.

Chomsky (1965, p.4) also made a clear distinction between competence and performance: Competence refers to “the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his (sic) language”, and performance is “the actual use of language in concrete situations”. However, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Chomsky’s concept of language, which was limited to knowledge of language use, was challenged and reacted against by various educators and scholars (e.g., Hymes, 1971, 1972; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972). Hymes (1971, 1972) proposed the notion of communicative competence, which he argued, reflects the ability of language users to convey, interpret and negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific cultural contexts. In other words, communicative competence refers not only to knowledge of linguistic forms, meanings and functions, but also the rules of language use in social contexts with appropriate norms (Brown, 2007a; Harmer; 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards, 2006).

The concept of communicative competence underpinned the movement towards communicative language teaching both in North America and in Europe. Based on this concept, in the language teaching field Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) later refined and developed a model of four distinctive components of communicative competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic (or sociocultural) competence, strategic competence and discourse competence. According to Brown (2007b), the first two components of competence, grammatical and sociolinguistic, reflect the use of the linguistic system, and the last two, strategic and discourse, refer to the functional aspects of communication. Around the same period of time, the Council of Europe, in response to the demands for professional mobility between countries, was calling for a change in modern language educational principles and practices in Europe (Hedge, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). According to Richards and Rodgers (2014), with the increasing interdependence of European countries, education was perceived to be “one

of the Council of Europe’s major areas of activity” in that “the need to articulate and develop alternative methods of language teaching was considered a high priority” (84). The work of the Council of Europe also influenced scholars such as Wilkins (1972, 1976), Widdowson (1978), Brumfit and Johnson (1979), Johnson (1982) and other British applied linguists who proposed a greater focus on functional and situational views of language (Bailey, 2005; Hedge, 2000; Richards, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Zheng & Davison, 2008).

Thus, the concept of communicative competence, according to Richards and Rodgers (2014), impacted upon the ways teaching and learning languages have since been conceived, and influenced the development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) or simply the Communicative Approach (Bailey, 2005; Brown, 2007a, 2007b; Harmer, 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards, 2006; Zheng & Davison, 2008). CLT, according to Richards and Rodgers (2014, p.105), refers to “a diverse set of principles that reflect a communicative view of language and language learning and that can be used to support a wide variety of classroom procedures”. These principles propose that (1) learners learn a language through using it to communicate; (2) authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of classroom activities; (3) fluency is an important dimension of communication; (4) communication involves the integration of different languages skills, and (5) learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p.105).

From the late 1980s, CLT rapidly became pervasive and began to be very influential in language teaching. However, there have also been considerable criticisms of the application of CLT outside BANA (Britain, Australian, and North American) countries, particularly in Asian or so-called Confucian heritage contexts. It is argued that the adaptation to CLT in EFL classes could be problematic due to contextual and cultural constraints, such as different cultures of learning, large class-size, lack of teaching and learning resources and high-stakes examinations (Harmer, 2003; Jin & Cortazzi, 2011; Le, 2011; Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2007; Pham, 2001; 2005), which the participants in the present research may also face when they deal with speaking instruction in the classroom. Against a background of such constraints, in order to understand how the participants in this study might mediate CLT or what approach they might use to

demonstrate the teaching of speaking in practice, in the next section, I review the task- based language teaching (TBLT) approach, which is a more recent development in the use of communicative approaches.

3.1.2.2.5. Task-based language teaching

Building on the principles of CLT, a new approach to language teaching and learning that has developed is task-based language teaching (Ellis, 2003, 2009c; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Littlewood, 2004; Richards, 2008; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Skehan, 1996, 1998; Willis, 1996). Regarding procedures of TBLT, Willis (1996) suggests a framework for applying a task-based approach in teaching conversational skills to language learners. This procedure is typically based on three stages: pre-task, during task and post-task. This approach refers to the performance and completion of a task, and focuses primarily on meaning exchange (Ellis, 2003, 2009c; Skehan, 1998).

In TBLT, according to Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2013), learners should be provided with a natural context for using the target language by requiring them to “negotiate meaning and engage in naturalistic and meaningful communication” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p.176). Harmer (2007) also argues that when working to complete a communicative task, students can maximize opportunity to interact with each other, and opportunities for a focus on form could be developed “through attentional manipulation” (Skehan, 1998, p.131). Nonetheless, like other methods and approaches, many researchers and educators have also challenged TBLT (Beglar & Hunt, 2002; Bruton, 2005; Littlewood, 2004; Richards, 1990; Swan, 2005; Thornbury, 2005) although these criticisms have been notably countered by Ellis (2009c). Richards (1990, p.78) for example argues that, when students engage in tasks, the focus is merely “on using language to complete a task, rather than on practising language”. This limitation, according to Richards (1990), would not enable students to develop their speaking abilities. In supporting this view, Swan (2005) points out that due to classroom time constraints and minimal out-of-class exposure, task-based approaches appear to be unsuitable. Similarly, Thornbury (2005, p.121) also states that TBLT favours “an implicit approach to instruction, when in fact learners need clear and explicit models of

the language behaviours they are going to encounter”. Hence, the lack of explicitness in TBLT also results in impediments to the development of students’ speaking skills.

In summary, from the discussion above, it can be seen that teaching methods and approaches to language teaching in general and to the teaching of speaking in particular have undergone a tremendous transition over the past hundred years. Given such transition and in the challenging situation of teaching English in Vietnam, as discussed in Chapter 2, it is therefore essential to explore what Vietnamese pre-service teachers perceive about the teaching of speaking, and how they actually teach speaking in the classroom.

Teachers’ personal pedagogical perceptions, which are a major focus of this study, are “formed largely through experience and grounded in teachers’ understandings of their teaching contexts” (Borg & Burns, 2008, p.458). As various researchers (e.g., Allen, 2002, 2013; Borg, 2006; Hughes, 2013; Wang, 2014) argue, the relevance of teacher cognition has become a noteworthy field of research in relation to teachers, as it is central to what underlies their language teaching, and particularly emerges from the contexts in which they teach. Therefore, in order to underpin this investigation of a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking and the ways they perform in teaching speaking in the classroom, in the next section, I review the literature on teacher cognition. The review covers conceptual notions of cognition, the correspondence between teacher cognition and practice, as well as the factors that affect and shape teachers’ cognitions.

3.2. Teacher cognition

Recent research in the area of language teaching and learning has indicated that what actually goes on in the classroom is often filtered through and influenced by the cognitions of teachers (Allen, 2013; Baker, 2014; Borg, 1998, 1999a, 2003, 2006; Burns, 1996; Fang 1996; Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1992a; Kuzborska, 2011; Lee, 2009; Mak, 2011; Nishimuro & Borg, 2013; Pajares, 1992; Shavelon & Stern, 1981; Shinde & Karekatti, 2012; Tang, Lee & Chun, 2012). This is because cognition serves as a mediator of both thoughts and behaviours of classroom teachers (Basturkmen 2012;

Borg, 2011; Chen & Goh, 2011; Isikoglu, Basturk & Karaca, 2009; Mori, 2011; Zheng & Davison, 2008). Teacher cognition, according to various researchers (e.g., Baker, 2014; Borg, 2006; Macalister, 2016; Richardson, 1996), is a key concept in exploring teachers’ thoughts, beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes towards their teaching practices. An exploration and understanding of teacher cognition can thus provide insights into the nature of teachers’ instructional practices and importantly help teachers achieve effectiveness in their classroom instruction. Borg (2006, p.1) suggests that to explore and understand what teachers perceive, believe and how they act in the classroom is “central to the process of understanding teaching”. Allen (2002, p.519) also emphasises that “attempts to implement new classroom practices without considering teachers’ beliefs can lead to disappointing results”. In the following sections, an examination and discussion of teacher cognition including its underlying nature, factors that affect and shape language teacher cognition and the relationships between teacher cognition and classroom practices will be provided.

3.2.1. Nature of teacher cognition

Given the need for the improvement of both teacher education and language teaching, teacher cognition is thought to have significant contributions to make to the understanding of teachers’ instructional practices. Borg (2006, p.41) indicates that teacher cognition plays “a pivotal role” in teachers’ decision-making in the classroom. Other researchers (e.g., Baker, 2014; Macalister, 2016; Mak, 2011; Mori, 2011; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Tang et al., 2012; Zheng, 2009) also claim that teacher cognition is considered an important concept in understanding teachers’ thinking processes, perceptions, assumptions and attitudes towards their decisions and classroom behaviours. In other words, teacher cognition is perceived as “a powerful gatekeeper” in guiding teachers’ classroom actions, since it reveals “how teachers conceptualize the teaching” (Mori, 2011, p.452-254). However, many researchers in language education such as Borg (2003, 2006), Farrell and Lim (2005) and Johnson (1994) argue that it is not easy to define and study teachers’ cognitions since they are not directly observable (Bog, 2006, 2009). Likewise, Pajares (1992) asserts that it is difficult to investigate teachers’ beliefs because of factors including “definitional problems, poor

conceptualizations, and differing understandings of beliefs and belief structures” (p.307).

In the field of language teaching and learning, the term teacher cognition has been labelled, conceptualised and understood in varying ways such as ‘teacher knowledge’ (Freeman, 2002), ‘practical knowledge’ (Elbaz, 1983), ‘teachers’ maxims’ (Richards, 1996, 1998), ‘teachers’ theories’ (Borg, 1999b), ‘teachers’ beliefs’ (Burns, 1992), ‘beliefs, assumption, and knowledge - BAK’ (Woods, 1996), and ‘personal practical knowledge’ (Golombek, 1998). Teacher cognition in the work of Kagan (1992a) and Pajares (1992) includes tacitly held assumptions and perceptions about the students, classroom environment, subject matter to be taught, roles and responsibilities, and their own teaching performance. More specifically, Calderhead (1996) indicates five main categories of cognitions that teachers manifest in their language teaching: (1) beliefs about learners and learning, (2) beliefs about teaching, (3) beliefs about disciplinary subjects, (4) beliefs about learning to teach, and (5) beliefs about self and the teaching role. Richard and Lockhart (1996) mention six categories involved in teachers’ beliefs: (1) teachers’ roles, (2) teaching materials, (3) teaching methods, (4) elements of effective teaching, (5) classroom management, and (6) qualities of being a good teacher. In the same vein, Olafson and Schraw (2006) suggest that language teachers hold six significant categories of teachers’ beliefs, including: (1) beliefs about curriculum, (2) beliefs about pedagogy, (3) beliefs about assessment, (4) beliefs about the role of the teacher, (5) beliefs about the role of the student, and (6) beliefs about the role of peers. In spite of diversity in employing the term teacher cognition and the lack of consensus in the research literature, researchers do show some agreement about the most common characteristics of teacher cognition. In other words, various categorisations mentioned above show similarities in that they highlight a general focus on learning, teaching, learners and factors in curriculum development, resources and management.

In summary, it can be seen that teacher cognition is understood and defined in various ways, and is often classified into different cognitive categories (Borg, 2006; Brown & Rogers, 2002; Li, 2012). The current research aims to investigate the perceptions of a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers about the teaching of speaking in the sociocultural context of a specific high school in Vietnam. As advocated by Shaver (1981),

perception is defined as incorporating an understanding of the social environment which directly relates to individuals’ thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and responses, and is central to teachers’ instructional practices (Borg, 1999a, 2006; Johnson, 1987). Understanding of perception, according to Johnson (1987) is thus “critical for educational research and practice” (p.209). Nguyen and Franken (2010) also claim that teachers’ perceptions heavily interact with their classroom practices and are shaped by their own educational experiences and many other aspects of the teaching classroom context. The characteristics of perceptions regarding teacher cognition proposed by such authors are directly relevant to the current study as it aims to explore, understand and account for the cognitions of a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers about the teaching of speaking and the impacts upon their speaking instruction in the classroom. In order to gain a better understanding of the pre-service teachers’ thinking processes and the knowledge they draw on for the teaching of speaking in the classroom, factors that affect and shape language teacher cognition will be discussed in the following section.

3.2.2. Factors that affect and shape language teacher cognition

Teacher cognition refers to what teachers perceive, believe, and act on in the classroom and in turn is affected by many elements in relation to their teaching. As Williams and Burden (1997) state, teacher cognition about language learning and teaching affects, guides and prompts teachers’ classroom actions. In the research literature on teacher cognition, various authors indicate that teachers’ perceptions about language teaching are constructed and affected by many factors such as their prior learning experiences as language learners, their professional training and contextual factors (Borg, 2006; Macalister, 2010, 2014). More particularly, Burns (1996) argues that an important issue that should be taken into consideration in studies of teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices is the role of the social and institutional context in which teachers work. This view is also supported by Rosaen and Florio-Ruane (2008) who point out that teacher belief and practice seem to be heavily influenced by the particular setting of classrooms and schools, as ‘teacher professional development’ is viewed as socially and culturally situated and constructed in the context of their classroom (Burns et al., 2015; Freeman, 2002; Richards, 2011). Therefore, identifying and acknowledging influences of the sources on teacher cognition is an essential avenue of inquiry into the field of

language education. More importantly, it offers a foundation for the present study to examine how a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers perceive and teach speaking in their actual context. In the next sections, I consider some of the social and institutional factors that can influence teacher perceptions.

3.2.2.1. Schooling experiences

Numerous researchers in the area of language teaching and learning (e.g., Borg, 2003, 2006; Flores, 2001; Freeman, 1992; Johnson, 1994; Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992) provide persuasive evidence that the cognitions of teachers are strongly influenced by their prior experiences as language learners. These early schooling experiences, according to Woods (1996), impact upon teachers’ pedagogical activities and may continue to be influential throughout their teaching professions. In his book ‘School-Teacher: A Sociological Study’, Lortie (1975) introduces the term ‘apprenticeship of observation’ and indicates that the average student has spent about “13,000 hours in direct contact with classroom teachers by the time he (sic) graduates from high school” (p.61). With such thousands of hours spent in the classroom setting directly observing and interacting with language teachers, learners who later become teachers inevitably carry with them some strong ideas and fixed perceptions about “teaching images of good teachers” that “follow [them] into classroom practice” (Kagan, 1992b, p.142). Therefore, teachers’ perceptions and assumptions about the nature of language teaching, as Lortie (1975) notes, will more than likely be strongly influenced by the notion that “what constituted good teaching then constitutes good teaching now” (pp. 65-66).

Drawing on Lortie’s (1975) concept of the apprenticeship of observation, Kennedy (1990) indicates that “teachers acquire seemingly indelible imprints from their own experiences as students and these imprints are tremendously difficult to shake” (p.17). In line with this view, Freeman (1992), in his longitudinal study on teachers’ language learning experiences, shows that the clearest source for teachers to understand the development of language teaching and learning is their early experiences as students. He highlights that “the memories of instruction gained through their ‘apprenticeship of observation’ function as de facto guides for teachers as they approach what they do in the classroom” (Freeman, 1992, p.3). Likewise, Kagan (1992b) contends that teachers

often extrapolate from their own schooling experiences as learners, and assume that “the pupils they will teach will possess aptitudes, problems and learning styles similar to their own” (p.154). Teachers’ preconceptions about teaching and learning from their own experiences as learners will, therefore, need to be taken into account in this study. In the next section, the influence of education programmes on teacher cognition will be examined and discussed.

3.2.2.2. Teacher education programmes

Pajares (1992, p.328) explains that “there are good reasons why attempting to understand the beliefs of pre-service teachers is essential to teacher education”. According to various researchers, the objectives of the teacher education programme are to equip student teachers with a set of “technical skills and knowledge” (Renzaglia, Hutchins & Lee, 1997, p.362), and also to construct teachers’ beliefs about “what is appropriate in teaching and conceptions about their professional role” (Tatto, 1998, p.66). With reference to the effects of training programmes on teacher cognition and classroom practices, various studies on student teachers’ beliefs have shown that the way student teachers process the input during teacher education courses may heavily shape their beliefs and perceptions related to their classroom behaviours and teaching strategies (Borg, 1998, 2011; Li, 2012; Özmen, 2012; Pajares, 1992; Sturt & Thurlow, 2000; Tang et al., 2012). According to Pajares (1992, p.328), pre-service teachers’ educational beliefs play “a pivotal role in their acquisition and interpretation of knowledge and subsequent behaviours”, which they are likely to demonstrate in their instructional practices. This point is reflected in a longitudinal study of the influence of an EFL pre-service education program at Gazi University in Turkey. In this longitudinal study, Özmen, (2012) confirms that when student teachers engaged in their teaching practicum, what they received from the training seemed to have “a higher impact on the development of their beliefs about language learning and teaching” (p.1). Similarly, in a case study of a native English-speaking teacher in a Maltese EFL classroom, Borg (1998) found that sources for the teacher’s beliefs were derived from his previous experiences as a second language learner, as a student in a teacher-training programme, and as a teacher in the EFL classroom. Borg (1998) strongly emphasises that “the teacher in this study was profoundly influenced by his initial training” (p.29), and also

argues that the research findings can provide “a vivid portrait of both teachers’ action and their thinking that can serve as a catalyst for enabling teachers to examine their own teaching practices” (p.32). Recently, in a qualitative case study employing three data collection instruments: semi-structured interviews, observation of micro-teaching sessions, and student teachers’ written reflections on their teaching, Li’s (2012) study, focusing on six Chinese and Taiwanese student teachers attending a TESOL programme in a UK university, revealed that the programme heavily shaped and developed these pre-service teachers’ understanding and perceptions about ELT.

However, other evidence in the research literature with regard to language teaching and teacher education indicates that teacher-training courses have little impact upon teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices (Kagan, 1992a, 1992b; Peacock, 2001; Tatto, 1998; Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Reviewing 40 learning-to-teach studies published or presented between 1987 and 1991, Kagan (1992b, p.162) came to the conclusion that:

University courses fail to provide novices with adequate procedural knowledge of classrooms, adequate knowledge of pupils or the extended practice needed to acquire that knowledge, or a realistic view of teaching in its full classroom/school context.

It is worth noting that Kagan’s (1992b) conclusion is supported by other studies. For example, the results of Peacock’s (2001) longitudinal study in Hong Kong reported that teachers’ beliefs changed little in training, and teacher education programmes had limited impact upon the development of teachers’ beliefs. Sharing the same view, Zeichner, Tabachnik and Densmore (1987) argue that teacher education programmes are not very powerful interventions in teachers’ perceptions. In particular, Tatto (1998) examined the role of teacher education in changing teachers’ beliefs and concluded that:

Little empirical evidence exists in the teacher cognition literature on the influence of teacher education on teachers’ values and beliefs. Consensus exists that teacher education has little effect on altering teachers’ beliefs... Pre-service teachers’ previous experience as pupils, the apprenticeship of

observation, and schools’ organization and culture have more influence than formal teacher education in shaping their teaching. (p.66)

The contradictory findings of the aforementioned studies may be due to the different social and cultural contexts in which “these studies were situated” (Li, 2012, p.34). When teachers enter classrooms, contextual factors such as the culture of the learning and teaching, institution, curriculum and/or textbooks used for instruction in the classroom also shape and affect their practices and may over-ride the influence of teacher cognition, an issue that must also be taken into account in this study. The impact of social and institutional contextual factors will be examined in the following section.

3.2.2.3. Contextual factors

As much of the research suggests, the impact of the social contexts and the institutional cultures in which language teachers are working may be more powerful in shaping their underlying cognitions than their formal educational experiences (Burns, 1996; Johnson, 2006; Little, 1990; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Borg (2006, p.275) notes that “the study of cognitions and practices in isolation of the contexts in which these occur will inevitably, therefore, provide partial, if not flawed, characterisations of teachers and teaching”. According to Putnam and Borko (2000), what language teachers think and perceive about their teaching is heavily shaped by the physical and social contexts. These situated environments will inevitably guide teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about what to teach and how to teach it in the classroom (Borg, 2006), since what teachers do and think is intertwined with the specific socio-cultural setting (Verloop, Van & Meijer, 2001). These perspectives are consistently highlighted by Clancey (1997, pp.1-2) who argues that “every human thought and action is adapted to the environment, that is, situated, because what they perceive, how they conceive of their activity, and what they physically do develop together”. Johnson (2006, 2015) further supports the position that teacher cognition is socio-culturally constructed although there may be differences in individuals’ personal propositions. She stresses that teachers’ decision-making processes will take place in “complex socially, culturally, and historically situated contexts” (Johnson, 2006, p.239).

Connecting the influence of social and institutional contexts on teachers’ thinking and beliefs regarding their teaching in classrooms, Burns (1996), in her study of six experienced ESL teachers working with beginning adult language learners, proposes a framework of three “interconnecting and interacting contextual levels” of teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices (p.157). At the first level, which is the broadest one, is an institutional focus with which language teachers interpret the particular institutional ideologies or philosophies. This contextual level refers to the institutional culture, which creates the cognitive frameworks for teachers to think about their specific teaching programmes and language learners. At the second contextual level are teachers’ thinking, attitudes and beliefs about language, learning and learners. These beliefs will shape and guide teachers’ decisions on overall planning approaches, the content selection and the forms of interactions that will characterise their classrooms in practices. And at the third, which is the most specific contextual level, are teachers’ beliefs about actions in their instructional decisions in the classroom. Within this framework, according to Burns (1996), teachers’ beliefs are interdependent and become “networks of intercontextuality in operation” (p.158).

From the accounts discussed above, it is recognized that teachers’ perceptions about language teaching and learning are formed early and affected by their previous learning experiences as language learners. These perceptions may (or may not) be changed and/or affected later by the professional education programmes in which they receive training and learn new teaching principles and pedagogy. As Ertmer and Ottenbreit- Leftwich (2010) point out, during their education programmes, pre-service teachers are challenged to adopt “new definitions of learning, as well as new definitions of effective teaching, that align with recommended best practices” (p.269). However, when teachers are at work, contextual aspects and classroom practices concerning the culture of learning and teaching, and the institution and curriculum may play a more significant role in shaping their perceptions about language teaching (Jang, 2014; Richards, 2011). Cross (2010) indicates that “the activity of teaching and the thoughts and practices associated with it are defined (mediated and even constructed) in relation to the context within which that activity exists” (p.440).

Since the constructs of teacher cognition will primarily impact upon all teachers’ classroom instructional decisions and actions, it is thus essential to understand and draw attention to the interconnections between teacher cognition and classroom actions empirically. As Burns (1996, p.154) points out, “the thinking and beliefs teachers hold are fundamental in motivating classroom interactions”, and illuminating the underlying cognitions teachers hold is crucial to understanding the extent to which they are “consistent with effective teaching practices” (Pajares, 1992, p.328). Given the purpose of the study, an examination of what is known of the relationship between teacher cognition and teachers’ teaching practices will be presented in the next section.

3.2.3. Teacher cognition and classroom practices

Viewed as a profession, teaching is considered as ‘a complex cognitive activity’ (Borg, 2003, 2006; Freeman, 1992; Kagan, 1992a; Mori, 2011; Renzaglia et al.,1997; Richards, 1998; Yue’s & Yunzhang, 2011), in which teachers often hold tacit beliefs about their teaching (Borg, 1999b; Farrell & Lim, 2005; Freeman, 2002; Zheng & Davison, 2008). However, given the influencing factors discussed above, teachers’ cognitions may strongly affect or be divergent from their classroom practices.

With regard to convergence, a large number of studies have reported consistency in the connections between teacher cognition and their instructional decisions in the classroom (Borg, 1999b, 1999c, 2003, 2006; Burns, 1992, 1996; Calderhead, 1996; Farrell & Kun, 2008; Inceçay, 2011; Johnson, 1992; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991; Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Walsh & Wyatt, 2014). For example, by using an ideal instructional protocol, lesson plan analysis task and beliefs inventory to investigate 30 ESL teachers’ theoretical beliefs about second language learning and teaching, Johnson (1992) showed that the majority of the teachers held clearly defined theoretical beliefs which reflected one of three methodological approaches in their language teaching: function-based, skilled-based, and rule-based approaches. Johnson then observed classroom instruction of three teachers in order to uncover the extent to which their instructional practices were consistent with their theoretical beliefs. The findings of the classroom observation indicated that the teaching practices of the three ESL teachers were congruent with each teacher’s theoretical orientations. The study

also supported the notion that “ESL teachers teach in accordance with their theoretical beliefs and that differences in theoretical beliefs may result in differences in the nature of literacy instruction” (Johnson, 1992, p.101). Recently, Farrell and Lim (2005) conducted a case study to examine two experienced English language teachers’ beliefs and their classroom behaviours regarding grammar instruction in a primary school in Singapore. Drawing on qualitative methods comprising pre-study interviews, classroom observations and written works, findings of this case study showed that the teaching strategies employed by both teachers in the classroom were consistent with what they reported about the teaching of grammar in the interviews. Farrell and Lim (2005) also concluded that the teachers’ beliefs were “the best indicators of the type of instructional decisions [these teachers] made during their teaching” (p.8). In this regard, some studies in mainstream education also strongly reveal that there is a symbiotic relationship between teacher cognition and classroom teaching (Foss & Kleinsasser, 1996), and teachers hold a complex system of cognitions that shape and affect their classroom practices to a very large extent (Yue’e & Yunzhang, 2011).

Thus, several studies show a strong and positive link between teacher cognition and their teaching practices. However, this interrelationship is not reflected so clearly in other studies. Some researchers argue that teachers’ beliefs are inconsistent and do not always match what they do in the classroom (Allen, 2013; Basturkmen, 2012; Garden, 1996; Feryok, 2010; Flores, 2001; Jones & Fong, 2007; Karavas-Doukas, 1996). This is because the relationship between teacher cognition and their actual instruction is complicated and not straightforward to investigate (Borg, 1998, 1999c, 2006; Feryok, 2008). Such a relationship might also be due to the discrepancy between teachers’ theoretical beliefs and the complexities of the teaching reality (Fang, 1996), which strongly account for contradictory findings in various studies (Basturkmen et al., 2004; Mak, 2011; Tang, et al., 2012). For example, Hoffman and Kugle (1982) reported a lack of interconnections between teachers’ theoretical orientations and specific classroom behaviours. By employing follow-up interviews, their research findings showed that “for most teachers there is no strong relationship between teacher beliefs and teacher behaviours” (Hoffman & Kugle 1982, p.6).

Similarly, Sato and Kleinsasser (1999) conducted a study to investigate the perceptions of ten Japanese teachers working in ten different state upper-secondary schools in Australia about CLT and their behaviours in the classroom. A combination of multiple data sources, including interviews, classroom observations and a survey, was used for data collection. From the classroom observation findings, the researchers concluded that what actually happened in the classroom contradicted the information reported by the teachers in the interviews. In a study of an EFL teacher in the teaching of reading, Ulichny (1996) also found that the teacher she researched initially intended to promote a learner-centred approach in her teaching of reading. However, due to unexpected difficulties that students encountered when she carried out the planned activities in the class her teaching approach became very teacher-centred, and did not reflect her cognitions any more.

Likewise, Basturkmen et al. (2004) conducted a case study to investigate the relationship between the beliefs and practices regarding focus on form of three teachers in intermediate level ESL communicative lessons in one setting. The strategy used to collect data for the study was a combination of observation and self-report. Results showed that there was “a somewhat tenuous relationship” between the teachers’ classroom practices and their verbal beliefs about focus on form (Basturkmen et al., 2004, p.243). Recently, Mak (2011) examined the interactions between a pre-service teacher’s beliefs about CLT and her teaching practice in a one-year postgraduate teacher education program in Hong Kong. Data collected were from many sources including semi-structured interviews, belief-inventory questionnaires, researcher’s field notes, classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews. The findings revealed that there was a gap found between beliefs about CLT and the practices of the pre-service teacher in this study. The researcher explained that the teacher was under pressure from situational constraints, which caused her tensions that led her to feel unable to put her beliefs into practice.

To sum up, studies on teacher cognition with reference to ESL/EFL learning and teaching have indicated different findings related to the interactions and relationship between what teachers perceive, believe and what they actually do in their teaching practices. This mixed evidence may be, because as Borg (2001, p.187) notes, teachers’

“espoused beliefs” and what they do in terms of “beliefs-in-action” differ. Another reason could be the choice of different research methods used to elicit teacher cognition (Basturkmen, 2012; Borg, 2006; Isikoglu et al., 2009), which leads to lack of comparability. The evidence also suggests that the relationships that do exist are complex, dynamic and need to be understood within their social and cultural contexts. Therefore, as Borg (2003, p.105) recommends, there is a need for considerably more research to explore “the impact of contextual factors on the instructional decision teachers make” in the classroom. Investigations into teachers’ perceptions and their actual teaching practices, thus, contribute to gaining a broader grasp of the complex interconnections in the field of language education (Borg, 2006, 2009a; Burns, 1996; Jang, 2014), and it is the purpose of the present study to make such a contribution.

The current case study is designed to examine what a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers perceive about teaching speaking and how they go about speaking instruction in practices at a high school, in an attempt to explore whether or not their perceptions are consistent with their classroom practices, as well as to probe what cultural, social and cognitive factors affect their instructional practices. In order to further explain the theoretical background for the current research, previous studies on teacher cognition about the teaching of speaking of second or foreign languages are reviewed in the next section.

3.3. Previous studies on teacher cognition about speaking instruction

It is widely recognized that research on teacher cognition has made valuable contributions to the exploration of teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, values and attitudes towards their teaching (Allen, 2002, 2013; Baker, 2014; Borg, 2006, 2009; Nishimuro & Borg, 2013). Research in this area has also gained significance by helping determine how teachers develop their thinking, perceptions and decision-making processes with reference to their classroom practices, the interconnections between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional decisions in the classroom (Basturkmen, 2012; Kuzborska, 2011; Macalister, 2012; Zheng, 2009). As various researchers point out (e.g., Baleghizadeh & Shahri, 2014; Borg, 2006, 2009a, 2009b; Burns, et al., 2015; Mori, 2011), research on teacher cognition in general has emerged only since the 1970s; however, its central

focus on language teachers was only strongly documented in the literature from the early 1990s, and “has grown rapidly ever since” (Borg, 2009a, p.163). A great number of studies have now been conducted not only in English native speaking settings such as the USA, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, but also in other contexts where English is taught as a lingua franca (Allen, 2013; Barnard & Burns, 2012; Basturkmen, 2012; Borg, 2006). Language teacher cognition studies have been conducted with different foci, which include grammar or form-focused instruction (e.g., Basturkmen et al., 2004; Borg, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2001, 2003; Borg & Burns, 2008; Farrell & Lim, 2005; Le, 2011; Nishimuro & Borg, 2013; Phipps & Borg, 2009; Underwood, 2012; Uysal & Bardakci, 2014), literacy (e.g., Diab, 2005; Johnson, 1992), reading (e.g., Graden, 1996; Johnson, 1992; Kuzborska, 2011; Richardson, et al., 1991; Ulichny, 1996), reading and writing (e.g., Burns, 1992), writing (e.g., Berry, 2006; Lee, 2010), vocabulary (e.g., Gao & Ma, 2011; Macalister, 2012; Mehta, 2009), pronunciation (e.g., Baker & Murphy, 2011; Barker, 2014), corrective feedback (e.g., Lee, 2009; Morri, 2011) and communicative language teaching (e.g., Cundale, 2001; Feyok, 2008; Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Mak, 2011; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999). It is noticeable that many of these studies have concentrated on grammar and form-focused-instruction, and as Baleghizadeh and Shahri (2014), Hughes (2013) and Jang (2014) suggest, there are still other major areas in the field of language teaching and learning, including the teaching of speaking which is the focus of this study, that also need to be explored more extensively from the perspectives of teacher cognition.

With respect to studies on teacher cognition about the teaching of speaking, some researchers (e.g., Borg, 2006; Hughes, 2013; Jang, 2014) point out that research in this area is still very limited in number and scope. Similarly, Yue’e and Yunzhang (2011) argue that although research on teacher cognition in the field of language learning and teaching has increased in recent decades, speaking has attracted little attention, although a few studies can be identified that have touched on this area. For example, by using research instruments for data collection such as classroom observations, lesson plans and self-evaluation reports to explore the perceptions of three Brazilian pre-service teachers about the teaching of the four skills in EFL, da Silva (2005) found that, according to the participants, speaking is considered as the most difficult skill to be fostered, practiced and developed in the classroom. These pre-service teachers

perceived speaking instruction as “pronunciation practice” that can be acquired by “repetition and memorization of words and sentences through dramatizations” (pp.6-8). During their teaching, the three pre-service teachers reported that there was a number of factors that caused problems in teaching speaking in public situations such as the number of students in class, time and the influence of Portuguese that prevented them from creating real speaking opportunities for students. From the findings, Da Silva further indicated that the pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking were affected and guided by their prior experiences as foreign language learners in schools.

In 2011, Yue’e and Yunzhang carried out a study to investigate the cognitions of two EFL teachers about oral English teaching and their actual classroom practices at an agricultural university in China. The focus of this study fell into three categories, namely the nature of oral English teaching, the content of oral English teaching, and the teaching strategies. By employing multiple instruments (open questionnaire, interview protocol and classroom observation) for data collection, the findings of the research showed that differences existed between both teachers’ stated cognitions and their actual teaching in oral English classroom. For example, the younger teacher was aware of the latest theories in SLA, focusing on sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence in their speaking instruction in the classroom while the older teacher with more teaching experience showed a stronger influence of traditional concepts, placing emphasis on native-like pronunciation and her former teaching experiences. In addition, due to the influence of many internal and external factors such as the unpredictability of what occurred during the oral English class, time factors and the arrangement of the curriculum, and the lack of legitimate status of oral English teaching in the context of college English teaching in China, the two teachers’ actual practices in teaching speaking did not always reflect their cognitions.

More recently, Dinçer and Yeşilyurt (2013) conducted a study to explore seven pre- service English teachers’ beliefs about teaching speaking in Turkey based on motivational orientations. Instruments used to collect data for the study were a speaking motivation scale (SMS) and semi-structured interviews. Findings gained from the study indicated that, whether motivated or unmotivated to speak English, all the pre-service

teachers had negative ideas about the teaching of speaking in Turkey in comparison with other skills, although they all agreed that speaking was the most important language skill in English teaching. This was because, as they revealed, speaking was ignored in primary and high schools, and only developed at the level of universities. In addition, all the participants reported that they themselves felt incompetent in oral communication, which demotivated them in their speaking instruction in the classroom. Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that “teaching speaking was inadequate in the Turkish education system” (Dinçer & Yeşilyurt, 2013, p.92). They then highlighted and explained the deficiencies as mostly related to the educational system of Turkey such as lack of instructional practice activities in formal education, strict curricula in primary and high schools, traditional teaching methods and paper- based examinations.

As this review of recent studies has suggested, there is very limited research in the field of language teacher cognition in relation to teaching speaking. In the Vietnamese context, as noted in Section 1.1, the perceptions of pre-service teachers about speaking instruction and how those perceptions associate with their teaching practices remain completely underexplored (as indeed they do in many other contexts). Given the strong acknowledgement in Vietnamese policy and curriculum documents of the importance of spoken communication, and in addition the significance of understanding teachers’ perceptions and providing deeper insights into their instructional decisions in the teaching of speaking, the present case study is designed to fill this gap. As explained in Chapter 2, the improvement of speaking skills has particular pedagogical implications in the Vietnamese educational system and therefore the study aims to make a significant contribution to this issue in an under-resourced EFL context.

3.4. Summary

This chapter has reviewed the literature on the two major concepts of the teaching of speaking and language teacher cognition, which form the basis of a conceptual foundation for the present study. The review of the teaching of speaking has indicated that speaking instruction should be an important focus in the process of language teaching and learning, and the primary goal of teaching speaking is to enable language

learners to communicate in the target language effectively in a variety of situations. The review also reports that there have been variations in approaches to teaching speaking in the field of language teaching and learning. However, as many scholars suggest, in order to teach speaking effectively, speaking should be taught in a principled and systematic way (Goh & Burns, 2012) and with an ultimate focus on meaning.

With regard to the review of teacher cognition, a review of the literature indicates that research into language teacher cognition and its relationship to teachers’ classroom practices has grown rapidly in recent decades. However, most studies focus on a limited range of specific curricular content, in particular on grammar, but also with some research on reading, writing, vocabulary or pronunciation. In contrast, in the area of teacher cognition, speaking is highly under-researched in both ESL and EFL contexts. In addition, the review also reveals that teachers’ thinking processes are complex and not always straightforward to investigate which leads to different findings across studies. Therefore, more empirical studies with reference to the teaching of speaking need to be conducted and reported in the language teacher cognition literature. The present study works within a qualitative case study approach, outlined in the next chapter, in an attempt to fill this empirical gap.

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the qualitative research methodology and methods of data collection employed in this study. The chapter will begin with an examination of the nature of qualitative research. It will then explain the choice of research methodology and methods adopted for the current study. Next, a brief introduction of the research setting and a detailed description of the participants for the main study will be provided. The chapter will continue with an account of data coding, analysis and interpretation. Trustworthiness as one measure for ensuring the research quality will be described at the end of the chapter.

4.1. The nature of qualitative research

This section begins with a brief definition of qualitative research, followed by the discussion of some of its primary characteristics.

4.1.1. Definitions of qualitative research

Due to the increased interest in qualitative inquiry in a variety of disciplines and contexts in recent decades, qualitative research has gained a more prominent position as an in-depth approach to study the phenomenon under investigation in order to understand it more thoroughly (Bryman et al., 1996; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Merriam, 2009; Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014; Shulman, 1981). Researchers, such as Flick (2007), also argue that qualitative research has enjoyed “a period of unprecedented growth and diversification” (p.x), while others claim it has become an increasingly important mode of inquiry for social and behavioural science research (Boyatzis, 1998; Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

In the same vein, Merriam (2009) emphasises the appropriateness of qualitative research in human inquiry, indicating that in the social sciences philosophical, disciplinary, and historical influences have led to an increased focus on qualitative

research. Given that the value and prestige of qualitative research have risen, and it is now utilised in a wide range of social and applied fields, researchers (e.g., Creswell, 1998, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 1988, 2009; Miles et al., 2014; Richards, 2003) have attempted to define it through different perspectives in order to make comparisons with quantitative inquiry.

According to van Maanen (1979), qualitative research is defined as “an umbrella term covering an array of interpretative techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world” (p.520). Creswell (1998) provides a more concise definition of qualitative research by indicating the process of exploring and understanding the nature of a social or human inquiry and developing a complex, holistic picture.

Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological patterns of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting. (Creswell, 1998, p.15)

Other researchers, Shank (2002) for example, describe qualitative research as “a form of systematic empirical inquiry into meaning” (p.5). In terms of being systematic, Shank means “planned, ordered and public” (p.5) inquiry, that follows the agreed rules of the members of the qualitative research community. Being empirical refers to the meaning of inquiry grounded by experience in the world, and inquiry into meaning requires the researcher to understand how people construct and make sense of their world.

Similar to Creswell (1998) and Shank (2002), Denzin and Lincoln (2011) claim that qualitative research refers to a variety of methods and is an interpretive, naturalistic approach used to construct and experience the meaning of phenomena in their natural settings. Their definition of qualitative research is probably regarded as one of the most comprehensive, as it is frequently cited in the literature.

Qualitative research is multi-method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials - case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts - that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals' lives. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, pp.3-4)

Generally speaking, although qualitative research is defined in various ways, its aim is to provide an in-depth and interpretive understanding of particular phenomena in their natural settings (Creswell, 1998, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Dörnyei, 2007; Flick, 2007; Meriam, 2009; Snape & Spencer, 2003). The following section provides an account of the characteristics of qualitative research.

4.1.2. Characteristics of qualitative research

To further capture the inherent nature of qualitative research, it is useful to examine and clarify its characteristics. Buston et al. (1998) contend that the primary characteristic of qualitative research is to “facilitate the researcher's understanding of the meaning assigned to the phenomena by those being studied” (p.197). By indicating what qualitative research will and will not focus on, Richards (2003) delineates a valuable list of detailed characteristics of qualitative inquiry. These characteristics are presented in the following table:

Table 4.1

Characteristics of qualitative inquiry

It will It will not • study human actors in natural settings, in • set up artificial situations for the the context of their ordinary, everyday purposes of study or try to control world; the conditions under which participants act; • seek to understand the meanings and • attempt to describe human significance of these actions from the behavior in terms of a limited set perspective of those involved; of pre-determined categories; • usually focus on s small number of • attempt to study a large (possibly just one) individuals, groups or population identified on the basis settings; of particular characteristics; • employ a range of methods in order to • base its findings on a single establish different perspectives on the perspective or feature; relevant issues • base its analysis on a wide range of • base its analysis on a single features; feature; • only use quantification where this is • represent its findings in appropriate for specific purposes and as primarily quantitative terms. part of a broader approach. (Source: Richards, 2003, p. 10)

More specifically, Merriam (2009) argues that in the field of qualitative study different writers may emphasize different characteristics of research; however, to some extent, these characteristics overlap. Then, she provides four features, which are identified by most authors as a key to understanding the nature of qualitative inquiry. These features highlight that “the focus is on process, understanding, and meaning; the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis; the process is inductive; and the product is richly descriptive” (Merriam, 2009, p.14). In the present study, the major characteristics of qualitative research proposed by Merriam (2009) and Richards (2003) were adopted since they suited the purposes of the study, which will be discussed further in Section 4.2 below.

In summary, qualitative research is understood as a broad term and variously defined. It can also be used with a variety of methods in order to explore and interpret the different perspectives of participants and to illustrate how meaning is created in their contexts (Dörnyei, 2007; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Merriam, 2009; Richards, 2003; Snape & Spencer, 2003). Engaging in a qualitative study means that researchers keep focused on

“observing, describing, interpreting and analyzing the way that people experience, act on or think about themselves and the world around them” (Bazeley, 2013, p.4).

This section examined briefly the nature of qualitative research, including its definitions and some principal characteristics in order to begin positioning the design used in the current study. The next Section, 4.2, will highlight the advantages of qualitative research as a basis for explaining the reason why qualitative research was chosen for the present study.

4.2. The advantages of qualitative research

Recently, the literature on research methodology has witnessed critiques of both quantitative and qualitative paradigms and has pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of both research approaches (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Creswell, 1998, 2013; Fraenkel & Wallen; 2006; Merriam, 2009; Richards, 2003; Patton, 1990, 2002; Stake, 1995). However, in general, methodologists argue that choosing an appropriate research methodology and research methods for a particular phenomenon under examination mainly depends upon the aims of the study (Flick, 2007). The present study was set within a qualitative inquiry approach with the aim of understanding a group of Vietnamese pre-service teachers' perceptions about teaching speaking. In this section, the advantages of qualitative research as the most appropriate choice for the study are explained.

The major strength of quantitative research is that it is “possible to measure the reactions of many subjects to a limited set of questions, thus facilitating comparison and statistical aggregation of data” (Patton, 1990, p.165). The positivist approach has typically been dominant in the social sciences because it is likely to provide generalizations of social phenomena and produce objective findings. Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) also add the argument that quantitative researchers are interested in the frequency of appearance of certain activities, situations or materials. In addition, various criticisms of qualitative research are proposed from the positivist point of view. According to Snape and Spencer (2003), interpretive research is non-scientific because it is unable to replicate the scientific methods used in the natural sciences. Berg (2005)

draws much attention to the fact that “even though the virtue of qualitative research is seldom questioned in the abstract, its practice is sometimes criticised for being non- scientific and thus invalid” (p.2).

In contrast, qualitative researchers have put forward a variety of arguments to point out the advantages and usefulness of qualitative inquiry. They argue that qualitative methodology has much to offer in terms of theory generation, exploration, interpretation and thick description (Creswell, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Flick, 2007; Geertz, 1973; Miles et al., 2014). The strengths of qualitative research studies are that they investigate and describe the social and cultural world of participants, including constructing and predetermining many variables that a quantitative approach cannot take into account (Creswell, 1998, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; O'Day & Killeen, 2002). Moreover, qualitative research is very rich in exploring and understanding new dimensions of individuals or groups from an insider's point of view and stressing the importance of local specific contexts (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, 2011; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Qualitative approaches can also study the contextual physical factors, notions or norms, traditions and roles, and capture in-depth insights into participants' feelings, perceptions, values and assumptions (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). In a similar vein, O'Day and Killeen (2002) highlight one of the powerful strengths of qualitative research by illuminating the hidden interactions of cultural attitudes, institutional processes, public policies and individual lives.

One of the great strengths of qualitative methodology is its capacity to explain "what is going on" in complex situations involving interdependent individuals, in situations, groups, and systems. It can capture the perspectives of individuals affected by the institutions in their lives and by the communities in which they live. (p.10)

In summary, it is apparent that the contribution of qualitative research is not only to reinforce knowledge and uncover the “process and meanings that are not rigorously examined, or measured” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p.3) but also to examine deeper individual cases that are often missed in quantitative research (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). As mentioned earlier, the present study took place in the social cultural situation of a

real-life context at a high school in Vietnam, and the inquiry dimension of the research was to focus on the meanings and understand different perspectives that Vietnamese pre-service teachers construct and bring to their teaching of speaking (Patton, 1990, 2002; Snape & Spencer, 2003). Therefore, qualitative research was selected in this study in order to fit the purpose and aims of the inquiry. The next Section 4.3 discusses the choice of case study within this qualitative paradigm as an approach for the present study.

4.3. Case study: A research approach

This section examines and describes case study and rationalises the choice of case study as an appropriate approach for the current research. It begins by looking into the definitions and then addresses the purposes with reference to the study.

As discussed above, quantitative research can generate numerical findings but fails to explore and understand the complexities and dynamic natures of the participants, their social contexts, and the factors operating in these contexts. The case study, as a research approach for working within qualitative inquiry, has been widely recognized in various disciplines of human research inquiry (Burns, 2000; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Merriam, 1988, 2009; Simon, 1980; Stake, 1995; van Lier, 2005). Dörnyei (2007, p.55) argues that:

The case study is an excellent method for obtaining a thick description of a complex social issue embedded within a cultural context. It offers rich and in-depth insights that no other method can yield, allowing researchers to examine how an intricate set of circumstances come together and interact in shaping the social world around us.

Depending upon the purposes and applications of case study in education and language teaching, definitions of case study have been advocated by various writers in different ways in the literature (Cohen et al., 2011; Duff, 2008; Johnson, 1992; Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007; Stake 1995, 2006; Yin, 1989, 2014).

In terms of the research process, Yin (1989) points out that the characteristics of a case study consist of its contemporariness, real-life context, and boundedness. He then defines it as an empirical inquiry that:

investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (p.23).

Otherwise, by focusing on aspects of the unit in order to characterise a case, Stake (2006) explains that a case is “a noun, a thing, an entity; it is seldom a verb, a participle, a functioning” (p.1). In terms of the unit, Jocher (2006) argues that the unit of a case study “depends on the interest of the researcher and the purpose of the research” (p.40) and a case, according to Johnson (1992) and Cohen et al., (2011), is the unit of analysis. However, Johnson (1992, p.76) also notes that:

The purpose of a case study is to describe the case in its context. Guided by a research question, a researcher studies the case and those aspects of the environment that pertain to that case and that shed light on the research question.

According to Merriam (2009), case study is viewed as “an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (p.40). The case, in her point of view, could be “a person, a program, a group, an institution, a community, or a specific policy” (Merriam, 2009, p.40). In particular, she claims that the features of a qualitative case study can be characterised through three special themes: particularistic, descriptive and heuristic. Particularistic means that case study focuses on a particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon. Descriptive means that the end product of a case study is a rich, “thick” description of the phenomenon under study, and heuristic means that case study illuminates the reader’s understanding of the phenomenon under study (Merriam, 2009, pp.43-44).

In the present project, a case study approach was adopted as an appropriate strategy of inquiry because its purposes and features as identified above aligned with my research goal. As provided in Section 1.2, the current study aimed to explore and understand how a group (N=8) of Vietnamese pre-service teachers perceive and teach speaking in practice at a high school, a real-life context in Vietnam, and to gain insights into the factors that affect and shape their speaking instructional decisions in the classroom. Therefore, for the purpose of the study and following such features of case study given by Merriam (2009) and Johnson (1992), eight pre-service teachers in this study were treated as cases, who were also working in the same bounded case of one high school. This means that different aspects of a phenomenon of concern to the individual participants, the teaching of speaking, were investigated within a specific natural and cultural context.

The choice of adopting the case study approach in this study thus enabled me, as the researcher, (1) to adopt a rich perspective in investigating and describing the phenomenon bounded in a natural setting (Creswell, 2013; Johnson, 1992; Merriam, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1984; 1994; Miles et al., 2014; Patton, 2002; Punch, 2009; van Lier, 2005; Yin, 1989, 2014); (2) to better understand the complexity of the participants’ perspectives and their actions in the teaching of speaking in practices within that context; and (3) to explore the reasons and uncover the meanings that underpinned the participants’ actions and behaviours in the classroom. In addition, from a pedagogical viewpoint case study allowed me to seek out the appropriateness of teaching approaches to the teaching of speaking at high schools in particular and to consider the implications that might apply to other schools in general in the Vietnamese educational system and context.

In case studies, data collection often comes from several sources in order to provide a full variety of substantiation and convincing findings compared to using a single method approach (Borg, 2006; Creswell, 1998, 2013; Merriam, 1988, 2009; Yin, 1989, 2014). Creswell (2013) argues that in case study:

researchers typically gather multiple forms of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, rather than rely on a single data source. Then they review all of the data and make sense of it, organizing it into categories or themes that cut across all of the data sources. (p.45)

With such a multi-method strategy in a qualitative case study approach, researchers can explore and understand “the complex mental worlds of the participants” (Freeman, 1996, p.376). However, as argued by Scholz and Tietje (2002) and Flick (2007), the strategy for choosing appropriate research methods to collect data relies heavily on the purpose of the study under examination. Borg (2006) suggests that the choice of research methods should be concerned not only with methodological considerations but also with “what is practically feasible, acceptable and permissible in the particular context under study” (p.280). He then makes the point that “[g]iven that teacher cognition research is interested in phenomena which are not directly observable, a key challenge for researchers has been to identify data collection strategies through which these phenomena can be elicited” (Borg, 2006, p.167). Therefore, in order to gain in- depth insights into the perceptions of eight Vietnamese pre-service teachers about the teaching of speaking the present case study employed multiple data collection methods, including semi-structured interview, document analysis, classroom observation and stimulated recall interview (see Section 4.7). Through the choice of these data sources, it is intended that the description, explanation and understanding of eight Vietnamese pre-service teachers' perceptions about speaking instruction in a specific context, a high school in Vietnam, would be clearly reflected in the study. In the next section, Section 4.4, the ethical issues that pertain to the study will be discussed and taken into consideration for the study.

4.4. Ethical issues

In all forms of research, ethical issues link to protection of the research participants (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Miles et al., 2014), so that they are motivated to contribute their perspectives and provide trustworthy information without causing them constraints or harm (Lindorff, 2010). In the field of educational qualitative research, informed consent and confidentiality are two most important components (Baez, 2002;

Kent, 2000). According to Orab, Eisenhauer and Wynaden (2000), qualitative studies are frequently carried out in situations involving “the participation of people in their everyday environments. Therefore, any research that includes people requires an awareness of the ethical issues that may be derived from such interactions” (p.93). Barnard (1998, p.55) also adds that ethics is about treating other people “with the respect that one would wish for oneself”.

In order to approach and recruit participants for this project, the present study met the ethical requirements of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and received the Ethics Approval Number: 13009 (see Appendix B). The procedures for selecting the research setting and approaching participants in this study will be described in Section 4.6. In the participant information statement and consent (PISC) form, the title of the project, purpose of the study, description of the study, and confidentiality were presented (see Appendix E) to the participants. In particular, in any publication of the study, information will be provided in such a way that participants cannot be identified. In addition, in the PISC form, participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time from the project without prejudice and penalty. As a result, confidentiality and anonymity through pseudonyms were guaranteed to those who were involved in all interviews and classroom observations in this study. As Burns (2000) suggests, the interviewer promised not to disclose information about the identities of the participants through the use of code names and de-identified data, so as to ensure that all individual participants were not affected by the research in any way (Duff, 2008).

4.5. Pilot study

In order to provide preliminary information for the study, and importantly to see how well the research instruments would work in practice (Marshall & Rossman, 2011), I employed a pilot study to begin the current research. Conducting a pilot study prior to the main study, according to Leon, Davis and Kraemer (2011), is crucial since it can examine the feasibility of the research techniques and methods that the researcher intends to use on a larger scale. Thabane et al., (2010) also emphasize that the use of a pilot study allows the researcher to enhance “the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies” (p.1). With the focus on the

exploration, understanding and interpretation of participants’ perceptions about teaching speaking, the pilot study in this research was carried out in one week from 18th to 23rd of February 2013 at an upper secondary school, situated in Gio Linh district, Quang Tri province in Vietnam. There were two pre-service teachers and two of their supervisors who agreed to participate in the pilot study after I had sent them an email to express the purpose of my study, enclosed with the approval letter from the principal. Both of the two pre-service teachers were individually interviewed before and after their speaking lessons, and a classroom observation was conducted with each of the participants. In addition, the two pre-service teachers submitted lesson plans which were analysed before I conducted the classroom observation. I also carried out a focus group interview with their supervisors.

After finishing the pilot study, I went back to UNSW and continued to transcribe and translate the interviews. Based on the interview transcripts, lesson plan analysis and classroom observation summaries, and especially after the discussion with my supervisors, I was advised to change the order of some questions, adjust and cut out more than five questions in both individual and focus group interviews, so as to concentrate on more comprehensive investigation into the participants’ thinking. In particular, I was also advised to employ a focus group interview with teacher educators at the university in which my potential participants were being prepared for their English teaching in the future. These adjustments and changes were intended to leave more room for the participants to talk more extensively about their perceptions concerning the teaching of speaking, and to give me as the researcher more chances to capture, understand, interpret and explain the complex perspectives of the informants. As Creswell (2013) argues, “questions will change and become more refined…to reflect an increased understanding of the problem” (p.52). Given that the pilot study did account for major alternatives in the instruments and the fact that the main study eventually took place at a different high school (see Section 4.6.1), I decided that the collected data in the pilot study would not be used for analysis in combination with the data that were collected in the main study.

4.6. The main study

This section begins with an introduction of the research setting and then describes the process for approaching the participants for the study.

4.6.1. Research setting

Due to some changes, the high school in Quang Tri province in which I had carried out the pilot study would no longer receive pre-service teachers for their practicum. Therefore, I had to find another high school to which my potential participants, the pre- service teachers, would be sent which would allow me to gain access for my data collection. Through my personal relationships and networking, I did not experience difficulties in selecting a school and approaching participants. This procedure will be described in detail in Section 4.6.2 and 4.9.1. The high school I selected for the main study is a public school, located in Thua Thien Hue province. This province is known as one of the several ancient imperial capitals and is celebrated for its festivals, which attracts thousands of tourists from local areas and different countries in the world throughout the year.

Founded in 1961, characteristics of this public school are, however, quite similar to those of other high schools in the Vietnamese educational system, except for gifted or specialized schools. For example, the class size is, on average, large with the number of pupils being from 45 to 50 in each class. Each classroom is simply equipped with a blackboard, two electric fans, four neon lights, a desk for the teacher, tables and chairs for students fitted in two lines of five rows, and poor acoustics. Every table is shared by five students, facing the teacher. In addition, teaching materials are scarce, with only textbooks and a few reference books in the library.

Currently, the pupil population of the school is 1,758, which is divided into three grades (Grade 10, 11 and 12) and accommodated in 40 classes. As described in Section 2.2.1, in order to enter high schools, pupils have to sit for a competitively selective examination held by the local Department of Education and Training every year. This

examination is compulsory. Most pupils selected for this public high school are from all parts of the province and from low and middle-income families.

In terms of teaching staff, the school has 91 teachers and 10 percent of those have earned Master Degrees. According to the rules and regulations of the MOET, all lessons are split into 45 minute periods and each teacher is mandated to teach at least 16 hours per week, taking about three hours a day. Classes often have five periods a day from Monday to Saturday, which contribute to 12 subjects a semester (see Appendix S). Teachers only attend school in accordance with their teaching schedule. This means that if they do not have any teaching periods at school on Tuesday or Wednesday, for example, they will stay at home, doing housework, and teaching private home classes or go to other schools for extra teaching (Le, 2012, Pham, 2001, 2007).

4.6.2. Research participants

Unlike quantitatively oriented inquiry where sampling is important to seek generalizations based on large sample sizes (Mackey & Gass, 2005; Maxwell, 2005; Patton, 2002, Stake, 1995), this exploratory case study research aimed to generate a thick description of a particular educational setting and its participants, involving a small selected sample. As noted above, the current research took as its focus a group of pre-service teachers who were undertaking the training programme at one university and working at the same high school during their teaching practice over a six-week period in Vietnam. In order to approach and select the research setting and participants, strategies of ‘convenience’ and ‘purposive’ sampling (Cohen et al. 2011; Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Miles et al., 2014; Patton, 2002; Punch, 2009) were used in this study. Purposive sampling, as Dörnyei (2007, p.126) suggests, enables researchers to select “individuals who can provide rich and varied insights into the phenomenon under investigation so as to maximize what we can learn”.

First, I opted for a public high school, which was convenient for me to travel to and from the city where I live (Cohen et al., 2011; Nguyen, 2012; Punch, 2009; Yin, 2003). More importantly, such a public high school accepted participants (pre-service teachers) who were available for access. As Wagner (2010) argues, convenience sampling

involves finding “individuals who are readily available and that the researcher has access to” (p.25). Second, I employed convenience and purposive sampling in this study in order to approach and select the participants who would be able and willing to be studied (Creswell, 2013; Moore & Bounchan, 2010), and could provide in-depth insights into the phenomenon being investigated (Dörnyei, 2007; Stake, 2006). All potential participant pre-service teachers chosen for the study were being trained at a university where I used to be a student. This university, through its academic exchanges and cooperation agreements across different levels and disciplines with more than 25 overseas universities in 12 countries, is currently known as one of the most prestigious comprehensive universities in the middle area of Vietnam. With a teaching staff of 172 (Associate Professor: 3; Doctor: 21; Master: 97; and Bachelor: 51), the university is also reputed for both teaching and doing research. Some of these teacher educators were invited to participate in the focus group interview regarding the training programme (see Section 4.7.5).

Ten pre-service teachers were sent to the high school for their teaching practice. After getting the approval letter from the high school principal (see Appendix D) and particularly the support from the head of the English division of this high school, as well as from teachers who were assigned to be supervisors of the pre-service teachers, I began to approach the participants to establish rapport, build up trust and call for their collaboration by asking them to participate in the study. According to Creswell (1998), one of the important steps in the process of collecting data is to “establish rapport so that participants will provide good data” (p.110). Likewise, Le (2012) stresses that in the Vietnamese culture, establishing a mutual trustful rapport with the participants is considered to be “always valued” and one of the “keys to successful field research” (p.101).

In this study, I first approached individual pre-service teachers, providing him or her with information about the nature and purposes of the study. Voluntary participation, confidentiality, respect and the use of pseudonyms according to ethical principles were mentioned in the process of approaching the participants. In order to help potential participants feel more secure and contribute to valuable information without causing them any harm (Duff, 2008; Lindorff, 2010), they were informed that their teaching of

speaking would not be evaluated in any way and that they could withdraw from the project at any time. If the participants were interested and enthusiastic to participate, a PISC form was provided to them for their signatures (see Appendix E). With such approaching strategies, eight pre-service teachers (two males and six females) indicated they would be willing to take part in the current research. They were all the same age of 22 years, but differed in years of learning English, ranging from 11 to 14. Four pre- service teachers started learning English at Grade 3 in the primary level and the other four teachers commenced studying English at Grade 6 in lower secondary school. These pre-service teachers, as mentioned in Sections 4.4 and 4.6, were coded and labeled by pseudonyms to provide respect for their identities and confidentiality. The following table provides an overview of the eight participant pre-service teachers.

Table 4.2

Background information of the participant pre-service teachers

Pre-service Years of learning Teachers Gender English

Binh Male 11 Nam Male 11 Gai Female 11 Thanh Female 14 Nguyet Female 11 Hong Female 14 Phuong Female 14 Chi Female 14

As I established in the previous chapter, the study of teacher cognition needs to address not only teachers’ thoughts in response to their values and experiences, but also external and contextual elements such as the training programme, teachers’ supervisors, students, teaching environments that surround and may guide their perceptions and their teaching practices.

In order to provide a richer picture for the study, I also decided to carry out focus group interviews with the English teachers who worked as supervisors of the pre-service teachers at the high school, and the teacher educators who are in charge of training these

student teachers at the university. Regarding the procedures of selection, strategies for approaching participants’ supervisors for the focus group interviews were similar to those I applied for approaching the pre-service teachers. There were five English teachers who were assigned as supervisors working with eight pre-service teachers, and I approached all of them to request their participation. They were all happy to sign a PISC form (see Appendix F). However, due to a heavy teaching load, one supervisor could not come to the interview although he had agreed with the time and date set up by him and other supervisors in a formal meeting. This brought the number of supervisors involved in the study down to four. In a similar way, the four supervisors were coded with pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality. All four school supervisors had Bachelor Degree and were female with teaching experience ranging from five to 18 years. Table 4.3 below provides information on the four participant supervisors.

Table 4.3

Profiles of the participant school supervisors

Supervisors Years of Gender Age Degree teaching English Anh Female 27 B.A 5 Mai Female 38 B.A 17 My Female 41 B.A 18 Xuan Female 30 B.A 8

In relation to participant teacher educators, who were training the pre-service teachers, there were four teacher educators (one male and three females) who agreed to sign a PISC form (see Appendix G) and participate in the focus group interview. One of them was an American who had worked as a lecturer in many universities in both non-Asian and Asian countries. She had earned a Master Degree in both TESOL and Education. The other three teacher educators were members of the teaching methodological group, one of whom was the head of this group. In terms of the English teacher-training programme at the university, these teacher educators were mainly in charge of preparing courses on English language teaching methodology and other English skills (reading, listening, speaking and writing) for student teachers. The years of teaching experience

of the participant teacher educators ranged from nine to 30, with an average of 21 years. Table 4.4 below provides profiles of the participant teacher educators.

Table 4.4

Profiles of the participant teacher educators

Teacher educators Years of Gender Age Degree teaching English Bich Female 32 M.A 9 Lan Female 49 M. Ed 20 Mary Female 60 M.A, M.Ed 25 Thao Male 58 PhD 30

4.7. Research methods

As explained in Section 4.3, in order to explore the perceptions of the pre-service teachers about teaching speaking in a natural and particular setting in Vietnam, the present research adopted a case study approach in which multiple research methods were employed for collecting data. Data collection methods chosen in this study included semi-structured interviews, document analysis, classroom observations, stimulated recall interviews and focus group interviews. Fieldwork was conducted at a high school in the middle area of Vietnam and lasted for four months from January to April 2014. The following sections provide a detailed account of the instruments used, and the rationale for selecting them.

4.7.1. Semi-structured interviews

One of the essential sources of getting information in case study research is the interview (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2008). The interview is described as a process in which a researcher and participant “engage in a conversation focused on questions related to a research study” (deMarrais, 2004, p.55), and as a conversation carrying a purpose (Dexter, 1970; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The purpose of an interview is to “obtain a special kind of information” (Merriam, 2009, p.88) because the researcher wants to explore what is in and on the mind of someone (Patton, 2002). Cohen et al. (2011) also

claim that the interview is regarded as the most appropriate means to access the minds of research participants so that their knowledge, information, values, preferences, attitudes and beliefs can be reflected. Similarly, Tuckman (1972) argues that the interview is likely to provide access to what is “inside a person's head, it makes it possible to measure what a person knows (knowledge or information), what a person likes or dislikes (values and preferences), and what a person thinks (attitudes and beliefs)” (p.309). Moreover, the interview can provide opportunities for interviewers to gain rich data and clarify information from interviewees (Mangubhai, Marland, Dashwood, & Son, 2004).

In the present study, semi-structured interviews were selected because of their capacity to enhance the dynamics of the interview (Arksey & Knight, 1999), and other possible questions could be derived from the answers of the respondents during the time of interviewing. The advantage of semi-structured interviews is to create favourable conditions for the researcher to “find out about some things in more depth and so [to] get richer information” (Burns, 2010, p.75). Gay and Airasian (2000) claim that semi- structured interviews not only allow the interviewers to set up a frame of pre- determined questions but also provide opportunities for probing. In terms of flexibility, authors such as Borg (2006), Bogdan and Biklen (1998) and Merriam (2009) state that the flexibility of semi-structured interviews can guide questions and stimulate the participants to talk more about their understanding, experiences and beliefs in an open way. Echoing this perspective, Simon-Maeda (2004) indicates that a semi-structured interview allows the flexibility to explore how teachers’ perceptions about their teaching “are shaped at the nexus of local practices and larger ideological influences” (p.407). During the interviews, Burns (2010, p.75) stresses that:

You have a set of topics in your mind that you want to explore and you may have developed some specific questions, but you will allow some flexibility according to how the interviewee responds.

The semi-structured interview was, thus, opted for use in the present study with the belief that it had “a long and successful tradition in teacher thinking research” (Mangubhai et al., 2004, p.294) as well as “a very good way of accessing people’s

perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations and constructions of reality” (Punch, 2009, p.144).

All of the semi-structured interviews in this study were carried out during the first week of the practicum prior to observing the pre-service teachers’ lessons. These semi- structured interviews were conducted in a small meeting room of the high school. The questions used (see Appendix H) mainly focused on understanding, experiences, attitudes and perceptions of the pre-service teachers about teaching speaking. They were opened-ended, which “offer the persons being interviewed the opportunity to respond in their own words and to express their own personal perspectives” (Patton, 2002, p.348), and develop “the responses in ways which the interviewer might not have foreseen” (Campbell, McNamara, & Gilroy, 2004, p.99). All the participants (pre-service teachers) in this study were individually interviewed for approximately 50 minutes each. The semi-structured interviews were carried out in Vietnamese so that the participants could feel comfortable to express their perspectives in an open and flexible way. As Barnard and Nguyen (2010) assert, the decision to use Vietnamese in all interviews would enable “the participants to express themselves more thoughtfully and clearly and would be probably less threatening and easier for them to do so” (p.79). The interviews were taped-recorded, transcribed in Vietnamese first and then translated into English in order to facilitate data coding within emerging categories.

4.7.2. Document analysis

Document analysis is a useful method employed to collect data for qualitative research, because it can further contextualize the participants’ perceptions from the point of view of the textual resources they use. Document analysis in this study was adopted as a supplementary instrument and utilised for the purpose of triangulation (Punch, 2009). The documents used as part of the analysis and description of what the participants perceive about teaching speaking are English textbooks (see Section 5.1.3) and their lesson plans. For example, through a full analysis and interpretation of the lesson-plan documents, I was able to address a set of valuable information including the aims, goals, tasks, teaching steps, and teachers’ and students’ activities, which pre-service teachers intended to demonstrate in their speaking instruction in class. Sixteen speaking lesson

plans (see a sample presented in Appendix Q) were analysed and interpreted prior to attending the pre-service teachers’ lessons. This set of information would help me to examine how the participants manifested and translated what they facilitated in their lesson plans into their actual teaching contexts. Together with the combination of data gained from the semi-structured interviews and classroom observations as described in Section 4.7.3 below, this data source would establish a basis for me to raise questions when enacting the stimulated recall interviews (see Section 4.7.4).

4.7.3 Classroom observations

Observation refers to the examination of teaching and/or learning events happening in the classroom situation through “systematic processes of data collection and analysis” (Bailey, 2001, p.114). In qualitative research, classroom observation has been developed for specific research purposes and identified as a main means of data collection (Bailey, 2001; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 2009). Mackey and Gass (2005) argue that classroom observation is useful since it provides the researcher with more opportunities to “collect large amounts of rich data on the participants’ behaviours and actions in a particular context” (pp.175-176). This valuable instrument, according to Stake (1995, p.62), provides “a relatively incontestable description for further analysis and ultimate reporting”. When combined with summaries or reports of other research methods such as interviewing and document analysis, classroom observation is likely to provide a detailed understanding and interpretation of the phenomenon being investigated (Duff, 2008; Merriam, 2009; Punch, 2009). For example, in Duff’s (2008) study, she found that combined with the self-reports from interviews, classroom observation enabled the researcher to “ascertain selected participants’ perspectives on their actions and behaviours" (p.141). In particular, in the field of research on teacher cognition Borg (2006) argues that the value of observation is to provide “a concrete descriptive basis” of what teachers know, think and believe (p.231). The present study aimed to investigate teachers’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking. However, teachers’ perceptions cannot be “examined without reference to what actually goes on in the classroom” (Borg, 1999b, p.161).

To obtain a full understanding of how the pre-service teachers taught speaking in class and maximise the reliability of the data obtained from the interviews as well as enhance the purpose of triangulation for the present study, I adopted classroom observation as one of the major means to collect data. All the pre-service teachers’ speaking lessons were videotaped with permission. I informed the participants that the purpose of my research was just to explore what they perceived and how they taught speaking, and not to evaluate their teaching, in order to make them feel more secure and comfortable with my presence. Sixteen different speaking lessons in different classes (see a sample of classroom observation in Appendix J) taught by the eight pre-service teachers were observed for the study. Each participant was observed twice, and all observed speaking lessons lasted 45 minutes in length, as prescribed by the MOET. However, as noted by Gass and Mackey (2005), the presence of an observer can influence the behaviours of those observed, which may cause changes in their performance. In order to minimize that limitation, they suggest that “researchers need to find ways to mitigate the effects of their presence” (Gass & Mackey, 2005, p.47). Therefore, while observing the speaking lessons, I sat in the back row of the classroom, aiming to blur my appearance as a stranger, and to avoid leading to any possible negative impact upon the teachers’ instruction and students’ learning.

During the classroom observations field notes were taken, and my own reflective questions were in response to some of the processes adopted by the teachers and noted for further consideration. Field notes, according to Bogdan and Biklen (1998), are defined as “the written account of what the researcher hears, sees, experiences, and thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting on the data in a qualitative study” (pp.107-108). In addition, during observation I tried to “keep focused on categories or key events, attentive to background conditions that may influence subsequent analysis” (Stake, 1995, p.62). After each classroom observation and together with the data from the field notes, I spent time watching the video-recodings as soon as possible in order to make a short summary of what the participant demonstrated in the classroom. This approach provided the most effective process for me to prepare for the stimulated recall interviews.

4.7.4. Stimulated recall interviews

Seen as an introspective method, stimulated recall has been extensively used in educational research in the study of the thought processes and decision-making of teachers (Borg, 2006; Burns, 1996; Burns & Knox, 2011; Calderhead, 1981; Gass & Mackey, 2000; Housner & Griffe, 1985; Johnson, 1996; Lyle, 2003; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). According to Lyle (2003), stimulated recall is a valuable tool and represents a means of “eliciting data about thought processes involved in carrying out a task or activity” (Gass & Mackey, 2000, p.1). Phipps and Borg (2009) also believe that:

a more realistic understanding of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices can emerge when the analysis of what teachers do is the basis of eliciting and understanding their beliefs. (p.382)

In the present study, stimulated recall was opted for as an additional research method to “elicit reflections and descriptions of the thinking informing classroom instruction and interactions” with respect to the teaching of speaking (Burns, 1996, p.157). It was also used as a means of triangulation for the study (Gass & Mackey, 2000). To ensure the accuracy of each stimulated recall, Bloom (1954, cited in Gass & Mackey, 2000) advises that recall after less than 48 hours enables participants to produce 95% of the event accurately. Therefore, all the stimulated recall interviews were conducted within the day when the participants had completed all their teaching or in the morning of the next day, depending on the preference of each participant.

Questions used in the stimulated recall were designed in accordance with the analysis of the semi-structured interviews, lesson plans and the field notes taken from the classroom observations. The approach used to elicit, recall and reflect on pre-service teachers’ actions after their speaking instruction in this study followed the procedures outlined by Johnson (1996) and Shavelson and Stern (1981) (see Appendix K). However, to maximize accessible memory and lead pre-service teachers to comment on their teaching openly (Gass & Mackey, 2000), questions such as “What were you thinking when you organized this activity?” or “What was in your mind at that time?” or “Can you explain why you did this?” were used to ensure prompts in the stimulated

recall that reflected the focus of the study (see Appendix L). These kinds of stimulated recall reports, according to Johnson (1996, p.32), provide “a running commentary” of the participants’ perceptions about their own teaching. There were 16 stimulated recall sessions audio-recorded in this study, lasting between 45 and 60 minutes. Transcripts of all interviews including the semi-structured, stimulated recall, and focus group were sent to all the participants in hard copies, and they were asked to check their accuracy and completeness (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Flick, 2007; Gall et al., 1993; Housner & Griffe, 1985; Lyle, 2003; Phipps & Borg, 2009).

4.7.5. Focus group interviews

In Morgan’s (1997) view, the focus group is considered as a research technique for “gathering information through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher” (p.6). Cohen et al. (2011) and Duff (2008) also argue that in the group context participants are stimulated to interact with each other rather than with the researcher to comment on themes or “the ideas and experiences expressed by each other” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p.182). In several research studies (e.g., Lewis, 1992; Morgan, 1997; Suter, 2000; Wilson, 1997), focus group interviews effectively elicited perceptions, attitudes and opinions from a group of participants, particularly to generate a wide range of responses in an organized discussion. Kitzinger (1995) states that:

The [focus] method is particularly useful for exploring people's knowledge and experiences and can be used to examine not only what people think but how they think and why they think that way. (p.299)

In the present study, two focus group interviews were conducted. The first one was employed with the four supervisors of the pre-service teachers. This focus group aimed to gain insights into the supervisors’ experiences and perceptions about the teaching of speaking. In particular, it aimed to capture the supervisors’ expectations about how pre- service teachers should teach speaking in the classroom. The focus group interview was conducted in the first week of the pre-service teachers’ practicum. A discussion question guide (see Appendix M) was used to keep the interactions of the group focused on “a specific topic of interest in a limited amount of time” (Suter, 2000, p.6). Like

semi-structured interviews, the focus group discussion was also carried out in Vietnamese in order for the participants to share their ideas, experiences and attitudes towards the teaching of speaking more extensively.

The second focus group interview was carried out with teacher educators, who had trained the pre-service teachers at the university, regarding the English teacher education programme. In this discussion, the questions (see Appendix O) were posed to investigate (1) teacher educators’ perceptions about training and teaching speaking, (2) the teacher education programme and recommendations, and (3) expectations about the teaching of speaking in practice. As discussed in Section 4.6.2, there were four teacher educators who participated in this session, one of whom is an American. Therefore, English was used in the discussion, and the interview was conducted a week before the pre-service teachers commenced the practicum.

In both focus group interviews with pre-service teachers’ supervisors and teacher educators, all the questions were distributed to the participants prior to the discussions in hard copies and/or via their emails, depending on their preference. In each discussion session, questions were asked one by one, aiming to let the participants feel comfortable to follow and share their ideas and experiences about the topics given. In some circumstances, the discussion was extended when I posed further questions based on their perspectives. This method of interviewing provided me with a way to elicit and encourage the participants to exchange their perspectives and make comments on each other’s points of view (Kitzinger, 1995). The two focus group discussions, each of which lasted about 40 minutes, were audio recorded and used as an additional data source for the study.

4.8. Data analysis

In qualitative research, themes or patterns within data analysis can be identified in one of two primary ways: inductive or theoretical (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Patton, 1990, 2002). In an inductive approach, the themes identified are strongly interconnected to the data themselves (Patton, 1990, 2002). It means that inductive analysis is viewed as “a process of coding data without trying to fit it into a

pre-existing coding frame, or researcher’s analytic preconceptions” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.83). This would then result in the form of analysis based on a data-driven approach (Boyatziz, 1998; Thorne, 2000). In contrast, a theoretical or deductive analysis would tend to use a set of a priori categories derived from the existing theory and previous research findings (Constas, 1992; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). This form of analysis, according to Braun and Clarke (2006), tends to “provide less a rich description of the data overall, and more a detailed analysis of some aspect of the data” (p.84). In empirical studies on teacher cognition, Borg (2006) also notes that inductive strategies are widely adopted, in which themes and categories are grounded within the specifics of each study for discussion and interpretation. This exploratory case study research aimed to understand the pre-service teachers’ perceptions about speaking instruction in their natural setting and build up a thick description and interpretation for the study. The approach employed to analyze data in this study was thus essentially linked to the inductive analytical perspective, following a continual iterative process (Bogden & Biklen, 1998; Burns & Knox, 2005, 2011; Dörnyei, 2007). Iterative procedures, according to Grbich (2007, pp.20-21) involve:

seeking meaning and developing interpretive explanations through processes of feedback. An iterative design is defined as one involving a series of actions of data collection which are repeated until the accumulated findings indicate that nothing new is likely to emerge and that the research question has been answered.

In this study, data analysis involved data collected through the semi-structured interviews, lesson plans, classroom observations, stimulated recall and focus group interviews. With such strategies as those described above, I repeatedly went through the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2013; Grbich, 2007; Richards, 2003; Tesch, 1990) in order to capture a “holistic perspective on each individual data source and on the project as a whole” (Bazeley, 2013; p.15). This fundamental step enabled me to search, identify and take notes of key points for developing the major themes and categories (Burns & Knox, 2005, 2011). After some key points and meaningful units of text (Frith & Gleeson, 2004; Pratt, 1992b; Tesch, 1990) relevant to the research topic had been noted I began coding and analyzing data.

Coding is the process of turning a large mass of data into smaller components and making them manageable and easily understandable (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Mackey & Gass, 2005; Miles et al., 2014). According to Tesch (1990), the purpose of coding is to “aggregate all data about the same topics or themes” (p.91), so that they can be studied for the purpose of “ongoing analysis, interpretation and conclusion drawing” (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p.253). In the present study, coding was mainly applied to the interview transcripts and I coded manually. According to Merriam (2009), “[r]ather than hiring someone, transcribing your own interviews is another means of generating insights and hunches about what is going on in your data” (p.174). Duff (2008) also emphasizes that transcribing enables the researcher to “take note of recurring patterns and other observations” (p.154). Therefore, I transcribed and translated the interviews myself. During the process of translating, I tried my best to retain as much of the intention of what the participants said in their interviews as possible, rather than producing a literal translation since “getting the exact words of the respondent is usually not important, it is what they mean that is important” (Stake, 1995, p.66). Pratt (1992b, p.308) also points out that interviews should be translated by “meaning not by words” for analysis. Although transcribing and translating were tedious and time-consuming (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 2009), they gave me a chance to understand my data at the early stage of analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Tuckett, 2005). Using an inductive approach, I first read all transcripts from the individual pre-service teachers in order to gain a general sense of emerging themes. As suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006, p.87):

It is ideal to read through the entire data set at least once before you begin your coding, as ideas and identification of possible patterns will be shaped as you read through.

Second, bearing in mind the research questions (Bazeley, 2013; Tesch, 1990) I read and re-read the data for any meaningful units that appeared to be relevant, and then coded diversely. That meant that I began the process of coding with a list of initial or open codes (Bazeley, 2013; Braun & Clarke, 2006; Dörnyei, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Miles et al., 2014; Richards, 2003). These initial codes were revised as I proceeded with the data analysis, and this process was viewed as the first stage toward the category development

(Tesch, 1990). In his study on teacher’s belief with respect to grammar teaching, Borg (1998) developed a start list in his initial data coding, and eventually refined it into “a structured list of categories” (p.13). With “cut and paste” techniques (Miles et al., 2014, p.51), units of text with reference to the same issue were gathered together and grouped in analytical categories (Frith & Gleeson, 2004; Grbich, 2007; Miles et al., 2014; Tuckett, 2005). However, during the process of coding my awareness was raised of the fact that original categories, which were developed “do not always fit”, and so they needed to be “renamed, modified in content, subdivided, discarded, or supplemented by new ones” (Tesch, 1990, p.91). Therefore, I took on constant reading of the data with fresh eyes to go back and forth through the various data sources (Bazeley, 2013; Creswell, 1998; 2013; Dörnyei, 2007) in order to rename and organize the categories and find something new or emergent.

After the categories had been refined and reorganized they were reduced into themes for data analysis. Data within themes, according to Braun and Clarke (2006), should be coherent and meaningful, and there should be “clear and identifiable distinctions” between themes (p.91). Following the iterative procedures, I also looked for the codes and categories that emerged from all sources of data in order to generate the emergent themes. As Dörnyei (2007) argues, data analysis and data interpretation in qualitative research also depend on “the emergent results” (p.234). In this study, themes that emerged from the data also comprised oral error correction, for example, with reference to the teaching of speaking in the classroom. The themes, categories and meaningful units of text together with those generated from all the data sources were used in analysis for drawing a constant comparison among the participants (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Meriam, 2009), which placed emphasis on in-depth description, and rich interpretation for the study.

In this study, data analysis was commenced early in the fieldwork. According to Stake (1995), “there is no particular moment when data analysis begins. Analysis is a matter of giving meaning to first impressions as well as to final compilations” (p.71). In support of this point, Vélez-Rendón (2006, p.321) also argues that:

100

During the collection phase, data was read everyday to identify recurrent themes, assign labels, and write comments and reflections on the researcher’s emerging thinking about the data. Once data gathering was completed, all sets of data were repeatedly and closely scrutinized to test and refine the categories generated initially and to group them into patterns. This process allowed the creation of the core categories of the analysis.

Hence, I started to analyze data at the dawn of the fieldwork and through the compilation of transcriptions. As discussed in Section 4.7, during the process of data collection transcripts of all interviews were sent back to the participants to check the accuracy. All the participants agreed with the transcripts although I was not sure whether they took a look at them or not. Transcriptions, at the early stage of analysis, could help me cycle back and forth among the existing data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Duff, 2008Miles & Huberman, 1984, 1994). In particular, based on the iterative principles of qualitative analysis, the following procedures were adopted for data analysis in this study.

First, I analyzed the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews from individual pre-service teachers so as to identify key words and meaningful units or phrases that they used to deal with the teaching of speaking. These key words and meaningful phrases were then cut and pasted in different categories to compare them with the observational data and to identify the convergence and divergence between pre-service teachers’ stated perceptions and their actual instruction in practice regarding the teaching of speaking. This strategy allowed me to capture and gain in-depth insights into each pre-service teacher’s perceptions about speaking teaching. It also helped me to search and identify patterns across pre-service teachers’ perceptions about speaking instruction (Bazeley, 2013; Creswell, 2013; Johnson, 1992; Richards, 2003; Stake, 1995). Searching for meaning, according to Stake (1995, p.78), is often “a search for patterns” across the participants.

Second, I analyzed individual pre-service teachers’ lesson plans in order to explore how they designed and prepared their teaching of speaking in class. The objectives and teaching approach were the focus of the lesson plan analysis. Third, I carried out

101

analysis of data gained from the classroom observations. The aim of the observational data analysis was to check the consistency between what the pre-service teachers said and perceived about the teaching of speaking and how they actually behaved in their instructional practices. In this step, key episodes were identified and field notes were also used for analysis in order to develop follow-up questions for the stimulated recall interviews.

Next, I analyzed the stimulated recall interview data in order to explore the underlying reasons (Borg, 2003, 2006; Gao & Ma, 2011) for the pre-service teachers’ behaviours and actions in their teaching of speaking in the classroom. Again, key words and meaningful phrases from the stimulated recall data from individual pre-service teachers were identified, cut and pasted, providing a comparison of the patterns identified and analyzed in the semi-structured interviews, lesson plans and classroom observations. This analytical process enabled me to explore and understand the complexities of the participants’ perceptions in relation to the teaching of speaking in the real pedagogical situation. Significantly, this stage of analysis allowed me to explore and interpret the factors that shaped and influenced the pre-service teachers’ behaviours and instructional pedagogies. I did not repeat the procedures for data analysis in the study until I had covered all the transcripts obtained from the pre-service teachers.

Finally, I analyzed the focus group interview data. As discussed in the previous sections, focus group interviews were conducted with the pre-service teachers’ supervisors and teacher educators. In a similar way to the analysis of the interview transcripts, I searched for and identified the key words and phrases from the focus group interview data, and then I cut, pasted and organized them into categories, aiming to analyze and seek out further support and explanation for the study.

4.9. Trustworthiness of the research

Due to the differences between quantitative and qualitative paradigms in terms of the nature of knowledge, each paradigm establishes “paradigm-specific criteria” for ensuring its rigor or trustworthiness (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers, 2008, p.15). Trustworthiness, according to Guba (1992), refers to the ways in which

102

researchers are able to construct and enhance the quality of their research findings, or to support the claim that the research inquiry’s findings are “worth paying attention to” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.290). In quantitative research, the criteria used to ensure rigor are internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). In contrast, they suggest the overarching criteria employed to attain trustworthiness in qualitative research are credibility, fittingness, auditability, and conformability. These trustworthiness criteria were later adjusted and refined to credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability in Lincoln and Guba (1985), and are analogous to quantitative criteria of internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Krefting, 1991; Shenton, 2004). In the following sections I discuss how these four criteria of trustworthiness have been addressed in the current study.

4.9.1. Credibility

One of the essential factors to enhance the trustworthiness of qualitative research is by establishing credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility is considered to be parallel to internal validity, which deals with the question of “how congruent are the findings with reality?” (Merriam, 2009, p.213). Credibility can be achieved by a number of strategies such as prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation, persistent observation in the field, and participant checks (Morrow, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004). These strategies will be discussed in turn in order to promote credibility for the present study.

The first, constant engagement, means to spend sufficient time in the field to "achieve certain purposes" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.301). Constant engagement employed in this study involved establishing rapport, checking perspectives, setting up trust and allowing the participants to become accustomed to the researcher (Krefting, 1991). Before the data collection took place, I had paid preliminary visits to the parties involved to make contact with the informants, who had agreed to be in my current study. Moreover, in order to enhance credible findings for the present study, I had employed the pilot study with a different, but comparable, group of participants who demonstrated their teaching of speaking at an upper secondary school in Quang Tri Province, Vietnam. The focus of the pilot study was similar to the purposes of the

103

current study that I needed to explore and understand. In doing so, I was able to familiarize myself with the same contextual setting and issues in my current study. More importantly, an initial conceptual understanding of my study was adjusted and developed for gaining deeper insights into the process of data collection (Leon et al., 2011; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Thabane et al., 2010).

The technique of triangulation is the second strategy used to improve credibility for the present research findings. Triangulation is a process in which researchers verify their evidence by utilizing multiple data sources and research methods (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 1998, 2009; Miles et al., 2014; Nguyen, et al., 2015; Patton, 2002). As discussed earlier in this chapter, I used multiple sources and different data collection methods in this study including semi-structured interviews, document analysis, classroom observations and simulated recall interviews to gain a deep insight into pre- service teachers' perceptions about teaching speaking skills in reality. As Patton (1990) strongly suggests, “no single method ever adequately solves the problem of rival explanations” (p.1192). The use of different methods to collect data, according to Shenton (2004), can compensate for the limitations of a small number of participants and explore respective benefits. Krefting (1991) also takes the view that triangulation of data sources can maximise the range of data that may provide comprehensive understanding of the perspectives, “based on the importance of the variety in time, space, and person in observation and interviewing” (p.219). Therefore, the present study took advantage of the technique of triangulation to promote the credibility of the research findings by collecting data at different times, in different situations (classes), and with different informants.

Next is the strategy of ‘persistent observation’ that was used as a method to strengthen the credibility of the study. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), persistent observation aims to “identify those characteristics and elements in the situation that are most relevant to the problem or issue being pursued and focusing on them in detail” (p.304). They also propose that if prolonged engagement provides “scope”, persistent observation provides “depth” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.304). In this study, by using the flexible guiding questions in semi-structured interviews and lesson plan analysis the important elements relevant to the participants’ perceptions of teaching speaking were

104

identified for classroom observations, and remained focused on in detail throughout the study.

The last common strategy for increasing credibility or internal validity of the findings used in this study is member checks. Member checks mean that researchers solicit feedback on their emerging findings from some of the participants they interviewed (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Lincoln and Guba (1985) view member checks as a technique in which the researcher's data, analytic categories, interpretations, and conclusions are continually tested with informants, asking “whether the interpretation rings true” (Merriam, 2009, p.217). In Maxwell’s (2005) point of view, the advantage of member checks is highly valued since it can:

[rule] out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of what participants say and do and the perspective they have on what is going on, as well as being an important way of identifying your own biases and misunderstanding of what you observed. (p.111)

With such benefits, member checks were employed in the present study through the way that all interview transcripts and classroom observations were distributed to the participants to get their responses (Gall et al., 1993; Krefting, 1991). In doing so, the findings of the data analysis in this study could be verified, which led to a decrease of researcher biases and an increasing credibility of the final research interpretations and conclusions.

4.9.2. Transferability

Another aspect proposed by various researchers for establishing the trustworthiness of qualitative inquiry is transferability. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), transferability is in preference to the term external validity or generalizability, which refers to the extent to which the research findings can be transferred to other situations (Merriam, 2009). Maxwell (2005) argues that generalizability concerns how the results of a research study can be generalized to a wider population. Generalizability is considered as one of the major criteria to assess quantitative research, but it is also

105

considered a substantial challenge in qualitative research because of the possibility of subjectivity by the researchers and the limited findings from a small number of specific settings and individuals (Shenton, 2004). However, transferability in qualitative research can be achieved by “providing a detailed, rich description of the setting studied, so that readers are given sufficient information to be able to judge the applicability of the findings to other settings that they know” (Seale, 1999, p. 45).

As discussed above, the present study adopted a case study approach and it aimed to explore and understand the social world from individuals’ perspectives in a specific cultural setting. Moreover, I was interested in the transferability of the findings, not their generalizability. Therefore, sufficient information and thick description of the phenomenon and context in this study (see Chapter 2; Section 4.6) were provided, aiming to help determine if the research findings could be transferred to other environments or contexts (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Shenton, 2004).

4.9.3. Dependability

The next criterion used to promote trustworthiness for the research findings in this study is dependability. Dependability is considered parallel to reliability and relates to the consistency of the research findings over time (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Sinkovics, Penz & Ghauri, 2008). According to Gasson (2004), dependability deals with “the way in which a study is conducted [that] should be consistent across time, researchers, and analysis techniques” (p.94). In addition, Lincoln and Guba, (1985) suggest that it is impossible to demonstrate dependability in the research without establishing credibility. In the current study, dependability was enhanced through the measures of credibility as discussed in the previous section.

Dependability can also be achieved through a full description of the process through which the research findings are derived in order to make sure that a future researcher is enabled to repeat the work even if it is not necessary to gain the same results (Merriam, 2009; Shenton, 2004). A thorough description is provided through “carefully tracking the emerging research design” (Morrow, 2005, p.252) as described earlier in this chapter, providing a detailed description of data collection and analysis, emerging

106

themes, categories, or models and analytic memos (Morrow, 2005; Seale, 1999). Consequently, the issues of dependability and credibility for the present study can be enhanced through these means.

4.9.4. Confirmability

Confirmability refers to the degree to which the research findings can be confirmed by others, or the way in which the reader is able to confirm the adequacy of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Confirmability is also considered equivalent to objectivity, that is, the extent to which the researcher should be aware of the management of subjectivity or bias (Morrow, 2005). According to various commentators (e.g., Guba, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles et al., 2014; Morrow, 2005; Seale, 1999), many of the strategies employed to reach the goal of credibility and dependability in qualitative research can be applicable to the enhancement of confirmabilty, particularly accountability through an audit trail and triangulation. Seale (1999) asserts that auditing can be used to promote confirmability in which the researcher makes “provision of a methodological self-critical account of how the research was done” (p.45). Lincoln and Guba (1985) identify several major categories in the audit that I adopted to increase confirmability in this study such as raw data (document analysis, audio and video recordings), data reduction and analysis products (observation summaries) and data reconstruction and synthesis products (themes, categories and interpretations). In addition to the effectiveness of auditing, triangulation including multiple methods, data sources and theoretical perspectives (as discussed in Section 4.7) was also a useful technique in the establishment of confirmability for the present research.

4.10. Summary

This chapter has provided a detailed account of the research design in examining perceptions of a small group of pre-service teachers about the teaching of speaking at a high school in the Vietnamese educational context. By reviewing the nature of qualitative research and its advantages, and given that teachers’ instructional decisions and pedagogical choices are often influenced and guided by what they perceive and believe (Borg, 2003, 2006; Burns, 1996; Johnson, 1994; Richards, 1996; Richards &

107

Lockhart, 2005), the present study has been designed as a qualitative case study in which multiple methods were employed for data collection and analysis. Case study was chosen as the most appropriate approach for exploring, describing and then understanding the complexities and dynamic nature of the participants’ perceptions and practices regarding the teaching of speaking (Johnson, 1992; Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995). The chapter also presented a comprehensive description of the main study, followed by detailed information about the research setting and participants of the present study. Approaches to data coding and analysis, and trustworthiness for ensuring the quality for the study were also discussed.

In the next chapter, Chapter 5, contextual considerations for data analysis are discussed and presented.

108

CHAPTER 5 CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DATA ANALYSIS

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, research studies have shown that the contextual environment for teaching and learning influences and shapes teachers’ perceptions about their instruction in the classroom. Therefore, in order to provide for a deeper understanding of the eight pre-service teachers’ perceptions and their actual practices regarding the teaching of speaking in this study, presented in Chapters 6 and 7, three contextual considerations related to (i) the practicum, (ii) the roles of supervising teachers and (iii) the textbooks used for English instruction at high schools in the Vietnamese educational context will be summarized and presented in Section 5.1. Also, in order to further contextualize the discussion of the findings, in Section 5.2, I will present an analysis of how the four teacher educators and four supervising teachers (see Section 4.6.2) expected pre-service teachers to teach speaking in their classrooms. Finally, a summary of the chapter will be provided in Section 5.3

As discussed in Chapter 4, the present study employed an inductive approach, which followed an iterative process of searching for key points and meaningful units of text as well as patterns emerging in the data for analysis. Based on the data collection, and the iterative analytical procedure described in Chapter 4, the findings of this exploratory and descriptive case study (Yin, 2003, 2014), which was concerned with eight cases, will be presented systematically theme by theme. Presenting the findings in this way allows for insights to be gained into individual participants’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking and their instructional practices in the classroom. More significantly, thematic presentation of the findings also enables me to present a cross- case analysis (Bazeley, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2003, 2014) of data deriving from the various sources of all the participants in the present study. As a result, themes can be presented “more clearly within the coherence of individual cases” (Le, 2011, p.126).

In this chapter and also in the next two chapters, I acknowledge that the data presented are necessarily “selective and partial” (Nguyen, 2013, p.156), in that extracts chosen from the interviews and classroom observations are intended to respond to the research

109

questions in the current study. Having this in mind, the selection of the presented data reflected my best belief that those data were illustrative of the participants’ perceptions and actual practices. In order to protect the identities of all the participants in this study, as discussed in Section 4.6.2, pseudonyms were used.

5.1. Practicum, roles of supervising teachers and textbooks

In this section, further information regarding the practicum, the roles of supervising teachers and the textbooks used to teach English at Vietnamese upper-secondary schools will be provided, following the discussion presented in Chapter 2, Context of the study.

5.1.1. Practicum

As discussed in Section 2.2, the practicum is considered as one of the most important parts of teacher education programmes since it provides opportunities for pre-service teachers to put theoretical knowledge into classroom practices (Crookes, 2003; Farrell, 2007; Gan, 2013; Gebhard, 2009; Gao & Benson, 2012; Le, 2014; Moore, 2003; Yuan & Lee, 2014). In the Vietnamese educational system, teaching practice is often divided into two stages, kiến tập (pre-practicum) and thực tập (practicum). The total amount of time for both pre-practicum and practicum programs is about eight weeks, in which two weeks are used for pre-practicum and the remaining six weeks are applied to practicum.

The pre-practicum usually begins in the middle of the seventh semester of the training programme, whereas the practicum is at the beginning of the final semester before graduation. During the pre-practicum period, pre-service teachers go to the high school that they are offered in order to (1) familiarize themselves with the school teaching and learning environment, particularly the school facilities and their supervisors, (2) learn about the teaching textbooks, (3) design lesson plans, and (4) observe their supervisors’ lessons. After completing the pre-practicum, pre-service teachers return to the university to continue with their study and prepare for the practicum in the next semester. However, in recent years there have been major changes with reference to the teaching practicum of the teacher-training programmes at a number of universities in Vietnam.

110

For example, they have cut the pre-practicum out of the training programme and have put it and the practicum together, and now refer to the term, practicum or teaching practice. This means that in the teaching practice period pre-service teachers spend the first week becoming familiar with the teaching environment, and then perform their teaching in the following weeks. In addition, according to the regulations of these universities, the number of weeks used for teaching practice at high schools is also reduced from eight to six. This time-reduction, to some extent, thus challenges pre- service teachers more than previously to demonstrate their teaching in the practicum.

In this study, the teaching practice programme, including pre-practicum and practicum, only took up 3.5% of the teacher-training programme, with five credit points (see Appendix A). It was about six weeks long, commencing from 10th February and concluding on 23rd March 2014. During this time-limit of the practicum, the pre-service teachers were assigned to perform two types of roles: form teacher and teacher of English. In terms of practising as a form teacher, the pre-service teachers were expected to pay attention to the learning and moral education of students in the classes where they were appointed. Each pre-service teacher, in this study, was assigned to work in this role with one class. In addition, the pre-service teachers were required to engage in different educational activities (see Section 2.3) after schools hours, or at the weekends through the programmes associated with the activities of the Ho Chi Minh Youth Union. On the other hand, as an English teacher, the pre-service teachers, working under the supervision of their school supervisors (see Section 5.1.2), were required to teach three periods per class a week. In this study, each pre-service teacher was appointed to teach English in two classes, one of which was the class where they were assigned to work in the role of form teacher. Before conducting any lesson in the classroom, for example a speaking lesson, the pre-service teachers had to prepare and submit their speaking lesson plans to their supervisors a few days earlier. Based on the supervisors’ comments and suggestions, the pre-service teachers then had to redesign the lesson plans and send them back to their supervisors in order to obtain their agreement for teaching. After each lesson, an informal meeting between the pre-service teachers and their supervisors took place. The purpose of this meeting was to enable the pre-service teachers to share their thoughts and challenges in relation to their teaching

111

as well as to acquire comments on their classroom practice from the supervisors, with the aim to prepare the next teaching lessons more effectively.

5.1.2. Roles of school supervising teachers

Supervision of pre-service teachers’ instruction, as Baecher and Dang (2011, p.6) argue, is “a universally accepted means of assessing the classroom performance of the teacher”. According to Nguyen and Hudson (2010), school supervisors play important roles in effectively mentoring pre-service teachers during their practicum. A supervisor, as Hudson (2004, pp.216-217) defined, may be “one who is more knowledgeable on teaching practices and through explicit mentoring processes develops pedagogical self- efficacy in the mentee towards autonomous teaching practices”.

In the Vietnamese educational context, supervisors of pre-service teachers are often chosen according to the availability of the current teaching staff at the school (Le, 2014). The preference is to select experienced and higher-degree teachers as pre-service teachers’ supervisors on the recommendation of the head of the school English department. However, due to the lack of teaching staff willing to supervise, school supervising teachers are sometimes those who have graduated from university recently. At secondary schools, the duties of supervising teachers are varied, but mostly include (1) reading the pre-service teachers’ lesson plans and making suggestions before the pre-service teachers carry out their lessons, (2) observing the pre-service teachers’ teaching in the classroom, and (3) giving feedback and evaluating the pre-service teachers’ lessons (Le, 2014; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010).

In terms of evaluation and assessment, according to the head of the English department of the high school where my project was conducted, the pre-service teachers’ classroom practices were assessed, based on the criteria that were developed and issued by the MOET (2001). These criteria include:

accuracy of the subject-matter knowledge provided; appropriateness of the teaching techniques; appropriate use of teaching aids;

112

clear instructions; appropriate time allocation to specific classroom activities; participation of students; neat handwriting and illustration on the chalkboard; classroom management; use of technology (e.g., PowerPoint presentations); and completion of the lesson within the allotted time of 45 minutes.

More specifically, the head of the school English department also revealed that the criteria mentioned above were widely employed for assessing not only the classroom processes of English teachers but also teachers who dealt with other subjects at the school, for example history, geography, physics, chemistry, mathematics, literature, biology and physical education. Moreover, it is recognized that it is not uncommon that supervising teachers at all school levels in Vietnam have not received any training or preparation for the task of mentoring and supervising pre-service teachers as well as evaluating their classroom instructions (Le, 2014, Nguyen, 2010; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010). Consequently, school supervisors often evaluate pre-service teachers’ teaching in the practicum programme idiosyncratically, based on their own beliefs and teaching experience (Le, 2011, 2014; Nguyen, 2013).

5.1.3. Textbooks

As presented in Chapter 2, based on the national curriculum issued in 2006 by the MOET, a new textbook set for ELT at upper-secondary schools was developed and written by a group of Vietnamese English teachers and educators. This textbook set, consisting of three books (English 10, English 11 and English 12), claims to adopt a theme-based syllabus. In terms of language teaching methodology, the textbooks also claim to follow a learner-centered and a communicative approach with task-based language teaching being the central teaching method (Hoang et al, 2006; MOET, 2006).

With respect to support for using these textbooks, the teaching contents for each unit are summarized in a book map and presented in the first page of each book. A teacher’s manual, student’s workbook and cassette tapes or CDs are also provided with each of

113

the textbooks. In addition, a series of reference books, mostly associated with Sách học tốt Tiếng Anh (Books for learning English well), are written and widely published for commercial purposes. The focus of these reference books is mainly to provide language learners with (1) a list of vocabulary, (2) explanations of grammatical and structural points, (3) translation of the texts, and (4) answer keys for activities and exercises that are inherent in particular teaching lessons of each unit of the textbooks.

In each of the textbooks, there is a total of 16 teaching units and six revision lessons called Test Yourself. Each unit is organized according to a topic or a theme that is often drawn from students’ daily life situations such as personal information, education, community, health, recreation, and the world. Each of the 16 “didactic units” (Le & Barnard, 2009, p.23) is structured and divided into five sections, similar to five teaching lessons, which are presented in sequence: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Language Focus (see Appendix T for a sample of a unit of the textbook). This means that the speaking lesson comes after the reading section, and is based on the same topic of the unit. Each section, including the speaking section, is prescribed to be taught during one period of 45 minutes in length.

From the above analysis, it can be recognized that speaking skills are split across all the lessons of the textbook, and not organized and taught in an integrated way in each lesson in contrast to more recent trends in skills teaching (Brown, 2007a; Hinkel, 2006; Khan & Ali, 2010; Mart, 2012; Zhang, 2009). In other words, in the Vietnamese school context, speaking seems to be designed to be taught in isolation rather than through an integrated approach. In the next section, I will present an analysis of how the four teacher educators and four supervising teachers expect pre-service teachers to teach speaking skills in the classroom.

5.2. Expectations of teacher educators and supervising teachers about classroom speaking instruction

As discussed in Section 4.6.2, in order to provide a richer contextualization for the study, I conducted focus group interviews with the four teacher educators, who were training the pre-service teachers and the four English teachers, who were the supervisors

114

of the pre-service teachers in this study. In this section, I will present the views of both groups on their expectations about how pre-service teachers should teach speaking in practice, with the aim to contextualize the data presentation regarding the pre-service teachers and the discussion for the study.

5.2.1. Teacher educators’ expectations about the teaching of speaking

The findings from the focus group interview (FGI) revealed that the four teacher educators (Bich, Lan, Thao and Mary) held very different perspectives on what and how pre-service teachers should teach speaking. From the data reflecting these perspectives, three sub-themes, consisting of accuracy, fluency and complexity, were generated and categorized as shown in Table 5.1, below.

Table 5.1

Expectations of the four teacher educators about the teaching of speaking

Teacher educators Theme Sub-themes Bich Lan Thao Mary Focusing on fluency √ √ √ √ Expectations about Focusing on accuracy √ √ √ the teaching of speaking Focusing on complexity √

5.2.1.1. Focusing on fluency

It can be seen from Table 5.1 that all four teacher educators were concerned about the development of fluency in the teaching of speaking. They held the views that, in speaking lessons, fluency was an important feature that pre-service teachers needed to target. However, their perceptions about the way to focus on the development of fluency were very different. As discussed below, three of the teacher educators (Bich, Thao and Mary) held a strong belief that fluency should be developed after students achieved a level of accuracy. In other words, these teacher educators consistently expressed their understanding and expectations that the development of fluency in speaking lessons 115

should be focused on only when students appeared to be confident in using correct grammar and especially correct pronunciation. In contrast, Lan reported that she expected pre-service teachers to enable learners to produce the target language fluently rather than accurately in the classroom. Her expectation was that pre-service teachers should “prioritize” fluency development in relation to students’ language performance. This priority reflects her desire to create “natural and authentic classroom language communication opportunities” (Lan.FGI), which is necessary for learners to develop their speaking skills. Believing in the importance of an active environment for effective speaking teaching and learning, Lan also advocated that the crucial role of pre-service teachers was to motivate and encourage students to speak the language as naturally as possible. She then explained that:

I would like to see how pre-service teachers design and organize speaking activities in which students in class can talk together. I mean…I would like to see how students are taught to practise speaking English themselves in a natural way, focusing on fluency rather than on accuracy as many other teachers did. (Lan.FGI)

5.2.1.2. Focusing on accuracy

As shown in Table 5.1, three out of the four teacher educators, except for Lan, placed emphasis on the role of accuracy in spoken language as I discussed previously in Chapter 3. These teacher educators had a marked tendency to perceive and expect accuracy as an essential element that should be focused upon first in speaking lessons. By focusing on accuracy, they seemed to refer to both intelligibility of pronunciation and correctness of grammar and structures in communication. In various ways, the three teacher educators (Bich, Thao and Mary) indicated that accuracy referred to comprehensibility or clearness of students’ language production, and that pre-service teachers needed to focus on this aspect of speaking in their lessons. For example, Bich clarified her idea, by stressing the crucial role played by the teacher in helping students attain accuracy in speaking in terms of pronunciation and the use of grammar:

116

As you know, children are not self-conscious about making mistakes when producing a language; but, as I said above, students at high schools are actually young adults. So, they are quite conscious of their learning. They tend to avoid or fear making mistakes in speaking. Teachers, therefore, should help them to be clear in pronunciation, and make use of grammar correctly in situations of communication. (Bich.FGI)

Likewise, Thao displayed his view of the importance of a focus on accuracy, combined with a concern for pronunciation correction in speaking lessons. His understanding and perspective about language accuracy seemed to indicate that in his mind, good pronunciation entailed the development of fluency. He also stated that, in a speaking lesson, pre-service teachers should employ student-centered activities since it was the learners who were supposed to develop their speaking ability.

Many students at high schools make mistakes in pronunciation. Why? At high schools, students are no longer children. They are adult learners who often have kinds of fossilized mistakes…And then, in such situations, teachers should use strategies to help students deal with these kinds of fossilized mistakes by making use of activities such as learner-centered activities to help a group of learners or individual learners to overcome mistakes in pronunciation. This means that accuracy comes first, and then fluency second. (Thao.FGI)

Mary was also supportive of this expectation. In her sharing of how important accuracy was in the teaching of speaking. Mary pointed out her view that “final consonant sounds are a big problem [for language learners] in Vietnam” (Mary.FGI). Her comments clearly revealed her understanding that Vietnamese students needed to spend more time engaging in controlled activities to gain accuracy and confidence before being asked to move on to less-controlled activities that focus on fluency. She said, “Clarity and confidence are two very necessary factors when communicating with others” (Mary.FGI).

117

5.2.1.3. Focusing on complexity

It can be seen from Table 5.1 that out of the four teacher educators, only Thao expressed his expectation that pre-service should consider complexity in the teaching of speaking. He held the view that, in addition to accuracy, complexity was the goal to which language learners should aim their communicative efficiency. According to his perspective, in a speaking lesson, besides activities that aimed to focus on accuracy and fluency respectively, pre-service teachers needed to organize other activities so that students had a chance to develop their complexity in their speaking.

As I said above, after students engage in activities for the development of accuracy and fluency, they need to be provided with other activities so that the focus of accuracy and fluency can go hand in hand. (Thao.FGI)

However, Thao also shared his concern about the context of the teaching and learning of English in the Vietnamese education system, as I discussed in Section 2.3.2. He appeared to believe that, in such a cultural and contextual environment, helping students achieve the level of complexity in speaking seemed “challenging to language teachers, particularly to pre-service teachers” (Thao.FGI).

In this section, I have analyzed and presented the expectations of the four teacher educators about the teaching of speaking in Vietnamese classrooms. Although they had different perspectives about the focus of the lesson, they tended to agree that accuracy and fluency were the two most important features that students needed to develop for their speaking ability. Most noticeably, there is a strong collective suggestion in their views that fluency should not be the focus of the lesson until language learners reach a level of accuracy in their speaking. This orientation had implications for the way in which the pre-service teachers viewed their teaching, which will be discussed in the next chapter. In the next section, an analysis of what and how the four supervising teachers expected pre-service teachers to teach speaking will be provided.

118

5.2.2. Supervising teachers’ expectations about the teaching of speaking

Based on an examination of the focus group interview conducted with the supervising teachers, within the major theme regarding expectations about the teaching of speaking, the data revealed that there were two sub-themes of response patterns that emerged, namely providing new language items and focusing on accuracy. Table 5.2 below presents the themes identified and the responses of the participants.

Table 5.2

Expectations of the four supervising teachers about the teaching of speaking

Supervising teachers Theme Sub-themes My Mai Xuan Anh

Providing new language √ √ √ √ Expectations about items the teaching of speaking Focusing on accuracy √ √ √ √

5.2.2.1. Providing new language items

As shown in Table 5.2, all four supervising teachers (My, Mai, Xuan and Anh) perceived the teaching of speaking in terms of new language items presented as communicative input, referring mainly to new vocabulary, useful expressions and grammatical structures. This meant that they were all concerned about providing various linguistic features to language learners in their speaking lessons. In other words, these supervising teachers appeared to place emphasis on the importance of language items and structures in helping students to express their ideas or convey meaning in conversation. For example, Mai shared her experience that:

In terms of speaking lessons, there are many new words, language expressions or grammatical structures indicated in the textbook that students often encounter. Therefore, I think that the role of the teacher is to help students know what these items mean, how to pronounce them and how they are used in communication. (Mai.FGI)

119

Likewise, Xuan articulated clear expectations about introducing new language items. She also seemed to identify learners’ language learning in terms of what she saw as their personal characteristics. She indicated that her experience was that:

Most of the students are not as passive as many teachers think. The problem is that they lack sources of vocabulary and grammar structures to translate their opinions into English. (Xuan.FGI)

With such a perspective, Xuan appeared to view new language items as tools for communication. She expected that what pre-service teachers should do was to “equip students with knowledge of vocabulary and a list of useful expressions” (Xuan, FGI). Given such aspects of linguistic input, Xuan appeared to believe that students would be able to produce spoken language easily.

Believing in the benefits of providing new language items to deal with students’ reticence to speak English, the two supervising teachers (My and Anh) articulated their views on the best way to present new items. They suggested that pre-service teachers should introduce new language items in a context. The phrase “in a context” seemed to stress that the new items provided should relate to communicative situations, and be concerned with certain language functions. This view is supported by Baker and Westrup (2003, p.57) when they argue, “to help students understand the meaning of the new language and when it is used, [the teacher] must put the language into a clear context”. Davies and Pearse (2000) also stress that an appropriate context can help students understand the use of the item and its meaning. With such perception, in the discussion, Anh said that:

In some regards, the synonym or antonym technique used to introduce new words is good, but I think in speaking lessons pre-service teachers should present new words in a context… for example, how to make a request or give compliments. (Anh.FGI)

My also represented the same idea, stressing the role of the context in presenting new vocabulary. She explained, “by putting new words in a context, students can

120

understand, remember and use them effectively when speaking” (My.FGI). From My’s perspective, it is assumed that a certain type of context or situation could help language learners understand the meaning as well as the use of the item. As such, both My and Anh appeared to believe that such an approach would help students to facilitate students’ practice in classroom speaking activities.

5.2.2.2. Focusing on accuracy

As Table 5.2 shows, the one feature mentioned by all four supervising teachers as being among their expectations for teaching speaking was accuracy. For this reason, they referred to the English level of students as well as the conditions of teaching and learning English at high school levels, indicated in Chapter 2. As Huang (2010, p.187) argues, after the course students are expected to be able to give “short talks on familiar topics with clear articulation and basically correct pronunciation and intonation”. Drawing on their experiences, the four supervising teachers indicated that pre-service teachers should help students to memorize and use communicative input appropriately in speaking, as also reflected in Section 5.2.2.1. For example, referring to students’ low speaking ability and the role of comprehensibility in communication, My reported that:

As you know, at high school, the majority of students are unable to speak English. Therefore, the focus in the classroom I think is to help students learn to speak by practising grammatical structures until they can produce them automatically. (My.FGI)

Agreeing with My’s perspective, Anh stressed that “teaching speaking should prioritize developing accuracy” (Anh.FGI). This meant that Anh’s view appeared to assume that speaking lessons should involve habit formation through frequent repetition and correction. This view is aligned with various authors’ arguments (e.g., Boonkit, 2010; Khamkhien, 2010; Huang, 2010; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013; Shen, 2013), which state that language learning is a process, where “the more often something is repeated, the stronger the habit and the greater the learning” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013, p.42).

121

The other supervising teachers, Xuan and Mai, referred to the usefulness of dialogue models in improving and developing students’ accuracy. They also stressed the role of repetition as an effective drilling technique. They explained that through models of dialogue, students could repeat sentences, remember conversational structures, and then develop them in follow-up speaking activities. As Xuan said, “teaching speaking through dialogues is a useful way” (Xuan.FGI). More importantly, Mai expressed her belief that based on the use of drilling, after the lesson, “students can imitate or recite memorized sentence patterns from the textbook to their daily communication” (Mai, FGI). These findings support the arguments made by Davies and Pearse (2000) that “many students feel that the mechanical drilling they did in classes did help them when they eventually tried to use the language for real communication” (p. 42).

5.3. Summary

This chapter first provided information relevant to this study, regarding the teaching practice program, the role of school supervisors and the nature of the textbooks used for teaching English at upper-secondary schools in Vietnam. The chapter then presented an analysis of the findings that emerged from the focus group interview data. These findings illustrate the expectations of the four teacher educators and the four supervising teachers about the teaching of speaking in classrooms. The findings revealed that while most of the teacher educators appeared to expect that practising teachers would focus on the development of accuracy and fluency in speaking lessons, the supervising teachers, on the other hand, placed emphasis on the role of new language items and accuracy in developing students’ communicative ability. In the next chapter, Chapter 6, the eight participant Vietnamese pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking will be analyzed and presented.

122

CHAPTER 6 PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE TEACHING OF SPEAKING

This chapter presents an analysis of the perceptions that the eight Vietnamese pre- service teachers held about the teaching of speaking within the context of a specific high school in Vietnam. The data for this analysis are derived from the semi-structured interviews (SSI), which were conducted prior to their speaking lessons. In this chapter, the participants’ experiences in learning English at school and during their teacher- training course will be presented in Section 6.1. In the following section, Section 6.2, the perceptions of the participants about the teaching of speaking are analyzed and discussed. In Section 6.3, a summary of the chapter is provided.

6.1. Experiences in learning English

Learning to teach is ‘a complex process’ (Farrell, 2003, 2008) that engages in social interactions within a school context (Liou, 2001; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010; Vélez- Rendón, 2006). Recent research on learning to teach has focused on teachers’ beliefs and perceptions (Iinceçay, 2011; Peacock, 2001), and previous learning experiences (Vélez-Rendón, 2006), which influence the way they go about teaching in the classroom. In this section, the experiences of the eight pre-service teachers in learning English at school and during their teacher-training course are analyzed and presented. These experiences are highlighted in order to shed some light on the participants’ personal background that might explain what the participants in this study perceive and actually do in relation to the teaching of speaking in the classroom. The discussion of these experiences complements the broader discussion provided in Chapter 5, Contextual considerations for data analysis.

With respect to schooling experiences, as indicated in Chapter 4, the eight pre-service teachers in this study differed in years of learning English, but their previous academic and personal experiences in English learning tended to follow a similar pattern. In the Vietnamese educational context, as discussed in the previous chapters, English is a

123

compulsory school subject and is taught as a foreign language. As the pre-service teachers’ comments reflect, the teaching and learning of English were mainly experienced as an academic subject, which placed strong emphasis on the drilling of grammatical exercises and vocabulary, via a grammar-translation method. In other words, in secondary school English teaching and learning primarily aimed to prepare for students to pass school and national written examinations. This teaching approach was reported in the interviews as follows:

At high school, teachers did not teach us speaking and listening skills. They mainly taught us grammar and structures, and asked us to do a number of reading and grammar exercises, aiming to pass examinations. (Hong.SSI)

Most of the time in classrooms, teachers introduced vocabulary and grammatical structures, and then they explained the use of those rules before giving us exercises to practise. (Gai.SSI)

As what I remember when I learned English at secondary schools is that, in English lessons, teachers used Vietnamese to teach and the lessons mainly focused on grammar, reading and sentence transformation. Teachers were very powerful and what they said or taught us we [my friends and I] thought was right. (Binh.SSI)

At that time, not only me but also many friends of mine think that a good English learner is a person who is good at vocabulary and grammar. (Phuong.SSI) At secondary schools my purpose of learning English is to obtain high marks in examinations. Therefore, I devoted most of my time to memorizing vocabulary, reading grammar books and doing grammar and reading exercises. (Chi.SSI)

In the interviews, none of the participants reported having opportunities to talk or discuss in English with partners in the classroom. The eight pre-service teachers in this study expressed the overall idea that interaction in the language classroom was mostly

124

teacher-dominated, and the objective of the lesson was to mainly provide students with grammatical competence. Consequently, the participants in this study did not seem to be provided with motivation or perceptions about learning English for communication during their schooling.

Regarding their training program experiences, as presented in Chapter 2, after completing a four-year undergraduate course, as student teachers they needed to have gained three strands of knowledge (foundation knowledge, subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge) to qualify as a language teacher. In the interviews, the eight pre-service teachers reported that their teacher training had changed their views about the goal of learning English, that learning English was not only to acquire vocabulary and grammatical knowledge but also to become competent speakers. The way in which their new ideas might have affected and shaped their beliefs and perceptions about the teaching of speaking is discussed in Section 6.2.

Nam commented, for example, on how his schooling experiences of learning English had become a source of frustration during the training course:

I feel very difficult to speak to the teacher and other students in speaking lessons in the first year of my learning although I am quite good at grammar and structures. I am disappointed. This is because my teachers did not teach me speaking and listening skills when I was at school. In teacher education programme, I have opportunities to learn four English skills of reading, listening, speaking and writing, but it takes me a long time to catch up with my friends. (Nam.SSI)

Sharing a similar view, Nguyet recounted the challenge that she faced when she entered the training course.

The most challenging issue that I have to deal with in the training is my speaking ability. I cannot talk to my classmates in English when we discuss or express ideas during the lesson. The way I often had to do at that time was to write the ideas in Vietnamese, and then translate them into English

125

before speaking. Thanks to the courses for the four English macro-skills, I realize the importance of speaking when learning English. (Nguyet.SSI)

In her interview, Nguyet expressed her view that language teachers should be aware of the role of speaking in teaching English. She argued that the focus of speaking lessons should be on “the development of students’ communicative ability” (Nguyet.SSI). This view is also shared by Chi who argued that nowadays students should change their attitudes and motivation for learning English, which should not just be for passing examinations, but also for using the language as a purpose for daily communication. These pre-service teachers’ comments are in line with Talley and Tu (2014, p.45), who argue that “students should become more aware of the practical importance of English in their daily lives and become anxious to have a good command of spoken English”.

In terms of teaching methodology, all the participants reported that they had been equipped with pedagogical knowledge related to language teaching in their teacher- training course (see Appendix A for the Teaching Methodology courses they were required to complete). For example, in the theory of teaching and learning course, the participants indicated that they were introduced to various methods that had been used in language teaching, such as grammar-translation and audio-lingualism and, more importantly, current popular trends in ELT such as the communicative language teaching approach. Regarding task-based language teaching, a more recent development in communicative approaches, none of the eight pre-service teachers in this study mentioned this term. Chi, who stated, “I have never heard the name of this teaching approach” (Chi.SSI) reflected the response of all eight pre-service teachers, thus supporting the argument of many educators (e.g., Le, 2011; Nguyen 2013) that, even though task-based language teaching has been introduced in M.A programs in some universities in Vietnam, it has been understood and enacted only at a surface level.

From the above evidence, it can be seen that the participants’ beliefs about language and language learning closely reflected their own learning experiences until these experiences were challenged when they entered the teacher-training course. Their training appeared to have changed their views so that they now expressed the idea that

126

learning English was not only to focus on the acquisition of grammatical and lexical knowledge as they used to do at school, but also to develop speaking ability.

Having illustrated the pre-service teachers’ experiences of learning English at school and discussed how these experiences were extended through their training, in Section 6.2, I analyze and discuss the perceptions that the eight pre-service teachers in this study held about the teaching of speaking.

6.2. Perceptions about the teaching of speaking

In this section, I employ the same procedure regarding the iterative analytical process, explained in Chapter 4, with the aim to code and search for main themes as well as patterns that emerged from the data. In general, the categories were arrived at through identification of the words and phrases which occurred repeatedly (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Pratt, 1992b), and which appeared to reveal something of the nature of their views and beliefs (Burns, 1992). Although the data showed a range of differing themes, three major common themes emerged which involved the importance of speaking, the approach that should be used and content that should be included, as shown in Table 6.1, below. Each of these themes will be discussed and presented in turn in Sections 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.

127

Table 6.1

Themes emerging from the data regarding the participants’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking

Themes Sub-themes Examples from the data I think that speaking skill is very important for everyone who learns a language. Therefore, teaching Importance of speaking should be an indispensable part in learning the teaching of that language…(Phuong.SSI). speaking In my view, teaching speaking can help students pronounce English well (Hong, SSI). In my understanding, in order to let them involve in real communication in classrooms, communicative method is the most suitable (Nam.SSI). Communicative approach As I said above, the purpose of teaching speaking is to develop students’ communicative ability. So, I will use Approach to the modern teaching method regarding a the teaching of communicative approach in my lessons (Thanh. SSI). speaking Instead of empowering the class as a central role to transmit knowledge, I think that a general role of the Roles of the teacher in speaking classes should be a guide and teacher and facilitator (Binh.SSI). learners I think that students should work as a communicator or negotiator in classroom activities (Chi.SSI). In speaking sections, I will first teach students some Providing new words appearing in the text that they do not know, and language items then help them to pronounce and memorize the words (Hong.SSI). In my view, speaking English fluently but listeners Focusing on cannot understand is not good. In speaking lessons, I Content of the accuracy will get the learners’ attention more on the language teaching of (Phuong.SSI). speaking At school, students have little opportunity to learn to speak English because, according to my understanding, Focusing on teachers often concentrate on grammar and structures fluency in their teaching, even in speaking teaching. Now, in speaking lessons I will give more time for students to learn to speak fluently (Nguyet.SSI).

6.2.1. Importance of the teaching of speaking

An analysis of the data from the interviews revealed that all of the participant pre- service teachers in this study were in strong agreement about the great importance of the 128

teaching of speaking. This finding is consistent with several previous studies (e.g., Anjaniputra, 2013; Dinçer & Yeşilyurt, 2013; Yue’e & Yunzhang, 2011), which found that language teachers highly value speaking skills, the learning and teaching of speaking, and communicative competence. According to the research participants’ perspectives, teaching speaking was variously described as “an indispensable part” (Nam.SSI) or occupying “a central place” (Thanh.SSI) in the process of teaching and learning English. Nam and Thanh’s views were shared by all the others, who indicated that speaking was a key skill in teaching a language and played a substantial part in successful language learning. In other words, the eight pre-service teachers held a collective belief that teaching speaking was vital as it enabled students to develop their speaking ability, and eventually to communicate effectively. The interviews revealed several reasons why they held these views.

Generally speaking, the participants believed that through the teaching of speaking, their students would be able to develop their experiences of ways to communicate with others inside and outside the classroom. This meant that in speaking lessons, language teachers would not merely help students process spoken words, and produce coherent language, but also would need to be effective at assisting them to express what they want to communicate in an understandable and natural way. Five of the pre-service teachers (Binh, Gai, Nguyet, Hong and Phuong) stressed that to be a successful language learner nowadays meant not only having a reasonable knowledge about grammar, structure and vocabulary, but also using the target language effectively in real-life communication. For example, Binh’s view is highlighted in the following extract:

In teaching and learning English, grammar and vocabulary are very essential and viewed as the foundation of language. However, if students who are good at grammatical knowledge but cannot use the language for communication, in these cases they are not seen as successful learners. Therefore, teaching speaking is very essential. (Binh.SSI)

In his interview, Binh stressed that speaking was one of the language skills that language learners had to acquire in learning English. In his thinking, speaking was

129

defined as “the important indicator for students’ success in learning a language” (Binh.SSI). This view is in line with what Richards (2008, p.19) argues “…learners often evaluate their success in language learning as well as the effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how much they feel they have improved in their spoken language proficiency”.

In a similar vein, Phuong held the belief that it would be impossible for language learners to achieve the goal, which was the use of English for communication in specific situations, if their focus of learning was only grammar acquisition. In her interview, she indicated the view that:

It cannot be denied that grammatical knowledge is a significant part of teaching and learning English. But I think that what the pupils need to learn more is to develop their speaking ability in order that they can express themselves. (Phuong.SSI)

Like Binh, Phuong stressed, “Mastering speaking skills is mastering a language” (Phuong.SSI). This comment implied that learning a language effectively required students to raise their awareness of the knowledge, skills and strategies needed for real communication of that language. In other words, Phuong argued that successful language learners referred to those who were able to know the grammar and vocabulary of that language, pronounce the language intelligibly, and process speech fluently. This view is also supported by many scholars (e.g., Bygate, 1991, 2001; Thornbury, 2005, 2012) when they emphasize that knowledge of the language and skills in using that knowledge are considered two fundamental elements of effective communication. In the interview, Phuong also commented that if students had good English proficiency, referring to the ability to talk or clarify their ideas in spoken form, they would be able to compete in finding employment.

I think that speaking skill is very important for everyone who learns a language. Therefore, teaching speaking should be considered as an indispensable part in learning that language. If students can communicate in English, I think that they can get a good job in their lives. (Phuong.SSI)

130

Three of the pre-service teachers (Gai, Hong and Nguyet) also placed emphasis on the role of teaching speaking in developing language learners’ skills in a range of areas from pronunciation to interaction management. Gai reported that:

Clear pronunciation and good management are very important in conversation. Students can improve these skills when they learn speaking. (Gai.SSI)

Similarly, Hong believed that “teaching speaking can help students pronounce English well” (Hong.SSI). She argued that, through the teaching of pronunciation of new words in the lesson and classroom conversation practices, students were likely to learn how to pronounce English accurately from both the teacher and other students. More interestingly, Nguyet held the view that, “only in speaking lessons, students are taught how to communicate in English in a meaningful or purposeful way” (Nguyet.SSI).

Drawing on such perspectives, it can be seen that the pre-service teachers above appeared not only to value pronunciation improvement, which was viewed as an essential factor of what it meant to communicate, but also placed emphasis on communication and meaning in teaching speaking. This perception was reflected further in Nguyet’s comments when she expressed an ambitious goal for her future teaching, stressing that “in the long term, students need to be taught to speak English fluently and naturally as a native speaker does” (Nguyet.SSI).

Sharing the same view, other pre-service teachers (Nam, Thanh and Chi) also highlighted the importance of the teaching of speaking in equipping students with necessary knowledge and skills for communication. In other words, these three pre- service teachers appeared to believe that through classroom communicative activities, students would be able to acquire language expressions, techniques and strategies that were essential to enhance their speaking ability. For example, in undertaking pair or a group work for practice of the target language, Nam and Thanh believed that students were likely to learn the way to “negotiate meaning” (Nam.SSI) or “keep turn-taking” in conversation (Thanh.SSI), and possibly re-use these techniques as a source for producing their spoken language outside the classroom. Thanh said that:

131

What students learn when they participate in classroom speaking activities may help them control and know the way to develop their conversations in real situations. (Thanh.SSI)

In the same vein, Chi argued for the importance of effective classroom activities, which allow opportunities for communication. She held the view that interactive and group activities were necessary for arousing students’ interest, and importantly for developing the ability to communicate in spoken English.

By engaging in different communicative situations in classrooms, I think students are motivated to learn speaking, and importantly they will know how to make a daily communication. (Chi.SSI)

Chi also stated that teaching speaking was important because it involved supporting students to learn other skills. She reported that through classroom activities focusing on speaking other communication skills such as listening would also be developed, which facilitated the improvement of students’ speaking ability. According to Chi’s perspective, there was a close relationship between speaking and listening skills, and these two skills were key factors in language teaching and learning and particularly for communication. She said, “If students can hear and understand what others say in a conversation, they will continue to engage in their speaking” (Chi.SSI). Her view reflected those of various commentators who argue that speaking and listening skills are intertwined in language learning and development (Boonkit, 2010; Brown, 2007a; Khamkhien, 2010; Noo-Ura, 2008; Zhang, 2009).

From such perceptions, it can be realized that these pre-service teachers believed that language learners would be able to acquire knowledge, skills and strategies in the target language to develop their speech production if they have better understanding of the nature of speaking, and are provided with more opportunities to work in supportive learning environments through communicative activities. As Goh and Burns (2012) and Richards and Rodgers (2014) argue, the second language speaking development of every language learner can be greatly facilitated through collaboration with his or her peers. Consequently, learners need to be able to “co-construct knowledge about what is

132

needed to be proficient speakers, and to apply their knowledge and skills in real-life communication” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p.6).

In summary, the pre-service teachers’ perspectives suggest that, in teaching speaking, language learners should be provided not only with linguistic knowledge of the target language, but also a range of skills in communication. In other words, the participants in this study strongly believed that through the teaching of speaking, students should be able to experience various ways of communicating, and eventually be conscious of how language is used.

The next section moves on to discuss the second major theme, the approaches to the teaching of speaking that the eight pre-service teachers in this study intended to demonstrate in classrooms.

6.2.2. Approaches to the teaching of speaking

Within the broad theme related to approaches to the teaching of speaking, the data can be further categorized into two sub-themes: the use of a communicative approach and the roles of teacher and learners within this approach.

6.2.2.1. Communicative approach

When asked what methodological approach should be employed in a speaking lesson, the eight pre-service teachers in this study appeared to share the same views. They all reported that they would apply “a communicative approach” to their teaching of English in general and the teaching of speaking in particular. From these responses, it can be assumed that these pre-service teachers felt they understood and highly valued the principles of a communicative approach, discussed in Section 3.1.2.3. Their responses also suggest that they were taking on the new ideas about teaching and learning that they had been exposed to in their training course.

The following excerpts illustrate a range of their beliefs about using a communicative approach in the speaking classroom:

133

As what I learnt from the teaching method courses, communicative language teaching is based on real-life situations for communication. Using this teaching method in classrooms, students will have the opportunity to communicate in English with others. (Binh.SSI)

In my understanding, in order to let students involve in real communication in classrooms, a communicative method is the most suitable. (Nam.SSI)

As I said above, the purpose of teaching speaking is to develop students’ communicative ability. So, I will use the modern teaching method regarding a communicative approach in my lessons. (Thanh.SSI)

I will use CLT in my classes. I mean I use Communicative Language Teaching, and also I think that my friends [other pre-service teachers] will use CLT, too. (Hong.SSI)

CLT, as you know, is now a popular teaching method. Uh… it is suggested as a main method used to teach English at all school levels. In teaching speaking, of course I will use it because I want to help students develop their communicative abilities. (Nguyet.SSI)

From this evidence, it appears that the pre-service teachers were aware of the suggested benefits of employing a communicative approach in teaching the target language and believed it to be an effective approach. These perspectives were also reflected in the participants’ speaking lesson plans (see a sample in Appendix Q), suggesting that they were aligning with the theoretical ideas taught in their teacher-training course. This orientation was not surprising since the new English curriculum developed by the MOET in 2006 recommended a communicative approach to the teaching and learning of English as its guiding principles, specifically that:

134

Communication skills be the goal of the teaching and learning process; linguistic knowledge be the means by which communication skills are formed and developed.

Students play an active role in the teaching and learning process and teachers be only organizers and guides.

Teaching contents be selected and organized according to themes to guarantee a high level of communicativeness while catering to the accuracy of the modern language system. (MOET, 2006, p.6)

In their interviews, the majority of the pre-service teachers (Nam, Binh, Thanh, Nguyet, Phuong and Chi) also revealed that their teacher educators had informed them that learner participation in classroom activities, discussed in more detail in Section 6.2.2.2 with reference to the roles of teacher and learners, was one of the criteria that school supervising teachers would employ to evaluate and assess their teaching practices. This meant that these pre-service teachers believed that their supervising teachers at the high school would want to observe how they applied the communicative approach in their teaching of speaking. These factors had clearly mediated the pre-service teachers’ views that they should adopt a communicative approach in their teaching, particularly when teaching speaking.

In summary, the eight pre-service teachers all stated that they adopted a communicative approach to teaching speaking. However, this finding is not surprising given that their training is framed by the policies of the MOET and by the approaches used by their supervising teachers, and that they would be evaluated on their use of the communicative approach in the teaching practicum. The extent to which these beliefs were translated into practice is the focus of the next chapter of the thesis.

The following section turns to the reported perceptions of the participants about the roles that should be adopted by teachers and learners in the teaching of speaking skills in the classroom.

135

6.2.2.2. Roles of the teacher and learners

As discussed in the previous section, the participants in this study perceived the communicative approach to be an appropriate pedagogy, and argued that they intended to employ it in their classroom teaching. Drawing on such perspectives, they perceived that language teachers and learners would perform different roles in the classroom depending upon the purpose of each activity. This shared perception is in line with the viewpoints of numerous applied linguists and methodologists (e.g., Byrne, 1989; Davies & Pearse, 2000; Harmer, 2007; Littlewood, 1981, 1992; Richards, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2014), who propose that, within the classroom setting, the teacher needs to perform various functions such as informant, conductor, observer, motivator and/or advisor in order to facilitate students’ learning. Other authors such as Goh and Burns (2012) also argue that the major role of all committed teachers is to encourage, motivate and help language learners to “acquire language and skills that they will not be able to achieve on their own” (p.4). In terms of the teaching of speaking, the participants reported that teachers and learners should be characterized according to the following roles, which are shown respectively in Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

With regard to the role of the language teacher, Table 6.2 below presents the three categories perceived to be relevant by the eight pre-service teachers: guide, facilitator and friend.

136

Table 6.2 Roles of the teacher

Roles of the teacher The pre-service teachers Guide Facilitator Friend Binh √ √ Nam √ √ Gai √ √ Thanh √ √ √ Nguyet √ √ √ Hong √ √ Phuong √ √ Chi √ √ √

It can be seen from Table 6.2 that all the pre-service teachers held the view that language teachers should act as both a guide and facilitator in speaking classes. They implied that language learners should be both exposed to and given opportunities to practise and use the language for communication, and that the role of the teacher in the classroom is to provide students with such learning opportunities through these two roles.

According to Byrne (1989) and Harmer (2007), working as a guide, involves giving students information and instructions, with the aim to tell them how they are going to do the activity. In contrast, the term facilitator is used to describe as “a particular kind of teacher, one who is democratic rather than autocratic, and one who fosters learner autonomy through the use of groupwork and pairwork and by acting as more of a resource than a transmitter of knowledge” (Harmer, 2007, p.108). Based on such definitions, it is clear that the main task of the teacher working within these roles is essentially different, given that the former is to provide students with instructions about the activity, while the latter is to facilitate students’ learning and involve them in what they are doing. However, in the interviews, several of the participants appeared to hold the view that these two terms could be seen as the same thing. In other words, they seemed to see the roles of guide and facilitator as interchangeable. This meant that they 137

perceived that the teacher’s functions were to provide students with the maximum amount of practice, which would be able to facilitate their speaking ability. For example, Thanh stated that:

In speaking lessons, the roles of a teacher are different from those of other lessons. For example, in a grammar lesson, teachers play a role as a controller in order to provide students with structures, explain the grammar rules and give examples of how to use those structures correctly. I mean teachers are the main source and model of the target language and the accurate reproduction is emphasized in the [grammar] lessons. Otherwise, teachers in speaking lessons are more of guides and facilitators in order to maximize opportunities for students to speak English as much as possible. (Thanh.SSI)

Binh displayed the same view of the roles of the teacher. He said that:

Instead of empowering the class as a central role to transmit knowledge, I think that a general role of the teacher in speaking classes should be a guide and facilitator. In doing so, teachers can create a favorable condition for students to practise speaking English. (Binh.SSI)

In the same vein, Hong argued that there was a transition to new roles in the classroom proposed in CLT for both teachers and learners. Regarding the teaching of speaking, she reported that the teacher was assumed to serve mainly as “a kind of guide and facilitator rather than being a controller and corrector” (Hong.SSI). Hong’s views coincided with Binh’s that, in classroom activities, the roles of the teacher were to provide students with opportunities to share their ideas, express their opinions or debate with each other. In this regard, Byrne (1989, p.1) explains that when implementing a communicative approach to language teaching and learning, the vital role of teachers is to “create the best conditions for learning”. Lewis (2002, p.47) also suggests that teachers should support and manage students and the environment in classrooms in order to “make the most opportunities for learning and practising the target language”.

138

Like Thanh, Binh and Hong, Gai’s view about the roles of the teacher indicated that they should be as a guide and facilitator in teaching speaking, thus conflating these two terms. Gai perceived that, during speaking activities, the teacher should “move around the class offering help or answering students’ questions” (Gai.SSI). For her, this meant that, in these roles, the major responsibility of teachers is to enable students to communicate in the target language. In other words, Gai argued that in order to enhance students’ speaking ability the teacher needs to motivate students’ learning and increase their ability to negotiate meaning in a relaxed classroom atmosphere. Gai also proposed ways that the teacher could give feedback at the end of the lesson.

During the activity, I think that the teacher should note down students’ errors and give feedback to those students if he still has enough time for the lesson. (Gai.SSI)

Nam’s understanding of the roles that speaking teachers should take on appeared to differ from the other pre-service teachers, as he differentiated between guidance and facilitation. In his view, teachers’ clear instructions and good organization of classroom activities were vital in promoting students’ participation as well as in helping them to acquire speaking skills:

As I mentioned early, teaching speaking aims to enable students to communicate verbally. Therefore, I think that the roles of teachers in their speaking lessons are first to provide students with clear guidelines of the activities and then facilitate their speaking. (Nam.SSI)

In his interview, Nam argued that teachers’ instructions for the activities should be “simple, short and clear” (Nam.SSI) to make sure that all students could hear and fully understand so that they could become engaged in practising the language themselves.

In addition to the suggested roles of guide and facilitator, only three pre-service teachers (Thanh, Chi and Nguyet) expressed the idea that the role of the language teacher included that of a friend. These three pre-service teachers believed that a positive communicative classroom atmosphere should be created, in which students could feel

139

comfortable and non-threatened in order to interact with one another, and eventually to promote their speaking. This view is strongly supported by Nation and Newton (2009, p.22), who indicate that a friendly, safe and cooperative classroom environment is particularly important for learners “to experiment and make mistakes without penalties”.

In their perspectives, in speaking lessons, students were often embarrassed and too shy to contribute to activities. They implied that it was essential for the teacher to build up an open and non-threatening environment for students to engage in communication. As Thanh said, “teachers need to consider themselves as their students’ friend so that language learners do not feel stress while speaking” (Thanh.SSI).

Agreeing with Thanh’s perspective, Chi stated her belief that “a friendly or secure environment for language learning can make students active in their speaking” (Chi.SSI). Nguyet also reported, “if the teacher behaves as a friend, he/she can help students a lot when they misunderstand the instructions or lack vocabulary in doing activities” (Nguyet.SSI). Nguyet suggested that while being involved in speaking activities, students might not be quite sure of what was going on or how to proceed. In that circumstance, she explained, the role of the teacher as a friend was very important since they could re-explain the rules of the activity or assist students with vocabulary or prompt ideas that might be helpful to enable them to proceed productively. Given such a perspective, Nguyet believed that “learners’ motivation to learn speaking skills in classrooms is stimulated” (Nguyet.SSI).

Turning now to the roles of language learners, all the pre-service teachers reported their perspectives in a similar way, in which they strongly valued the participation of students in classroom activities. As shown in Table 6.3 below, they perceived that language learners needed to participate actively as communicators and/or negotiators.

140

Table 6.3 Roles of the learners

The participant Roles of the learners pre-service teachers Communicator Negotiator Binh √ √ Nam √ Gai √ Thanh √ √ Nguyet √ √ Hong √ Phuong √ √ Chi √

According to Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2013, p.129), in the role of a communicator, students are viewed to be “actively engaged in negotiating meaning - in trying to make themselves understood and in understanding others - even when their knowledge of the target language is incomplete”. Lee (2000; cited in Lee & VanPatten, 2003, p.65) describes language learners’ role as negotiators in the EFL classroom as follows:

Negotiation consists of interactions during which speakers come to terms, reach an agreement, make agreements, resolve a problem, or settle an issue by conferring or discussing; the purpose of language use is to accomplish some task rather than to practise any particular language forms.

Negotiation can be thus understood as a must for successful conversations to occur naturally and for speakers and listeners to be able to understand each other. In the interviews, the participants explained that, in a communicative approach, teachers’ instructional practice was characterized by “the involvement of the learner” (Hong.SSI), and the priority to meet “learners’ communicative needs” (Nguyet.SSI). In support of this, other pre-service teachers (Binh, Nam, Gai, Chi, Thanh and Phuong) also held a view that, in the classroom, students were perceived as the center of the language 141

teaching and learning process. More importantly, all the pre-service teachers assumed that, to improve language and skills, students should be engaged in communication through interactive activities. As discussed in Section 6.2.1, the participants in this study stressed the importance of classroom practices, in which collaborative learning activities are used and students work in pairs or small groups, with the aim to “structure students’ learning experiences so as to support their speaking development, in and outside the classroom” (Goh & Burns, 2012, p.5). In other words, in order to develop students’ speaking ability, the participants reported their belief that students themselves needed to be more active participants in the activities, communicating meaningfully and collaborating with their partners in order to scaffold one another’s spoken language development. For example, Phuong said that:

Students’ speaking ability cannot be improved until, in the classroom, they themselves have to actively participate in the activities and communicate with one another. Only through regular practice, I think that communication skills of students can be developed. (Phuong.SSI)

Echoing Phuong’s perspective, Thanh also pointed out that students had to be actively involved in their learning process, and they should be encouraged to feel “part of a classroom community” (Thanh.SSI). This comment suggested the belief that classroom interactions should be primarily student-oriented, and in particular “students’ spoken contributions have to be valued” (Nguyet.SSI).

Likewise, in his interview, Nam shared the same idea when he repeated the saying, “practice makes perfect” (Nam.SSI). He argued, “If students want to improve their speaking skills, they must be aware of their learning and participations in activities” (Nam.SSI). For this reason, Nam believed that working in groups or pairs would assist students in the development of their communicative competence, since students were “the classroom focus and learn by interacting with others” (Chi.SSI). The next section, Section 6.2.3, analyzes and discusses the participants’ views about the content of the teaching of speaking that they intended to transpose to the classroom.

142

6.2.3. Content of the teaching of speaking

Table 6.4 below covers the three major themes in the pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the content of the teaching of speaking that emerged from the data. These themes fell into the categories of new language items, accuracy and fluency, which will be presented in Section 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.2 and 6.2.3.3, respectively.

Table 6.4 Content of the teaching of speaking

Pre-service teachers Themes Binh Nam Gai Thanh Nguyet Hong Phuong Chi Providing new √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ language items Focusing on √ √ √ accuracy Focusing on √ √ √ √ √ fluency

6.2.3.1. Providing new language items

As indicated in Table 6.4, all eight pre-service teachers in this study interpreted teaching speaking as the provision of new language items. In parallel with the supervising teachers’ perspectives (see Section 5.2.2.1), these pre-service teachers emphasized the role of new language items in supporting learners to convey meaning in communication. They perceived new language items as “communicative input” (Hong.SSI), or “language input” (Nam.SSI) in terms of vocabulary and pronunciation practice rather than grammatical structures. As such, they believed that it was important for students to know the meaning of new words and learn “how to pronounce [these] words correctly” (Chi.SSI) before letting them get involved in speaking activities. For example, Hong reported that:

143

In speaking lessons, I will first teach students some words appearing in the text that they do not know, and then help them to pronounce and memorize the words. (Hong.SSI)

Similarly, Chi shared her view regarding the teaching of new words prior to introducing activities as follows:

Yes,…I think there may be some key words that students don’t know when they deal with speaking lessons. As a teacher, I will have to teach these words to students before they really do the speaking. (Chi. SSI)

For the same reason, referring to the teaching of vocabulary, Nam’s comment on the importance of lexical items, expressed his idea that “if students are taught and remember new words, they will probably make use of these words in subsequent activities” (Nam.SSI). In the same vein, Phuong further considered teaching vocabulary as the provision of optimal language input. She argued that students often “feel anxious when speaking” (Phuong.SSI). In this regard, various authors (e.g., Goh, 2007; Goh & Burns, 2014; Thornbury, 2005, 2012) indicate that speaking in a foreign language can create a great deal of anxiety for language learners, since they “experience cognitive overload as they try to attend to content and language demands when they speak” (Goh & Burns, 2014, p.156). Therefore, in her interview, Phuong stressed that providing students with new vocabulary before actual speaking activities was extremely important. With vocabulary support, Phuong believed that learners’ anxiety could be reduced so that they could “direct more attention to using their available grammatical knowledge for completing the task” (Goh & Burns, 2014, p.157).

Like Hong, Chi, Nam and Phuong, other pre-service teachers (Binh, Thanh, Gai and Nguyet) held the view that vocabulary played a very important role in language development, and more specifically, helped students to perform in productive skill activities. This view is strongly supported by Mart (2012) when he argues that vocabulary knowledge is one of the crucial factors of language learning and influences learners’ speaking performance. He claims that vocabulary is “understanding the meaning of a word… without words to express a wider range of meaning,

144

communication in a second language cannot happen in a meaningful way” (Mart, 2012, p.93-94). Drawing on such beliefs, the pre-service teachers stressed the role of vocabulary teaching and memorization. They believed that memorization of the words was essential for students to “manage and express ideas” (Thanh.SSI). This viewpoint is likely to be rooted in the belief that introducing new words is a fundamental requirement in the teaching of speaking. Hence, all the pre-service teachers in this study tended to share the common perception that teaching new vocabulary to help students pronounce items and use them in communication was vital prior to students carrying out an activity.

6.2.3.2. Focusing on accuracy

In some of the literature on speaking, three elements are mentioned: accuracy, fluency and complexity (see Section 3.1.2). However, in the interviews, all the participants in this study expressed the same perception that accuracy and fluency are the two most important elements in spoken discourse. It seems that complexity was not considered by these pre-service teachers. These viewpoints also appeared to reflect what the majority of the teacher educators (see Section 5.2.2) expected them to demonstrate in the classroom. Regarding the contextual environment for teaching and learning English in Vietnam, where English is taught as a compulsory subject, the eight pre-service teachers seemed not to share perspectives on accuracy and fluency in teaching speaking in the same way. As Table 6.4 above shows, three of the eight pre-service teachers (Gai, Hong and Phuong) believed they should focus primarily on accuracy and providing new language items in their lessons. In other words, these pre-service teachers appeared to perceive that helping students to improve accuracy rather than fluency in language production was a more important goal in teaching speaking. This perception is also congruent with what the four supervising teachers expected practising teachers to focus on in their classrooms (see Section 5.2.2.2). Phuong’s perspective was that:

In my view, speaking English fluently but listeners cannot understand is not good. In speaking lessons, I will get the learners’ attention more on the language. (Phuong.SSI)

145

Hong reported the same view but was concerned about correctness of pronunciation rather than grammar and structures. In her thinking, pronunciation errors were likely to lead to breakdown in students’ communication. She said, “There are many words in English which sound like the same” (Hong.SSI). This meant that producing English intelligibly was very important since, according to Hong, sound was used to “achieve communicative meaning” (Hong.SSI). In other words, Hong stressed that if students did not learn to pronounce English clearly, their speech would lead to problems of comprehensibility, and might be ineffective for those who engaged in the conversation. Hong appeared to focus on clarity in pronouncing English and saw this aspect as vital, in helping students to enhance their speech intelligibility.

Echoing Hong and Phuong’s perspectives, Gai also commented on the role of accuracy in teaching speaking. She revealed her pedagogical belief that in the classroom language teachers should centre on correctness, to enable students to produce the target language accurately.

I always want my students to speak English appropriately and naturally, but as you know teaching speaking is not the central focus in classes. As a result, students cannot speak English with others even some simple sentences. During this time for teaching practice, in speaking lessons, my focus is to teach students to speak English loudly, clearly and exactly. (Gai.SSI)

From such perspectives, it can be seen that improving students’ language performance through accuracy was clearly a major concern in Gai’s speaking lessons. This priority reflected her expectation that target language practice should aim at developing students’ English grammar and vocabulary, and more importantly enhancing students’ skills in English pronunciation. In the interview, Gai also argued for the development of students’ speaking confidence. In her thinking, building up confidence in speaking for students was another factor that could strengthen their speaking performance. She said, “Confidence also plays an important role in promoting students’ speaking competence. If students feel confident in speaking, they can express their ideas in a clear way” (Gai.SSI). This perception is congruent with one of the teacher educator’s expectations

146

reflected in the focus group interview (see Section 5.2). Also, as various authors (e.g., Bailey, 2005; Boonkit, 2010; Khan & Ali, 2010; Patil, 2008) recommend, promoting speaking confidence would change students’ motivation to learn English, which eventually leads to English language learning improvement.

6.2.3.3. Focusing on fluency

In contrast to the above perspectives, as seen in Table 6.4, five pre-service teachers (Binh, Thanh, Nguyet, Nam and Chi) reported that although accuracy was necessary in communication, in their speaking lessons they would place more emphasis on fluency. This tendency was also reflected in their instructional objectives (see a sample in Appendix H), indicating that after the lesson students would be able to use specific linguistic elements of the target language directly relevant to the topic of the unit to perform some functions of communication naturally. These pre-service teachers justified their perspectives in various ways.

In referring to the dominance of form-focused instruction in classrooms as constraints for students to learn speaking skills, Nguyet stated that:

At schools, students have few opportunities to learn to speak English because, according to my understanding, teachers often concentrate on grammar and structures in their teaching, even in speaking teaching. Now, in speaking lessons I will give more time for students to learn to speak fluently. (Nguyet.SSI)

From the same point of view, Nam expressed his intention to develop fluency in student’s language production. He expressed his belief that, at high school level, students were likely to acquire “a foundation knowledge” of English in terms of “grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary” (Nam. SSI). This meant that, Nam believed that in speaking lessons students should be provided with many opportunities to make use of this type of linguistic knowledge to produce language. He said, “I will create an English environment in classrooms for students to practise speaking” (Nam.SSI). Given such an intention, Nam stated that he would place the emphasis in his classroom

147

instruction on students’ practice in an attempt to facilitate fluency rather than accuracy in their communicative ability. In the discussion, Nam also stressed that “not only I myself, but also other teachers should have such a view in teaching speaking” (Nam.SSI).

Agreeing with the above perspectives, Chi also clarified her ideas about the role of accuracy and fluency in communication. She made the point that her preference was a focus on fluency, as the quote below shows:

In teaching speaking, I will let students speak English freely…no interruption, no error correction although I know that correctness in speaking is also important. To improve accuracy, I think students can correct by themselves or I will help them correct their mistakes at the end of the lesson if I have time. (Chi.SSI)

Two other pre-service teachers (Binh and Thanh) also expressed the same views. They placed emphasis on classroom interactions for fluency practice, mostly interactions between students. Binh said, “I will create many opportunities for students to speak, and let them feel free when speaking” (Binh.SSI). Binh’s apparent belief about teaching speaking in this way was that an active and “free” classroom-speaking environment might lead to effectiveness in his teaching of speaking and the promotion of student learning. Likewise, Thanh expressed her view that “I will not directly correct students’ mistakes, just only take notes and give feedback after they finish their conversations in order to make sure that they are motivated to learn speaking skills” (Thanh.SSI). Given such thinking, Thanh believed that students in her class might become more interested in learning to speak, and more importantly she hoped that they would be able to “feel confident when speaking English outside the classroom” (Thanh.SSI).

6.3. Summary

In this chapter, the experiences of the eight pre-service teachers in learning English at school and during their teacher-training course were first presented. The chapter then provided an analysis of the perceptions that the participants in this study held about the

148

teaching of speaking. The findings were analyzed and discussed in relation to three major themes of importance, approach and content of teaching speaking, which emerged from the data. In general, the data revealed that all of the participants held strong beliefs about the importance of the teaching of speaking. In addition, the eight pre-service teachers appeared to show a general orientation that they were in favour of employing a communicative and learner-centered approach in their lessons. However, their perceptions about the roles teachers and learners should take tended to differ and they seemed not to share the same perspectives about the content of the teaching of speaking. Most of the participants indicated their intention to focus on fluency rather than accuracy in speaking lessons. In the next chapter, Chapter 7, the findings of the eight pre-service teachers’ actual practices with reference to the teaching of speaking will be analyzed in order to explore the extent of consistency or inconsistency with their intentions as presented in this chapter.

149

CHAPTER 7 PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN TEACHING SPEAKING

In this chapter, in Section 7.1, I present an analysis of the observational extracts that characterized the eight pre-service teachers’ actual classroom practices with reference to the teaching of speaking. These observational extracts are analyzed in relation to the participants’ explanations of the decisions that they made about the classroom pedagogical strategies, which were elicited from the stimulated recall sessions conducted immediately after the observed lessons. This discussion is followed, in Section 7.2, by the presentation of the factors that affected and shaped the participants’ speaking instruction in the classroom, which were grounded in the stimulated recall data. In Section 7.3, a summary of the chapter is provided.

7.1. Classroom practices

This section presents the findings from the observation and stimulated recall interview data in order to examine how the participants’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking were translated into their classroom practices as well as the rationales underlying those practices. There were three major themes that emerged from the data analysis: providing vocabulary as communicative input, dialogue-model practice and corrective feedback. Each of these themes is discussed, below.

7.1.1. Providing vocabulary as communicative input

It was shown in the observation data that the eight pre-service teachers in this study placed much emphasis on the provision of new words as communicative language input in the initial stage of speaking lessons. In other words, in the observed lessons, all the participants strongly emphasized the role of new vocabulary and focused intensively on presenting new items. In the 16 lessons observed, the eight pre-service teachers spent an average of 11 out of 45 minutes teaching and drilling these words, which took up a considerable amount of time, about 25% of the lesson.

150

With reference to the choice of new words, in each lesson, the participants usually selected at least four words from the textbook. The words chosen, according to the participants’ explanations, depended on how important they were considered to be to comprehension of the text, and how they might cause students’ difficulties in producing spoken language. In some cases, as shown below, this seemed to mean that there was no guarantee that students had learned the words or would be able to produce them.

The eight pre-service teachers used various techniques to present vocabulary, mostly using translation, synonyms, antonyms and explanation. According to the participants’ comments in the recall sessions, giving an equivalent word or expression in the students’ native language, and using contrast (antonym) or equivalence (synonym) to present the meaning of new words were simple and easy techniques, in contrast to others, such as definition or examples that they had been taught in their teacher-training course. For example, Gai explained that although she had been equipped with knowledge of how to teach vocabulary in different ways in the pre-teaching stage of the skill lessons, she preferred to use simple techniques because they seemed to be “the easy way that the teacher can help students comprehend the meaning of the word directly” (Gai.01.SRI). Similarly, Binh stressed that suggesting the equivalent or contrast word was “a good way to help students brainstorm their knowledge of vocabulary” (Binh.01.SRI). These participants also believed that using ‘simple and easy techniques’ could help the teacher save time, involve the students more and help students easily remember the words. The extract below (transcription conventions for all extracts are shown in Appendix S) is a representative example that illustrates how vocabulary tended to be taught and elicited in the participants’ classrooms.

Observation extract # 1

01 T: Now the whole class we have some new words today. First, how do you say “nhạy cảm” in English? 02 Ss: . 03 T: you, please. 04 S1: Sensitive. 05 T: Yes, sensitive .

151

06 T: Now listen. Sensitive 07 Ss: . 08 T: Now listen and repeat. Sensitive. 09 Ss: Sensitive. 10 T: Again. 11 Ss: Sensitive. 12 T: Again. 13 Ss: Sensitive. 14 T: Ok. you, please. 15 S1: Sensitive. 16 T: you, please. 17 S2: Sensitive. 18 T: you, please. 19 S3: Sensitive. 20 T: Sensitive (adj): Nhạy cảm. 21 T: Now which word has the same meaning with dangerous? 22 Ss: . 23 T: Do you know dangerous? 24 Ss: Yes. 25 T: What does it mean? 26 Ss: Nguy hiểm. 27 T: Yes, nguy hiểm, mạo hiểm. So which word has the same meaning with mạo hiểm? 28 Ss: . 29 T: Risky. Now the whole class listens . 30 Ss: . 31 T: Listen and repeat. Risky. 32 Ss: Risky. 33 T: . 34 Ss: Risky. 35 T: .

152

36 Ss: Risky. 37 T: you, please. 38 S1: Risky. 39 T: you, please. 40 S2: Risky. 41 T: Risky (adj): Mạo hiểm. [This pattern continues with two more words] (Nam.01.G10).

From the extract above, it can be seen that the way Nam used to teach vocabulary was to take new words out of the context of the text and teach them separately. Thus, Nam presented the new words in an isolated manner, without referring to their occurrence in the meaningful context of the text. Nam’s aim seemed to be to get the students to focus primarily on the discrete meaning and pronunciation of the new words. For example, in turn 01 and 21, he used translation and synonym techniques to elicit the words “sensitive” and “risky” from students, with an attention to pronunciation, followed by extensive choral and individual repetition of the words. There was little indication from this classroom sequence that the students were able to learn the words or would subsequently be able to use the new words in spoken production.

In another example below, Phuong used the same pattern as Nam did in his lesson to introduce new vocabulary items. She selected the new words from the textbook and presented them to students separately. This approach to the teaching of vocabulary was also observed in the other pre-service teachers’ lessons in this study.

Observation extract # 2

01 T: The whole class look at this How do you call these sentences in English? 02 Ss: . 03 T: How do you call these sentences in English?

153

04 Ss: Slogan. 05 T: Yes, Slogan. Now listen, just listen Slogan. 06 Ss: Slogan. 07 T: No, just listen Slogan. 08 T: Now listen and repeat. Slogan. 09 Ss: Slogan. 10 T: Slogan. 11 Ss: Slogan. 12 T: you, please. 13 S1: Slogan. 14 T: you, please. 15 S2: Slogan. 16 T: What does it mean in Vietnamese? you, please. 17 S3: Khẩu hiệu. 18 T: Thank you. Do you know this word? 19 Ss: . 20 T: Do you know this word? 21 Ss: . 22 T: What is the synonym of this word? you, please. 23 S4: Thrilling. 24 T: Yes. Now listen. Thrilling. 25 Ss: . 26 T: Now listen and repeat. Thrilling. 27 Ss: Thrilling. 28 T: Thrilling. 29 Ss: Thrilling. (Phuong.01.G11)

154

Using this pattern, Phuong continued to help the students recognize and pronounce the new word ‘Thrilling’ in a similar way that she did with the word ‘Slogan’ earlier. After getting the whole class to repeat the word ‘Thrilling’ twice in chorus, Phuong called upon two students to read this word out individually before moving on to presenting two more words.

In this excerpt, although visuals were used to attract the students’ attention, with the aim to introduce the word ‘Slogan’ (see turn 01) in this lesson, like Nam, Phuong mostly used translation and synonym techniques to elicit new vocabulary items from students. According to Davies and Pearse (2000), it is useful for bilingual teachers to use translation from time to time in classrooms. However, they suggest that language teachers should not make it the useful way of presenting the meaning of new items, since this technique has several potential disadvantages for language learners. They argue that translation may (1) encourage learners to think in their own language, always translating to and from English; (2) encourage learners to feel they have learnt a word or expression permanently once they have been given the translation, and (3) lead to lengthy and perhaps confusing discussion in the learners’ first language (Davies & Pearse, 2000, p.61).

From the above illustrations, there was little evidence that these pre-service teachers were making an attempt to present new words in context. Rather it appeared that they relied on decontextualized teaching of various items that they believed would assist students to comprehend the texts. There is also no evidence that they consulted the students on which items of vocabulary were unfamiliar to them. It is also likely that presenting the meaning of new vocabulary through such ways was largely different from the supervising teachers’ expectations (see Section 5.2.2.1), given that they stated that new words should be provided in context so that students could understand the meaning and use them effectively in speaking.

The observations also revealed that after all the new words had been presented and written on the board, all eight pre-service teachers asked students as a whole class to repeat the words out loud in chorus two or three times, depending on how well they judged that the students pronounced the words. After that, they called upon some

155

students to stand up and say the words individually, giving pronunciation correction on the spot. In addition, in an attempt to help students understand, remember and use the new language items for speaking, all of the participants in this study required students to take part in an activity called ‘Checking vocabulary’. The techniques of ‘Matching’ and ‘Rub out and Remember’ were the two most common types of checking activity that the eight pre-service teachers in this study employed, as the following extract from Hong’s lesson illustrates.

Observation extract # 3

01 T: You have learnt some new words and now I’d like to check how good you are in memorizing those words by doing a matching exercise. How many columns are there? 02 Ss: Two. 03 T: What is this in column A? 04 Ss: The new words. 05 T: What is this in column B? 06 Ss: Meanings. 07 T: What will you do now? 08 Ss: Match the new words in column A with the meanings in column B. 09 T: Right. Matching. You have one minute to match. 10 Ss: . 11 T: Ok. Time is over. Who can help me to match this exercise? 12 Ss: . 13 T: you, please. 14 S1: Does the matching. 15 T: Right? 16 Ss: Yes. 17 T: Right. Thank you. (Hong. 01.G11)

From the data presented in this section, it is evident that in order to help students remember and produce the form of new vocabulary items correctly, the eight pre-

156

service teachers in this study encouraged students to focus on discrete meanings and pronunciation of the words, with intensive elicitation and repetition. In this regard, various authors (e.g., Baker & Westrup, 2003; Brown, 2007a; Harmer, 2007) argue that getting students to read the words aloud in both choral and individual is an effective way of improving pronunciation, and importantly building up confidence of the learners to use new language items in spoken communication. The findings in this section generally reflect a common trend also found in the semi-structured interview data, that all the participants in this study highly valued the role of vocabulary items and indicated that they taught them to students. In other words, they held strong beliefs that students would be unable to speak the target language well unless they were provided with new words prior to the assigned activities. Therefore, the observation data seem to be in line with their beliefs, in that meanings of words the teachers considered to be new for students as well as their pronunciation were presented to begin the lesson.

7.1.2. Dialogue-model practice

As discussed in Chapter 6, the eight pre-service teachers in this study highly valued the learning of speaking and indicated that they favoured a communicative approach for the teaching of speaking. In particular, most of the participants held the view that in speaking lessons they would provide students with opportunities for genuine exchange of information, feelings or thoughts. This meant that, in the classroom, students would be expected to involve themselves in realistic communication, with an intention to reflect interactional authenticity rather than predictability of pre-learned patterns. However, it was not uncommon to observe that all the pre-service teachers in this study followed the same strategy of teaching speaking, based on a predictable dialogue-model approach with an adoption of the conventional Presentation, Practice and Production version of instruction into their instructional procedures.

Two major issues that emerged from the stimulated-recall interviews reflected the reasons why the participants employed a dialogue-model strategy. First, they regarded it as ‘safe’ to follow the instructions for available activities provided in the textbook, and in the teacher’s guide for the textbooks. They observed that the models they could use to teach speaking were already provided in the form of samples in the textbook. As

157

noted in Chapters 2 and 5, in Vietnam the textbooks used to teach English at school are tightly controlled, commissioned and promulgated by the MOET, but they do not necessarily contain activities leading to enhancing students’ naturalistic speaking ability (see Sections 7.2 & 9.3), as some of the dialogues presented below reflect. Second, when entering the practicum, based on the students’ school report, the participants concluded that in the classes they were assigned most of the students’ English proficiency level was very low, which they assumed would cause students to lack motivation and confidence in learning speaking. This issue will be discussed in more detail in Section 7.2.1.

Drawing on such conditions and challenges, they believed that using a dialogue-model to teach speaking would be easier not only for teachers but also for students. In other words, all the participants believed that teaching speaking through dialogue models seemed to be a reasonable and effective approach so as to help students easily follow, imitate and eventually structure conversations in daily communication. For example, Nguyet gave the following rationale.

When preparing for the speaking lesson, I realize that most activities in speaking sections in the textbook are often guided by a model. I think that by making the model available here [in these sections of the textbook], it is supposed to be used, and also should be the focus of the lesson. Therefore, I followed the textbook activities closely. I also saw that my friends [other pre-service teacher] did the same for their speaking teaching. (Nguyet.01.SRI)

Echoing Nguyet’s view, Nam provided another explanation for focusing students on using dialogue models.

At first, I intended to replace speaking activities from the textbooks in order to make my lessons new and interesting. However, after discussing this issue with my friends [other pre-service teachers], particularly with my school supervisor, I found that I should keep and follow up those activities [in the textbook]. (Nam.01.SRI)

158

Like Nguyet and Nam, Gai shared her views about retention of the textbook dialogue- model activities although she was aware of the value of creativity in replacing activities for speaking lessons. Below is her comment during the recall session.

As you know, speaking is a difficult skill to teach. In order to attract students’ attention and motivate them to take part in classroom activities, one of the necessary issues is that the lesson must be interesting and dynamic. I mean the teacher should not use activities available in the textbooks because students already know them and they are conducted in the same manner. But I think that it’s very challenging for teachers like us [pre-service teachers] who lack experience in teaching and collecting materials to design activities. Therefore, to be safe in my teaching, especially in teaching speaking, I followed the textbook activities and I tried to complete those activities in my lessons within the time allotted. (Gai. 01.SRI)

From the above perspectives, it is evident that the eight pre-service teachers were reluctant to replace the textbook speaking activities or to extend them to the classroom situation. This view of the authority of the textbook among Vietnamese teachers is reflected in the study by Saito, Tsukui and Tanaka (2008), whose case studies showed evidence that teachers “prefer to systematically follow the textbooks in order to avoid any criticism by colleagues and authorities” (Saito et al., 2008, p.98).

The participants’ views on the textbook and the dialogue-model strategy in particular were further evidenced in their classroom practices as the following extracts exemplify.

Observational extract # 4

01 T: Now the whole class look at the dialogue. I want a student to play the role of Nam and I am Hoa. Now one of you is Nam and I am Hoa you please.

159

02 S1: Hello Hoa. 03 T: Hello Nam. 04 S1: May I ask you some questions about music? 05 T: Yes, sure. 06 S1: What kind of music do you like? 07 T: I like Pop music. 08 S1: Why do you like it? 09 T: Because it keeps me happy and excited. 10 S1: When do you listen to music? 11 T: In my free time. 12 S1: Who is your favourite singer? 13 T: My Tam. 14 S1: Thank you for answering my questions. 15 T: You’re welcome. (Chi.02.G10)

In this pattern, after modelling the dialogue with one student in this way, Chi asked the whole class to work in pairs playing the role of Nam and Hoa, and practising reading the dialogue model within three minutes. She also asked the students to switch roles and take turns asking and answering. After three minutes, Chi invited three pairs in turn to stand up and read the dialogue. After these pairs had completed the reading, Chi gave corrective feedback on students’ performance before letting them move on to the next activity, creating a similar dialogue with the same topic about music, based on the provided dialogue model.

In another lesson, Hong carried out a similar activity, again providing students with the dialogue model from the textbook. Although this model had been posted on the board, Hong asked her students to open their books, look at the dialogue and then practise reading. Hong also modelled the dialogue with one student before getting the whole class to practise reading it in pairs. Below is Hong’s introduction of this activity.

160

Observational extract # 5

01 T: This is a dialogue between Huong and Lan, talking about Lan’s hobby of collecting books. Now we will read the dialogue. Open your books, page 149 and listen. I will model first. you are Huong and I am Lan. Now listen. 02 S1: What is your hobby, Lan? 03 T: Well, I like collecting books. 04 S1: Could you tell me how you collect your books? 05 T: Well, this must be done regularly. Whenever I find a book which is interesting I buy it immediately. 06 S1: Where do you buy your books? 07 T: I buy some from the bookshop near my house and some others from second-hand bookstalls. Sometimes my friends, my mum and dad give me some. 08 S1: How do you organize your collection? 09 T: I classify them into different categories and put each category in one corner of my bookshelf with a name tag on it. 10 S1: What do you plan to do next, Lan? 11 T: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. (Hong.01.G 11)

Like Chi, after modeling the dialogue with the student, Hong asked the whole class to work in pairs, practising reading the dialogue about five minutes. When the time was over, Hong called upon three pairs to stand up and read the dialogue. Hong also gave feedback and corrected students’ mistakes after they had completed the reading.

From the extracts above, it can be seen that the strategy the two pre-service teachers used to lead the students into speaking was to introduce them to an explicit dialogue model with “extensive practice” (Byrne, 1989, p.36). According to Chi, for students with low language proficiency like those who were in her classes, when learning how to use a language to communicate it was better to learn to use it automatically. She

161

stressed that students’ successful responses in communication were reinforced through imitation and repetition of the dialogues. Therefore, Chi argued that adopting a dialogue-model approach to teaching speaking was very useful because it could help the students imitate and recite memorized structures to create their conversations in the follow-up activity. She said, “dialogue model can provide the students with the sample of conversation where they can learn how speakers interact” (Chi.01.SRI). In the same vein, Hong explained that students would feel relaxed and encouraged to speak out when they learnt speaking, based on a provided model. She further argued that through thorough reading practice of the dialogue model, students could acknowledge “the way to make their conversations and help them a lot in both correcting their pronunciation and intonation mistakes” (Hong.01.SRI). Hence, it appeared that by providing students with a particular dialogue model and getting them to read it out for the whole class, these two pre-service teachers’ intention was to direct students into using that model for the next assigned activity, although both of them were aware that this kind of dialogue, to some extent, would not offer much help to the students with developing authentic speaking skills and communicative strategies. This approach to the teaching and learning of speaking was also observed in the other pre-service teachers’ lessons in this study.

In one of Gai’s lesson, after presenting new vocabulary on the board (see Section 7.1.1), like Chi and Hong, Gai introduced students to the dialogue model that she wanted them to employ. In this lesson, Gai used PowerPoint to support her teaching. After asking the students to work in pairs to use the words provided in the slide to fill in the blanks of the incomplete conversation, she let the students practise this conversation extensively for about three minutes. She then started rehearsing the model with the students to direct their attention primarily on to the language features.

Observational extract # 6

01 T: Now I’ll call upon some pairs to read this conversation. you, please. 02 S1: What do you think of horror films?

162

03 S2: Oh, I find them very terrifying. 04 S1: I don’t agree with you. I find them very interesting. 05 S2: So, horror films or cartoon films, which one do you prefer? 06 S1: Well, I prefer cartoon films to horror films. 07 T: Thank you, the next pair, please. (Gai.02.G10)

In her lesson, Gai continued using this pattern with another pair and then asked the students to practise. It was noted that after the first pair had finished reading the dialogue out for the whole class, Gai gave feedback on their pronunciation. The rationale she gave for this action was to “help students recognize their mistakes and importantly gain accuracy at the level of pronunciation” (Gai.02.SRI). This issue will be further discussed in Section 7.1.3. After getting two pairs to drill the dialogue for the whole class, Gai provided a lengthy explanation, at several points switching to the use of Vietnamese, of the use of grammatical structures embedded in this model.

Observational extract # 7

01 T: Now the whole class, look at the second sentence I find them very terrifying. Khi các em muốn bày tỏ cảm xúc của mình về một bộ phim nào đó thì ta có cấu trúc... When you want to express your feelings about a type of a film, we have a structure… 02 Ss: . 03 T: Chúng ta có cấu trúc I find cộng cho tân ngữ. Trong câu này là I find them nghĩa là horror films, và very cộng với tính từ terifying. We have a structure: I find plus object. In this sentence, I find them means I find horror films, and very plus adjective terrifying. Vậy, các em có cấu trúc I find plus O plus very plus Adj để bày tỏ sự yêu thích của mình về một bộ film nào đó. Hiểu chưa? Thus, you have a structure I find + O + very + Adj to express you feeling about a film. Understand? 04 Ss: Yes. 05 T: Now looks at these sentences So, horror films or cartoon films, which one do

163

you prefer? Well, I prefer cartoon films to horror films. Ở đây ta có cấu trúc so sánh. Đó là cấu trúc ... Here, we have a structure used to make comparison. The structure is… 06 Ss: Prefer…to 07 T: Yes, prefer …to. Vậy sau prefer ta cộng gì nào? So, what comes after prefer? 08 Ss: . 09 T: Well, I prefer cartoon films to horror films. Cartoon films là một danh từ và sau to là horror films cũng một danh từ. Cartoon films is a noun, and after to is horror films, also a noun. Các em hiểu không? Do you understand? 10 Ss: . 11 T: . Như vậy, ta có cấu trúc prefer cộng với danh từ rồi đến to cộng với danh từ. Thus, we have a structure: Prefer plus noun, then to plus noun. Tóm lại, chúng ta có hai cấu trúc như sau: Find + Object very/ really + Adj dùng để bày tỏ tình cảm của mình, và cấu trúc thứ hai là Prefer + N - to + N dùng để chỉ sự so sánh. Các em ghi vào đi. In summary, we have two structures . The first one is used to express feeling about a film, and the second is used to make comparison. Now copy them down, please. 12 Ss: . 13 T: Finish? 14 Ss: Yes. 15 T: Now we move to the next activity. (Gai.02.G10)

In this extract, Gai focused students’ attention explicitly on two structures in the dialogue model. Step by step, she elicited the structures from students, with an explanation of the usage of each structure as well as its formation. For example, in turn 01 and 03, Gai used Vietnamese to explain the rule and identify the form of the structure, “find + object + very + adj”, based on the sentence in the dialogue. It can be thus inferred that Gai’s explicit focus on forms was with the intention of helping

164

students understand and remember how to use those structures accurately in producing the language in the next activity and her use of Vietnamese was to strengthen this aim even further. This overall intention was confirmed in her stimulated recall section, as follows.

In this dialogue, I think there are two important structures that students should know, find + object + very + adj and prefer…to because they are the frame of the dialogue. In addition, in the textbook I see that these two structures are highlighted in bold. Therefore, if students are taught these structures, I think students can use them correctly in their speaking, and also structure the conversation. (Gai.02.SRI)

The extract above reflects the view that such language features in a text should be clarified to facilitate students’ performance of the activity and to help them to remember the structure. In other words, Gai seemed to believe that it was important to pick out the structures embedded in the dialogue that were highlighted in the text book and to teach them explicitly to students, so that they could learn “more language knowledge that they need to use in carrying out the activity” (Gai.02.SRI).

Explicit instruction on language structures embedded in the dialogue was also observed in other pre-service teachers’ lessons. For example, in another of her lessons, Chi also picked out the grammatical structure of conditional sentences, which was stressed in the textbook, and then presented it explicitly to students. In this lesson, it appeared that Chi was following what the textbook prescribed. The extract below is a detailed description of how Chi introduces this grammar point.

Observational extract # 8

01 T: Now the whole class, look at the poster If we hadn’t gone by coach, we wouldn’t have got carsick. If we had gone by bike, we wouldn’t have got carsick. Nếu chúng ta không đi bằng xe đò thì chúng ta sẽ không bị say xe. Nếu

165

chúng ta đi bằng xe đạp thì chúng ta không bị say xe. To express about unreal situations in the past, we use the conditional type three. Right. Để diễn tả những hành động trái với quá khứ ta dùng câu điều kiện loại ba. Ok. Now tell me how many clauses are there? 02 Ss: . 03 T: How many clauses are there? 04 Ss: . 05 T: Có bao nhiêu mệnh đề? How many clauses are there? 06 Ss: Two. 07 T: Two. They are… 08 Ss: If clause. 09 T: They are if clause and… 10 Ss: Main clause. 11 T: Main clause. Now What’s it? 12 Ss: Subject. 13 T: Subject. Right and here, what tense is it? 14 Ss: . 15 T: What tense is it? . 16 Ss: . 17 T: Past participle. Can you give me the form of past participle? 18 Ss: . 19 T: Động từ ở cột ba hoặc động từ thêm đuôi ed. Verb in the third column or verb plus ed. Subject plus had or had not plus verb past participle…Subject plus would not plus have plus verb past participle. So, we have the structure of the conditional type three if clause and main clause Again, in if clause we have subject plus had or had not plus verb past participle, and main clause, sorry we have to add if before subject in if clause Now in

166

main clause we have subject plus would not plus have plus verb past participle. If + S + had/hadn’t + V-pp, S +wouldn’t + have + V-pp. Again, this is the conditional type three used to express unreal situations in the past. Remember. We will learn more about this grammar point in the language focus section. Now your duty is to use this form and based on the information in Task 1 in the textbook to talk about your excursion. (Chi.01.G10)

In this extract, Chi intensively focused the students’ attention on the language feature of the conditional type three structure and explicitly taught it to them. When asked about the reason for teaching this particular language structure to students, like Gai, Chi stated that it was important for the teacher to make clear to students what language forms they needed to use in the activity. Also, Chi emphasized that helping students understand the form of structures in conversation was likely to underpin their speaking performance.

This structure [the conditional sentence] is the focal item of the activity and I want my students to learn it, and use it as a tool to support their speaking in the next activity. (Chi.01.SRI)

According to Chi, helping students to acquire language structures was a necessary step in the sense that it might help students to produce the language more easily and correctly.

Thus, the observations showed that a common teaching strategy was to provide students with particular dialogue models and then get them to practise intensively by reading these dialogues. These pre-service teachers’ comments suggest that they assumed these language models could facilitate the students’ speaking ability and their ability to complete the activities. The major focus underpinning these practices seemed to be the promotion of accuracy rather than development of fluency in the learners’ speaking skills.

167

After rehearsing a scripted written dialogue was completed, it was commonly observed that the eight pre-service teachers required students to carry out a further activity, using substitution ideas from the textbook. Students were asked to make up a new conversation, based on the framework of the dialogue provided in the previous activity, and replacing the information. Hence, the participants appeared to assume that students would have the model in mind and know how to produce it. In this regard, as criticized by Saito et al. (2008, p.92), Vietnamese education tends to “force mechanical abilities on students and pay little attention to real-life practical abilities”. According to Duggan (2001), this teaching strategy leads teachers to force more rote-learning on students and compels them to strictly follow the textbook when conducting lessons. Following are some extracts that illustrate how the participants in this study got the students to build up new conversations. Observational extract # 9 below is from a lesson taught by Hong.

Observational extract # 9

01 T: Now we move to another activity, making a similar dialogue about collecting stamps. You use the suggested information in the textbook, page 149 to replace the information here .You work in pairs and you have five minutes to make a your own dialogue. Now let’s do it. 02 Ss: . 03 T: Ok. Stop. Who volunteers? 04 Ss: . 05 T: No one. Ok, I’ll call. you and you, please. Now the whole class keeps silent and listens. 06 S1: What is your hobby, Nam? 07 S2: Well, I like collecting stamps. 08 S1: Could you tell me how you collect your stamps? 09 S2: Well, this must be done regularly. I ask members of my family, friends, relatives and postmen. I also make pen friends with people overseas exchange stamps with others.

168

10 S1: Where do you buy your stamps? 11 S2: I buy from post office. 12 S1: How do you organize your collection? 13 S2: I classify them into different categories: animals, plants, birds, landscape, football players, singers etc. 14 S1: What do you plan to do next, Nam? 15 S2: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 16 T: Thank you. Who’s next? (Hong.01.G11)

It was observed that Hong continued this pattern with two more pairs. As she did in the previous activity, Hong gave feedback on students’ performance and corrected their pronunciation errors after the students had completed producing the conversations. It was observed that there was little evidence to show that the students were likely to expand their ability for free expression, or fluency in speaking. In this activity, Hong guided the students to the same language model, and she seemed to be concerned about language form, rather than meaning. In other words, Hong’s focus was more on accuracy than fluency.

In another lesson, Phuong also asked her students to act out new conversations, based on the model that she had introduced to the students in the previous activity. Below is an extract that describes the procedure that Phuong used, where she asked the students to take turns, asking and answering questions about the sports results of Vietnamese athletes at the 14th Asian Games, drawing on information from a table in the textbook.

Observational extract # 10

01 T: Now the next activity, making a similar dialogue. The whole class look at this model .You take turns to talk about the sports results of Vietnamese athletes at the 14th Asian Games, using the information form in the textbook, page 140. You have about five minutes. Now let’s start. 02 Ss: .

169

03 T: Ok, stop. I’ll call upon some pairs. you and you, please. 04 S1: Where were the 14th Asian Games held? 05 S2: It was held in Busan, Korea. 06 S1: Which sports did Vietnamese athletes take part in? 07 S2: Uh…bodybuilding, billiards, karatedo, shooting and wushu. 08 S1: How many medals did Vietnamese athletes win? 09 S2: Ten. 10 S1: Which sports did Vietnamese athletes win the most medals? 11 S2: Karatedo with three medals. 12 S1: Which sports did Vietnamese athletes win the gold medals? 13 S2: Bodybuilding, billiards, karatedo. 14 T: Thank you. (Phuong.01.G11)

After Phuong had finished giving feedback on the first pair’s performance, she invited two more pairs to stand up to produce the speaking before moving on to the post- speaking activity. It can be said that what the students learnt to produce in this activity was more like a substitution drill than a natural conversation. In other words, students’ learning of speaking through such a way resulted in a very stilted and unnatural conversation more like an interview than an authentic exchange. Thus, it can be seen that there was no evidence of spontaneous information exchanges in the above extract, since it appeared that the students were expected to pay more attention to the form of what they were saying, rather than using the language for meaningful information exchange. The students in the above extracts merely made substitutions, replaced the information in the model, utilized display questions and drilled techniques. In this regard, as Brown (2007a) argues, substitution drills are meaningless as they spotlight only limited language structures through repetition. As a result, students feel discouraged from speaking.

For the post-speaking activity, most of the participants required students to undertake an activity-known as Reporting or Telling a story. According to Binh, the post-phase

170

activity was largely conducted in “an open manner for free talking” (Binh, 01.SRI). The intention was that, in this activity, students were provided with more opportunities to produce the target language freely. However, it was evident that students were asked to tell their own story or make a report about what they had found out about their partners in the previous activity, also based on a suggested example prepared by the teacher. In fact, the post-phase speaking activity was rarely completed in most of the lessons, since the majority of the class time, restricted to 45 minutes in length (see Chapters 2 & 5), had been used for presenting new language items and grammatical structures embedded in the dialogue, practising the language model and giving corrective feedback.

With regard to the reason why they also provided students with an example in the post- speaking activity of the lesson, all the participants gave rationales that the purpose for giving an example in the reporting or retelling activity was two-fold. It both served as a source of reference for students to create their speaking and helped the teachers to save time. For example, Hong explained her view about giving an example in the reporting activity in her stimulated recall session.

By giving the students a sample in the [post-speaking] activity, I hope that the students will know the way to report. I mean they know what to say, how to start and end a report. (Hong.01.SRI)

Similarly, Phuong explained that it would be difficult for students who were not interested in learning English, or had limited spoken English ability to make a report “without showing them how to do” (Phuong.01.SRI). Phuong believed that providing students with an example could, to some extent, reduce students’ anxiety in learning speaking because of their limited English proficiency, and importantly she was more able to control the time for the activity.

Agreeing with the view of Hong and Phuong, Binh shared his ideas that providing an example was a useful tool in framing students’ work for the activity. According to Binh, giving an example to students was very important since it could guide students to develop their ideas in a logical way. He stressed, “Like grammar instruction, the students should be given an example so that they can acknowledge the way to do”

171

(Binh.02.SRI). In the same way, Chi placed much emphasis on the role of giving an example in the post-phase speaking activity. She said:

In my viewpoint, in order to help students feel easy to carry out the reporting activity the teacher should provide them with a frame like the model in every conversation. If students do not have the framework as a reference, they will feel confused about what and how to do. In addition, it can take much time for the students to prepare for the activity. Therefore, I do not want to risk my lesson without providing students with an example. (Chi.02.SRI) Below is an extract from Chi’s class, where she asked her students to work in groups, reporting what they had discussed in the previous activity (their tastes in music) before she called upon some representatives of the groups to perform their speaking in front of the class.

Observational extract # 11

01 T: Now the last activity, Reporting. You have got some information from your friends about his or her taste of music. Now, I would like you to report that information to the whole class. You have five minutes to do this activity. I also give you an example. . Tam likes pop music because it makes her relaxed. Tam’s favorite band is Westlife, and her favorite song is Only Love. She often listens to music in her free time. Ok. Now you will do the activity. You work in groups of four and make a similar report. This is an example you can follow to make your own report. 02 Ss: . 03 T: Finish? 04 Ss: . 05 T: Ok, one more minute.

172

06 Ss: . 07 T: Ok. Time’s up. Now, who volunteers? 08 Ss: . 09 T: Ok, you, please. The class keeps silent and listens, please. 10 S1: Giang like (likes) folk music / because it make (makes) her happy. Giang (Giang’s) favorite band (is) Tam Ca Ao Trang, and / her favorite song (is) / Tinh Tham Duyen Que. She / often listen (listens to) music in her free time. 11 T: Thank you. Another student (Chi.02.G10)

In another lesson, Binh also followed this pattern to get the students to speak in front of the class. Observational extract # 12 below illustrates the strategy that he used in the post phase of the lesson to conduct the reporting activity.

Observational extract # 12

01 T: Now we move to the final activity, introducing a movie that you are interested in. I want you to work in pairs, and I give you a handout containing the suggestions. Kind of film- reason, Name of the film, Where and when you see it? What is about? The main character? How do you feel about it? Why do you prefer it to the other films? Based on this handout, you will talk to your partner about the film you like. You have five minutes to do this activity. After that I will call upon some students to introduce your film in front of the class. To make it easier I have already given an example in the handout. Look at it, you can make your similar story. I like love story film because it is really romantic. This film is Titanic. I saw it when I was seven. It is about the love story between Jack and Rose and the disaster of the ship Titanic. The main characters are Jack and Rose. It is very romantic and it makes me feel sad when

173

Jack died. I prefer this film because it is a mystery; it has brought a lot of feeling to people. Now work in pairs to tell your interesting film. 02 Ss: . 03 T: Time’s up. Now I want to invite some of you, come here to tell your interesting film. Who’s first? 04 Ss: . 05 T: Volunteer, please. 06 Ss: . 07 T: Ok. This pair, you, please. (The bell then rings) (Binh.02.G10)

As mentioned earlier, the activity in the report phase of the lesson was scarcely ever completed because of the time constraints. Out of 16 lessons I observed, there were only three lessons in which the students had time to produce the language in this activity. However, there was little evidence of real communication produced in the reporting activity. Like the practice activity presented above, what the students actually learned about speaking in this phase was to keep to the sample, and to build up their spoken production based on it. Thus, it can be seen that students’ spoken language in the production stage also involved a heavy dependence on the teacher’s sample although they were assumed to produce the language in a free manner. It appeared that in the post stage of the lesson the participants provided the students with few opportunities to use the language through genuine interaction that would encourage them to go on learning speaking.

The above extracts, among various others in this study, illuminated the common patterns in the participants’ classroom practices. Although students were often required to work in pairs or groups, they were largely directed to focus on form rather than meaning. Most of the speaking activities observed in the classroom in this study appeared to be a form of language practice through the use of explicit dialogue models. As such, it seems that ultimately the eight pre-service teachers were concerned about students’ correct production of language rather than meaningful communication. This evidence was further confirmed in the recall sessions where all the pre-service teachers

174

reported that most of the speaking lesson objectives that they had recorded in their teaching plans (see an sample in Appendix Q) were not achieved. In general, they revealed their dissatisfaction with what had happened during their lessons. For example, Thanh said:

Although I tried my best to encourage students to speak English in the classroom through pair or group works in order to help them use the language both accurately and fluently, what I realized was that students’ speaking learning was tightly controlled for repetition and memorization. Students were not interested in doing the activities. For example, they only read the dialogue once instead of three or four times as I required, and then they talked to each other in Vietnamese. They often looked at the paper, in which the speaking had been prepared for and read it out. I had a feeling that my speaking lesson looked like a reading lesson. (Thanh.01.SRI)

Similarly, Nguyet expressed her disappointment when asked to comment on one of her speaking lessons.

I feel unhappy with my [speaking] lesson today because I could not finish it on time. Students seemed not to be active to learn speaking as I expected although I had asked them to prepare for the lesson at home. It was common to see that instead of working in pairs or groups to make their own conversations or tell their partners about what they had done in the previous activity, most of the students in my lesson preferred to work individually to write down the speaking in a paper, based on my sample. When I called on some students to stand up and speak, they looked at the textbook or the paper and then read it out. (Nguyet. 02. SRI)

Echoing Thanh and Nguyet’s explanations and like other pre-service teachers, Nam also commented on his dissatisfaction. Nam emphasized that his speaking lessons “heavily depends on the textbook activities” (Nam.01.SRI), where he had to keep the learners attentive to drills and language model practice. He further reasoned that although he acknowledged that “speech can be developed through structure” and that “practice

175

makes perfect” (Nam.02.SRI), the learners in his lessons were characterized as organisms (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013; Richards & Rodgers, 2014), being an imitator to produce correct responses rather than a negotiator of communication as he had stated in the interview.

As what you observed in my lessons, step by step I followed the activities presented in the textbook to teach speaking to students. Students learnt the model first, and then made their conversations based on this model, just replacing information also provided in the textbook… Teaching speaking like this way seemed to be a traditional way, and that the reason why students were not interested in learning speaking in my lessons. (Nam.02.SRI)

Following Nam’s comments above, Binh also argued for a sense of control and authority in the classroom. He explained that under the dialogue framework for teaching and learning speaking, students’ spoken language was seen merely as a classroom interaction which took the form of a question and answer session. Therefore, he stressed that he had to control “the direction and pace of students’ learning” (Binh.01.SRI). Binh’s explanation for his teacher-dominated practices in teaching speaking was reflected in most of the pre-service teachers’ recall interviews. Like Binh, Gai reported that her speaking lessons were not student-oriented. She stressed that most of the time in her lessons she taught in the roles of modeler, controller, knowledge transmitter and corrector.

I dominantly worked as a central and active role in the teaching. I modeled the language, controlled the pace of learning, and monitored and corrected the students’ speaking performance although I sometimes moved around the class, observing and providing students with some help while students were doing what I required them to do. (Gai.02.SRI)

This section has illustrated that, in all the lessons observed, there was little evidence to show that activities that promoted meaningful communication were conducted by the eight pre-service teachers in this study. In other words, the participants’ teaching was

176

predominantly non-communicative. Students were generally required to speak, following models that were presented by the teachers. Therefore, divergences between the participants’ stated perceptions and classroom practices regarding the teaching of speaking in this study were greatly in evidence. As discussed in the semi-structured interviews, they almost universally stressed that they would provide the students with maximum opportunities to speak English fluently and naturally.

The following section presents how the eight pre-service teachers carried out corrective feedback on the students’ speaking performance.

7.1.3. Corrective feedback

As presented in Section 6.2, a larger number of the participants reported in the semi- structured interviews that they wanted to encourage students to develop fluency rather than accuracy in their speaking instruction. However, analysis from the observation data showed that to various extents all eight pre-service teachers in this study gave corrective feedback in speaking lessons (this discrepancy will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8). In this respect, the participants reflected current trends in the literature that error correction in language learning holds an important place. For example, many researchers (e.g., Chu, 2011; Hunter, 2012; Ellis, 2009b; Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Roothooft, 2014; Sarandi, 2016; Sheen & Ellis, 2011) argue that there is positive evidence from SLA studies that shows the benefit of error correction in language pedagogy. In the same vein, Mori (2011, p.453) states that the corrective feedback that the teacher provides in the classroom “constitutes the input regarding the well- formedness of learners’ utterances arising during the oral interaction”.

In this study, corrective feedback mostly happened in the while-stage of the lesson, where rehearsal of the presented dialogue model took place, and where students were asked to produce new conversations, based on the provided model (see Section 7.1.2). For the post-phase of the lesson where students were asked to perform their activity individually in an open manner in front of the class, little evidence of corrective feedback was observed. This situation may have been due to time constraints, as

177

mentioned earlier, since most of the participants were unable to complete their lessons within the time allocation.

Nevertheless, the type of corrective feedback given was limited. Most corrective feedback offered by the eight pre-service teachers dealt with the students’ pronunciation and grammatical structure errors. Also, it was evident that the most frequent technique for corrective feedback was explicit correction (Carroll & Swain, 1993; Dlaska & Krekeler, 2013; Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006; Ellis, 2009b; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster, Saito & Sato, 2012; Mori, 2011; Rassaei, 2013). According to Mori (2011, p.456), explicit corrective feedback means “the provision of a correct form with a clear indication that an error has been made”. When the teachers noticed the students producing spoken language incorrectly in terms of pronunciation and/or grammatical structures, they got the students to repeat “the corrected form” (Harmer, 2007b, p.131) following the teachers’ model. There was also evidence to show that the participants employed two strategies when correcting the students’ errors. The first was individual repetition and the second was choral repetition. It seemed also that the strategies that the participants used to treat students’ errors may have been drawn from observations of their supervisors’ and other English teachers’ lessons in their practicum school. As Phuong said, “although I was taught many different techniques to deal with students’ errors in the teacher-training course, the correction technique I used in my [speaking] lessons was adopted from my supervisor” (Phuong.01.SRI). In the same vein, Binh revealed that the way he corrected his students’ errors was taken from his observation of other teachers. He said:

When observing my supervisor’s and other teachers’ lessons, I recognize that they used different strategies to correct students’ errors. However, I see that choral repetition was commonly used in speaking lessons. So, I take it. (Binh.01.SRI)

Three pre-service teachers (Nam, Gai and Phuong) favored providing corrective feedback to individuals rather than to the whole class. In the stimulated recall that followed, these teachers reported that they wanted to help each student experience the errors that they made and the reason why they made those errors. They believed that

178

once students acknowledged the errors they would remember them and might avoid them next time. Given such beliefs, after each pair had completed their performance, these teachers gave explicit correction to each student in the pair for individual repetition. For example, in one of his lessons when asking students to talk about the type of music that they like, Nam provided his comments and feedback on the first pair’s performance before calling upon other partners to continue the activity. Below is an example that shows how Nam treated students’ errors of pronunciation and grammatical structures.

Observational extract # 13

01 T: Thank you, but for the next time, both of you should raise your voice in order that everyone in the class can hear what you say. Also, you should pay attention to your pronunciation and grammar. now read after me. Because . 02 S1: Because. 03 T: Because. 04 S1: Because. 05 T: Like. 06 S1: Like. 07 T: Listen to. 08 S1: Listen to 09 T: Favourite. 10 S2: Favourite. 11 T: What is your favourite song? 12 S2: What is your favourite song? 13 T: Thank you. Remember what is not what do your favourite song? . 14 T: Next pair, please. (Nam.02.G.10)

Explaining the reasons why he provided such explicit corrective feedback in his lesson, Nam argued that although he was always conscious that helping students to develop

179

their ability to communicate in the target language was the goal of speaking instruction, the students in his assigned classes were not competent in producing spoken language confidently. He said:

As I said in the [semi-structured] interview, I always expect my students to speak English not only accurately but also fluently because they learn English a lot for many years. But you can see that they [the students in his classes] are too weak in communication. They made mistakes and seemed to be reluctant to speak up. (Nam.02.SRI)

For this reason, Nam further explained, to some extent, students might work well with grammar rules and structures when doing sentence transformation or grammar exercises for example; however, they found it hard to express themselves. In support of this point, Thornbury (2005, p.iv) notes that it is generally accepted that “knowing a language and being able to speak it are not synonymous”.

Regarding the role of corrective feedback, Nam commented that when errors occurred he aimed to heighten awareness of the errors and help students experience those errors, in an attempt to encourage them to produce the language accurately. It seemed that Nam’s comment reflected the expectations of both teacher educators and supervising teachers that accuracy is an essential feature that should be focused on first in teaching speaking (see Section 5.2). Given his perception of the limited proficiency level of students, Nam stressed that error correction had significant effects on their language development. He said:

For students who are unable to communicate in English, I think that helping them recognize their errors is one of the effective ways to facilitate their language learning, and gradually they can build up confidence in speaking that language. Errors are seen as the guide to correctness and accuracy. (Nam.02.SRI)

Nam’s comment aligns with the findings by Mori (2011, p.464) that through corrective feedback teachers were not only concerned with improving students’ linguistic

180

competence, but also with “promot[ing] and instill[ing] values such as confidence, independence, and a reasonable ability to communicate”.

Echoing Nam’s explanation, Gai also highly valued the importance of error correction in speaking instruction. She commented that corrective feedback should not only be used for teaching grammar or writing, but was also relevant in speaking instruction. She explained, “Accuracy in communication is very crucial. Students may be able to progress from speaking with reduced anxiety in the classroom activities if they speak English correctly” (Gai.02.SRI). It seemed that Gai believed strongly in the impact of error correction on students’ engagement in spoken language, and believed that corrective feedback could help those who committed errors, as well as other students who heard the correction to avoid repeating the errors. In her stimulated recall interview, Gai clarified that:

I had to correct students’ errors and let each of them know what the types of errors are and why these errors were made although I know that errors are inevitable in learning process. In the use of this correction technique, I think I did not eliminate students’ outcome because I corrected their errors after they had finished their speaking. Importantly, I want other students, the next pairs who would be called on to stand up to speak in the activity to learn those errors and speak better. (Gai.02.SRI)

From the above extract, Gai considered errors as natural and unavoidable in the language learning process, and saw teachers’ error correction as a chance for vicarious learning, and significant in the sense that it could prompt learners to produce language intelligibly and correctly. However, as the teacher’s corrective feedback was directed to particular learners, it could be that the students were threatened by being corrected all the time, which potentially demotivates them to take part in classroom activities for fear of losing face through criticism. The extract below illuminates the technique that Gai employed in correcting an individual in class when noticing students committing errors in pronunciation while performing the activity. In this pattern, like Nam, Gai gave her comments first, and then focused students’ attention extensively towards pronunciation errors.

181

Observational extract # 14

01 T: Good. Two of you did well in this activity, but you need to pay attention to your pronunciation, particularly ending sounds and stress. now read after me. Films . 02 S1: Film. 03 T: No. Films 04 S1: Films. 05 T: Terrifying. 06 S1: Terrifying. 07 T: Prefer. 08 S1: Prefer. 09 T: and you. Detective . 10 S2: Detective. 11 T: Prefer. 12 S2: Prefer. 13 T: Cartoon. 14 S2: Cartoon. 15 T: Thank you. Remember to pay attention to final sounds and stress of the word. 16 T: The next pair, please. (Gai.02.G.10)

In this pattern, Gai paid much attention to students’ pronunciation mistakes and corrected them in the form of repetition and stress, for example, ‘films’ (03), ‘prefer’ (07) and ‘detective’ (09). It seemed that Gai selected what she thought needed to be corrected and made students practice, with the aim of helping the students who committed the errors as well as encouraging other students to notice and avoid making the same errors. In other words, Gai’s behavior implied a particular belief about how to help the students understand their mistakes and notice correct forms in their language production.

182

In another lesson, Phuong also used the same corrective feedback strategy to deal with students’ errors. The procedure that Phuong used, as for the other teachers, was not to interrupt students in mid-flow (Harmer, 2007; Roothooft, 2014) to point out the errors. Rather she provided corrective feedback after each pair had finished their performance. The following extract confirms this approach.

Observational extract # 15

01 T: now remember, when speaking you should be face to face, no looking at the paper and reading out. Also both of you should raise your voice. There are some words that you pronounce incorrectly. now repeat. Like . 02 S1: Like. 03 T: Books. 04 S1: Books. 05 T: Regularly. 06 S1: Regularly. 07 T: Books . 08 S2: Books. 09 T: Immediately. 10 S2: Immediately. 11 T: Classify into. 12 S2: Classify into. 13 T: Ok. The next pair, please. (Phuong.02.G.11)

Phuong explained that in order to help students produce spoken language clearly and intelligibly, one of the teacher’s functions was to “point out and correct the errors the students were making” (Phuong.01.SRI). The above extract illustrates that Phuong, like others in the present study, paid much attention to correcting students’ pronunciation and grammar mistakes. According to Phuong, language learners’ errors should not be tolerated if they restricted communication. Like Nam and Gai, Phuong also commented that teachers should spend time correcting students’ errors, since “when conveying

183

meaning, there are two important issues that need to be taken into consideration: pronunciation and grammar structures” (Phuong.01.SRI).

In contrast to the individual strategy of error correction, five pre-service teachers (Binh, Thanh, Nguyet, Hong and Chi) focused students’ attention explicitly on the errors that they made by asking the whole class for choral repetition. Giving their rationales why they decided to correct students’ errors by adopting the choral repetition approach, most of these participants commonly reported that this strategy was widely used by teachers at their practicum school, and they found that language learners in their classes were “unable to speak English” (Binh.01.SRI) or were “weak in terms of pronunciation” (Thanh.01.SRI). Interestingly, Hong stressed that errors would lead to “the formation of bad habits” that might cause students not to “progress in their inter-language continuum” (Hong.01.SRI). According to Hong, students’ errors would easily become fossilized if teachers did not provide corrective feedback. This comment implied that it was the teacher’s responsibility to correct students’ errors in order to ensure the linguistic accuracy of the utterance (Chu, 2011; Ellis, 2009b; Mori, 2011).

In one of her stimulated recall interviews, Chi argued that students seemed to feel insecure in speaking, which prevented them from participating fully in the activities. According to Chi, students’ lack of confidence and motivation in communication were among the major factors that slowed down the progress of the lesson, and consequently impeded effectiveness in her classroom speaking instruction. By comparing students’ attitudes towards and participation in her reading and speaking lessons, Chi said:

When teaching reading skill, I found that students were active to work with each other. They felt quite confident in answering the questions. I think we [she and her students] had a friendly community and a relaxed atmosphere in this session. In contrast, in speaking lesson students seemed not to be eager in the activities. They avoided being called on and were afraid to speak out. (Chi.02.SRI)

Regarding her corrective feedback strategy, Nguyet claimed that she was advised by her supervisor to be sensitive to how effective it was to correct students’ individual errors

184

publicly in class. Consequently, according to Nguyet, choral repetition for error correction was very useful, since this technique meant the students who made errors “avoided being criticized by others and depriving them of self-confidence” (Nguyet.01.SRI). In one of her lessons, after calling upon three pairs to stand up to read the dialogue out for the whole class, Nguyet went on to provide general comments and feedback on these students’ performances to the whole class. Below is an extract that illuminates how Nguyet treated her students’ errors.

Observational extract # 16

01 T: You did well in your job, but when standing up to speak, all of you need to speak louder and pay attention to your pronunciation. Now the whole class read after me. Hobbies . 02 Ss: Hobbies. 03 T: Hobbies. 04 Ss: Hobbies. 05 T: Books. 06 Ss: Books. 07 T: Regularly. 08 Ss: Regularly. 09 T: Immediately. 10 Ss: Immediately. 11 T: Like collecting. 12 Ss: Like collecting. 13 T: Buy from. 14 Ss: Buy from. 15 T: Thank you. Now we move to the next activity. (Nguyet.02.G.11)

In another lesson, Hong also employed the same strategy to correct students’ errors. She explained that giving corrective feedback chorally, to some extent, could help her “save time” and “keep safe” for students who made errors (Hong.01.SRI). In particular, Hong argued that choral repetition was “an effective technique to attract the whole class attention when dealing with errors” (Hong.01.SRI). In the rehearsal phase of the lesson,

185

when noticing the students who had pronounced the numbers of the years incorrectly in their conversation, Hong decided to focus their attention on to this type of error by asking the whole class to read in chorus. The way that she undertook this correction was complementary to the other four teachers’ views of the importance of correctness in students’ spoken language. The extract below illustrates Hong’s error correction strategy.

Observational extract # 17

01 T: Most of you try to raise your voice and speak louder next time, also pay attention to your pronunciation. When you want to say the year you need to do like this. For example, 1951 you should say nineteen and then fifty-one. Now repeat. Nineteen-fifty-one . 02 Ss: Nineteen-fifty-one. 03 T: Nineteen-fifty-four. 04 Ss: Nineteen- fifty-four. 05 T: Nineteen-fifty-eight. 06 Ss: Nineteen-fifty-eight. 07 T: Nineteen-sixty-two. 08 Ss: Nineteen-sixty-two. 09 T: Thank you. (Hong.02.G.11)

It was noted that after getting all the students to repeat the years chorally, Hong called upon one student to say the years again. The reason she invited the student to read the years out, instead of moving to the next activity like other pre-service teachers did, was, as Hong stressed, that it had to be done: “I want to make sure that students memorize this way and pronounce the year correctly whenever they meet” (Hong.02.SRI). It can be assumed that Hong wanted to provide the whole class with more opportunities to experience correct reference to the years.

186

Observational extract # 18

01 T: Who can help me to say the years again? Now who? Who? yes, you please. 02 T: . 03 S1: Nineteen-fifty-one. 04 T: . 05 S1: Nineteen- fifty-four. 06 T: . 07 S1: Nineteen-fifty-eight. 08 T: . 09 S1: Nineteen-sixty-two. 10 T: Good. (Hong.02.G11)

According to Hong, it was common that students were often unwilling to participate in speaking activities in the classroom. Therefore, she felt if teachers interrupted and drew students’ attention to errors for linguistic correctness or precise meaning, their attempts at conversation might be at risk. She said:

In general, our students are accustomed to class as a passive activity. In speaking lesson, they do seem reluctant to speak out because they are afraid of making mistakes. When teachers interrupt and correct them, this action may break down the conversation and reduce their willingness to engage in the next activities. (Hong.02.SRI)

Agreeing with Hong’s comments, Thanh also argued that students often “fear losing face when being corrected individually in class” (Thanh.01.SRI). In Thanh’s view, language teachers should be conscious of learners’ sensitivity, and correction needed to be done positively. Thanh explained, “Students may find corrective feedback very demotivating and become afraid to speak if teachers disturb their conversation” (Thanh.01.SRI). In other words, Thanh implied that interruption for error correction potentially destroyed students’ conversational flow. This comment is in line with the claim made by various scholars that teacher intervention in such circumstances may

187

“raise stress levels and stop the acquisition process in its tracks” (Harmer, 2007, p.105). For this reason, Thanh argued that the most advisable way to treat students’ errors effectively was to provide correction in “an indirect and moderate manner”, since the purpose of giving corrective feedback was “a chance not just for the students who made errors, but also for others in the class to learn the errors” (Thanh.01.SRI). Therefore, like other pre-service teachers, Thanh had a high opinion of teacher error-correction and valued a choral repetition strategy. However, the way Thanh treated her students’ errors in speaking instruction seems to be in line with a very consistent pattern followed by other teachers. Following is one of the extracts of Thanh’s lesson where she used her correction strategy after students had finished their performances.

Observational extract # 19

01 T: There are some common errors that most of you made when speaking. Now the whole class read after me. Countries . 02 Ss: Countries. 03 T: Take part in. 04 Ss: Take part in. 05 T: Sports. 06 Ss: Sports. 07 T: Were held. 08 Ss: Were held. 09 T: Japan. 10 Ss: Japan. 11 T: China. 12 Ss: China. 13 T: Thank you. Now the next activity, making a similar dialogue. (Thanh.02.G.11)

From the illustrated extracts above, it appeared that the eight pre-service teachers in this study all stressed the value of corrective feedback in classroom practices. It can also be seen that two common reasons were given. One reason was that in their view most of

188

the students were limited in producing the target language. Also, from the school where they did the practicum they experienced that their supervisors as well as other English teachers corrected students when they made errors. Therefore, as the extracts illustrate, while the participants placed a major focus on accuracy in corrective feedback, there seemed to be little concern for fluency. The data show that most of the corrective feedback given by the eight pre-service teachers focused overwhelmingly on pronunciation and grammar structures, rather than on the meaning of the students’ language production. Also, in all the correction episodes, it was evident that the participants adopted two strategies, individual repetition and choral repetition, to deal with students’ errors. They all seemed to value explicit techniques for error correction highly and used it in correcting their students’ speaking in class.

In the next section, Section 7.2, I will present the factors that affected the participants’ speaking instruction in classrooms.

7.2. Factors that affected and shaped the participants’ classroom practices

This section reports on the eight pre-service teachers’ opinions about factors that affected and shaped their teaching of speaking in the classroom. As described in Chapter 4, there was a total of 16 stimulated recall interviews, which were conducted immediately after the participants finished their lessons. From analysis of these recall data, four themes emerged and were categorized, namely: students’ motivation for learning speaking, teaching materials, class-size, and school supervisors’ teaching experience and methods. Each of these themes will be discussed and presented in turn in the following sections.

7.2.1. Students’ motivation for learning speaking

As is revealed from the stimulated recall data, the eight pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their students’ low motivation for learning speaking seemed to have a major influence on classroom practices. The participants commented that most of the students were either not interested or not motivated to take part in classroom activities. In other words, the participants seemed to believe that students in their assigned classes

189

were unwilling to communicate in English, which in turn contributed to a less-than- satisfactory learning environment for speaking instruction (see also Section 7.1.2). According to the eight pre-service teachers, their students’ lack of motivation when learning speaking could be accounted for by two main reasons: a low level of English proficiency and school-based examinations.

Students’ low English proficiency was the first reason that restricted them in getting involved in classroom speaking activities. As pointed out in Section 7.1.2, after approaching the practicum school, all eight pre-vice teachers concluded that students’ English level in their assigned classes was very poor. For this reason, they perceived that students had little interest in learning speaking. For example, Nguyet commented, “my students do not show any enthusiasm when learning speaking although I often go around the class to encourage them to speak” (Nguyet.01.SRI). According to Nguyet, because of their lack of enthusiasm students were not competent to produce the target language accurately and they lacked confidence for fear of making mistakes. In addition, Nguyet stressed that most of the students were not aware of the idea of learning English for communication. A main reason, she believed was the importance given to school examinations and their role in the education system. This second reason will be further discussed below.

Supporting Nguyet’s opinions, Gai explained her view that students often completed activities mechanically rather than developing themselves as communicative speakers, because of their inadequate communicative competence. Gai stated that, “[a] poor level of speaking ability prevents many students to attend speaking class actively” (Gai.01.SRI), implying that students’ inactive participation seemed to pose the biggest challenge to the teaching of speaking. Similarly, Phuong argued that due to a mixed level of English proficiency and problems in pronunciation, students seemed not to cooperate with each other when asked to work in pairs or groups. These problematic issues, according to Phuong, implicitly prevented the class from participating effectively in communicative activities. In her stimulated recall session, Phuong said:

190

In my lessons, I observed that most students often worked individually to read the dialogue rather than played roles with their partners. When being called upon to stand up to speak, they looked at the textbook and read a conversation out without paying attention to their pronunciation and noticing whether other students in class can hear, understand or not. They just wanted to finish their performance quickly and sit down. (Phuong.02.SRI)

In a further recall interview, Binh also reasoned that low English proficiency was the major factor that limited students’ engagement in classroom activities. According to Binh, students’ pronunciation was very problematic. Binh found that students were “under confident to raise their voice” (Binh.01.SRI). In this regard, Binh believed that students were worried about their poor pronunciation and insufficient range of vocabulary. Binh stressed that these underlying factors meant students remained silent in classroom communication contexts, which contributed to the poor quality of both the teaching and learning of speaking.

In the same vein, Nam pointed out students’ unwillingness to participate in classroom activities as the students believed that they were of limited proficiency. Nam argued that, due to their limitations in terms of pronunciation and lack of self-confidence as speakers, students were reluctant during times of English practice. Nam clarified his view by saying that:

Many students came up to me after the lesson and said: For the next [speaking] lesson, please don’t call on me because I am afraid that nobody can understand me what I say. I don’t want to waste your time and disappoint you. Call on those who put up their hands. (Nam.01.SRI)

It appeared that from Nam’s point of view students’ lack of motivation and cooperation with each other in speaking activities hindered his desire to develop an English- speaking environment in class.

191

The second reason that impeded students’ active participation in classroom activities was the pressure of school-based examinations. It was noted the participants shared the view that students mainly learned English for examinations. This perception is consistent with Le and Barnard’s (2009) study which indicated that Vietnamese language learners were extremely motivated to learn English instrumentally for school examinations. In this study too, all pre-service teachers believed that for most learners language usage, or competence, was more important than language use, or performance, which reflected students’ low command of learning English for oral communication. The participants argued that ultimately teaching English at school was designed to prepare students to pass examinations, which acted as “a deterrent to actually learning speaking” (Nam.01.SRI).

In general, the participants expressed the view that English teachers at the school where they were completing their practicum appeared to stress teaching methods relevant to students’ goals of passing examinations, and placed emphasis on the role of grammar and vocabulary in English lessons. Moreover, they observed that students were “familiar with the teaching styles provided by their school teachers” (Hong.01.SRI), and were “only interested in learning English to pass examinations” (Binh.01.SRI).

Nguyet commented that the learners she taught were not “accustomed to speaking English during the lesson” (Nguyet.01.SRI). Phuong also pointed out that students preferred to “learn other English skills rather than speaking” (Phuong.01.SRI). She explained that in those lessons teachers would help students acquire a strong knowledge of grammar in order to use that knowledge in examinations. Consequently, Phuong commented that learning English with such perceptions resulted in “the learners’ characteristics of being quiet and shy in speaking classes” (Phuong.01.SRI). Agreeing with Phuong’s view, Hong also argued that students had little interest in English conversation due to examination pressure. She explained that school examinations were designed in accordance with the national framework, in which students answered questions only in written form. Hong saw this requirement as a problem as, “this underlying cause, to a large extent, prevents students from learning to speak English in classrooms” (Hong.01.SRI). As the participants highlighted, lack of exposure to the

192

target language for communication and the pressure of examinations resulted in students’ lack of motivation in learning speaking.

Overall, such comments suggest a common trend observed by the eight pre-service teachers that language teachers and learners devalued speaking skills, and that speaking for communicative purposes was a neglected skill in language classrooms. Clearly, the ‘washback’ effect of school examinations, and also university entrance examinations exerted a powerful influence on the teaching practices the pre-service teachers observed.

7.2.2. Teaching materials

Teaching material is another contextual factor that challenged the participants’ speaking instruction. In the observational data, it was evident that all eight pre-service teachers relied heavily on the textbook to teach speaking. As mentioned in Chapters 2 and 5, textbook-based instruction is compulsory and widespread in the educational system of Vietnam. This means that the eight pre-service teachers in this study did not have the freedom of choosing their own instructional materials for their classroom practices. They had to follow strictly the teaching curriculum assigned by the MOET. In other words, as Hong commented, “textbooks are the law” (Hong.01.SRI), prescribing what to teach, what is to be learnt, and how much time is to be spent on the delivery of instruction. Such compulsion strongly impacted upon the participants’ practice of speaking instruction, as presented in Section 7.1.2. In this section, two dimensions in the data related to teaching materials, that particularly affected the participants’ instructional actions are discussed: the nature of the activities and time allocation split in the lesson.

The nature of the activities given in the textbooks emerged as a constraint on the participants’ teaching practices. All the pre-service teachers pointed out the lack of oral communicative activities, complaining that textbooks were not supportive of speaking instruction. In other words, activities given in the textbooks did not reflect authentic communication. Moreover, the speaking activities that were included seemed not to reflect the features of ‘real world’ communicative interaction, posing a threat to students’ communicativeness. For example, Nam explained that most of the activities

193

were “scripted and far less communicative” (Nam.01.SRI). Due to the dominance in the textbook of mechanical drilling and controlled practice, according to Nam, students had no option but to passively follow what the teacher was required to teach, and had little chance to produce English on their own. Nam reasoned that the roles he played in his lessons were limited as the textbook exerted a powerful influence on his teaching approach. Hence, teaching speaking became a matter of following a simple sequence of questions and answers, which rarely takes place in natural conversations.

Nam’s view was echoed by Chi, who also pointed out the lack of genuine communication in textbook activities. Chi said:

In teaching speaking, students were asked to speak English by doing the prescribed activities in their textbooks. In these activities, as you observed, students were given a list of words or phrases to substitute or replace the information in the dialogue model. (Chi.01.SRI)

Similarly, Gai argued that textbook materials seemed to be dominated by mechanical drills and practice rather than involving students in real communication. Gai was frank:

What students did in the first activity was to read out all the words, phrases and sentences from the textbook dialogue. In the second activity, students filled the dialogue with given phrases and then read it out in pairs again. In the final activity, although students were asked to work in groups for free speaking, their conversations were also developed, following the teacher’s suggested model. (Gai.01.SRI)

Gai went on to explain that activities of this type seemed not to reflect any communicative interactions between the teachers and students or among students.

The participants also commented on the features, quality and relevance of the material in the textbook. For example, Phuong complained about the nature of the content provided in the textbook, which she believed impacted negatively on her practice of teaching speaking. She argued that although the themes were varied and drawn from the

194

contexts of students’ daily life, the information provided under these topics was inappropriate or outdated, and even somewhat irrelevant for classroom teaching. Phuong believed that these features caused students to lose interest in learning speaking, as they did not feel engaged in the activities. As Phuong commented:

In one of my speaking lessons, when asked students to talk about the sports results of Vietnamese athletes at the 14th Asian Games, I found that students were not excited to take part in the activities as I expected although sports is a topic familiar to them. I think this is because the event happened in 2002, a long time ago, and students seemed not interested of it. (Phuong.02.SRI)

The second key theme to emerge from the data in relation to teaching materials was the time factor. Data analysis indicated that most of the pre-service teachers were dissatisfied with the amount of time available for conducting speaking lessons. This finding appears consistent with the observation data, which showed that out of 16 speaking lessons only three were able to be completed by the participants within the time allocated (see Section 7.1.2). As discussed in Section 2.3.2 and 5.1.3, the time allocation of 45 minutes for each period appears to be a considerable barrier, particularly as it is one of the most important criteria school supervisors use to assess pre-service teachers’ instructional practices (see Section 5.1.2).

It was seen that most of the participants expressed the same perspective that time was a major concern as they were mandated to finish the lesson within the stipulated time frame. For example, Chi revealed that she often felt pressured when teaching speaking. According to Chi, helping students to acquire the necessary language knowledge and communicative skills in a limited class time was very challenging, and contributed to the ineffectiveness of the lesson. She said that working under the pressure of time meant that:

In my lessons, I tried to finish the activities provided in the textbook on time without regarding how much the students could use English for communication. (Chi.02.SRI)

195

Similarly, Binh argued that he had to push the students constantly to complete the activities rather than to help them to produce English competently. Binh explained that, besides the vocabulary activity (see Section 7.1.1), he had to finish the prescribed syllabus for the lesson, which comprised at least three more activities, in 45 minutes if he did not want his lesson plan to be “bị cháy” (burnt) (Binh.01.SRI), meaning leaving the content of the lesson unfinished when the bell went. This means that, like Chi, Binh worked under pressure continually to cover the required content of the lesson, preventing him from creating conditions for students to communicate in English more genuinely. In his interview, Binh said:

Apart from teaching new words, there are often three activities prescribed in the speaking section that I have to finish in the time allocated. Therefore, under time constraints and along with students’ low English proficiency, I kept to the activities without giving students opportunities to increase their English competence. (Binh.01.SRI)

Binh’s view was supported by other pre-service teachers who pointed out that a 45- minute lesson was a major hindrance to teachers’ attempts to conduct effective speaking instruction. Thanh, for example, also argued that limited instruction time was another factor, posing a challenge when she taught speaking. She was aware that she failed to assist students to work together and cooperate with each other for further interaction, instead, forcing them to complete the activities. This teaching approach, according to Thanh, led to “teacher-dominated interaction” in her instructional practice (Thanh.01.SRI). Thanh’s comment is supported by Farrell’s (2007, p.198) study, which indicated that during the practicum student teachers tried to finish the lesson “at all costs” in the classroom situation where they saw students “only as instruments in implementing and completing the lesson plan”. Hence, it can be assumed that the very limited time in the classroom served strongly to keep the participants to a traditional way of teaching, the teacher functioning as a knowledge transmitter, modeler and classroom controller rather than being a facilitator or guide (see Section 7.1.2). Due to the academic curriculum and the limited time allocated to each lesson, clearly it was challenging for the participants to carry out supplementary communicative activities to develop students’ communicative competence.

196

7.2.3. Class-size

As well as teaching materials, class-size was also a considerable constraint mentioned in interviews by all the participants. As described in Section 4.6.1, there are over 45 students per class at the practicum school, which inhibited teachers from creating a supportive speaking environment for students. As Phuong commented, working in classes which were always large put “too much pressure on teachers to demonstrate interactive activities effectively” (Phuong.01.SRI). This view was also commonly shared by other pre-service teachers. Gai, for example, argued that she found it very challenging to interact with each individual student when employing communicative practices. Gai was unable to monitor all the students in student-centered interactions to ensure they had opportunities to produce spoken language. Instead, she had to control the pace of teaching and learning, and became dominant in classrooms.

I was unable to manage and control all the students in classroom speaking activities. Hence, as a negative alternative, my class activity turned to a lecturing style. (Gai.01.SRI)

Reporting the same perspective, Nam pointed out that large class-size also hampered his instructional pedagogy. Unsurprisingly, Nam complained about the difficulty of initiating oral communication activities in large classes. Nam argued that large class- size limited students’ engagement and speaking development, and also encouraged teacher-centred interaction classroom management. He said:

Teaching speaking in a class consisting of over 45 students sitting in fixed tables in rows that face the teacher is not conducive to working together in groups. As a result, students do not have opportunities to talk with classmates to share their ideas or deliver answers to the teacher’s questions, or even perform their speaking in front of the class. (Nam.01.SRI)

Like Phuong, Gai and Nam, Hong also stressed that she could not “give equal attention to all students” (Hong.01.SRI). As a result, it was difficult to learn about students’ interests or what they wanted from the teacher when learning speaking. Also, Hong

197

argued that, with as many as 45 students on average in the classroom, she was not likely to move or rearrange students for group work when introducing speaking activities. These limitations, according to Hong, did not facilitate her teaching strategy, resulting in “uninvolved students getting bored and starting doing something else or sitting in silence until the bell rings” (Hong.01.SRI).

It is clear that the norm of a large number of students in class emerged as a strong concern for all the participants in this study. They perceived that large class-size inhibited communication interactions between the teacher and students as well as among students in the classroom. Consequently, the development of students’ communicative skills as a focus of the lesson was considerably impeded, as indicated in the above sections.

7.2.4. School teachers’ supervision

The effect of school supervising teachers on the participants’ classroom speaking instruction was a further factor that emerged from the data. In general, all eight pre- service teachers stated that their teaching practices were also strongly influenced by school supervisors in terms of teaching experience and methods. They argued that, working under the supervision of their school supervisors, not only their practices of teaching speaking, but also other skills were affected by teaching methods used by the school supervisors during the practicum. For example, Gai stressed that she had to “keep to the textbook and classroom procedures required by my supervisor” (Gai.01.SRI). This influence is consistent with the constraints, as discussed above, that all the pre-service teachers had to confront in their teaching practice.

Similarly, Binh reported that supervising teachers had a strong impact upon his instructional behaviors. Binh revealed that his school supervisor often imposed her ideas about “how to design a lesson plan and how to deliver the lesson in the classroom” (Binh.01.SRI). Binh argued he had to preoccupy himself with the instructional processes and lesson organization delineated by his school supervisor rather than to translate the theories he had been taught about teaching practice in his training courses. As Binh said:

198

During the teaching practice, I followed my supervisor’s guidance respectably and adopted his models of teaching rather than employed the theories that I had learnt from the training program in my lessons. (Binh.01.SRI)

Binh’s view was also shared by other pre-service teachers. For example, in the interview, Nam reported that his supervising teacher mostly worked in “the imperator role” (Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwer, Korthagen, Bergen, 2008, p.180). This indicates that the knowledge and experience of Nam’s school supervisor was manifested in large part in the focus and approach that he distributed to students in his lessons. In other words, school supervisory approaches strongly impacted upon how and what Nam perceived about the teaching of speaking in classroom practices.

When working with my supervisor about the teaching of speaking, I was advised that I should not challenge myself to teach students to speak English fluently. She [the supervisor] stressed that it [helping students develop their English fluency] could not be done right now due to many factors. I should keep to the textbook and try to manage and finish the lesson on time. Then, she [the supervisor] gave me a sample lesson for reference. (Nam.01.SRI)

However, it was found in this study that a lack of knowledge of the reality of school life (Farrell, 2003, 2008; Johnson 1996; Le, 2014) also added to the participants’ beliefs about the influence of school supervisors on their teaching practices. In the recall sessions, the participants strongly showed their perceptions towards the limitations of teacher preparation. They all expressed their concerns by indicating that the theories they were taught in teacher-training courses were not usually connected with the realities of teaching in the classroom and thus of little practical use. Chi, for example, reported that what she learned from the training courses was mostly theoretical and, therefore, she needed more practical information. According to Chi, classroom observation was an important means for her to learn how speaking and other skills were conducted in the real world. Chi admitted that her school supervisor’s teaching strategies, that she experienced when observing, influenced her practice of teaching speaking. She said:

199

I realized that the supervisor’s lesson procedure was appropriate for students. Therefore, the way I treated my students in teaching speaking was mostly from the observation of my supervisor’s lessons. (Chi.01.SRI)

In the same vein, Thanh reported that the teacher education programme provided her with significant knowledge to develop her English proficiency; however, in term of teaching methodology, she perceived that the programme did not appear to assist her for the practicalities of teaching speaking. In order to compensate for this limitation, Thanh said, “I had to arrange my time to observe other teachers’ lessons, particularly those of my supervisor” (Thanh.01.SRI). According to Thanh, observing experienced teachers’ lessons could help her gain practical information and reflect upon her own teaching practices. Thanh revealed that the way she demonstrated speaking instruction in classroom seemed to be “similar to what she learned from the supervisor’s lessons”. (Thanh.SRI.02)

Supporting Chi and Thanh’s view, other pre-service teachers also reported that they had changed their own perceptions regarding the practice of speaking instruction after approaching the practicum school and spending substantial time observing their supervising teachers’ lessons. Nguyet, for example, explained that she realized that her supervisor’s lesson focused largely on an issue of enabling students to speak English accurately rather than fluently. This phenomenon, according to Nguyet, changed her belief contributing to the role of accuracy in speaking instruction. Therefore, Nguyet revealed that she seemed to follow “the school supervisor’s teaching model and classroom discipline without trying out any techniques taught at university” (Nguyet.01.SRI). Thus, by adopting what more experienced teachers do the participants could be perpetuating a form of teaching and learning that might not work well.

7.3. Summary

This chapter has presented the findings that emerged from the observational and stimulated recall data. These findings include the nature of the participants’ instructional classroom behaviours and their rationales they provided for their practices. In general, the data from classroom observations show that, to a considerable extent, the

200

participants’ teaching practices in the classroom and their stated perceptions were not consistent. Although the participants highly valued the importance of speaking and were strongly in favour of communicative and learner-centered approach for the teaching of speaking, what happened in the classroom was dominated by teacher-centred interaction and non-genuine spoken communication. In all the lessons, except where vocabulary was provided as communicative language input (see Section 7.1.1), it was greatly evident that students were exposed to speaking instruction through repetition and substitution drills, based on models provided by the teachers and dialogue-model practice based on the textbook. This teaching strategy impeded students’ opportunities to develop their speaking abilities. Observational data also indicated that the eight pre- service teachers focused on corrective feedback, and commonly used explicit techniques for error correction. Given that they perceived that their students were generally weak in pronunciation and used grammatical structures incorrectly during spoken communication, the participants saw it as their responsibility, to correct errors that students made. Also as revealed in this chapter, the eight pre-service teachers’ instructional practices were largely shaped and affected by many contextual factors. As shown in the data, perceptions about students’ low motivation for learning speaking and the prescribed curriculum as well as school teachers’ supervision appeared to be the most influential.

In the next chapter, Chapter 8, the findings will be discussed directly with reference to each of the research questions in relation to the literature in the field of the teaching of speaking and teacher cognition.

201

CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The previous chapters, Chapters 6 and 7, presented the findings from the study. In this chapter, the major findings are discussed in light of the questions posed in the study and the literature in the field. The findings are also discussed in relation to previous studies in the area of teacher cognition. The first section of the chapter, Section 8.1, discusses the pre-service teachers’ major perceptions about the teaching of speaking. In Section 8.2, the extent to which these perceptions are reflected in their classroom practices is evaluated. Factors that affected and shaped the participants’ instructional pedagogies with regard to speaking instruction in the context of the research site, a high school in Vietnam, are discussed and presented in Section 8.3. The chapter ends with a summary provided in Section 8.4.

8.1. Pre-service teachers’ perceptions

This section addresses the first research question:

What are the perceptions of Vietnamese pre-service teachers about teaching speaking in the classroom?

In discussing the findings related to this research question, it is worth reiterating that the pre-service teachers in this study are located in a national environment where there have been rapid recent education innovations that aim to improve the quality of English teaching and English teacher education in Vietnam (see Chapter 2). These innovations are seen as a response to the impact of globalization and in particular, the globalization of English as an international lingua franca. Also, as part of this education reform, new curriculum policies have aimed to promote ‘communicative, learner-centred and task- based’ pedagogy in an attempt to enable students to use English for communication (MOET, 2006, 2007; Vietnamese Government, 2008). Thus, a central goal of teaching and learning English in the educational system of Vietnam is now to enable students to communicate in English effectively, rather than to acquire it for the development of

202

linguistic knowledge (Dang et al., 2013; Doan, 2011; Le, 2013; Nguyen & Tran, 2015; Pham, 2014).

Therefore, it is not surprising that the pre-service teachers in this study generally shared a collective perception about the role of speaking, as well as the teaching and learning of speaking, which could be said to be in tune with these policy developments. Accordingly, they all highlighted the value of speaking and attached great importance to the teaching of speaking. This perception is similar to that of the pre-service teachers in the study conducted by Shinde and Karekatti (2012), who found that the teaching of oral communication was considered to be the most important item in their survey (item 9). Likewise, this view is in line with the findings in Dinçer and Yeşilyurt’s (2013) study, which reported that all the pre-service teachers involved agreed that speaking was the most important skill in language teaching and learning. Interestingly, the pre-service teachers in this study also asserted their beliefs that through a focus on the teaching of speaking, students were likely to experience ways of learning “how to communicate with others” (Khamkhien, 2010, p.188).

Put another way, the findings in this study documented that the pre-service teachers believed that through the teaching of speaking not only language knowledge, but also a range of skills needed for oral communication, such as pronunciation, turn-taking and/or negotiation of meaning (Goh, 2007; Goh & Burns, 2012; Nation & Newton, 2009; Thornbury, 2005, 2012), would be developed and strengthened so that learners would be able to produce spoken language appropriately and naturally (Bailey, 2005; Nguyen & Tran, 2015). These perceptions on the part of the eight pre-service teachers are perhaps unsurprising since this view is endorsed by several other researchers (e.g., Gungor & Sarac, 2012; Kayi, 2006; Nazara, 2011; Richards, 2008) that mastering speaking skills in English is often evaluated by EFL teachers as a sign of success in language learning. It can be concluded that the participants’ perspectives reflect the current state of emphasis on the development of students’ speaking ability in English teaching and learning in Vietnam, as well as in many parts of the world, where English is widely acknowledged to be “a bridge to the future” (Jin & Cortazzi, 2002, p.53) for both the country and its people (Baker & Westrup, 2003; Baleghizadeh & Shahri, 2014; Goh & Chen, 2014; Nuan, 2003b).

203

Within much of the literature so far cited, it is also advocated that the role of learners is central and crucial to the teaching and learning process. Following this argument, the pre-service teachers in this study were also in strong agreement about employing a communicative and learner-centred approach to teaching speaking. Reflecting the principles of a communicative methodology, the role of a teacher was perceived as a ‘guide, facilitator and/or friend’, while students were expected to participate actively as communicators and negotiators. This perception generally reflected a desire and a belief on the part of the teachers that encouraging plentiful student-to-student interaction would lead to “effective learning of the language” (Farrell, 2008, p.47). The participants’ stated intention was that students would be provided with opportunities to engage in genuine communicative interaction in the classroom in order to achieve meaning. In these respects, their views, as least as they expressed them in the interview data, seem to be aligned with what is advised in the literature (Brown, 2007a; Goh & Burns, 2012; Harmer, 2007a; Hinkel, 2006; Richards, 2006, 2008; Thornbury, 2005, 2012; Ur, 2012), that learners learn a language through the process of communicating in it, and that learning activities should facilitate students’ negotiation of meaning, meaningful interaction, and reflection on language use.

The provision of language input by the teacher was another common perception shared by the participants. Given the challenge of learning a vast range of new language items for speaking development, all the participants believed that it was often difficult for students to express themselves in spoken communication. Thus, they stressed that vocabulary teaching would help students to comprehend and respond to spoken text, and particularly to convey meaning when speaking (Goh & Burns, 2012; Mart, 2012; Nation & Newton, 2009). In this respect, Richards and Renandya (2002) advocate that vocabulary provides “much of the basis for how well learners speak” (p.255). Moreover, it was also found that the participants’ perspectives about the role of vocabulary provision were consistent with the expectations of the supervising teachers (see Section 5.2.2.1), who stressed that new language items play an important part in supporting students to express their ideas or feelings in conversation. Thus, the stress placed by the pre-service teachers and supervising teachers on teaching vocabulary seemed consistent, and warranted in the light of recent literature. Overall, the participants expressed the belief that through vocabulary teaching students would not

204

only come to know the meaning of new words in the text, but would also learn how to pronounce the words and items correctly.

The participants also expressed strong beliefs in the importance of developing speaking fluency. While the literature focuses on three major areas of speaking development (accuracy, fluency and complexity) that learners need to achieve (Goh & Burns, 2012; Ellis, 2009a; Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Hunter, 2012; Skehan, 1998; Thornbury, 2006a), the findings revealed that most participants intended to focus on fluency rather than accuracy, although they perceived both accuracy and fluency to be the two most important components. Their perceptions were congruent with Richards’ (2008) proposal, that “fluency [should] become a goal for speaking courses and this could be developed through the use of information gap and other tasks that require learners to attempt real communication despite limited proficiency in English” (p.2). In support of this view, Graves (2008) stresses that while the purposes of learning a language are varied, the main thrust is to learn language for communication, and in a similar vein, Moore and Bounchan (2010, p.114) note that “proficiency in English has been a highly valued asset”. The pre-service teachers’ views did not, however, appear to be consistent with what the supervising teachers expected their student teachers to demonstrate in the practice of teaching speaking (see Section 5.2.2). The focus of the supervising teachers was to help students communicate in English correctly and accurately.

In summary, there is a strong common perception among all the pre-service teachers that teaching speaking plays a very important role in English language learning and teaching, and the ultimate goal of speaking instruction is to help students acquire communicative skills in order to produce spoken language appropriately and fluently. In this respect, the pre-service teachers’ perceptions align with the current literature and also with recent moves in curriculum development in Vietnam towards communicative approaches to language teaching. However, one of the aims of this study is to focus on teachers’ actual practices and what can be learned from observing pre-service teachers as they prepare for future employment as teachers about ways in which they may eventually teach. Therefore, in the following section, the discussion looks more closely at how such perceptions were transferred into the practice of speaking teaching during the practicum.

205

8.2. Pre-service teachers’ classroom practices

This section focuses on the second research question, which is:

To what extent are these perceptions reflected in their practice of teaching speaking?

Evidence from educational research associated with the exploration of teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning suggests that there is a complex relationship between teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices (Allen, 2013; Baker, 2014; Basturkmen, 2012; Farrell & Ives, 2015; Li, 2013). It is commonly accepted that teachers’ beliefs exert a strong impact upon their instructional choices in their classrooms (Borg, 2003; Burns, 1992; Chen & Goh, 2011; Debreli, 2012; Farrell & Bennis, 2013; Farrell & Ives, 2015; Kuzborska, 2011; Lee, 2009; Zheng, 2009). However, correspondence between teachers’ beliefs and practices is “not always seamlessly aligned” (Allen, 2013, p.134). In other words, perceived or real constraints, and conflicting beliefs about student needs in the instructional and classroom context (Basturkmen et al., 2004; Basturkmen, 2012; Burns, 1996; Debreli, 2012; Lee, 2008, 2009; Lee et al., 2015; Mak, 2011; Richards, 2011) may prompt language teachers to implement pedagogical strategies that are not entirely consistent with their beliefs. From the perspective of language teacher cognition, Richards (2011, p.10) points out that:

Teaching is not simply the application of knowledge and of learned skills. It is viewed as a much more complex cognitively driven process affected by the classroom context, the teacher’s general and specific instructional goals, the teacher’s beliefs and values, the learners’ motivations and reactions to the lesson, and the teacher’s management of critical moments during the lesson.

In this study, and in line with these complexities the data analysis showed various inconsistencies between the participants’ stated beliefs and actual classroom practices. This divergence can be linked to the powerful influence of institutional factors that will

206

be discussed in Section 8.3. In this section, a discussion of how the participants’ perceptions were reflected in classroom practice is presented.

8.2.1. Providing language input

As many scholars argue, for the purposes of language development, language should primarily be seen in relation to functional uses or discourses in use (Bailey, 2005; Chappell & Moore, 2012; Littlewood, 2007; Moore & Burns, 2008; Nunan, 2003a; Richards, 2008), which integrate various sub-skills and different kinds of linguistic knowledge (Goh, 2007; Goh & Burns, 2012; Thornbury, 2005, 2012; Van den Branden, Bygate & Norris, 2009). Moreover, Goh and Burns (2012) note that learning to speak a language may create “a great deal of anxiety for language learners” (p.156), who have to “attend to content and language demands” when speaking. Therefore, language teachers should provide students with pedagogical support, such as attending to vocabulary, content or information in order to scaffold their learning to meet the requirements of the speaking activity and to complete it effectively.

In this study, it was found that language input in terms of vocabulary teaching was provided primarily in the initial stage of the lessons. In particular, it was evident that the ways the pre-service teachers elicited and presented vocabulary were somewhat similar. In general, the participants presented vocabulary in an isolated manner and as individual items. This approach reflected a common belief among the pre-service teachers that the techniques they used to introduce new words were to help them ‘save time’ and help students ‘remember the words easily’. This was shown to be the case where Gai, for example, explained in the stimulated recall interview that although various techniques used to present vocabulary had been introduced in teacher-training courses, she preferred to make use of ‘simple techniques’ like providing translation or synonyms in order to help students understand the meaning of the word directly. All the participants in this study used the practice of taking new words out of the context of the text, and focusing students’ attention on the discrete meaning and pronunciation of the words (see observational extract #1 in section 7.1.1 for an example). In relation to this practice, the findings indicated that the participants appeared to believe that once new words

207

were taught ‘directly’, the students would master them and they would be able to use those words in conversation.

Providing vocabulary for students’ speaking development was also highlighted and recommended by the teachers supervising the pre-service teachers (see Section 5.2.2). However, as the data showed, the approaches used by the participants to present vocabulary seemed to contrast with their supervisors’ expectations (see Section 5.2.2.1), and also with what is suggested by many scholars (e.g., Davies & Pearse, 2000; Mehta, 2009; Ur, 2012), that it is best to present vocabulary in a context or situation. These authors argue that an appropriate context may help students to understand “the use of the item as well as its basic meaning” (Davies & Pearse, 2000, p.63). Similarly, Nation and Newton (2009) argue that vocabulary introduction should treat a word “as part of a system rather than as part of a message” that involves “thoughtful processing so that the words are remembered” (pp.132-134). Therefore, it could be said that the ‘preferred’ approach used by the participants to present vocabulary did not seem designed to facilitate their students’ learning of speaking. As Newton (2001) argues, new words introduced in such ways as those used by the pre-service teachers may be “remembered superficially, but quickly forgotten” (p.31). Uncovering teachers’ existing beliefs related to vocabulary introduction in teaching speaking in pre-service teacher education could potentially provide them with opportunities to “raise to consciousness the nature of personalized theories which inform their practice” (Burns, 1992, pp.63-64).

8.2.2. Focusing on language accuracy

The observation data in this study indicated that the participants’ actual practices of teaching speaking were mainly teacher-dominant and teacher-fronted. The participants retained control of the teaching and learning process, and primarily focused on accuracy rather than fluency in language production. In the interviews, they had emphasized their views that students should be given opportunities to interactively negotiate meaning with each other (Bailey, 2005; Boonkit, 2010; Khakhien, 2010). However, there was little evidence to show that a rich environment where students worked cooperatively and meaningful communication took place was provided in the classroom. Instead, students were exposed to the teaching of speaking through a form of language practice based on

208

explicit dialogue models provided by the teachers. In effect, therefore, these teaching styles seem similar to traditional practices used in the audiolingual method, (see Chapter 3), which thereby minimized the students’ opportunities for genuine communicative language use.

This finding thus bears out Goh’s (2007) and Goh and Burns’ (2012) claim that while speaking occurs in language classrooms, the teaching of speaking may not. However, the findings of this study also reflect the fact that, as many researchers (e.g., Burns et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2010; Johnson, 2006, 2015; Freeman, 2002; Kagan, 1992a; Lee, 2008, 2009) argue, teachers’ classroom practices are heavily contextualized, associated with and constrained by the particular school situation and conditions in which they operate. As in other studies, the role played by situational constraints seemed to prevent the teachers from putting their beliefs into practice (Basturkmen, 2012; Farrell, 2003, 2007, 2008; Gan, 2013; Lee et al., 2015).

One major constraint on teachers’ practice related to the textbooks used for classroom instruction. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 5, the teaching situation in the context of Vietnam does not allow for teachers to choose their own materials. Instead, they must adhere to mandated textbooks (see Section 7.2.2). Therefore, when asked to talk about the rationale for their practices, most of the participants noted that their lessons were conducted in accordance with ‘dialogue models’ provided in the textbooks. For example, Thanh, Nguyet, Nam, Binh and Chi commented that their speaking instruction directed students’ attention to drills and language model practice, based on repetition, substitution and/or “dialogue memorization” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p.46). These findings are consistent with those of da Silva’s (2005) study, which revealed that:

The pre-service teachers perceived it [the teaching of speaking] as pronunciation practice besides being the most difficult skill to be fostered, practised, and developed in the classroom context…Therefore, when the issue is to promote speaking in the classroom, the pre-service teachers focus on repetition and memorization of parts of discourse or functions. (da Silva, 2005, pp.6-7)

209

In their use of the textbook, the participants were seen to make efforts in their classroom practice to put students into pairs or groups for speaking activities, as a way to enhance classroom communication (Bailey, 2005; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). The terms ‘pair work’ or ‘group work’, as documented in the literature, seem to be a requisite part of CLT practices. They place emphasis on “a reaction against classrooms that are teacher- centered and removed from student needs, and instead, represent a move towards a student-centered, interactive classroom” (Sullivan, 2000, p.118). However, there was little negotiation of meaning generated among students through these techniques. The way students were observed to produce spoken language was predictable rather than spontaneous (Bui, 2006; Dinçer & Yeşilyurt, 2013; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999), in that the interactions only appeared to lead to rote repetition of dialogues. This finding lends support to Jang’s (2014) study, which indicated that little speaking practice among students was observed in the classroom; therefore he concluded that “there was no thorough negotiating of meaning in communicative interaction” (Jang, 2014, p.23).

The data also showed that all the participants in this study highlighted the role of error correction and focused substantially on providing corrective feedback to students’ performance in their lessons. In general, the participants reasoned that corrective feedback would help students to speak English clearly and intelligibly, and consequently to facilitate their language development. However, the observations showed that, as they undertook their speaking instruction, the participants’ error correction led to control of language form. In other words, as Thornbury (2006) notes, through this way of correcting students’ oral errors, teachers “not only provide [the] feedback, but also convey the message that accuracy is important” (p.141). This finding represents a clear divergence from the CLT literature related to error correction (see Section 3.1.2), which stresses that, as errors are a natural outcome of the development of communicative competence, they should be treated according to how they help learners to develop their language. In terms of corrective feedback, as suggested in the literature, spoken error correction needs to be conducted positively (Baker & Westrup, 2003; Nguyen & Tran, 2015), and corrective feedback should be “indirect and implicit” (Sarandi, 2016, p.242), so that students’ communicative flow is not disrupted (Basturkmen et al., 2004; Harmer, 2007; Mori, 2011; Roothooft, 2014).

210

In contrast, it was found in the current study that the most frequent technique used by the pre-service teachers to correct students’ errors was explicit correction, although corrective feedback was given after the students had finished their performance. Given that the pre-service teachers focused on the errors and asked the students to repeat the corrected item several times either individually or chorally (see observational extract #15 in Section 7.1.3 for an example), such corrective acts might potentially embarrass students and make them reluctant to speak English, or even demotivate them in learning to speak (Hunter, 2012; Roothooft, 2014; Sarandi, 2016). Furthermore, it was also evident that most of the corrective feedback given was primarily form-focused on pronunciation and grammatical structures rather than meaning-focused on the students’ language production. Consequently, as the data showed, appropriate and accurate language was much emphasized in the participants’ practice of teaching speaking.

This finding contradicts the outcomes in Goh and Chen’s (2014) study, which indicated that the teachers focused on the promotion of students’ communicative competence rather than linguistic accuracy.

[The teachers] were less concerned about focusing on linguistic accuracy which involves correcting students’ grammar and pronunciation errors and expecting them to speak with native speaker accuracy. [They focused] on communicating meaning as a goal. (Goh & Chen, 2014; p.117)

This incongruence is likely to be due to the difference regarding the research context and participants. All the teachers in Goh and Chen’s study were teaching in universities, and most of them (73.4%) had Master and Doctorate degrees. In other words, they were highly qualified and experienced language teachers. Unlike the pre-service teachers in this study, these teachers had the freedom to collect materials to design activities for communicative teaching and learning. Therefore, they were working in a context with different conditions for teaching, a situation that again reflects the importance of the contextual constraints and opportunities under which teachers work and how their perceptions are influenced by these contexts. However, the present study’s findings can be said to support the findings of several previous studies (da Silva, 2005; Dinçer & Yeşilyurt, 2013; Jang, 2014). Jang (2014), for example, found that the teaching

211

practices of the two student teachers at two secondary schools in Korea were “constrained by the context of teaching” (p.23). The issue of how contextual factors powerfully impact upon and shape teachers’ decisions in their classroom practices is examined and discussed in the next section, Section 8.3.

8.3. Factors that affected the participants’ classroom practices

This section discusses the third question posed in this study:

What are the factors that influence their teaching of speaking in the classroom?

As discussed in Section 8.2, the findings in this study indicated discrepancies between the participants’ beliefs and teaching practice. In other words, the pre-service teachers’ classroom behaviours and pedagogical strategies were found to be constrained by a number of situational factors, which hindered them from doing “what they should ideally do” (Basturkmen et al., 2004, p.268).

One key factor to emerge in the data was the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their students’ low motivation for learning speaking, which was seen as a major constraint on the participants’ teaching practices. Motivation, as many researchers argue, is one of the most significant factors affecting students’ language performance (Long, Ming & Chen, 2013; Rany, 2013; Zhao, 2012). This view is also emphasized in Chang and Goswami’s (2011) study, which shows that students’ needs to use English in real contexts increases their motivation to develop communicative skills. Similarly, Wang and Odell (2002) highlight that “the role of students’ motivation [shapes] their learning and the teacher goal setting” (p.157). In this study, the findings showed that the participants held quite strong perceptions that their students did not appreciate the importance of English language and the relevance of learning it, and thus they felt little motivation to learn English for communication. There were two main reasons that were perceived to demotivate students from developing their speaking, which impinged upon the pre- service teachers’ teaching practice.

212

The most mentioned reason was that the students were limited in English language proficiency. Similar to those in previous research (Chen & Goh, 2011; Dinçer & Yeşilyurt, 2013; Tran, Baldauf & Moni, 2013), the findings in the present study indicated the participants’ beliefs that due to their limited knowledge of structures and vocabulary as well as inaccurate pronunciation most students were passive and remained reluctant to speak English in the classroom. Put another way, it was believed that a lack of competence in communication caused the students to avoid class participation, which consequently posed challenges to the participants’ practice of teaching speaking. The participants in this study appeared to share the same view as teachers in previous studies (e.g., da Silva, 2005; Dinçer & Yeşilyurt, 2013; Li, 1998; Tran et al., 2013) that students resisted oral class participation. To some extent, the study also supports the viewpoint proposed in other studies that students’ reluctance in speaking activities is strongly related to their limited communicative competence (Nguyen & Tran, 2015; Pham, 2014; Phan, 2004), and the way they are taught.

The second reason related to perceptions of students’ demotivation towards the learning of speaking was the pressure of written examinations. The educational testing system of the government in Vietnam does not focus on listening and speaking as communicative skills. Rather, it focuses only on checking language knowledge, which strongly emphasizes grammar and writing (Bui, 2006; Le, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2015). Thus, as Nguyet et al. (2015) assert, without speaking tests, there is limited motivation for teacher and students to focus on communicative speaking skills. According to Bui (2006), this situation applies across the whole spectrum of language classrooms in Vietnam. Therefore, it is not surprising that the findings in this study parallel those of other previous studies (Le & Barnard, 2009; Tran et al., 2013; Warden & Lin, 2000) which reported that students had vague communicative needs and were mainly encouraged to learn English only for the purpose of compulsory examinations that focus on language knowledge and grammatical accuracy. As Adams and Newton (2009) point out: “Students are accustomed to traditional methods, and particularly to methods that promote accuracy over fluency” (p.8). The participants in this study were likely to have been influenced by their own experiences of this system which carried over into their approaches to the teaching of speaking, echoing Lortie’s (1975) notion of ‘the apprenticeship of observation’.

213

Another factor that impacted heavily on the participants’ instructional behaviours was concerned with teaching materials, particularly the textbooks they were required to use. Materials, as various authors argue, are a major focus of the teaching and learning process, and become one of the most crucial influences on what goes on in the classroom (Goh & Burns, 2012; Hughes, 2010; Kitao, 2012; Nguyen, Warren & Fehring, 2014; Zheng & Davison, 2008). Richards (2011) points out that textbooks are often “the core of the curriculum” (p.11), from which instruction may be completely textbook-driven. Many researchers suggest, however, that language teachers should personalize and choose materials beyond the textbook that are more interesting, suitable and relevant to students’ real life (Chen & Goh, 2011; Farrell & Ives, 2015; Moore & Carreon, 2012; Nazara, 2011; Nguyen & Tran, 2015), or allow students “to provide their own topics and to speak based on their own writing” (Nation & Newton, 2009, p.154).

However, it is widely acknowledged that in the context of Vietnam teaching materials are tightly controlled and commissioned by the MOET (see Chapter 2 & 5), and therefore have the status of laws about what should be taught, which has a powerful impact in shaping teachers’ instructional practices. Thus, the authority of the textbooks led the participants to “a rigid pattern of delivering each lesson, and this reduces flexibility in teaching” (Duggan, 2001, p.208). Unlike the teachers in the studies of Goh and Chen (2014) and Yue’e and Yunzhang (2011), the pre-service teachers perceived that they had no right to select materials or to design other classroom activities. It was evident that they kept closely to the activities in the textbooks, which in turn focused on linguistic accuracy and predictable dialogue-based language. In other words, these patterns of the activities they encountered placed much emphasis on the role of teacher control and particular language features deemed necessary for language production. Moreover, it was observed that the participants taught speaking in an isolated way from other skills, which contradicts the recent trend towards an integrated approach, suggested in the literature on skills teaching (Hinkel, 2006; Khan & Ali, 2010; Mart, 2012; Zhang, 2009). However, this practice of teaching speaking is similar to how teachers have been found to use textbook activities in other classrooms. For example, Jang’s (2014) study reported that in their lessons the teachers in his study asked the students to “read aloud the model dialogue with a focus on pronunciation”, and then

214

speaking practice was “carried out in pairs by a number of volunteer students” (Jang, 2014, p.21). Jang (2014) concluded that the teaching practice of these teachers was very controlled, based on expressions in the textbook, which did not encourage students to speak English naturally. Also, like most of the teachers in Chen and Goh’s (2011) study, the pre-service teachers in this research reported that they were not satisfied with the textbooks which they believed were not suitable, or were even irrelevant for classroom teaching of speaking.

In addition to the influence of textbook activities, time pressures, caused through a prescribed curriculum, strongly affected the participants’ practices. As pointed out in Chapter 5, teachers are assessed as being effective or successful if they are able to cover the content knowledge of the subject within the stipulated classroom time. As well as being under pressure from the textbook-based contents, the pre-service teachers were also under pressure of time, as manifested in changes they made in their decision- making while teaching. The participants constantly tried to complete the required lesson content rather than to monitor their students for development of their speaking abilities. Consequently, they worked within a ‘didactic’ model of language teaching (Cheng et al., 2010; Gan, 2012). Thanh, for example, admitted that she felt she failed in assisting students to learn to speak English competently.

These findings related to time pressure coincide with those of previous studies (e.g., Chang & Goswami, 2011; Chen & Goh, 2011; Le & Barnard, 2009; Lee et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2014). These researchers reported that teachers were faced with insufficient time to finish the prescribed syllabus, which hindered them from conducting their lessons effectively. Hence, it is likely that prescribed textbooks and time constraints not only added to ‘tensions’ (Basturkmen, 2012; Phipps & Borg, 2009), which inhibited the participants’ communicative teaching strategies, but also contributed to the focus on form (accuracy) in the teaching and learning of speaking.

The large number of students in the class was identified as a further contextual factor that limited the participants’ practices. Large class sizes, as pointed out in many studies, are a major concern raised by teachers across EFL teaching contexts, where they have difficulty in conducting communicative activities (Adams & Newton, 2009; Bui, 2006;

215

Chen & Goh, 2011; Cheng & Moses, 2011; da Silva, 2005; Khazaei, Zadeh & Ketabi, 2012; Kim, 2014; Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2015). This constraint is similarly reflected in the present study. The large class sizes that the pre-service teachers taught had a substantial effect on their speaking instruction. Similarly to the teachers in the Chinese context in Cheng and Moses’s (2011) study, these pre-service teachers found it challenging to set up a collaborative learning environment to engage students in interactive activities. The classroom situations described here are in line with Bui’s (2006) study which claimed that “over-sized English classes make speaking lessons stiff and unmoving” (p.62). Gai, for example, reflected this point when she said it was difficult to interact with individual students and to motivate them to participate. This challenge inhibited Gai’s management and reinforcement of student-student interactions as they practised speaking. It was also evident in other participants’ lessons, where they found it difficult or even impossible to move around the classroom or organize students for group work. Ultimately, rather than putting students into pairs or groups to practise speaking English, the pre-service teachers were constrained by the available classroom arrangements, so that students sharing a desk became formed into one group. As Nguyen (2013) and Nguyet et al. (2015) point out, such situations largely prevent teachers from being able to involve students in more effective class interaction. Like the teachers in Numrich’s (1996) diary study, the pre-service teachers in this study became preoccupied with the flow of their instruction and classroom discipline rather than with communication interactions among students.

The effect of the supervising teachers based at the school on the participants’ practice of teaching speaking was also a constraining contextual factor that emerged. As discussed in Chapter 5, learning to teach is a complex process that involves social community interactions in a school environment. In this respect, Johnson (2015) emphasizes that teacher learning is based on “the assumption that knowing, thinking, and understanding come from participating in the social practices of learning and teaching in specific classrooms and social situations” (p.516). Within a specific teaching practicum context, school supervising teachers play a pivotal role in both assisting and assessing pre- service teachers’ classroom performance (Le, 2014; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010). For pre- service teachers, (as discussed in Section 7.2.4), a lack of knowledge of the reality of school life can result in a “lack of instruction routines, procedures, skills, and

216

techniques that are related to the contexts of teaching” (Wang & Odell, 2002, p.515). School supervising teachers can therefore dramatically affect and shape pre-service teachers’ professional practice (Le, 2014; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010; Wang & Odell, 2002), which was also the case in this study.

The school supervisors’ teaching experience and the methods they recommended to the pre-service teachers were found to have a strong influence on how the participants conceptualized their own classroom practices. In the stimulated recall interviews, all the participants confirmed this influence in various ways. Their lessons were reported to be heavily constructed in accordance with the views of their school supervisors. Nam and Chi, for instance, admitted that they took note about what their supervising teachers expected, and followed their supervisors’ guidance respectfully. Binh also revealed that his supervisor often imposed her ideas about the way he should deliver his lessons. These finding echo those of Wang and Odell’s (2003) study, where the teachers also regarded their school supervisors as very influential. They reported that the teachers “developed their ideas and practices because of the exposure to the mentors’ beliefs and practices of teaching” (Wang & Odell, 2003, p.161).

A recent study by Le (2014) further confirms this influence. He concluded that “student teachers were very strongly inclined toward the cooperating teachers’ models of teaching rather than attempting to adapt the theories that they had been taught in their practices and reflect critically on the process” (Le, 2014, p.199). It can thus be inferred that by adopting the style and method recommended by their school supervising teachers, the pre-service teachers in this study risk perpetuating into the future a form of teaching and learning that is regardless of “whether they were in conflict with theory or practice suggested in the university classroom” (Gan, 2013, p.102). Overall, it can be argued that while it is generally accepted that teachers’ beliefs provide “a basis for action” (Borg, 2011, p. 134), and that beliefs often affect and guide teachers’ decision-making and classroom behaviours (Basturkmen 2012; Debreli, 2012; Fang, 1996; Inceçay, 2011; Isikoglu et al., 2009; Tang et al., 2012; Zheng, 2009), the findings in this study show that what the pre-service teachers perceived about the teaching of speaking was in conflict with the realities they faced in the school where they taught (Farrell, 2003, 2007, 2008; Gan, 2013; Le, 2014; Macalister, 2014; Yan &

217

He, 2010; Zheng, 2009). In other words, their classroom behaviours and pedagogical strategies for speaking instruction during their teaching practicum were heavily influenced by the institutional and classroom teaching context. These constraints thus led to various discrepancies between the pre-service teachers’ instructional behaviours and their beliefs. More importantly, and more seriously, they appeared to be leading to perpetuating teaching practices that were unproductive for their students’ development of communicative speaking skills.

8.4. In summary

This chapter has discussed the findings of this study with reference to each of the research questions and the literature on previous studies. In general, it has indicated that the participants in this study highly valued the importance of speaking and expressed their beliefs in a communicative and learner-centred approach to the teaching and learning of speaking, with the aim to enable students to communicate in English effectively and efficiently (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012; Nazara, 2011; Una, 2016). These perceptions reflect an awareness of recent education innovations in the educational system of Vietnam as well as of some of the recommendations in the English language teaching literature. However, there was very little evidence of these beliefs being reflected in their actual classroom practices. Among the reasons for this divergence between their beliefs and practices were institutional and classroom teaching contextual factors, including their own perceptions about students’ low motivation for learning English for communication, examination requirements, teaching materials, large class size and school teachers’ supervision of their work. These factors heavily impacted upon the participants’ practice of teaching speaking during their practicum, and have implications for their professional development as teachers. In the next chapter, Conclusion, I review and discuss a summary of the major findings of the study. The contributions of the study and the implications of the research for teacher education and language policy are also drawn out, followed by a discussion of the limitations of this study and suggestions for further research.

218

CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION

In the previous chapter, Chapter 8, I discussed the findings of the study with reference to the research questions and in relation to previous research studies. This final chapter, Chapter 9, draws out the conclusion and considers the implications of the study within the field of language teaching and learning in general. In doing so, the scope and purpose of the study and a summary of the major findings are first revisited and discussed. Then, the chapter considers the contributions of the study. Next, the implications of the research for teacher education and language policy are also identified and addressed. Finally, the limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are discussed.

9.1. Summary of the study

This study has explored the perceptions and practices of a group (N=8) of Vietnamese pre-service teachers, undertaking the same university teacher education programme, about the teaching of speaking during a six-week practicum within the specific context of a high school in Vietnam. The study aimed to investigate what underlay the participants’ perspectives in order to gain insights into the factors that affected and shaped their speaking instructional pedagogies in the classroom. In order to provide an account of what the eight Vietnamese pre-service teachers perceived, believed and instructed (Borg, 2003, 2006) in relation to speaking, a qualitative case study (Bazeley, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2003, 2014) was regarded as an appropriate approach in which multiple research methods were employed for data collection. These methods included semi-structured interviews, document analysis, classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews. As the literature has highlighted, because teachers’ cognitions are usually implicit, unobservable and context-bounded (Borg, 2006, 2011; Freeman, 2002; Kagan, 1992a; Zheng & Davison, 2008), and teachers often have difficulty in articulating them (Baker, 2014; Basturkmen, 2012; Fang, 1996; Farrell & Tomenson-Filion, 2014; Farrell & Bennis, 2013; Farrell & Ives, 2015; Li, 2013; Zheng, 2009), it is therefore crucial to employ research strategies that can illuminate those

219

perceptions. More importantly, the use of multiple data collection methods aims to achieve the purposes of data triangulation, that can enable diverse perspectives on teachers’ perceptions in relation to their actual practices in the particular context under investigation (Creswell, 2013; Farrell & Tomenson-Filion, 2014; Miles et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2015; Tran et al., 2013). These considerations were taken into account in the overall design of this research.

In this case study, the approach employed to analyze data was essentially exploratory and interpretive (Yin, 2003, 2014), based on a continual iterative process (Borg, 2006; Burns & Knox, 2011; Cheng et al., 2010; Dörnyei, 2007; Grbich; 2007). Following a data-driven approach, themes and sub-themes were developed, coded and used as analytical tools for drawing a constant comparison among the participants (Glaser & Strauss, 1999; Merriam, 2009), with the aim to shed light on the research questions. In order to provide a richer contextualization for the discussion of the findings, the views of both the teacher educators and school supervising teachers on their expectations about how speaking should be taught in practice were analyzed, in addition to the perceptions and practices of the pre-service teachers. These expectations were shown to have implications for the pre-service teachers in the way they came to view their teaching, which in turn played a substantial role in influencing their behaviours, actions and interactions in the classroom. The findings indicated that while most teacher educators expected that pre-service teachers should focus on the development of accuracy and fluency in the teaching of speaking, the supervising teachers stressed the role of new language items in terms of communicative input and accuracy in developing students’ speaking ability. This meant that the pre-service teachers carried out their practices against a background of divergent views on the part of their instructors and supervisors.

The data analysis from the semi-structured interviews indicated that the eight pre- service teachers shared a common perception about the role of speaking in language learning as well as about the importance of teaching and learning speaking. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly given recent methodological trends, the findings showed that all the participants favoured the use of a communicative and learner-centred approach to speaking instruction. The reasons underlying these

220

perceptions were that students’ speaking abilities would be developed through negotiation of meaning during classroom interactions. In this regard, the pre-service teachers believed that through the communicative teaching of speaking, students would be able to interact in English appropriately and fluently. Therefore, learners were expected to participate actively in classroom activities as communicators and/or negotiators, while the roles of the teacher were perceived to be those of facilitator, guide or friend. In addition, most participants indicated their beliefs that developing students’ speaking abilities in terms of fluency rather than accuracy was a major focus in the lessons. These views appeared to be based on some of the participants’ own experiences of learning, but also, more firmly on the principles they were learning in their teacher preparation programme.

In order to complement the participants’ views and perceptions in relation to their actual practices, classroom observations were undertaken. The observation data revealed further common patterns adopted by the participants in this study, but also showed that in general these were in contrast to the communicative principles they promoted in the interviews. The main patterns in the participants’ approach to teaching speaking during the practicum revealed a strong focus on form rather than meaning. It was evident that, through a form of practice that could be referred to as dialogue-model practice, that was inherent in the textbooks, students were encouraged to memorize and recite sentence patterns.

Teaching speaking through this model resulted in restricting students to the use of pre- determined language, and prevented them from expanding their ability to convey meaning in communication. This approach to teaching speaking led to a lecturing style, in which the teachers adopted roles that were in contrast to applications of CLT. Rather, these roles could be characterized as ‘didactic’ models more dominant in traditional methods. However, the pre-service teachers’ approaches to teaching speaking could also be said to be driven and constrained by the textbooks they were required to use, as well as by the school supervising teachers’ expectations about how they would teaching speaking.

221

This investigation of the relationship between what the pre-service teachers said and what they did in their classrooms sheds light on the complexity of the relationship between their beliefs and actual classroom practices, and also on constraining situational factors (Basturkmen, 2012; Farrell & Tomenson-Filion, 2014; Macalister, 2014). As shown in the stimulated recall interview data, a number of institutional and classroom teaching obstacles emerged, which heavily impinged upon the participants’ teaching practice. Among these contextual factors, the study indicated that the pre-service teachers’ perceptions about students’ low motivation for learning English for communication, lack of teaching materials, requirements of school-based examinations, large class-size and supervisors’ teaching experience and methods appeared to be influential.

Discrepancies between the participants’ stated beliefs and their observed practices point to a powerful impact of the surrounding contextual factors in affecting and shaping their instructional decision-making. The findings highlight the need for teacher educators and curriculum designers as well as policy makers, to take into consideration the complexity of “contextual constraints and opportunities” (Hayes & Chang, 2014, p.18).

9.2. Contributions of the study

The study adds to the body of investigations of pre-service teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical practices, and shows the value of disentangling and understanding the thinking that underlies their classroom practices regarding the teaching of speaking. The findings of this study aim to enrich understanding of this issue and can be said to make several contributions to the field of language teacher cognition.

First, this study investigated the actual teaching practices related to speaking of a small group of pre-service teachers who undertook the same training courses from one university in Vietnam and demonstrated their practices at a high school during their practicum. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 3, very little research on teacher cognition, of English language teachers in general and pre-service teachers in particular, has been conducted in the Vietnamese context. This study represents a first exploration of Vietnamese pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the teaching of speaking. In this

222

sense, it extends current knowledge of how a typical group of pre-service teachers in Vietnam conceptualizes speaking instruction and shows how these beliefs are then translated into instructional classroom practices. This study thus not only fills a gap in the research literature regarding the beliefs and practices of pre-service teachers in Vietnam, but also adds to a growing body of knowledge of previous research on pre- service teachers (da Silva, 2005; Debreli, 2012; Farrell, 2003, 2006, 2007; Le, 2014; Mattheoudakis, 2007; Jang, 2014; Sanger & Osguthorpe, 2011; Tang et al., 2012; Yan & He, 2010; Yuan & Lee, 2014; Zheng, 2009).

Second, with regard to the research methodology for exploring teachers’ beliefs, the study confirms the validity of employing multiple sources for data collection (see Section 4.7). This aspect of the research is in contrast to previous studies (e.g., Mattheoudakis, 2007; Ng, Nicholas & Williams, 2010; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010; Peacock, 2001), where data were primarily collected using one method, a questionnaire, and then analyzed statistically. According to several researchers (e.g., Borg, 2006; Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2014), using self-report instruments such as questionnaires or interviews alone does not allow the researcher to gain deep understanding of what teachers think and how they behave as these aspects of teaching occur within their own teaching context. The present study aimed therefore to provide ample evidence of the value of using a multiple-method qualitative case study to investigate teachers’ beliefs and practices, as well as to provide insights into their specific conditions and contextual factors. For example, analysis of the pre-service teachers’ statements from the stimulated recall interviews provided substantial understanding of the social and contextual constraints that hindered the pre-service teachers from putting their beliefs into practice. With such multiple sources of data, the pre-service teachers’ perceptions and observed practices regarding the teaching of speaking in this study were analyzed and interpreted from different angles.

The analytic approach adopted (see Section 4.8) makes another contribution to exploratory interpretive investigations of language teaching and teacher cognition. Analyzing data in an inductive way allows salient issues to emerge throughout the analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Patton, 1990, 2002). Such an approach can reveal a fuller and more accurate understanding of teachers’ beliefs and

223

actual classroom practices than the use of a pre-determined coding system, based on a particular theoretical approach in which potentially meaningful and insightful issues may be ignored (Borg, 2006; Braun & Clarke, 2006). As such, this study suggests that the coding and analyzing of data need to be inductive and open to a search for patterns that emerge from the data and uncover the beliefs that lie behind teachers’ pedagogical practices in order to understand their teaching more fully.

This study also makes a further contribution to research on language teacher cognition, in that it reveals the substantial influence that supervising teachers can have on pre- service teachers’ thinking and practice. This is a point that is not typically emphasized and illuminated in various other studies (e.g., Borg, 2005; Farrell, 2006, 2007, Jang, 2014). The findings in this study indicated that the school supervisors’ teaching experience and the methods they advocated had a profound impact upon how the pre- service teachers reconceptualized and undertook their practice of teaching speaking. Therefore, the role and influence of supervising teachers together with other situational factors, mentioned earlier, need to be more extensively taken into consideration in teacher cognition research in order to gain a fuller understanding of how pre-service teachers teach in the classroom and why they teach the way they do (Borg, 2006, 2009; Farrell & Lim, 2005).

Finally, the study has revealed areas that teacher educators in Vietnam and in similar teaching contexts could make use of to facilitate revisions in the design of teacher education programmes that train and prepare pre-service teachers, so that they are more appropriately equipped before entering the practicum. This point is further discussed in the next section.

9.3. Implications of the research

In this section, the implications of the research conducted in this study are elaborated upon. The discussion covers implications both for teacher education and language policy. While this study is located in Vietnam, the findings from the study may also be applicable to other EFL contexts compatible with those of Vietnam, where pre-service teachers are being prepared for their roles as future English teachers.

224

9.3.1. Implications for teacher education

The study raises the issue of the adequacy of the preparation of pre-service English teachers in relation to the teaching of speaking. First, there is a need for teacher educators to identify in detail the realities of the school teaching context in which their students undertake their practice teaching. In this respect, both the opportunities that exist and the constraints that have to be faced could then be discussed more realistically with teachers about to begin their practicum, and possible responses to these affordances and challenges could be explored. Moreover, pre-service teachers could be encouraged to think about ways in which they would apply the learning about the teaching of speaking that they have gained from their training to the classroom realities (Gan, 2013; Cheng et al., 2010; Macalister, 2014; Yan & He, 2010). As Yan and He (2010) argue, this approach entails a critical consideration by teacher educators of how to integrate “theory on campus learning and off-campus teaching practicum (sic)” (p.68).

Second, the teacher preparation programme needs to assist pre-service teachers to begin the process of becoming ‘a reflective practitioner’ (Cheng et al., 2010; Goh & Chen, 2014; Le, 2014; Richards & Lockhart, 2005; Yan & He, 2010; Yuan & Lee, 2014). As the findings show, although the pre-service teachers in this study had positive ideas about the teaching of speaking that aligned with current theory, in relation to their practicum they were influenced to teach speaking largely by observing and imitating their school supervising teachers. The teacher education programme could encourage teachers to articulate their beliefs and then to critically reflect on what is happening in their own classrooms. Critical reflection, according to Farrell (2007), Johnson (2015) and Hennissen et al. (2008), can minimize the divergence between teachers’ stated beliefs and their classroom practices in that it involves posing questions about what and how teachers do and why they do it (Richards & Lockhart, 2005). As Schön (1996) stresses, when pre-service teachers become reflective practitioners, they not only “turn thoughts back on action” (p.50), but also are able to evaluate them against the new theories they are learning (Farrell, 2007; Le 2014; Yan & He, 2010; Yuan & Lee, 2014). This approach would give pre-service teachers stronger ammunition to question the traditional practices they encounter in the schools.

225

Finally, the study places emphasis on the necessity for teacher educators to establish strong ‘university-school partnerships’ in the teacher education programme (Bartholomew & Sandholtz, 2009; Bezzina & Michalak, 2009; van Velzen, Bezzina & Lorist, 2009; Yan & He, 2010). As discussed in Section 5.2, the views of teacher educators and school supervising teachers diverged on how speaking should be taught in practice. Partnerships and discussions between schools and teacher education institutes can offer an opportunity for both parties, teacher educators and supervising teachers, to share “experiences of teaching and practices that work in their own contexts” (Vu & Burns, 2014, p.23), with the aim to reduce the mismatch. In doing so, both teacher educators and supervising teachers can come to some common principles about how the supervision of pre-service teachers should be carried out, which in turn would assist in developing the quality of teacher education programmes (Bartholomew & Sandholtz, 2009; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010; van Velzen et al., 2009). Such discussions could also serve to update schools and the practicing English teachers in the schools about more recent research and practice on the teaching of speaking. Through university-school partnerships, teacher educators can also gain deeper insights into how they can “prepare graduates so that they do not feel the disappointment and frustration that some former graduates have experienced when they encounter classroom realities” (Macalister, 2014, p.108).

9.3.2. Implications for language policy

As indicated, although the participants in this study had positive attitudes towards the role of speaking and believed in the value of speaking instruction, their actual practices were strongly shaped and constrained by contextual factors at the policy level (see Section 7.2). Teaching material, particularly the textbook, was one of the critical factors that strongly influenced the way the participants conducted their teaching. The pre- service teachers were required to rely heavily on the textbooks prescribed by the MOET. The limitations of these textbooks for the teaching of speaking have been highlighted by many authors, as noted in Chapters 2 and 5. Nguyen (2007, p.20), for example, points out that:

226

Activities [in Grade 10, 11 and 12 English] might be designed as quasi- communicative because they do not involve an exchange of real information…They do not tend to present elements of genuine communication such as unpredictability and cooperation between speakers in communicative interaction. Nor do they tend to reflect interactional authenticity because there is hardly any opportunity for negotiation of meaning and use of communicative strategies.

With such limitations, the study highlights the needs for the prescribed textbooks not to be seen as ‘laws’, but rather as guidelines for teachers (Chen & Goh, 2011; Farrell & Ives, 2015; Moore & Carreon, 2012; Kitao, 2012; Nazara, 2011; Nguyen & Tran, 2015). It would be productive for language departments and language teachers in schools to be provided with more flexibility so that they have the right to select appropriate materials according to “the kinds of contexts learners find themselves in and the kind of speaking interactions they may have to negotiate” (Burns & Joyce, 1997, p.14). Similarly, Nimmannit (1998, p.38) points out that students will be more motivated if they are “exposed to activities to which they can relate, which encourage them to use the target language, and which allow them to choose what they want to say”. Where speaking activities are well-prepared for the needs of different types of students, motivation for learning speaking among students could be increased (Boonkit, 2010; Kayi, 2006; Talley & Tu, 2014).

Based on the insights from the study, it can also be suggested that the time allocation prescribed in the curriculum for teaching and learning English at secondary school levels should be reconsidered. The findings, as discussed in Chapter 8, showed that 45 minute classroom teaching sessions posed strong time pressure on the participants’ practices of teaching speaking. The interviewees were put under pressure to cover the required lesson content in these short time periods. Where feasible, it would be preferable for each English class to be allocated 60 minutes so that language teachers have more time to provide students with supplementary communicative activities to develop their speaking abilities.

227

9.4. Limitations of the study

This qualitative case study has provided insights into Vietnamese pre-service teachers’ perceptions and practices with respect to the teaching of speaking in a particular high school context and into the relationships between their perceptions and practices. For any study, however, it is important to consider some of the inevitable limitations of the research.

One of the first limitations is concerned with extrapolation. As indicated in Chapter 4, this is a case study, inevitably constructed on a small scale, in this instance with only eight Vietnamese pre-service teachers. This small group of pre-service teachers undertook the same teacher education programme at one university and worked within the same public upper-secondary school environment in a province in Vietnam. No claims can therefore be made that this sample is representative of a broad cohort of Vietnamese university pre-service teachers of English. A study of other Vietnamese pre- service teachers in different locations and teaching under different circumstances may reveal different kinds of perceptions or reveal other types of classroom practices. Therefore, while it provides a detailed understanding of one local Vietnamese teacher preparation educational context, the findings are clearly restricted in terms of the ability to generalize to other Vietnamese English pre-service teachers.

A further limitation is the use of the first language in interviews. In this study, all the semi-structured interviews and stimulated recall interviews were conducted in Vietnamese, and then, as the researcher, I translated the transcripts into English. Although considerable attention was paid to remaining as faithful as possible to the participants’ original words (see Section 4.8), inaccuracies of translation might inevitably have occurred. Because of limited resources and time, as well as limited availability of Vietnamese speakers, back-translation was not included in this study. However, as I discussed in Section 4.7.1, collecting data in the participants’ own language allowed for the researcher to gain richer insights. If English rather than Vietnamese had been chosen for interviews, participants may have felt less comfortable and less able to express their perspectives thoughtfully and clearly. However, the quality of the data obtained may have been affected.

228

Another limitation, that could have influenced the outcome of the research, was my position in the researcher as an insider in the research site. My familiarity with the context could have posed the risk of bias during the process of data analysis and interpretation, as well as the possibility that the research would be influenced by taken- for-granted institutional assumptions. However, by raising my own awareness of those factors and using multiple strategies in collecting and interpreting data (see Section 4.9), efforts were made to introduce more rigour into the research design and into its findings.

9.5. Recommendations for further research

Given the shortage of teacher education research in Vietnam that focuses on the teaching of speaking, and furthermore the limitations of this study, as indicated above, several recommendations can be made for future research in this area.

First, similar research using the kind of case study approach adopted in this study could be conducted in other institutional settings in Vietnam. Not only would this research expand on the availability of studies exploring the teaching of speaking that could inform teacher education programmes, it could also be used to confirm or disconfirm the findings of this study. However, in order to derive a more complete picture of Vietnamese pre-service teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding the teaching of speaking, it would be valuable to undertake cross-case studies or, preferably longitudinal studies, conducted in wider and more diverse educational contexts in Vietnam. Future research could explore the thinking and perceptions of Vietnamese pre- service teachers undertaking training courses at different universities and observe how they go about teaching speaking in different types of high schools (e.g., public as opposed to private, or specialized as opposed to normal). Studies could also focus on preparation programmes located in different areas (e.g., rural as opposed to urban). Such investigations would yield richer and more fruitful information about pre-service teachers’ beliefs as well as illustrate more extensively what underlies their practices. Evidence from such studies would therefore become more compelling and robust (Allen, 2013; Farrell, 2003; Le, 2011). It would also show whether cultural and policy factors constraining and shaping teachers’ practices are widespread or whether there are

229

local variations, which could perhaps illustrate productive practices and provide a much stronger basis for recommending change.

As discussed in Chapter 4, this study was exploratory and interpretive in nature (Yin, 2003, 2014; Merriam, 2009). As such, the findings were based primarily on qualitative data. However, as is evident in much of the literature, research into teacher cognition can encompass a range of research methodologies (Andrew, 2003; Barnard & Burns, 2012; Borg, 2003, 2006; Gao & Ma, 2011; Mullock, 2006; Özmen 2012; Pajares, 1992). Given the possibility of varied approaches, other studies could use a combination of multiple research methodologies for data collection. A fruitful possibility for further investigations in Vietnam would be to employ a mixed-method design that includes quantitative (e.g., questionnaires and statistical analysis) and qualitative (e.g., narratives and content analysis) approaches. Employing questionnaires allows the researcher to quantify discrete points about beliefs (Patton, 1990, 2002; Snape & Spencer, 2002), while narrative forms can interpret and describe thickly the participants’ personal viewpoints (Creswell, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Marshall& Rossman, 2011; Merriam, 2009; Richards, 2003). Through both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researcher would not only be able to collect large amounts of information from a larger number of participants to seek generalization, but also provide a detailed understanding of the nature of the specific phenomenon (Creswell, 2013; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Patton, 1990, 2002; Snape & Spencer, 2002).

Taking into consideration the complexity of beliefs about language learning and the dynamic interaction between teachers’ belief and practices as well as situational factors embedded in the teaching context, future research might take the form of a longitudinal study on the possible difference between the beliefs Vietnamese teachers hold when they enter teacher education programmes, the beliefs they have when they complete such programmes, and the beliefs they have several years after they work as in-service teachers. Various commentators have also argued that teachers’ beliefs may be significantly different, depending on factors such as membership in professional organizations, gender, highest educational degree earned and cultures (Allen, 2002, 2013; Farrell, 2007; Farrell & Tomenson-Filion, 2014; Macalister, 2010, 2014). Similarly, Horwitz (1999, p.557) suggests that beliefs may vary based on “age, stage of

230

learning, and professional status”. It would thus be very informative to investigate whether or not pre-service teachers’ beliefs change after their teacher preparation programmes and, if they do, what contributes to the change. The findings of such studies would be interesting and fruitful. Future research could also adopt cross-case studies to explore the thinking of EFL pre-service teachers in Vietnam compared with those in other countries. Such investigations may contribute to a richer picture of the various factors that could affect teaching practice during the practicum. More importantly, the findings of such studies could make more fully informed contributions to the development of EFL pedagogy in the context of Vietnam and possibly similar EFL settings.

Another possible direction for further research would be to undertake studies at university level, where English as a medium of instruction has been recently introduced into various non-English speaking countries in Asia (Dang et al., 2013; Le, 2012; Vu & Burns, 2014). The need to improve the training of teachers for higher education English courses is very important, but seems to have little prominence in these contexts (Dang et al., 2013; Nguyen & Hudson, 2010; Vu & Burns, 2014). It would be interesting to examine the beliefs that EFL teachers in universities, located in both Vietnam and other non-English speaking Asian countries, hold about the teaching of speaking, and to what extent their beliefs are reflected in their classroom practices. Findings from this type of research could not only add knowledge to the area, but also be useful for the design and development of university teacher education programmes (Macalister, 2014; Mattheoudakis, 2007).

9.6. Concluding remarks

This thesis has shed light on the practices of teaching speaking of a group of pre-service teachers at a high school in the Vietnamese context. The findings revealed what these Vietnamese pre-service teachers perceived about the teaching of speaking, and how they went about teaching speaking during their teaching practice. The findings also demonstrated the various factors that emerged from the institutional and classroom teaching contexts, which affected and shaped the ways the pre-service teachers translated their beliefs into teaching practice. The findings represent valuable

231

information for teacher educators to guide the development of future speaking courses. In addition, the study would be helpful for those involved in making language policy, designing textbooks and developing curriculum regarding English language teaching and learning at secondary school levels to understand the constraints that contribute to the teaching of speaking. Above all, the study suggests the urgent need to improve the quality both of teacher training for student teachers and the approaches to speaking instruction used in Vietnamese classrooms.

The research has also motivated me to continue exploring other possibilities in the field of language teaching and teacher cognition. Investigating the cognitions and practices of language teachers has offered opportunities to see how contextual conditions mediate teachers’ beliefs and how teachers’ situated experiences engender their reflections and new beliefs (Gao & Ma, 2011; Johnson, 2009, 2015; Peacock, 2001). At the same time, the study has provided me, as a teacher educator who is in charge of training future English teachers, with the opportunity to analyze and reflect on my own practice and, more importantly, to learn a great deal from the research participants, the pre-service teachers, school supervising teachers and teacher educators. This empirical knowledge will be extremely beneficial to my future academic life as a language teacher educator, not only in relation to assisting pre-service teachers with the teaching of speaking but also in offering me new ways to develop the quality of the teacher education programme. It is to be hoped that this investigation contributes to extending the body of knowledge related to the teaching of speaking in the context of Vietnam and to furthering research both in the Vietnamese context and similar EFL settings.

232

References

Abuza, Z. (1996). The politics of educational diplomacy in Vietnam: Educational exchanges under Doi Moi. Asian Survey, 36(6), 618-631. Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Opportunities and constraints. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 1-17. Allen, L. Q. (2002). Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and the standards for foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 518-529. Allen, L. Q. (2013). Teachers' beliefs about developing language proficiency within the context of study abroad. System, 41(1), 134-148. Andrews, S. (2003). 'Just like instant noodles': L2 teachers and their beliefs about grammar pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 351- 375. Anjaniputra, A. G. (2013). Teacher’s strategies in teaching speaking to students at secondary level. Journal of English and Education, 1(2), 1-8. Arksey, H., & Knight, P. T. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples: London: Sage Publication Ltd. Ashwill, M. A., & Thai, N. D. (2005). Vietnam today: A guide to a nation at a crossroads. Intercultural Press. Baecher, L. H., & Dang, T. B. T. (2011). Supervision of instruction in English as a foreign language: A Vietnamese perspective. TESOL Journal, 5, 3-20. Baez, B. (2002). Confidentiality in qualitative research: reflections on secrets, power and agency. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 35-58. Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012). How to teach speaking skills? Journal of Education and Practice, 3(2), 25-29. Bailey, K. M. (2001). Observation. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Langauges (pp. 14-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, K. M. (2005). Issues in teaching speaking skills to adult ESOL learners. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from http://ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/ann_rev/comings_ch5.pdf

233

Bailey, K. M. (2007). Practical English language teaching: Speaking. Higher Education Press. Bailey, K. M., Berthgold, B., Braunstein, Jagodzinski, N., Fleischman, M. P., Holbrook, J. T., & Zambo, L. J. (1996). The language learner's autobiography: Examining the "apprenticeship of observation ". In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 11-29). Cambirdge: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, K. M., & Savage, L. (1994). New ways in teaching speaking. New ways in TESOL series: Innovative Classroom Techniques. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Baker, A. (2014). Exploring teachers' knowledge of second language pronunciation techniques: Teacher cognitions, observed classroom practices, and student perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 136-163. Baker, A., & Murphy, J. (2011). Knowledge base of pronunciation teaching: Staking out the territory. TESL Canada Journal, 28(2), 29-50. Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills: Continuum International Publishing Group. Baleghizadeh, S., & Shahri, M. N.N. (2014). EFL teachers’ conceptions of speaking competence in English. Teachers and Teaching, 20(6), 738-754. Barnard, R. (1998). Classroom observation: some ethical implications. Modern English Teachers, 7(4), 49-55. Barnard, R., & Burns, A. (2012). Researching language teacher vognition and practice: International Case Studies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Barnard, R., & Nguyen, G. V. (2010). Task-based language teaching (TBLT): A Vietnamese case study using narrative frames to elicit teachers’ beliefs. Language education in Asia, 1(1), 77-86. Bartholomew, S. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Competing views of teaching in a school–university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 155- 165. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers' stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282-295. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243-272.

234

Bayyurt, Y., & Akcan, S. (2015). Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton. Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage Publication Ltd. Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 96-106). Cambridge, U.K., New York: Cambridge University Press. Berg, B. L. (2005). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bernat, E. (2004). Investigating Vietnamese ESL learners' beliefs about language learning. EA Journal, 21(2), 40-54. Berry, R. A. W. (2006). Beyond strategies teacher beliefs and writing instruction in two primary inclusion classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 11-24. Bezzina, C., & Michalak, J. (2009). Preparing student teachers for teaching practicum. In A. Swennen & M. van der Klink (Eds.), Becoming A Teacher Educator: Theory and Practice for Teacher Educators (pp. 163-172). Amsterdam: Springer. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon. Boonkit, K. (2010). Enhancing the development of speaking skills for non-native speakers of English. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1305-1309. Borg, M. (2001). Key concepts in ELT: Teachers' beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186-188. Borg, M. (2001). Teachers' beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186-188. Borg, M. (2005). A case study of the development in pedagogic thinking of a pre- service teacher. Retrieved 7 May, 2016, from http://www.tesl- ej.org/ej34/a5.html Borg, S. (1998). Teachers' pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38. Borg, S. (1999a). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System, 27(1), 19-31. Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53(3), 157- 167.

235

Borg, S. (1999c). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A quality study of teachers' practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 95-124. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81- 109. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. Research and Practice. London, UK: Continuum. Borg, S. (2009a). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 163-171). Cambridge: Cambridge Unversity Press. Borg, S. (2009b). Introducing language teacher cognition. Retrieved 25th, May 2013, from http://www.education.leads.ac.uk/research/files/145.pdf Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456-482. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Ltd. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Brick, J., & Louie, G. (1984). Language and culture, Vietnam: Background notes for teachers in the adult migrant education program. Sydney: Pink Panther. Bright, P., & Yore, L. D. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their influence on classroom practice. (ERIC Document No: ED463). Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: An approach based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, H. D. (2007a). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). San Francisco State University: Pearson Longman, Inc. Brown, H. D. (2007b). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). San Francisco State University: Pearson Longman.

236

Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research: An introduction to the theory and practice of second language research for graduate/Master's students in TESOL and applied linguistics, and others. Oxford University Press. Brownrigg, R. (2001). From traditional to contemporary in second language teaching. Teacher’s Edition, 5, 4-7. Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruton, A. (2005). Task-based language teaching for the state secondary FL classroom Language Learning Journal, 31(1), 56-68. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Press. Bryman, A., & Stephens, M. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 353-370. Bui, T. M. H. (2006). Teaching speaking skills at a Vietnamese university and recommendations for using CMC. Asian EFL Journal, 14. Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and thier influence on classroom practices. Prospect, 7(3), 56-66. Burns, A. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 154-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (1998). Teaching speaking. Annual review of applied linguistics, 18, 102-123. Burns, A. (2006). Teaching speaking: A text-based syllabus approach. In Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills (pp. 235-258). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge. Burns, A., Freeman, D., & Edwards, E. (2012). Theorizing and studying the language‐teaching mind: Mapping research on language teacher cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 585-601. Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. National Center for English Language Teaching and Research. Sydney. Australia.

237

Burns, A., & Knox, J. (2011). Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model. TESL-EJ, 15(1), 1-25. Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Longman. Buston, K., Parry-Jones, W., Livingston, M., Bogan, A., & Wood, S. (1998). Qualitative research. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 172(3), 197-199. Bygate, M. (1991). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bygate, M. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 20-42. Bygate, M. (2001a). Speaking. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 14-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bygate, M. (2001b). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Research Pedagogic Task: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Pearson Education/Longman. Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Usó- Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills (pp. 159-186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Byrne, D. (1989). Teaching oral English. (4th ed.): Longman. London. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211-217. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York, NY: Macmillan. Campbell, A., McNamara, O., & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner research and professional development in education. Sage Publication Ltd. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, I(1), 1-47.

238

Çapan, S. A. (2014). Pre-service English as a foreign language teachers' belief development about grammar instruction. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 131 Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in second language acquisition, 15(03), 357-386. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 141-158. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chambless, K. S. (2012). Teachers’ oral proficiency in the target language: Research on its role in language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 141-162. Chaney, A. L., & Burk, T. L. (1998). Teaching oral communication in Grades K-8. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Chang, M., & Goswami, J. S. (2011). Factors affecting the implementation of communicative language teaching in Taiwanese college English classes. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 3-10. Chappell, P., & Moore, S. (2012). Novice teachers and linguistics: Foregrounding the functional. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 589-598. Chen, Z., & Goh, C. (2011). Teaching oral English in higher education: Challenges to EFL teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(3), 333-345. Cheng, M. M., Cheng, A. Y., & Tang, S. Y. (2010). Closing the gap between the theory and practice of teaching: Implications for teacher education programmes in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(1), 91-104. Cheng, X., & Moses, S. (2011). Perceptions and implementation of task-based language teaching among secondary school EFL teachers in China. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(24), 292-302. Chiang, M. (2008). Effects of fieldwork experience on empowering prospective foreign language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1270-1287. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of systax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chu, R. (2011). Effects of teacher’s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English-majors college students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 454-459.

239

Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge University Press. Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 253-267. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer. Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 253-26 Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging students to take responsibility for learning and performance. The Elementary School Journal, 93(1), 69-83. Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Lincoln: Sage Publication Ltd. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd.ed). Sage Publication Ltd. Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction (pp. 3-24). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Crookes, G. (2003). The practicum in TESOL: Professional development through teaching practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cross, D. (1999). A practical handbook of language teaching. Prentice Hall. Cross, R. (2010). Language teaching as sociocultural activity: Rethinking language teacher practice. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 434-452. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cundale, N. (2001). Do we practice what we preach? Stated beliefs about communicative language teaching and classroom questioning strategies. The Language Teacher, 25(5), 4-9. da Silva, M. (2005). Constructing the teaching process from inside out: How pre-service teachers make sense of their perceptions of the teaching of the four skills. TESL- EJ, 9(2), 1-19.

240

Dang, T. H., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2008). Nhan thuc cua sinh vien trong viec chon loc ngoai ngu o bac dai hoc (Students' perceptions about choosing a foreign language learning at tertiary level). Dai Hoc Bach Khoa Da Nang. Retrieved 27th September, 2013, from http://www.bachkhoadanang.edu.vn/Detail.aspx?nt=khoahoc&sj=nckhocdtnc& mt Dang, T. K. A., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Le, T. T. T. (2013). The impacts of globalisation on EFL teacher education through English as a medium of instruction: An example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 52-72. Dang, T. N. (1986). Teaching oral communication skills to trainee interpreters at the University of Hanoi. (Unpublished M.A in TESOL), Faculty of Education, University of Canberra. Dao, T. D. (1994). On the struggle for democracy in Vietnam. Butterfly Books. New South Wales, Australia. David, M. (2006). Editor's introduction. In M. David (Ed.), Case Study Research: Volume I (pp. xiv-xvii). London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd. Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in language teaching: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Debreli, E. (2012). Change in beliefs of pre-service teachers about teaching and learning English as a foreign language throughout an undergraduate pre-service teacher training program. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 367-373. deMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and Social Sciences (pp. 51-68). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, London. Denham, P. (1992). English in Vietnam. World Englishes, 11(1), 61-69. Denham, P. A. (1997). Eight Autumns in Hanoi. In B. Kenny & W. Savage (Eds.), Language and Development: Teachers in a Changing World (pp. 193-207). Longman: London and New York. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbok of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Ltd.

241

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-28). Thosand Oaks: Sage Publication Ltd. Dikici, I. Z. (2012). Pre-service English teachers’ beliefs towards grammar and its teaching at two Turkish Universities. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(2), 206-218. Dincer, A., & Yesilyurt, S. (2013). Pre-service English teachers’ beliefs on speaking skill based on motivational orientations. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 88- 95. Dinçer, A., Yeşilyurt, S., & Göksu, A. (2012). Promoting speaking accuracy and fluency in foreign language classrooms: A closer look at English speaking classrooms. Journal of Faculty of Education 14(1), 97-108. Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 41(1), 25-37. Do, H. T. (1999). Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: The reemergence of English and its impact on higher education. Paper presented at the The 4th International Conference on Language and Development Proceeding, Hanoi. Vietnam. Do, H. T. (2006). The role of English in Vietnam's foreign language policy: A brief history. Paper presented at the 19th Annual EA Education Conference Perth, Australia. Doan, L. C. (2011). Guidance for learners’ improvement of speaking skills. Language Education in Asia, 2(2), 213-226. Doff, A. (1988). Teach English trainer's handbook: A training course for teachers. Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: University Press Oxford. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1994). Teaching conversational skills intensively: Course content and rationale. ELT Journal, 48(1), 40-49. Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.

242

Duggan, S. (2001). Educational reform in Viet Nam: A process of change or continuity? Comparative Education, 37(2), 193-212. Duiker, W. J. (1983). Vietnam: Nation in revolution. Colorado: Westview Press. Eckard, R. D., & Kearny, M. A. (1981). Teaching conversation skills in ESL. Language in Education: Theory and Practice, No. 38: ERIC. Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking. A study of practical knowledge. Croom helm curriculum policy and research series. Nichols Publishing Company. New York Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 7-25. Ellis, R. (2009a). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474- 509. Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.

Ellis, R. (2009c). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65. Farrell, T., & Kun, S. (2008). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 29(3), 381-403. Farrell, T. S. (2003). Learning to teach English language during the first year: Personal influences and challenges. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 95-111. Farrell, T. S. (2007). Failing the practicum: Narrowing the gap between expectations and reality with reflective practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 193-201. 243

Farrell, T. S. (2012). Novice‐service language teacher development: Bridging the gap between pre-service and in‐service education and development. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 435-449. Farrell, T. S., & Bennis, K. (2013). Reflecting on ESL teacher beliefs and classroom practices: A case study. RELC Journal, 44(2), 163-176. Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). 'The teacher is an octopus’: Uncovering preservice English language teachers’ prior beliefs through metaphor analysis. RELC Journal, 37(2), 236-248. Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Learning to teach language in the first year: a Singapore case study. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.), Novice Language Teachers: Insigights and Perspectives for The First Year (pp. 43-56). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Farrell, T. S. C., & Lim, P. C. P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1-13. Farrell, T. S. C., & Tomenson-Filion. (2014). Teacher beliefs and classroom practices: A case study of an ESL teacher in Canada. In S. B. Said & L. J. Zhang (Eds.), Language Teachers and Teaching: Global Perspectives, Local Initiatives (pp. 169-184). New York: Routledge. Feryok, A. (2008). An Armenian English language teacher’s practical theory of communicative language teaching. System, 36(2), 227-240. Feryok, A. (2010). Language teacher cognitions: Complex dynamic systems. System, 38(2), 272-279. Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. Sage Publication Ltd. Flores, B. B. (2001). Bilingual education teachers' beliefs and their relation to self- reported practices Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 275-299. Florez, M. A. C. (1999). Improving adult English language learners' speaking skills. Retrieved November, 9 2014, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED435204.pdf Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers' views of pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge. Teaching and teacher Education, 12(4), 429-442. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. Mc Grawall Hill.

244

Fraser, S. E. (1995). Foreword. In D. Sloper & T. C. Le (Eds.), Higher Education in Vietnam: Change and Response. Insitute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. ST. Martin's Press. Freeman, D. (1992). language teacher education, emerging discourse and change in classroom practice. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 1-21). Hong Kong, SAR: City University of Hong Kong. Freeman, D. (1996). The "unstudied problem": Research on teacher learning in language teaching. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 351-378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach: A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1-13. Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and appearance. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 40-48. Fry, G. W. (2009). Higher education in Vietnam. In Y. Hirosato & Y. Kitamura (Eds.), The Political Economy of Educational Reforms and Capacity Development in Southeast Asia: Cases of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam (pp. 237-261). Springer. Fung, L., & Chow, L. P. (2002). Congruence of student teachers' pedagogical images and actual classroom practices. Educational Research, 44(3), 313-321. Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational Research: An Introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Gan, Z. (2012). Understanding L2 speaking problems: Implications for ESL curriculum development in a teacher training institution in Hong Kong. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-59. Gan, Z. (2013). Learning to teach English language in the practicum: What challenges do non-native ESL student teachers face? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 92-108. Gao, X., & Benson, P. (2012). ‘Unruly pupils’ in pre-service English language teachers’ teaching practicum experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(2), 127- 140.

245

Gao, X., & Ma, Q. (2011). Vocabulary learning and teaching beliefs of pre-service and in-service teachers in Hong Kong and mainland China. Language Awareness, 20(4), 327-342. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2005). Data Elicitation for second and foreign language research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research: Routledge. Gasson, S. (2004). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In M. E. Whitman & A. B. Woszynski (Eds.), The Handbook of Information System Research (pp. 79-102). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Gebhard, J. G. (2009). The practicum. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 250-258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 3-30). New York. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann Portsmouth, NH. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Goh, C. C. M. (2007). Teaching speaking in the language classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goh, C. C. M., & Chen, Z. (2014). Teaching spoken English in China: The relationship between beliefs and characteristics of university EFL teachers. In S. B. Said & L. J. Zhang (Eds.), Language Teachers and Teaching: Global Perspectives, Local Initiatives (pp. 109-126). London: Routledge. Goh, E., & Bang, N. (2004). Vietnam. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Language Policies and Language Education. The Impact in East Asian Countires in The Next Decade (pp. 342-353). Eastern Universities Press.

246

Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers' personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464. Goodman, J. E. (2005). Uniquely Vietnamese: Thế Giới Publishers. Gower, R., Phillips, D., & Walters, S. (1995). Teaching practice handbook: Macmillan: Heinemann. Graden, E. C. (1996). How language teachers' beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 387- 395. Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112. Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers' successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 480-488. Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41(2), 147-181. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An Introduction. Sage Publication Ltd. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91. Guba, E. G. (1992). The alternative paradigm. London: Sage Publication Ltd. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigm in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Ltd. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gungor, O., & Sarac, H. S. (2012). Pre-service teachers' level of readiness for teaching of speaking-proposing a working instrument. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5(3), 93-98. Ha, V. S. (2003). Input and interaction training in pre-service EFL teacher training in Vietnam. (Unpublished PhD thesis), La Trobe University, Australia.

247

Hamano, T. (2008). Educational reform and teacher education in Vietnam. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), 397-410. Hamlyn, D. W. (1996). Understanding Perception: The concept and its conditions. Avebury Aldershot. Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT Journal, 57(3), 288-294. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. (4th ed). London. New York. Hayes, D., & Chang, K. (2014). The politics of comparison: The global and the local in English language teaching and teacher education. In S. B. Said & L. J. Zhang (Eds.), Language Teachers and Teaching: Global Perspectives, Local Initiatives (pp. 11-25). New York: Routledge. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom: A guide to current ideas about the theory and practice of English language teaching. Routledgefalmer (UK). Hennissen, P., Crasborn, F., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Mapping mentor teachers’ roles in mentoring dialogues. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 168-186. Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109-131. Hoang, T. (1999). Learner's fondness for knowledge revisited. Giao duc va Thoi dai (Education and Time Newspaper), 79. Hoang, V. V. (2011a). The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in Vietnam. Retrieved 9 May, 2013, from http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k- rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_22-1/RitsIILCS_22.1pp.7-18_HOANG.pdf Hoang, V. V., Hoang, T. X. H., Dao, N. L., Vu, T. L., Do, T. M., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2006). Tieng Anh 10, Teacher's book. Hanoi, Vietnam: Education Publishing House. Hoffman, J. V., & Kugle, C. L. (1982). A study of theoretical orientation to reading and its relationship to teacher verbal feedback during reading instruction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 18, 2-7. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320.

248

Hood, M. (2009). Case study. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 66-90). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557- 576. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 1-13. Housner, L. D., & Griffey, D. C. (1985 ). Teacher cognition: Differences in planning and interactive decision making between experienced and inexperienced teachers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56(1), 45-53. Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford University Press. Huang, L. (2010). Methods to oral English practice. Asian Social Science, 6(6), 187- 189. Hudson, P. (2004). Toward identifying pedagogical knowledge for mentoring in primary science teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 215-225. Hughes, R. (2010). Materials to develop the speaking skill. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice (pp. 207-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, R. (2013). Teaching and researching speaking. London: Pearson. Hunter, J. (2012). ‘Small Talk’: developing fluency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking. ELT Journal, 66(1), 30-41. Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguictic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and Methods (pp. 3-28). London: Academic Press. Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguictics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Inceçay, G. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ language learning beliefs and effects of these beliefs on their practice teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 128-133.

249

Isikoglu, N., Basturk, R., & Karaca, F. (2009). Assessing in-service teachers' instructional beliefs about student-centered education: A Turkish perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 350-356. Jang, H. (2014). Communicative approaches in teaching spoken English pre-service teacher education in EFL contexts. ELT Worldwide, 1(1), 17-30. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), 486-494. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2011). Re-evaluating traditional approaches to second language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. II, pp. 558-575). New York: Routledge Jocker, K. (2006). The case method in social research. In M. David (Ed.), Case Study Research (pp. 39-53). London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd. Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. New York: Longman. Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford, England: Pergamon. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning: Oxford. Blackwell. Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Literacy Research, 24(1), 83-108. Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service ESL teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439-452. Johnson, K. E. (1996). The vision versus the reality: The tensions of TESOL practicum. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 30-49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235-257. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, K. E. (2015). Reclaiming the relevance of L2 teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 515-528.

250

Johnson, N. A. (1987). Perspectives: The pervasive, persuasive power of perceptions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, xxxiii(3), 206-228. Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 56(3), 437-468. Jones, J. F., & Fong, P. (2007). The impact of teachers’ beliefs and educational experiences on EFL classroom practices in secondary schools. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 17, 27-47. Kagan, D. M. (1992a). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90. Kagan, D. M. (1992b). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169. Kam, H. W. (2004). RELC'S role in ELT in Southeast Asia (1968 to 2002): Mediating between the centre and the periphery. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices. (pp. 46-73). Eastern Universities Press. Karahan, F. (2007). Language attitudes of Turkish students towards the English language and its use in Turkish context. Journal of Arts and Sciences 7, 73-87. Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers' attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50(3), 187-198. Karnow, S. (1991). Vietnam - A history. Revised. New York: Viking. Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching speaking: Activities to promote speaking in a second language. Retrieved 25 May, 2013, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kayi- Teaching Speaking.html Kennedy, M. (1990). Policy issues in teacher education. National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Kennett, P., & Knight, J. (1999). Baseline study report on lower secondary English language teaching in Vietnam: ELTTP Project. Hanoi, Vietnam: Ministry of Education and Training and the Department for International Development. Kent, G. (2002). Informed consent. In D. Burton (Ed.), Research Training for Social Scientists (pp. 81-87). London: Sage Publication Ltd.

251

Khamkhien, A. (2010). Teaching English speaking and English speaking tests in the Thai context: A reflection from Thai perspective. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 184-190. Khan, N., & Ali, A. (2010). Improving the speaking ability in English: The students’ perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3575-3579. Kieu, K. A. H. (2010). Use of Vietnamese in English language teaching in Vietnam: Attitudes of Vietnamese university teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 119-128. Kim, A. Y. A. (2014). Examining how teachers’ beliefs about communicative language teaching affect their instructional and assessment practices: A qualitative study of EFL university instructors in Colombia. RELC Journal, 45(3), 337-354.

Kitao, K. (2012). Selecting and Developing Teaching/Learning Materials. The Internet TESOL Journal. Retrieved 25th, September, 2012, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kitao-Materials.html. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311, 299-302. Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50(3), 199- 212. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222. Kuzborska, I. (2011). Links between teachers’ beliefs and practices and research on reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 102-128. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press. Le, C. L. V. (2009). Education reform in lower secondary education in Vietnam. In Y. Hirosato & Y. Kitamura (Eds.), The Political Economy of Educational Reforms and Capacity Development in Southeast Asia: Cases of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam (pp. 217-236). Springer. Le, D. M. (2012). English as a medium of instruction at tertiary education system in Vietnam. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(2), 97-122. Le, H. T. (2013). ELT in Vietnam general and tertiary education from second language education perspectives. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 29(1), 65-71.

252

Le, T. S. (2011). Teaching English in Vietnam: Improving the position in the private sector. (Unpublised Doctoral Thesis), Vitoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Le , V. C. (1999). Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. In J. Shaw, D. Lubeska & M. Noullet (Eds.), Language and Development: Partnership and Interaction: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on language and development, Hanoi, Vietnam (pp. 73-79). Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. Le, V. C. (2001). Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Teacher's Edition, 7, 34-40. Le , V. C. (2002). Sustainable professional development of EFL teachers in Vietnam. Teacher's Edition, 10, 32-37. Le, V. C. (2003). Local mind, global practice: ELT in the context of globalization. Teacher's Edition, 13, 36-42. Le, V. C. (2004). From ideology to inquiry: Mediating Asian and Western values in ELT practice. Teacher's Edition, 2, 28-35. Le, V. C. (2007). A historical review of English language education in Vietnam. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English Education in Asia: History and Politics (pp. 168-180). Seoul, South Korea: Asia TEFL. Le, V. C. (2008). Teachers' beliefs about curriculum innovation in Vietnam: A preliminary study. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), ELT curriculum innovation and implementation (pp. 192-216). Seoul, Korea: Asia TEFL. Le, V. C. (2011). Form-focused instruction: A case study of Vietnamese teachers' beliefs and practices. (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Le, V. C. (2012). A theory-practice divide: EFL teachers' and students' beliefs about grammar instruction. English Australia Journal, 27(2), 34-49. Le, V. C. (2014). Great expectations: The TESOL practicum as a professional learning experience. TESOL Journal, 5(2), 199-224. Le, V. C., & Barnard, R. (2009). Curricular innovation behind closed classroom doors: A Vietnamese case study. Teacher's Edition, 24(2), 20-33. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.

253

Lee, I. (2009a). Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22. Lee, I. (2009b). Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(1), 13-22. Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143-157. Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2015). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research (1-22). Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. Taipei: McGraw-Hill International. Leon, A. C., Davis, L. L., & Kraemer, H. C. (2011). The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(5), 626-629. Lewis, A. (1992). Group child interviews as a research tool. British Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 413-421. Lewis, M., & McCook, F. (2002). Cultures of teaching: Voices from Vietnam. ELT journal, 56(2), 146-153. Li, D. (1998). “It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703. Li, L. (2012). Belief construction and development: two tales of non-native English speaking student teachers in a TESOL programme. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1), 33-58. Li, L. (2013). The complexity of language teachers' beliefs and practice: One EFL teacher's theories. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 175-191. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A Meta analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication Ltd. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). USA: Sage Publication Ltd.

254

Lindorff, M. (2010). Ethics, ethical human research and human research ethics committees. Australian Universities' Review, 52(1), 51-59. Linse, C. (2005). Practical English language teaching: Young learners. McGraw Hill. Liou, H.-C. (2001). Reflective practice in a pre-service teacher education program for high school English teachers in Taiwan, ROC. System, 29(2), 197-208. Little, J. W. (1990). Teachers as colleages. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now (pp. 165-193). New York, NY: Falmer. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Littlewood, W. (1992). Teaching oral communication: A methodological framework. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1), 31-36. Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243-249. Liu, N.-F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384. London, J. D. (2011). Comtemporary Vietnam's education system: Historical roots, current trends. In J. D. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam (pp. 1-56). Institute of Southeat Asian Studies, Singapore. Long, C., Ming, Z., & Chen, L. (2013). The study of student motivation on English learning in junior middle school-A case study of No. 5 middle school in Gejiu. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 136-145. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lyle, J. (2003 ). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.

255

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1- 40. Macalister, J. (2010). Investigating teacher attitudes to extensive reading practices in higher education: Why isn’t everyone doing it? RELC Journal, 41(1), 59-75. Macalister, J. (2012). Pre-service Teacher Cognition and Vocabulary Teaching. RELC Journal, 43(1), 99-111. Macalister, J. (2014). Challenges in language education. In H. P. Widodo & N. T. Zacharias (Eds.), Recent Issues in English Language Education: Challenges and Directions. Sabelas Maret University Press. Macalister, J. (2016). Tracing it back: Identifying the impact of a trans-national language teacher education programme on classroom practice. RELC Journal, 47(1), 59-70. Mack, H., & Lewis, M. (2003). Learning and teaching a new language: Connecting theory and experience. Teacher's Edition, 12, 32-37. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Routledge. Routledge. Mahmoodzadeh, M. (2012). Investigating foreign language speaking anxiety within the EFL learner's interlanguage system: The case of Iranian learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 466-476. Mai, C. K. (2007). An Investigation into oral errors in English speaking classes at upper secondary schools in Quang Tri province. (Unpublished MA Thesis in Education ), College of Foreign Languages, Hue University, Vietnam. Mak, S. H. Y. (2011). Tensions between conflicting beliefs of an EFL teacher in teaching practice. RELC Journal, 42(1), 53-67. Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., & Son, J.-B. (2004). Teaching a foreign language: one teacher's practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 291-311. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Ltd. Mart, C. T. (2012). Developing speaking skills through reading. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(6), 91-96.

256

Martínez-Flor, A., Usó-Juan, E., & Alcón Soler, E. (2006). Towards acquiring communicative competence through speaking. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez- Flor (Eds.), Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Mattheoudakis, M. (2007). Tracking changes in pre-service EFL teacher beliefs in Greece: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1272- 1288. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualititative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Ltd. McCarthy, M., & OKeeffe, A. (2004). Research in the teaching of speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 26-43. McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (1994). Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher's Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Mehta, N. K. (2009). Vocabulary teaching: Effective methodologies. Retrieved 18 April, 2016, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Mehta-Vocabulary.html Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Sage Publication Ltd. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publication Ltd. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publication Ltd. MOET. (1995a). The policy of socializing education. Hanoi: Educational Publishers. MOET. (1995b). Vietnam Education and Training Directory. Hanoi, Vietnam: Educationa Publishing House. MOET. (2001). Hướng dẫn đánh giá xếp loại giờ dạy bậc trung học (Guidelines for assess and evaluate secondary school teachers' lessons). Retrieved 25 July, 2014, from http://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Huong-dan-10227- THPT-danh-gia-xep-loai-gio-day-bac-trung-hoc-121744.aspx

257

MOET. (2006). Chuong trinh giao duc pho thong: Mon tieng Anh (English curriculum for the secondary school) Hanoi, Vietnam: Education Publishing House. MOET. (2007). English curriculum. Hanoi, Vietnam: Education Publishing House. Moini, M. R. (2009). The impact of EFL teachers’ cognition on teaching foreign language grammar. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 49, 141-164. Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42. Moore, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Non-English-speaking background accountants and professional communication. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 23(2), 47-59. Moore, S. H., & Bounchan, S. (2010). English in Cambodia: Changes and challenges. World Englishes, 29(1), 114-126. Moore, S. H., & Carreon, J. R. (2012). Hidden challenges that radio DJs present to ESL/EFL listeners. Learn Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 5, 19-29. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39(4), 451- 467. Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2008). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22. Mullock, B. (1992). Vietnam: English language training after reunification. EA Journal, 10(1), 79-85. Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 48-66. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11(3), 201-225.

258

Myles, J., Cheng, L., & Wang, H. (2006). Teaching in elementary school: Perceptions of foreign-trained teacher candidates on their teaching practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 233-245. Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. Routledge. Nazara, S. (2011). Students’ perception on EFL speaking skill development. Journal of English Teaching, 1(1), 28-43. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328. Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre- service teachers' evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 278-289. Nguyen, B. T., Newton, J., & Crabbe, D. (2015). Preparing for tasks in Vietnamese EFL high school classrooms: Teachers in action. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary Task-Based Language Teaching in Asia (pp. 170-188). London: Bloomsbury. Nguyen, G. V. (2013). Orienting to pedagogical innovation: A case study of Vietnamese teachers' beliefs and practices regarding task-based language teaching. (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Nguyen, H. T., Fehring, H., & Warren, W. (2015). EFL teaching and learning at a Vietnamese university: What do teachers say? English Language Teaching, 8(1), 31-43. Nguyen, H. T., & Tran, N. M. (2015). Factors affecting students' speaking performance at Le Thanh Nien high school. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 8- 23. Nguyen, H. T., Warren, W., & Fehring, H. (2014). Factors affecting English language teaching and learning in higher education. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 94- 105. Nguyen, H. T. M., & Hudson, P. (2010). Preservice EFL teachers’ attitudes, needs, and experiences about teaching writing and learning to teach writing before their practicum: A case study in Vietnam. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 12(3), 43-67.

259

Nguyen, N. (2012). How English has displaced Russian and other foreign languages in Vietnam since “Doi Moi”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(23), 259-266. Nguyen, Q. T. (2010). Difficulties experienced by Vietnamese lecturers teaching IELTS speaking at university level and some suggested solutions. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages, 26, 252-256. Nguyen, T., M, H. (2016). Models of mentoring in language teacher education. Springer. Nguyen, T. H. (2002). Vietnam: Cultural background for ESL/EFL teachers. Review of Vietnamese Studies, 2(1), 1-6. Retried on August, 21, 2013 from http://www.vietnamesestudies.org/uploads/2014/2015/2018/2017/4587788/vietn amforesolteachersvs4582002.pdf. Nguyen, T. H. A. (2002). Cultural effects on learning and teaching English in Vietnam. Language Teacher-Kyoto-JALT, 26(1), 2-6. Nguyen, T. M. H. (2011). Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 225-249. Nguyen, T. M. H., & Nguyen, Q. T. (2007). Teaching English in primary schools in Vietnam: An overview. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(2), 162-173. Nguyen, T. T. M. (2007). Textbook evaluation: The case of English textbooks currently in use in Vietnam’s upper-secondary schools. Retrieved 9 September, 2015, from http://thuyminhnguyen.google.pages.com Nguyen, T. T. T. (2012). English language policies for Vietnamese primary schools and issues of implementation in rural settings. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, Special Issue, 115-134. Nguyen, V. L., & Franken, M. (2010). Conceptions of language input in Second language acquisition: A case of Vietnamese EFL teachers. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 62-76. Nguyen, X. V. (2004). English language teaching in Vietnam today: Policy, practice and constraints. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices (pp. 447-454). Eastern Universities Press.

260

Nimmannit, S. (1998). Maximizing students' oral skills: The Asian context. Language Teacher-Kyoto-JALT, 21(11), 37-40. Nishimuro, M., & Borg, S. (2013). Teacher cogniton and grammar teaching in a Japanese high school. JALT Journal, 35(1), 29-49. Noom-ura, S. (2008). Teaching listening-speaking skills to Thai students with low English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 173-192. Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 131-153. Nunan, D. (1992). The teacher as decision-maker. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock & S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 135-165). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic. Nunan, D. (2003a). Practical English language teaching. McGraw-Hill/Contemporary. Nunan, D. (2003b). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613. O'Day, B., & Killeen, M. (2002). Research on the lives of persons with disabilities. The emerging importance of qualitative research methodologies. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13(1), 9-15. O'Neill, R. (1990). Why use textbooks? In R. Rossner & R. Bolitho (Eds.), Currents in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices within and across domains. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 71-84. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93-96. Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and teacher education, 23(6), 957-969. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know? New York: Newbury House Publishers. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Pan, L., & Block, D. (2011). English as a “global language” in China: An investigation into learners’ and teachers’ language beliefs. System, 39(3), 391-402.

261

Patil, Z. N. (2008). Rethinking the objectives of teaching English in Asia. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 227-240. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication Ltd. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication Ltd. Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers' beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177-195. Pham, H. H. (2000). The key socio-cultural factors that work against success in tertiary English language training programs in Vietnam. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on language and development. Retrieved 10th, April, 2013, from http://www.language.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/hanoi1999 Pham, H. H. (2001). Teacher development: A real need for English departments in Vietnam. English Teaching Forum, 39 (4). Retrieved 9th, September, 2013, from http://wwweca.state.gov/forum/vols/39/no4/p30.htm Pham, H. H. (2005). Imported communicative language teaching: Implications for local teachers. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 2-9. Pham, H. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201. Pham, L. H., & Fry, G. W. (2004). Education and economic, political, and social change in Vietnam. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(3), 199-222. Pham, M. H. (1995). The educational system of Vietnam. In D. Sloper & T. C. Le (Eds.), Higher Education in Vietnam (pp. 41-61). Institute of Southest Asian Studies. Heng Mui KengTerrace. Singapore. Phan, L., H (2008). Teaching English as an international language: Identity, resistance and negotiation. Multilingual Matters. Pham, T. T. X. (2014). What are the challenges that Vietnamese students encounter when representing themselves through speaking English? TESOL International Journal, 9(1), 125-146. Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390. Pike, D. (1987). Vietnam and the Soviet Union: Anatomy of an alliance. Colorado: Westview Press.

262

Pratt, D. D. (1992a). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203- 220. Pratt, D. D. (1992b). Chinese conceptions of learning and teaching: A Westerner's attempt at understanding. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 301-319. Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. Sage Publication Ltd. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners' perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2), 472-483. Renzaglia, A., Hutchins, M., & Lee, S. (1997). The impact of teacher education on the beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions of preservice special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 20(4), 360-377. Richards, J. C. (1990). Coversational speaking: Approaches to the teaching of conversation. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), The Language Teaching Matrix (pp. 67- 86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers' maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281-296. Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (2003). Current trends in teaching listening and speaking. The Language Teacher, 27(7), 17-19. Richards, J. C. (2011). Competence and performance in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Crookes, G. (1988). The practicum in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 9-27. Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

263

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. A description and analysis (3rd ed). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK. Palgrave Macmillan. Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational researcher, 19(7), 10-18. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586. Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79. Rosaen, C., & Florio-Ruane, S. (2008). The metaphors by which we teach: Experience, metaphor, and culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman- Nemser, J. McIntyre & K. D. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 706-731). London: Routledge. Rozelle, J. J., & Wilson, S. M. (2012). Opening the black box of field experiences: How cooperating teachers' beliefs and practices shape student teachers' beliefs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1196-1205. Saito, E., Tsukui, A., & Tanaka, Y. (2008). Problems on primary school-based in- service training in Vietnam: A case study of Bac Giang province. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(1), 89-103. Sanger, M. N., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2011). Teacher education, preservice teacher beliefs, and the moral work of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 569-578. Sarandi, H. (2016). Oral corrective feedfack: A question of classification and application. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 235-246.

264

Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. (1999). Multiple data sources: Converging and diverging conceptualizations of lote teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 24(1), 16-34. Saunders, W. M., & O'Brien. (2006). Oral language. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. M. Saunders & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 14-45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods. Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Ltd. Schön, D. A. (1996). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Ashgate Publishing Limited: England. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Sage Publication Ltd. Seymen, S. (2012). Beliefs and expectations of student teachers about their self and role as teacher during teaching practice course. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1042-1046. Shank, G. D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall. Shapiro, L. (1995). English language training in Vietnam in the era of Doimoi: Ho Chi Minh City: A descriptive case study. (Unpublished Master's thesis), The School for International Training Brattleboro, Vermont. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of educational research, 51(4), 455- 498. Shaver, K. G. (1981). Principles of social psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593-610). Routledge. New York. Shen, J. (2001). Confucius. In J. A. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty major thinkers on education (pp. 1-4). New York, NY: Routledge. Shen, Y. (2013). Balancing accuracy and fluency in English classroom teaching to improve Chinese non-English majors’ oral English ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(5), 816-822.

265

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. Shinde, M. B., & Karekatti, T. K. (2012). Pre-service Teachers' beliefs about teaching English to primary school children. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 69-82. Shulman, L. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational researcher, 10(6), 5-23. Shumin, K. (2002). Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students' speaking abilities. Methodology in language teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, 12, 204-211. Simon-Maeda, A. (2004). The complex construction of professional identities: Female EFL educators in Japan speak out. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 405-436. Simons, H. (1980). Towards a science of the singular. Norwich, UK: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia Norwich. Sinkovics, R. R., & Ghauri, P. N. (2008). Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 48(6), 689-714. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 510-532. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120. Smith, D. B. (1996). Teacher decision making in the adult ESL classroom. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 197-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

266

Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2003). The foundation of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Reseaerch Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (pp. 1-23). London: Sage Publication Ltd. Snow, D. (2007). From language learner to language teacher: An introduction to teaching English as a foreign language. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. Socheath, M. (2010). Simple ways to improve English speaking in teaching and learning. Retrieved 18 April, 2014, from http://download.portalgaruda.org/article.php?article=9872&val=631 Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publication Ltd. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis: New York. The Guilford Press. Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: Preservice teachers' experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education 51(2), 113-121. Sullivan, P. N. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 115-131). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Suter, E. A. (2000). Focus groups in ethnography of communication: expanding topics of inquiry beyond participation observation. The Qualitative Report, 5(1&2) Retrieved 17 June, 2014, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR5-1/suter.html Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401. Talley, P. C., & Tu, H. L. (2014). Implicit and explicit teaching of English speaking in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Humanities and Social Scienc, 4(6), 38-46. Tang, E. L. Y., Lee, J. C. K., & Chun, C. K. W. (2012). Development of teaching beliefs and the focus of change in the process of pre-service ESL teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 90-107. Tatto, M. T. (1998). The influence of teacher education on teachers' beliefs about purposes of education, roles, and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 66-77. Taylor, P. (2011). Foreword. In J. D. London (Ed.), Education in Vietnam (pp. vii-ix). Institute of Southeast of Asian Studies, Singapore.

267

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analytis types and software tools. The Falmer Press. Thabane, L., Ma, J., Chu, R., Cheng, J., Ismaila, A., Rios, L. P., & Goldsmith, C. H. (2010). A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 1-10. ThanhnienNews. (2012). Cần sửa ngay lương giáo viên (Urgent adjustments of teachers’ salary). Retrieved 16 September, 2014, from http://thanhnien.vn/giao- duc/can-sua-ngay-luong-giao-vien-601990.html Thornbury, S. (2000). Accuracy, fluency and complexity. English Teaching Professional, 16, 3-6. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking: Harlow: Pearson Education London. Thornbury, S. (2006a). Accuracy, fluency and complexity. Retrieved 18 March, 2015, from http://btk- teszt.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/5839/file/readings_in_methodology.pdf - page=139 Thornbury, S. (2006b). An AZ of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts used in English Language Teaching. Macmillan Education. Thornbury, S. (2012). Speaking Instruction. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and Practice in Second Language Teaching (pp. 198-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 3(3), 68-70. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(02), 143-179. Tomlinson, B., & Dat, B. (2004). The contributions of Vietnamese learners of English to ELT methodology. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 199-222. Ton, N. N. H., & Pham, H. H. (2010). Vietnamese teachers’ and students’ perceptions of global English. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 48-61. Tran, K. (2002). Education in Vietnam: Current state and issues. Hanoi: The Gio Publishers. Tran, T. T. T., Baldauf, R. B., & Moni, K. (2013). Foreign language anxiety: Understanding its status and insiders' awareness and attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 216-243.

268

Trinh, Q. L. (2005). Stimulating learner autonomy in English language education: A curriculum innovation in Vietnamese context. (Unpublised Doctoral Thesis), Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Holland. Tsui, A. B. (1996). Learning to teach ESL writing. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 79-119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuckett, A. G. (2005). Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher's experience. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1-2), 75-87. Tuckman, B. W. (1972). Conduting educational research. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. TuoiteNews. (2012). Lương giáo viên (Teachers’ salary) Retrieved 27 September, 2014 from http://tuoitre.vn/giao-duc/luong-giao-vien/1791341.html Ulichny, P. (1996). What's in a methodology? In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 178-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Una, S. (2016). The use of parallel team-teaching: The case of teaching speaking for economics students in the Indonesian context. Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles 89, 4-22. Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A Theory of Planned Behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 911-925. Ur, P. (2012). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Uysal, H. H., & Bardakci, M. (2014). Teacher beliefs and practices of grammar teaching: focusing on meaning, form, or forms? South African Journal of Education, 34(1), Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygates & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins. van Lier, L. (2005). Case study. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 195-208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

269

van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 520-526. van Velzen, C., Bezzina, C., & Lorist, P. (2009). Partnerships between schools and teacher education institutes. In A. Swennen & M. van der Klink (Eds.), Becoming A Teacher Educator: Theory and Practice for Teacher Educators (pp. 59-74). Amsterdam: Springer. Vélez-Rendón, G. (2006). From student to teacher: A successful transition. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 320-333. Verloop, N., Van, D. J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441- 461. Vietnamese Education Law. (2005). Education Law. Retrieved 18 June, 2013, from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Viet Nam/Viet Nam_Education_Law_2005.pdf Vietnamese Government. (2008). Teaching and learning foreign languages in the national education system, period 2008-2020. Retrieved 22 November, 2012, from http://jpf.org.vn/iwtcore/uploads/2012/08/1-3Decision_1400_QD-TTg- Eng.pdf Vietnamnet. (2011). Students get nothing from 7-years of English learning at general school. Retrieved 25 May, 2014, from http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/education/21188/students-get-nothing-from-7- years-of-english-learning-at-general-school.html. Vu, N. T., & Burns, A. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: Challenges for Vietnamese tertiary lecturers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(3), 1-31. Vu, T. P. A., & Nguyen, B. H. (2004). Nang luc tieng Anh cua sinh vien cac truong dai hoc tren dia ban Thanh pho Ho Chi Minh truoc yeu cau cua mot nen kinh te tri thuc: Thuc trang va Giai phap (English competence of Students at Universities in Ho Chi Minh City in the demand for an intellectual economy: Problems and Solutions). Retrieved 15th, April, 2013, from http://www.gralib.hcmuns.edu.vn/gsdl/collect/kyyeuhn/index/assoc/HASHf4d4. dir/doc.pdf

270

Vuong, T. (2010). Tieng Anh va chinh sach ngoai giao o Viet nam thoi hoi nhap (English and foreign langauge policy in Vietnam in the time of integration). Ngon Ngu (Linguitics), 5(252), 27-37. Wagner, E. (2010). Survey Research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum Companion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp. 22-38). Continuum International Publishing. Walsh, R., & Wyatt, M. (2014). Contextual factors, methodological principles and teacher cognition. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 693-718. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards- based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481- 546. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2003). Learning to teach toward standards-based writing instruction: Experiences of two preservice teachers and two mentors in an urban, multicultural classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 147-174. Wang, Z. (2014). Developing accuracy and fluency in spoken English of Chinese EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 110-118. Warden, C. A., & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 535-545. Whitbeck, D. A. (2000). Born to be a teacher: What am I doing in a college of education? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(1), 129-136. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkins, D. A. (1972). The linguistics and situational content of the common core in a unit/credit system. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willerman, B. (2011). From accuracy vs. fluency to accuracy plus fluency. Retrieved 18 July, 2014, from http://www.geocities.co.jp/Berkeley/9546/papers/paper2.htm Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning: Harlow, Essex: Longman. Wilson, V. (1997). Focus groups: a useful qualitative method for educational research? British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209-224.

271

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making, and classroom practice. Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Woods, L. S. (2002). Vietnam: a global studies handbook. California, USA: ABC- CLIO. Wright, S. (2002). Language education and foreign relations in Vietnam. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues (pp. 225-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yan, C., & He, C. (2010). Transforming the existing model of teaching practicum: A study of Chinese EFL student teachers' perceptions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(1), 57-73. Yin, K. R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Ltd. Yin, K. R. (2003). Applications of case stuy research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Ltd. Yin, K. R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks Sage Publication Ltd. Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27. Yuan, R., & Lee, I. (2014). Pre-service teachers' changing beliefs in the teaching practicum: Three cases in an EFL context. System, 44(1-12). Yue'e, L., & Yunzhang, S. (2011). Conceptions of oral English teaching: A case study of teacher cognition on oral English teaching and classroom practice. Chinese Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 22-34. Zaremba, A. J. (2006). Speaking professionally. Canada: Thompson South-Western. Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 32-48). New York: Macmillan. Zeichner, K. M., Tabachnick, B. R., & Densmore, K. (1987). Individual, institutional, and cultural influences on the development of teachers’ craft knowledge. Exploring teachers' thinking, 21-59.

272

Zeng, Z., & Murphy, E. (2007). Tensions in the language learning experiences and beliefs of Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language. TESL-EJ, 10(4), 1- 19. Zhang, Y. (2009). Reading to speak: Integrating oral communication skills. English Teaching Forum 47(1), 32-34. Zhao, L. (2012). Investigation into motivation types and influences on motivation: The case of Chinese non-English majors. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 100-122. Zheng, H. (2009). A review of research on EFL pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1). Zheng, H. (2009). A review of research on EFL pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 73-81. Zheng, X. M., & Davison, C. (2008). Changing pedagogy: Analysing ELT teachers in China. Continuum International Publishing Group: London.

273

APPENDIX A

ENGLISH TEACHER EUDCATION PROGRAMMME (Source: From the Department of Training of the university)

No Codes Subjects Credits Semester Nature 1 NN2104 General foreign language 2 Optional (FL) 2 (Listening) 0 (No study) 2 NN21042 General FL 2 (Speaking) 2 3 ANH4012 Listening 1 2 4 ANH4022 Speaking 1 2 5 ANH4032 Reading 1 2 Compulsory 6 ANH4042 Writing 1 2 1 7 KNT1013 Basic Informatics 3 8 KXH1012 Vietnamese language 2 practice 9 NNC1013 Basic FL 1 (Chinese) 3 10 NNF1013 Basic FL 1 (French) 3 Optional 11 NNJ1013 Basic FL 1 (Japanese) 3 (Choose 12 NNK1013 Basic FL 1 (Korean) 3 1 1/5) 13 NNR1013 Basic FL 1 (Russian) 3 Subtotal credits 16 14 ANH4052 Listening 2 2 15 ANH4062 Speaking 2 2 16 ANH4072 Reading 2 2 2 Compulsory 17 ANH4082 Writing 2 2 18 ANH4172 Translation practice 1 2 19 KXH1042 Language introduction 2 20 LCT1012 Marxism-Leninism 1 2 21 NNC1022 Basic FL 2 (Chinese) 2 22 NNF1022 Basic FL 2 (French) 2 Optional 23 NNJ1022 Basic FL 2 (Japanese) 2 2 (Choose 24 NNK1022 Basic FL 2 (Korean) 2 1/5-the 25 NNR1022 Basic FL 2 (Russian) 2 same FL)

Subtotal credits 16 26 ANH4092 Listening 3 2 27 ANH4102 Speaking 3 2 28 ANH4112 Reading 3 2 29 ANH4122 Writing 3 2 3 Compulsory 30 ANH4182 Translation practice 2 2 31 KTN1022 Environment and human- 2 beings 32 LCT1063 Marxism-Leninism 2 3 33 NNC1032 Basic FL 3 (Chinese) 2 34 NNF1032 Basic FL 3 (French) 2

274

35 NNJ1032 Basic FL 3 (Japanese) 2 Optional 36 NNK1032 Basic FL 3 (Korean) 2 3 (Choose 37 NNR1032 Basic FL 3 (Russian) 2 1/5-the same FL)

Subtotal credits 17 38 ANH2012 Phonetics- Phonology 2 39 ANH3032 British culture 1 2 40 ANH4132 Listening 4 2 41 ANH4142 Speaking 4 2 42 ANH4152 Reading 4 2 43 ANH4162 Writing 4 2 4 Compulsory 44 KNV1022 Vietnamese culture 2 45 KXA1072 Scientific Research 2 Methodology 46 LCT1033 History of The 3 Vietnamese Communist Party 47 NNC1062 General FL I.3 (Chinese: 2 Reading) 48 NNF1062 General FL I.3 (French: 2 Optional Reading) 4 (Choose 49 NNJ1062 General FL I.3 (Japanese: 2 1/5-the Reading) same FL) 50 NNK1062 General FL I.3 (Korean: 2 Reading) 51 NNR1062 General FL I.3 (Russian: 2 Reading) Subtotal credits 21 52 ANH2022 Grammar 2 53 ANH2032 Semantics 2 5 Compulsory 54 ANH3042 American 1 2 55 ANH4192 Listening 5 2 56 ANH4202 Lecture listening 2 5 Optional 57 ANH4212 News listening 2 (choose 1/3) 58 ANH4222 Speaking 5 2 59 ANH4232 Interviewing 2 5 Optional 60 ANH4242 Communicative relation 2 (choose 1/3) 61 ANH4252 Reading 5 2 62 ANH4262 Critical reading 2 5 Optional 63 ANH4272 Academic English 2 (choose 1/3) 64 ANH4282 Writing 5 2 65 ANH4292 Thesis writing 2 5 Optional 66 ANH4302 Professional writing 2 (choose 67 ANH4312 Translation practice 3 2 1/4) 68 ANH4322 English for computer 2 275

69 ANH4332 English for business 2 Optional 70 ANH4342 English for tourism 2 5 (choose 1/3) 71 ANH1012 History of World 2 civilization 5 Compulsory 72 LCT 1022 Ho Chi Minh’s ideology 2 73 NNC1072 General FL I.4 (Chinese: 2 Writing) Optional 74 NNF1072 General FL I.4 (French: 2 5 (choose Writing) 1/5-the 75 NNJ1072 General FL I.4 (Japanese: 2 same FL) Writing) 76 NNK1072 General FL I.4 (Korean: 2 Writing) 77 NNR1072 General FL I.4 (Russian: 2 Writing) 78 TLHB032 Psychology 1 (for FL 2 5 Compulsory teaching) Subtotal credits 24 79 ANH2042 Discourse analysis 2 Optional 80 ANH2052 Pragmatics 2 6 (choose 81 ANH2062 Learning styles 2 1/3)

82 ANH3052 Cross-culture 2 83 ANHB014 Teaching methodology 1 4 (Teaching and management skills) 84 ANHB022 Teaching methodology 2 2 6 (Material development Compulsory and adaptation) 85 ANHB032 Teaching methodology 3 2 (Language testing and evaluation) 86 GDHB012 Pedagogy 1 2 87 NNC1083 General FL (Chinese: Grammar/Translation) Optional 87 NNF1083 General FL (French: (choose Grammar/Translation) 3 6 1/5-the 89 NNJ1083 General FL I.4 (Japanese: same FL) Grammar/Translation)

90 NNK1083 General FL I.4 (Korean:

Grammar/Translation)

91 NNR1083 General FL I.4 (Russian: Grammar/Translation) 92 TLHB042 Psychology 2 (for FL 2 6 Compulsory teaching) Subtotal credits 19 93 ANH3012 British literature 1 2 94 ANH3032 American literature 1 2 276

95 ANHB042 Teaching methodology 4 2 (Theory of learning and teaching) 7 Compulsory 96 ANHB052 Teaching methodology 5 2 (Technology in language teaching) 97 ANHB093 Teaching methodology 6 2 A (Teaching practicum/microteaching) Optional 98 ANHB103 Teaching methodology 6 2 (choose B 7 2/4) (Teaching large classes/microteaching) 99 ANHB113 Teaching methodology 2 7A (Using textbooks) 100 ANHB123 Teaching methodology 2 7B (Designing tests) 101 GDHB022 Pedagogy 2 2 102 KXA1022 Contrastive Linguistics 2 (English) Compulsory 103 QLNB052 Sate management and 2 7 management of education and training Subtotal credits 18 104 ANHA083 Functional grammar 3 Optional 105 ANHA093 Linguistic psychology 3 8 (choose 1/2) 106 ANHB085 Practicum 5 8 Compulsory 107 ANHBTN7 Graduate thesis/ 7 Optional Examinations 8 (choose 1/2) Subtotal credits 15 Total credits for the teacher-training 146 programme

277

APPENDIX B

Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel B Arts, Humanities & Law

Date: 30.4.2013

Investigators: Mr Chiem Khang Mai

Supervisors: Professor Anne Burns Dr Neville Ellis

School: School of Education

Re: Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about teaching speaking at high schools in Vietnam

Reference Number: 13 009

The Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel B for the Arts, Humanities & Law is satisfied that this project is of minimal ethical impact and meets the requirements as set out in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research*. Having taken into account the advice of the Panel, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) has approved the project to proceed.

Your Head of School/Unit/Centre will be informed of this decision.

This approval is valid for 12 months from the date stated above.

Yours sincerely

Associate Professor Anne Cossins Panel Convenor Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel B

Cc: Professor Chris Davison Head of School School of Education

* http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/

278

APPENDIX C

School of Education

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (Informed letter of approval)

Dear Principal of...... High School,

My name is Chiem Khang Mai, a PhD student from School of Education, the University of New South Wales, Australia. I am conducting a research project for my PhD degree entitled "Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions about Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam ".

My research project aims to explore and understand the perceptions of pre-service teachers about teaching speaking skills and investigate how they go about teaching speaking skills in classrooms as well as factors that affect their speaking teaching. Furthermore, it also aims to make recommendations for the teaching of speaking skills within English Teacher Training Programmes at universities and for pre-service teachers’ professional development.

I would be grateful if you could allow me to collect data for my PhD project at your school. I anticipate the following will be the procedures that I will adopt with each participant:

1. To Pre-service teachers

- A preliminary (semi-structured) interview (approximately 40-60 minutes) - Classroom observation (all speaking lessons) - Stimulated recall interview/a post-lesson discussion (approximately 30-40 minutes)

I also plan to audio-record interviews and video-tape all observed speaking lessons, and transcribe all the relevant data. The tapes and transcripts will be stored in a secure repository of School of Education, NSW and no one other than me and my supervisors will have access to these materials.

279

2. To Pre-service teachers' Supervisors

- A focus group interview (approximately 60 minutes)

The names of all participants, including pre-service teachers, supervisors of pre-service teachers, classes and the school will be pseudonyms and care will be taken to ensure that no individual can be identified from the eventual thesis, or from any resulting publication.

I highly appreciate your support in this important project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via email [email protected] or phone (+61) 450636378.

You will be given a copy of this letter to keep for your personal records.

Yours sincerely,

Khang

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Chiem Khang Mai Room 128 Goodsell Builiding School of Education, NSW Kensington Campus, NSW 2052

280

APPENDIX D

………………………………….HIGH SCHOOL

……………………………. Street, ……………….. City, ……………………. Province Tel: (+84) …………………………..Email: …………………………......

………./………./……….

THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S APPROVAL LETTER

To Who It May Concern,

…………….. High School hereby agrees to allow Mr Chiem Khang Mai, born on 7th, February 1977 in Vietnam, a PhD student at School of Education, the

University of New South Wales, Australia to come to collect data in our organization. We will create favourable conditions for him during the process of data collection. We understand that the privacy and confidentiality of our school, teachers and students will be respected at all time.

Yours sincerely,

Principal

281

APPENDIX E

School of Education

Approval No:......

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM

Project title:

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

Participant selection and purpose of study

You are invited to participate in a study investigating the perceptions of pre-service teachers about teaching speaking skills at high schools in Vietnam. I, Chiem Khang Mai, a PhD student from School of Education, the University of New South Wales, Australia, hope to explore and gain a deep insight into what pre-service teachers perceive and how they teach speaking skills in classrooms. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you represent my target population.

Description of study and risks

This study aims to explore and understand the perceptions of pre-service teachers about teaching speaking skills in classrooms. If you decide to participate in this project, I anticipate the following will be the procedures that I will adopt with you:

- Interviews: With your consent, you will be asked to take part in an individual interview in Vietnamese. The interview includes semi-structured and stimulated recall interviews. Stimulated recall interview means to ‘recall and reflect on your thoughts and actions after your speaking instruction’. Each interview will last about 40-60 minutes at your suggested convenient time and location. Also with your consent, all the interviews will be audio-recorded. The purpose of the interviews is to explore and understand your perceptions about teaching speaking skills in classrooms. You may stop the interview at any time or refuse to answer any question without giving any reason. All tapes and transcripts will be de-identified by labelling the same codes known only to the researcher and stored in a secure repository in School of Education, NSW.

282

- Classroom observation: With your consent and the consent of all the students' parents, you will be requested to be observed by the researcher in all your teaching speaking lessons. The observation will take 45 minutes per each as prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) for teaching all language skills at secondary schools. The purpose of the observation is to get information about the practical teaching and learning of speaking skills in the classroom situation. Also with your consent and the consent of all the students' parents, the classroom observation will be video-recorded and used in the subsequent stimulated recall for the interpretation of the teaching decisions.

By analyzing the interviews and observation data, I hope to obtain a full understanding of what pre-service teachers perceive and how they teach speaking skills in classrooms at high schools in Vietnam.

Confidentiality and disclosure of information

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission, except as required by law. If you give us your permission by signing this document, I plan to present and/or publish the results of this research in conferences, journal articles, book sections and my PhD thesis. In any publication, information will be provided in such a way that participants cannot be identified.

Recompense to participants

No costs or remuneration will be incurred or offered to the participant of this research project.

Complaints may be directed to the Ethics Secretariat, The University of New South Wales, SYDNEY 2052 AUSTRALIA (phone 9385 4234, fax 9385 6648, email [email protected]). Any complaint you make will be investigated promptly and you will be informed out the outcome.

Feedback to participants

At the completion of the study, a summary of the research findings will be offered to you via email or posted mail via liaison officer of your university.

Your consent

Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with the University of New South Wales. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time without prejudice.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask us. If you have any additional queries later, me via phone (+61) 0450636378 or email: [email protected]; or my supervisors, Prof. Anne Burns, phone (+ 61) 02 9385 1983, or email: [email protected] and Dr Neville Ellis, phone (+61) 02 9385 1942, or email: [email protected], we will be happy to answer them.

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

283

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM (continued) Project title:

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

You are making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that, having read the information provided above, you have decided to participate as indicated below.

I consent to being interviewed individually and audio-recorded !

I consent to being interviewed individually but not audio recorded !

I consent to my speaking lessons being observed and video recorded !

! I consent to my speaking lessons being observed but not video recorded

(Please tick the appropriate box)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Signature of Research Participant Signature of Witness

……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… (Please PRINT name) (Please PRINT name)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… Date Nature of Witness

REVOCATION OF CONSENT Project title: Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking Skills at High Schools in Vietnam

I hereby wish to WITHDRAW my consent to participate in the research proposal described above and understand that such withdrawal WILL NOT jeopardise any treatment or my relationship with The University of New South Wales.

…………………………………………………………………………………… .……………………………………………………………………… Signature of Research Participant Date

……………………………………………………………………………………

Please PRINT Name

The section for Revocation of Consent should be forwarded to Mr. Chiem Khang Mai, School of Education, Room 128, John Goodsell Building, the University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Sydney, Australia. Email: [email protected].

284

APPENDIX F

School of Education

Approval No (if available):……………..

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ SUPERVISORS INFORMATION STATEMENT

Project title:

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

Participant selection and purpose of study

You are invited to participate in a study investigating the perceptions of pre-service teachers about teaching speaking skills at high schools in Vietnam. I, Chiem Khang Mai, a PhD student from School of Education, the University of New South Wales, Australia, hope to explore and gain a deep insight into what pre-service teachers perceive about teach speaking skills at high schools in Vietnam. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you supervise pre-service teacher(s) and represent my target population.

Description of study and risks

If you decide to participate in this project, you and other pre-service teachers’ supervisors will be asked to take part in a focus group interview in Vietnamese, lasting about 60 minutes. The interview will be carried out at a convenient time and place advised by the participants. The aim of the focus group interview is to explore and understand the supervisors' viewpoints about teaching speaking skills in classrooms. The interview will be audio-recorded with the participants' consent.

All tapes and transcripts will be de-identified by labelling the same codes known only to the researcher and stored in a secure repository in School of Education, NSW.

285

Confidentiality and disclosure of information

Recompense to participants

No costs or remuneration will be incurred or offered to the participant of this research project.

Feedback to participants

At the completion of the study, a summary of the research findings will be offered to you via email or posted mail via liaison officer of your school.

Your consent

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

286

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

PRE-SERVICE EFL TEACHERS’ SUPERVISORS INFORMATION STATEMENT (continued) Project title:

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

You are making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that, having read the information provided above, you have decided to participate as indicated below.

I consent to being focus -group interviewed and audio-recorded !

I consent to being focus -group interviewed but not audio recorded !

(Please tick the appropriate box)

……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………… Signature of Research Participant Signature of Witness

……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… (Please PRINT name) (Please PRINT name)

……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………… Date Nature of Witness

REVOCATION OF CONSENT

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

…………………………………………………………………………… .……………………………………… Signature of Research Participant Date

…………………………………………………………………………..

Please PRINT Name

287

APPENDIX G

School of Education

Approval No (if available):……………..

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ INFORMATION STATEMENT

Project title:

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

Participant selection and purpose of study

You are invited to participate in a study investigating the perceptions of pre-service teachers about teaching speaking skills at high schools in Vietnam. I, Chiem Khang Mai, a PhD student from School of Education, the University of New South Wales, Australia, hope to explore and gain a deep insight into pre-service teachers perceive about teach speaking skills at high schools in Vietnam. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you train pre-service teachers and represent my target population.

Description of study and risks

If you decide to participate in this project, you and other teacher educators will be asked to take part in a focus group interview in Vietnamese/English, lasting about 60 minutes. The interview will be carried out at a convenient time and place advised by the participants. The aim of the focus group interview is to explore and understand the teacher educators’ viewpoints and understanding about training and teaching speaking skills in practice. The interview will be audio-recorded with the participants' consent.

All tapes and transcripts will be de-identified by labelling the same codes known only to the researcher and stored in a secure repository in School of Education, NSW.

288

Confidentiality and disclosure of information

Recompense to participants

No costs or remuneration will be incurred or offered to the participant of this research project.

Feedback to participants

At the completion of the study, a summary of the research findings will be offered to you via email or posted mail via liaison officer of your school.

Your consent

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

289

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

TEACHER EDUCATORS’ INFORMATION STATEMENT (continued)

Project title:

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

You are making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that, having read the information provided above, you have decided to participate as indicated below.

I consent to being focus -group interviewed and audio-recorded !

I consent to being focus -group interviewed but not audio recorded !

(Please tick the appropriate box)

……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… Signature of Research Participant Signature of Witness

……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………… (Please PRINT name) (Please PRINT name)

……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… Date Nature of Witness

REVOCATION OF CONSENT

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions About Teaching Speaking at High Schools in Vietnam

…………………………………………………………………………… .……………………………………………… Signature of Research Participant Date

…………………………………………………………………………..

Please PRINT Name

290

APPENDIX H SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDELINES

I. Background information

Before the interview, the participant was asked to complete the following table for his/her background information:

N0 Name Gender Age Years of learning English

II. Schooling experiences

1. Did you like learning speaking when you were learning English at schools? Why or why not? 2. Do you think that the ways your teachers employed to teach speaking at schools will affect your speaking teaching in the classroom? Why or why not? II. Training programme experiences

3. In what ways has the training programme prepared you to teach speaking in the classroom? Do you like those ways? Why or why not? 4. Do you think that those ways will affect your speaking teaching in the classroom? Why or why not? III. Perceptions about the teaching of speaking

5. Do you think that speaking skills should be taught to students? If yes, why do you think that? 6. In your view, what are the goals/purposes for developing speaking skills in English classes? 7. How do you teach speaking skills to students in the classroom? 8. What method or approach do you employ in your speaking lessons? Why?

291

VI. Roles of teachers and learners

9. What roles do you think the teacher should have in teaching speaking? Why do you think that? 10. What roles do you think the learners should have in learning speaking? Why do you think that? VII. Factors affect and shape teachers’ speaking teaching

11. Is there anything that affects your teaching of speaking in the classroom?

292

APPENDIX I SAMPLE OF SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

Pre-service teacher: Nguyet Date: 12 February, 2014 I: Interviewer; N: Nguyet 01, 02: Speaker turn

01 I: Thank you so much for arranging for the interview today. As I have told you, in this interview I would like to listen to your ideas about the teaching of speaking. Before the interview, please complete this table to collect your background information. .

02 N: .

03 I: Thank you for completing the form. First of all, I would like you to share your opinions about schooling experiences. Did you like learning speaking when you were learning English at school? Why or why not?

04 N: Actually, when I learned English at secondary school I did not have any concept of learning English for communication. This is because my teachers did not teach us speaking skills or listening skills. In class, I remember that they mainly taught us grammar, structures, and asked us to do reading and grammar exercises, and… uh…

05 I: Was there anything else?

06 N: …teachers used Vietnamese to teach English in the classroom.

07 I: For example?

293

08 N: They used Vietnamese to explain grammar rules and answers to the questions. In general, not only me but also my friends at that time thought that we were learning English to pass examinations, not to communicate with other people… So, it can be said that teachers taught English in terms of teaching grammar and structures.

09 I: Thanks for your ideas. Do you think that the ways your teachers taught English at school will affect your teaching of speaking in the classroom? Why or why not?

10 N: Uh…I think that those approaches will not affect my teaching of speaking in the classroom because, through the teacher education programme, I changed my views about learning and teaching English.

11 I: So, in what ways has the training programme prepared you to teach speaking in the classroom?

12 N: In the training programme,…more specifically, in the first and secondary academic years, we [student teachers] were required to learn phonology, phonetics, four English skills including reading, listening, speaking and writing, and also grammar in order to improve our English proficiency. In the remaining years, we were equipped with theoretical knowledge of teaching methodologies such as the grammar translation method, the audio-lingual method and communicative language teaching. In addition, we were provided with a course of how to use technology in language teaching. We also learned how to prepare a lesson plan to teach English in general… In the course of teaching practice, we were required to conduct a microteaching session, lasting about 15 minutes.

13 I: Do you like the ways the teacher education programme trained you?

14 N: Yes.

294

15 I: Why do you say that?

16 N: I think that the training helped me a lot to improve my knowledge of English. Now, I am not only able to read and write in English, but also use English to communicate with my friends, teachers and foreigners. This issue, as I mentioned above, maked me change my view about the role of speaking in teaching and learning English. I also think that the programme provided me with pedagogical knowledge and skills in terms of teaching English in the classroom.

17 I: You have mentioned ‘skills’. What are they? Can you talk more about them?

18 N: Yes, I think...,for example, skills of controlling the classroom or writing on the blackboard.

19 I: By controlling the classroom you mean classroom management, is it right?

20 N: Yes, I refer to classroom management (laughs).

21 I: Do you think that what you learned from the teacher training progamme will affect your teaching of speaking in the classroom?

22 N: Yes, I do.

23 I: Can you talk more about this? Why do you think that?

24 N: As I said earlier, at high school my teachers did not teach me speaking skills. Therefore, when I entered the teacher education programme I remember that I faced many challenges. The most challenging issue that I have to deal with in the training is my speaking ability. I cannot talk to my classmates in English when we discuss or 295

express ideas during the lesson. The way I often had to do at that time is to write the ideas in Vietnamese, and then translate them into English before speaking. Thanks to the courses for the four English macro-skills, I realize the importance of speaking when learning English.

25 I: Do you think that speaking skills should be taught to students?

26 N: Yes, of course.

27 I: Why do you think that?

28 N: From the literature, I know that speaking is one of the most important skills in English teaching and learning. Moreover, in my point of view, if students are not able to communicate in English, they are not viewed as successful language learners. Take my case for example.

29 I: So, in your view, what are the goals or purposes for developing speaking skills in English classes?

30 N: I want to stress that language teachers should be aware of the importance of speaking skills when they teach English in the classroom. In relation to the goal of speaking lessons I think that teachers need to focus on the development of students’ communicative ability. Also, I believe that only in speaking lessons, students are taught how to communicate in English in a meaningful or purposeful way. It is hoped that in the future I mean in the long term, students need to be taught to speak English fluently and naturally as a native speaker does.

31 I: You have just mentioned that students need to be taught to speak English like a native speaker. I would like to listen more to your view about this issue.

296

32 N: Yes, I want to say that the purpose of learning English is for communication. So, the responsibility of teachers is to help students to speak English as fluently as possible.

33 I: I see your point that speaking skills should be highlighted in English language teaching. So, how do you propose to teach speaking skills to students in the classroom?

34 N: I think that in order to help students to speak English on a topic, the teacher first needs to provide them with new vocabulary, which are related to that topic. In this case, I mean the role of vocabulary. Yes, I think you would also agree with me …because vocabulary is very important in communication. Through vocabulary teaching, students learn the meaning of new words and can use them to express themselves.

35 I: Another thing I want to know is that what is the focus of your speaking lessons?

36 N: The focus of my speaking lessons?

37 I: Yes. I want you to share your thoughts about what features of speaking, accuracy, fluency and complexity, will be emphasized in your practice of teaching speaking?

38 N: Uh… I think that accuracy is also important, but at school, students have few opportunities to learn to speak English because, according to my understanding, teachers often concentrate on grammar and structures in their teaching, even in speaking teaching. Now, in speaking lessons I will give more time for students to learn to speak fluently. In my views, I always want to help my students to speak English confidently and fluently.

297

39 I: That’s an interesting idea. What method or approach will you employ in teaching speaking?

40 N: Communicative language teaching. That’s CLT. From the training courses, I was advised to use this approach although I was taught many teaching methods in the programme. CLT, as you know, is now a popular teaching method. Uh…it is suggested as a main method used to teach English at all school levels. In teaching speaking, of course I will use it because I want to help students develop their communicative abilities, as I mentioned above. I also acknowledge that school supervising teachers will observe how I use CLT in the classroom in order to evaluate and assess my teaching practices.

41 I: You said that you would employ CLT in teaching speaking. So, what roles do you think the teacher should have in teaching speaking?

42 N: I think that when teaching English in general, language teachers can play various roles. However, in teaching speaking, the teacher should act as three dominant roles, which include a guide, a facilitator and afriend.

43 I: What makes you think that way?

44 N: My ideas come from the training programme. Furthermore, as I said, the purpose of teaching speaking is to develop students’ communicative skills. Therefore, in the classroom, the teacher should create opportunities for students to practise speaking English with their classmates as much as possible. The teacher should provide them with instructions about the activity so that they know how to do it. However, in teaching speaking, it is argued that classroom atmosphere is also another important issue that language teachers should be concerned about. In order to make students feel comfortable to engage in communication, a positive environment for teaching and learning speaking needs to be built up in the classroom. If the teacher behaves as 298

a friend, he/she can help students a lot when they misunderstand the instructions or lack vocabulary in doing activities. In doing so, I think that learners’ motivation to learn speaking skills in classrooms is stimulated.

45 I: What is your opinion of the roles that the learners should have in learning speaking?

46 N: In my viewpoint, students’ participation in speaking activities is very important for the success of the lesson. Therefore, I think that students need to be encouraged to take part in classroom activities actively as communicators and negotiators. Based on the principles of CLT, learners’ communicative needs are highlighted so…I think that classroom interactions should be student-oriented, not teacher-oriented. I want to stress that in speaking lessons students’ spoken contributions have to be valued.

47 I: You say the word ‘negotiators’. Can you explain this further?

48 N: Yes, I mean that uh…when learning speaking, students have to actively participate in activities by collaborating with their partners to exchange ideas in order to develop their communicative ability.

49 I: I highly appreciate your thoughts on this matter. According to you, is there anything that affects your teaching of speaking in the classroom?

50 N: Uh…as a student teacher and this is the first time I taught English in practice, I think that there are many challenges I will have to deal with when I carry out my teaching practice over the practicum. But I will try my best to get a high score from the teaching.

299

51 I: There may be more things that I want you to share with me about the teaching of speaking, but time is limited. Once again, thank you so much for participating in the interview. I hope to see again next time.

The interview ends.

300

APPENDIX J SAMPLE OF LESSON OBSERVATION

10 March 2014 Observation Pre-service teacher: Hong Grade 11

Code: T: Teacher; S1, S2: unknown student; Ss: One more students or the whole class; < >: interpretation or explanation.

01 T: Good morning class. 02 Ss: < Stand up> Good morning teacher. 03 T: I would like to introduce some our English teachers to observe our lesson today. 04 Ss: Clap hands. 05 T: Thank you. Sit down, please. 06 Ss: . 07 T: Who is absent today, monitor? 08 Monitor: Nobody. 09 T: Nobody. Thank you. 10 Monitor: . 11 T: Now the whole class. What do you often do in your free time? 12 Ss: . 13 T: What do you often do in your free time? 14 S1: I often listen [to] music. 15 T: Yes, listen to music. What else? 16 S2: Watch TV. 17 T: What else? 18 S3: Play game[s]. 19 T: And what else? 20 S4: Read book[s].

301

21 T: Yes, read books. The activities that you often do in your free time are called hobbies. Now we move to our lesson today, Unit 13, Section speaking. . 22 Ss: . 23 T: Now I will give you some new words. 24 T: The whole class, how do you say “phân loại” in English? 25 Ss: . 26 T: How do you say “phân loại” in English? 27 T: , you please. 28 S1: Classify 29 T: Yes, classify. 30 T: Now the whole class listens to me Classify. 31 Ss: . 32 T: Now listen and repeat. Classify 33 Ss: Classify 34 T: Again. 35 Ss: Classify 36 T: Again. 37 Ss: Classify 38 T: Ok. You, please . 39 S1: Classify 40 T: < Points to another student> you, please. 41 S2: Classify. 42 T: Classify (v): Phân loại. 43 Ss: . 44 T: The next word. What is the word that has the similar meaning of arrange? 45 Ss: . 46 T: What is the word that has the similar meaning of arrange? 47 T: you, please.

302

48 S1: Organize. 49 T: Yes. Now listen to me. Organize . 50 Ss: . 51 T: Now listen and repeat. Organize . 52 Ss: Organize. 53 T: Again. 54 Ss: Organize. 55 T: Again. 56 Ss: Organize. 57 T: you, please. 58 S1: Organize. 59 T: you, please. 60 S2: Organize. 61 T: Organize (v): Sắp xếp. 62 Ss: . 63 Now, what is the antonym of narrow? 64 Ss: . 65 T: What is the antonym of narrow? 66 T: you, please. 67 S1: Broaden. 68 T: Yes, broaden. Listen to me. Broaden. 69 Ss: . 70 T: Now listen and repeat. Broaden. 71 Ss: Broaden. 72 T: Broaden. 73 Ss: Broaden. 74 T: Again. 75 Ss: Broaden. 76 T: you, please. 77 S1: Broaden. 78 T: you, please. 79 S2: Broaden.

303

80 T: Broaden (v): Mở rộng. 81 Ss: . 82 Now the last one. How can we say “thắng cảnh” in English? 83 T: you, please. 84 S1: Landscape. 85 T: Landscape. 86 Ss: . 87 T: Now listen and repeat. Landscape. 88 Ss: Landscape. 89 T: Again. 90 Ss: Landscape. 91 T: you, please. 92 S1: Landscape. 93 T: you, please. 94 S2: Landscape. 95 T: Landscape (n): Thắng cảnh. 96 Ss: . 97 T: Classify. 98 Ss: Classify. 99 T: Again. 100 Ss: Classify. 101 T: Organize. 102 Ss: Organize. 103 T: Again. 104 Ss: Organize. 105 T: Broaden. 106 Ss: Broaden. 107 T: Again. 108 Ss: Broaden. 109 T: Landscape.

304

110 Ss: Landscape. 111 T: Again. 112 Ss: Landscape. 113 T: . 114 S1: Classify, organize, broaden, landscape. 115 T: Right. 116 T: You have learnt some new words and now I’d like to check how good you are in memorizing those words by doing a matching exercise. How many columns are there? 117 Ss: Two. 118 T: What is this in column A? 119 Ss: The new words. 120 T: What is this in column B? 121 Ss: Meanings. 122 T: What will you do now? 123 Ss: Match the new words in column A with the meanings in column B. 124 T: Right. Matching. You have one minute to match. 125 Ss: . 126 T: Ok. Time is over. Who can help me to match this exercise? 127 Ss: . 128 T: you, please. 129 S1: Matches. 130 T: Right? 131 Ss: Yes. 132 T: Right. Thank you. 133 T: Now we move to the next activity, Practising reading the dialogue. 134 T: This is a dialogue between Huong and Lan, talking about Lan’s hobby of collecting books. Now we will read the dialogue. Open your books, page 149 and listen. I will model first. you are Huong and I am Lan. Now listen.

305

135 S1: What is your hobby, Lan? 136 T: Well, I like collecting books. 137 S1: Could you tell me how you collect your books? 138 T: Well, this must be done regularly. Whenever I find a book which is interesting I buy it immediately. 139 S: Where do you buy your books? 140 T: I buy some from the bookshop near my house and some others from second-hand book stalls. Sometimes my friends, my mum and dad give me some. 141 S1: How do you organize your collection? 142 T: I classify them into different categories and put each category in one corner of my bookshelf with a name tag on it. 143 S1: What do you plan to do next, Lan? 144 T: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 145 T: Now I would like you to work in pairs to practise reading the dialogue. Remember to change the roles. You have five minutes to practise. After that I will call some pairs to read. 146 Ss: . 147 T: Now time is up. Stop working, please. Who volunteers? 148 T: you, please. The whole class listens. 149 S1: What is your hobby, Lan? 150 S2: Well, I like collecting books. 151 S1: Well, this must be done regularly. Whenever I find a book which is interesting I buy it immediately. 152 S2: Where do you buy your books? 153 S1: I buy some from the bookshop near my house and some others from second-hand book stalls. Sometimes my friends, my mum and dad give me some. 154 S2: How do you organize your collection?

306

155 S1: I classify them into different categories and put each category in one corner of my bookshelf with a name tag on it. 156 S2: What do you plan to do next, Lan? 157 S1: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 158 T: Thank you. Another pair, please. 159 T: you, please. 160 S1: What is your hobby, Lan? 161 S2: Well, I like collecting books. 162 S1: Well, this must be done regularly. Whenever I find a book which is interesting I buy it immediately. 163 S2: Where do you buy your books? 164 S1: I buy some from the bookshop near my house and some others from second-hand book stalls. Sometimes my friends, my mum and dad give me some. 165 S2: How do you organize your collection? 166 S1: I classify them into different categories and put each category in one corner of my bookshelf with a name tag on it. 167 S2: What do you plan to do next, Lan? 168 S1: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 169 T: The last pair, please raise your hands. 170 T: yes, please. 171 S1: What is your hobby, Lan? 172 S2: Well, I like collecting books. 173 S1: Well, this must be done regularly. Whenever I find a book which is interesting I buy it immediately. 174 S2: Where do you buy your books? 175 S1: I buy some from the bookshop near my house and some others from second-hand book stalls. Sometimes my friends, my mum and dad give me some. 176 S2: How do you organize your collection? 177 S1: I classify them into different categories and put each category in one corner of my bookshelf with a name tag on it. 178 S2: What do you plan to do next, Lan?

307

179 S1: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 180 T: . You all do a good job, but for the next time you should raise your voice loud enough in order for other students can hear you. Also, you make some common mistakes. Now listen and repeat. 181 T: Books 182 Ss: Books 183 T: Books. 184 Ss: Books. 185 T: Regularly. 186 Ss: Regularly. 187 T: Regularly. 188 Ss: Regularly. 189 T: Immediately. 190 Ss: Immediately. 191 T: Immediately. 192 Ss: Immediately. 193 T: Categories. 194 Ss: Categories. 195 T: Categories. 196 Ss: Categories. 197 T: The next activity, Making a similar dialogue. 198 T: Now we move to another activity, making a similar dialogue about collecting stamps. You use the suggested information in the textbook, page 149 to replace the information here .You work in pairs and you have five minutes to make a your own dialogue. Now let’s do it. 199 Ss: . 200 T: Ok. Stop. Who volunteers? 201 Ss: . 202 T: No one. Ok, I’ll call. you and you, please. Now the whole class keeps silent and listens.

308

203 S1: What is your hoppy, Nam? 204 S2: Well, I like collecting stamps. 205 S1: Could you tell me how you collect your stamps? 206 S2: Well, this must be done regularly. I ask members of my family, friends, relatives and postmen. 207 S1: Where do you buy your stamps? 208 S2: I buy from post office. 209 S1: How do you organize your collection? 210 S2: I classify them into different categories: animals, plants, birds and landscape. 211 S1: What do you plan to do next, Nam? 212 S2: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 213 T: Thank you. Who’s next? 214 T: you, please. 215 S1: What is your hoppy, Lien? 216 S2: Well, I like collecting stamps 217 S1: Could you tell me how you collect your stamps? 218 S2: Well, this must be done regularly. I make pen friends with people overseas. 219 S1: Where do you buy your stamps? 220 S2: I buy from post office. 221 S1: How do you organize your collection? 222 S2: I classify them into different categories: animals, plants, birds, landscape, and football-players. 223 S1: What do you plan to do next, Lien? 224 S2: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 225 T: Thank you. Who else? 226 T: you, please. The whole class listens. 227 S1: What is your hoppy, Nga? 228 S2: Well, I like collecting stamps. 229 S1: Could you tell me how you collect your stamps?

309

230 S2: Well, this must be done regularly. I ask members of my family, friends, relatives and postmen. I make pen friends with people overseas and exchange stamps with others. 231 S1: Where do you buy your stamps? 232 S2: I buy from post office. 233 S1: How do you organize your collection? 234 S2: I classify them into different categories: animals, plants, birds, landscape, football players and singers. 235 S1: What do you plan to do next, Nga? 236 S2: I think I’ll continue to make my collection richer and richer. 237 T: All of you work well, but again you need to speak louder. There are some mistakes you make. Now the whole class listens and repeats. 238 T: Stamps. 239 Ss: Stamps. 240 T: Relatives. 241 Ss: Relatives. 242 T: Exchange. 243 Ss: Exchange. 244 T: Now we move to the last activity. Making a report. 245 T: you will work in groups of four to ask and answer about your friends’ hobbies, using the questions for example ‘What is your hobby?’ ‘Why do you like it?’ After that I will call some of you to report your friend’s hobby. You can start as ‘My friend is….Her/His hobby is….because it...’ This is an example. My friend is Hoa. She likes reading books because they are very interesting and help her develop knowledge. You have three minutes to do it. 246 Ss: . 247 T: Ok, time is up. Now who volunteers to report your friend’s hoppy? 248 Ss: . 249 T: Ok. You will practise doing it at home. Learn by heart the new words and prepare the next lesson, Listening. (The bell then rings).

310

APPENDIX K STIMULATED RECALL INTERVIEW GUIDELINES

I. Before playing the video

1. What aims did you want to achieve in your speaking lesson today? 2. Do you think you have achieved the aims? If yes, what makes you think you have achieved the aims? If not, what makes you think you have not achieved the aims?

II. While playing the video

I am going to play the video-recording of your lesson, and then I will pause at some places where I have some questions that I would like to ask in order to understand your thought process while you were doing that activity. If you want to pause at any time and tell me more about what you were thinking about the activity, please feel free to do so.

3. What was the purpose of this activity? 4. How did you feel about this activity? 5. Look at this section; why did you…? 6. What were you thinking when you…? 7. In your opinion, why did you…? 8. …

III. After playing the video

9. In this lesson, what are the main factors that affected and shaped your teaching of speaking? Why do you think that? 10. Is there anything else you want to say about your lesson today?

311

APPENDIX L SAMPLE OF STIMULATED RECALL INTERVIEW

20 February 2014 Pre-service teacher Nam (Nam.01.SRI) I: Interviewer; N: Nam 01, 02: Speaker turn

01 I: Thank you so much for letting me observe your lesson today and also for your time for this interview. Before playing the video of your lesson, I would like to ask you some general questions related to the lesson. The first one is about the aim of your lesson. What aims did you want to achieve in your speaking lesson today?

02 N: This is a speaking lesson. So, the aim of my lesson is to develop students’ communicative abilities. More specifically, my aim is to help students to talk about conserving wildlife in an attempt to enable them to use in daily communication.

03 I: Do you think that you have achieved your aim?

04 N: I think I did not achieve the aim for the lesson today.

05 I: I want you to talk more about this. What makes you think that you have not achieved that aim?

06 N: Yes,...I want to emphasize that my lesson heavily depends on the textbook activities,…and there are too many activities that I have to cover in the allocated time of 45 minutes. In addition, I realize that my students are not eager to engage in the classroom activities... Although I put more effort into this lesson, I could not

312

complete it in time. In general, I would like to say that I am not satisfied with my speaking lesson today. Teaching speaking is more challenging than teaching other skills.

07 I: I will play the video-recoding of your lesson, and then I will pause at some places where I have some questions that I would like to ask in order to understand your thought process while you were doing that activity. If you want to pause at any time and tell me more about what you were thinking about your particular activity, please feel free to do so.

08 I: In this activity regarding vocabulary teaching, could you tell me why you taught four new words to the students?

09 N: Selecting how many new words to teach in a lesson depends on its importance to help students understand the text. It has also been suggested that the teacher should choose from three to six words in the text to teach to students. In my lesson today, I thought that four of these words might make student have difficulty in understanding the text as well as in speaking. So, I chose to teach them to the students.

10 I: Look at this. What were you thinking when you used the translation technique to teach vocabulary?

11 N: Because these techniques are simple and I wanted my students to understand the meaning of the new words directly.

12 I: In your view, why did you ask students to read the new words chorally and then individually?

313

13 N: The purpose of this activity was related to students’ pronunciation. First, I wanted to make sure that all the students in the class knew how to pronounce those words. Then, I wanted to check how well each individual student pronounced the words.

14 I: Thanks for your ideas. Now look at this. Step by step, you erased each new word on the blackboard and then asked the whole class to read the words although the whole class and some individual students had been required to read the words out with your correction on the spot. In your opinion, how useful is this technique in teaching vocabulary?

15 N: In teaching vocabulary, this technique is called ‘Rub out and remember’. I used this technique because I wanted my students to, once more, be able to remember the new words and to use them in speaking.

16 I: What were you thinking when you asked the students to practise reading the dialogue model in the textbook?

17 N: The reason for this is because, at first, I intended to replace speaking activities from the textbooks in order to make my lessons new and interesting. However, after discussing this issue with my friends, particularly with my school supervisor, I found that I should keep and follow up those activities. Therefore, students were required to do this activity. Moreover, I found that, through the school report, my students’ English level is very low. I thought that teaching speaking through models was easy for both my students and me. In addition, through this activity the students were provided a framework that they could rely on to make a similar conversation in the next activity… As you

314

observed, I strictly followed the textbook guidelines to teach speaking to students.

18 I: In your opinion, why did you correct the students’ oral errors using this method, for each student?

19 N: As you know, there are various ways used to correct students’ errors. However, for students’ oral errors and as I mentioned above, since my students’ English proficiency is low. Therefore, I wanted them to know what types of errors they made and why they made them. Furthermore, I adopted this technique of error correction from my supervisor’s speaking lesson. I thought that given the conditions and situations, like in my class, when students made errors, I wanted them to raise their awareness of these errors and experience the errors in order to speak English more accurately.

20 I: How did you feel when you asked students to do this activity to make a similar conversation?

21 N: Uh…the purpose of this activity was to help students make a similar conversation in order to develop their skills in asking and answering information, based on the model provided in the previous activity and suggestions given in the textbook. However, it took much time for students to prepare for their conversation, and as you observed, when I called some pairs to stand up to perform their speaking, they read directly from their notes…In addition, their pronunciation is problematic.

22 I: For this activity, what were you thinking when you provided the students with a suggested sample?

315

23 N: Uh…this is the post-speaking activity, and I know that students should be provided opportunities to speak English freely in order to point out their views or express themselves. However, in this lesson I thought that it was not easy for students who are not good at English and have limited speaking ability to make a report without a sample. Also, as suggested by my supervisor, I decided to give students a model so that students knew how to do the activity and, to some extent, I could save time for the lesson.

24 I: In your opinion, how did you feel about this activity?

25 N: Because of time pressure I could only call only one student to make a report in the front of the class and gave brief comments and feedback on his performance. However, there was not any meaningful communication that was conducted in the speaking lesson today.

26 I: Now I will stop the video and would like you to share more your ideas about the lesson. In this lesson, what are the factors that affected your teaching? Why do you think that?

27 N: Uh…yes, there are many factors that affected my lesson. I think that… the first factor is students’ motivation to learn English at school. English, as you know, is a compulsory subject and students learn English in order to pass school examinations. Keeping this in mind, I think students do not see the value of learning English for communication. Therefore, in the speaking lesson, most students were not willing to engage in classroom activities in order to develop their speaking skills. Consequently, they lack confidence in communication. I remember that many students came up to me after the lesson and said: For the next lesson, please don’t call on me because I am afraid that nobody

316

can understand me what I say. I don’t want to waste your time and disappoint you. Call on those who put up their hands.

28 I: How did you feel or react when you heard that?

29 N: …I fell upset…and for the next lesson I will call on students who raise their hands. I think that, uh…as I said earlier, teaching speaking is very challenging in the current conditions. This is because the purpose of teaching English at school is to help students to pass examinations, which in my understanding is understood as a deterrent to actually learning speaking.

30 I: Thank you for your ideas. What is another factor that affected your speaking lesson today?

31 N: I think that another factor is the textbook. During the lesson, I had to strictly follow the textbook activities although they are scripted and far less communicative. Working with textbook- based instruction, I realized that students learned speaking through memorization of structures and mechanical drills, while I was working as a modeler, controller and corrector. In addition, the time limit is also another factor that affected my lesson. As you observed, I had to cover the lesson content within 45 minutes. Under time pressure, I had to do all the activities and try to complete the lesson in time.

32 I: Besides the factors above, are there any other factors that affected your lesson?

33 N: Yes.

317

34 I: What are they?

35 N: I think the number of students in the class.

36 I: You mean large class-size.

37 N: Yes, the large class-size (laughs).

38 I: Why do you think that?

39 N: During the lesson, as you can see, due to the large class-size, interactions between teacher and students were dominant in the classroom. Moreover, only a few students were called to stand up to speak. I think that teaching speaking in a class consisting of over 45 students sitting in fixed tables in rows, that face the teacher, is not conducive to working together in groups. As a result, students do not have opportunities to talk with classmates to share their ideas or deliver answers to the teacher’s questions, or even perform their speaking in front of the class.

40 I: I like your ideas. Are there any other factors that you wish to talk about?

41 N: My supervisor. The effect of my school supervisor also had an impact on my teaching practice.

42 I: Could you talk more about this issue?

318

43 N: …I see that the way my supervisor works is as the role of the imperator. Therefore, my supervisor’s teaching experience and methods were largely manifested in the focus and approach in my speaking lesson. You know…When working with my supervisor about the teaching of speaking, I was advised that I should not challenge myself to teach students to speak English fluently. She stressed that it could not be done right now due to many factors. I should keep to the textbook and try to manage and finish the lesson on time. Then, she gave me a sample lesson for reference. As a result, I followed the way she suggested to teach speaking.

44 I: Are there any factors?

45 N: No.

46 I: Thank you for your ideas. Is there anything else you want to say about your lesson today?

47 N: No.

48 I: Once more, I would like to say a big thank to you for your time and the ideas that you shared with me in the interview. See you again.

319

APPENDIX M FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDELINES (For the pre-service teachers' supervisors)

I. Background information

Before the interview, the four participant supervisors were asked to complete the following table for their background information:

N0 Name Gender Age Degree Years of teaching English

II. Experiences and expectations about the teaching of speaking

In a group, please share your experiences and expectations about the teaching of speaking with your colleagues, using the following questions:

1. In your view, what are the goals for teaching speaking skills at high schools? 2. Could you please share your ideas about what underlies your view? 3. As a school supervising teacher, what do you expect pre-service teachers to teach their students in speaking lessons? 4. Could you please share your ideas about what underlies your expectations? 5. Is there anything else you want to say about the teaching of speaking?

320

APPENDIX N SAMPLE OF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW (For the pre-service teacher’s supervisors)

Date: 12 February 2014 I: Interviewer Participants: My, Mai, Xuan and Anh 01, 02: Speaker turn

01 I: First, I would like to thank all of you for arranging your time to attend this focus interview today. As I have told you, in this interview I want to listen to your experiences and expectations about the teaching of speaking. Before the interview, please complete this form for me to collect your background information. .

02 My, Mai, Xuan and Anh: .

03 I: Thank you for completing the table. Now, I would like you to share your experiences and perceptions about the teaching of speaking. In your view, what are the goals for teaching speaking in English classes?

04 My: Yes,..uh…in my view, students at high school, like our students here, should be equipped with basic knowledge and structures, and…the teacher should help them remember those structures in order to express themselves in English with simple sentences. If my students can speak English in the manner that I have described, I think that we can reach the goal in teaching speaking.

05 I: Thank you for your ideas, and now I would like to listen to other teachers’ views.

321

06 Xuan: Yes, I agree with what My said. I want to share my view that teachers should enable students to produce spoken English in simple and familiar situations such as asking for names, favourite hobbies, streets, post office or expressing their ideas about what they like or dislike.

07 I: Thank you for your ideas. How about you, Mai? I would you to share your ideas.

08 Mai: Yes, I also agree what My and Xuan said. I think that for the purpose of teaching speaking skills, first we must provide students with a basic knowledge of the language. Second, the teacher must help them make use of that knowledge in their communication by asking and answering simple questions... Otherwise, I think that if we help students to speak English at a high level, for example to speak English naturally and fluently, this is not an easy job.

09 I: Thank you for sharing your ideas. How about you? What is your view about the goals of teaching speaking at high school, Anh?

10 Anh: Yes, my view is the same as what my colleagues shared. I think that teachers should teach students at high schools to communicate in English correctly. They should help students memorize and make use of conversational structures in lessons to produce spoken language. More importantly, I think that teachers should make students feel confident so that they would be more willing to participate in classroom activities and practise speaking English.

11 I: Your ideas are very interesting and I highly appreciate them. However, I would like you all to talk more about the reasons why you said that.

322

12 Anh: In your position, as a teacher educator at a university, I think that you can understand the context of teaching and learning English in our country well…I mean that there is a big gap between theory and practice. At our school, for example, examinations are strongly emphasized and, consequently, the focus of teaching English is still to prepare students for examinations rather than communication…Therefore, as I said above, teaching speaking skills to students at high school should help them to acquire proficiency in English.

13 I : Thank you for your ideas. How about you? I want to listen to your ideas.

14 My: Yes, I agree with Anh’s ideas, I think that in such conditions and situations at public high schools in general, and in our school in particular, if students want to speak English or communicate in English with foreigners confidently and naturally, they need to attend intensive training courses for communication at language centers in the evening…In these centrers, classes are small with around 20 students, and the purpose of learning English is to help students develop their speaking abilities.

15 I: Thank you for your ideas. How about you, Xuan? What is your view?

16 Xuan: Yes, I agree with My’s and Anh’s ideas and explanations. I also think that if students want to be good at communicating in English, they need to learn English at a higher level, for example at the university level, or they need to take other communication training courses at these centers. My daughter, for example, can speak English very well because she has completed five communication courses, ranging from level one to five, at a foreign language learning center near my house...I do think that due to pressure of school-based examinations, we cannot teach students to speak English well.

323

17 I: Thank you for sharing your ideas. How about your ideas, Mai?

18 Mai: I experienced various challenges in teaching speaking skills to students at high school, and I also suggest that if our students want to improve their communicative abilities, they should study English at these centers, where they have opportunities to speak English with native speaking teachers.

19 I: Thank you so much for sharing your experiences as well your views about the teaching of speaking at high school levels. Now, I move to another question. As a school supervising teacher, in your view what do you expect pre-service teachers to teach their students in a speaking lesson?

20 I: I would like to listen to your view, Mai.

21 Mai: Uh… for this question I think that…as you know each speaking lesson is often taught with a different topic. Therefore, the teacher first needs to provide students with new words related to that topic. These new words are presented in the text…I want to emphasize that in terms of speaking lessons, there are many new words, language expressions and grammatical structures indicated in the textbook that students often encounter. Therefore, I do think that the role of the teacher is to help students know what these items mean, how to pronounce them and how they are used in communication.

22 I: Thank you for your ideas. How about you, Xuan? I want you to share your view.

23 Xuan: Yes, I totally agree with Mai’s view. I experienced that most of the students are not as passive as many teachers think. The problem is

324

that they lack sources of vocabulary and grammar structures to translate their opinions into English. Therefore, they often face with difficulties in communication. To solve this problem, I think that pre-service teachers need to equip students with knowledge of vocabulary and a list of useful expressions so that they can produce their English.

24 I: Thank you for your ideas, Xuan. What is your view Anh? I would like to hear your ideas.

25 Anh: My view is similar to those of Mai and Xuan, but I want to suggest that pre-service should teach new words in a context… I see that in some regards, the synonym or antonym technique used to introduce new words is good, but I think in speaking lessons pre-service teachers should present new words in a context… for example, how to make a request or give compliments. In such ways, I think that students can understand the meaning of new words well.

26 I: Thank you for your ideas, Anh. How about your view, My?

27 My: Yes, I also agree with what my colleagues said, and I also suggest that pre-service teachers should take the role of context in teaching vocabulary into consideration. I think that by putting new words in a context, students can understand, remember and use them effectively when speaking.

28 I: Thanks so much for sharing your ideas about the teaching of new words. What else do you expect pre-service teachers to teach students in speaking lessons?

29 My: I…uh…

325

30 I: Yes, My, please. What else do you expect pre-service teachers to teach students in speaking lessons?

31 My: Besides introducing new language items, I think that pre-service teachers, like Anh said above, should help students speak English correctly first.

32 I: Thank you for your ideas, but I want you to say more about this view.

33 My: Yes, uh… As you know, at high school, the majority of students are unable to speak English. Therefore, the focus in the classroom I think is to help students learn to speak by practising grammatical structures until they can produce them automatically.

34 I: Thank you. How about your view, Anh?

35 Anh: Yes, as I mentioned earlier, at high schools teaching speaking should prioritize developing accuracy. In their speaking lessons, I expect that pre-service teachers would help students learn structures in dialogues and then enable them to make a similar dialogue. Also, it is very important for pre-service teachers to cover all activities given in the textbooks.

36 I: Thank you for sharing your view, Anh. How about you, Xuan?

37 Xuan: I also agree with My and Anh. When examining activities given in the textbooks, I find that students at high schools are suggested to learn speaking through dialogue models. In addition to our students’ low English level, I think that teaching speaking through dialogues is a useful way. Therefore, like My and Anh, I also expect pre-service teachers to teach students to speak English correctly.

326

38 I: How about you, Mai? I would like to listen to your view.

39 Mai: Yes… I have been teaching English for 38 nearly years, and I find that, at high school levels, most students do not like learning English. Moreover, as Anh said, students learn English for examinations, not for communication…In teaching speaking, I also expect that pre-service teachers should help students to improve their pronunciation and produce their English accurately. I hope that, through the use of drilling, students can imitate or recite memorized sentence patterns from the textbook in their daily communication.

40 I: Thank you for sharing your view. Is there anything else you want to say about your expectations regarding the teaching of speaking?

41 Mai: No.

42 Anh: No.

43 I: How about you Xuan? Is there anything else you want to say about the teaching of speaking?

44 Xuan: No.

45 My: Me, too.

46 I: Once again, I would like to thank all of you for attending the focus group interview today. I highly appreciate your views. Thank you very much for your co-operation.

The interview ends.

327

APPENDIX O FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDELINES (For the teacher educators)

I. Background information

Before the interview, the participants were asked to complete the following table for their background information:

N0 Name Gender Age Degree Years of training

II. Perceptions and expectations about training and teaching speaking

In a group, please share your perceptions about training and teaching speaking, using the following questions:

1. In your view, how should pre-service teachers be trained to teach speaking? Why do you think that? 2. In a speaking lesson, what do you expect pre-service teachers to teach their students? Why do you think that?

III. The teacher education programme and recommendations

In relation to the teaching of speaking, discuss your views of the teacher education programme with your colleagues, using the following questions:

3. What are the main strengths of the teacher-training programme? 4. What are the main weaknesses or constraints of the teacher-training programme? 5. What changes or recommendations would you like to make about the training?

328

APPENDIX P THE FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW (For the teacher educators)

Date: 6 February 2014 I: Interviewer Participants: Bich, Lan, Thao and Mary 01, 02: Speaker turn

01 I: First, I would like to thank all of you for arranging your time to attend this focus interview today. As I have told you, in this interview I want to listen to your perceptions about training and teaching speaking, the teacher training programme and expectations about the teaching of speaking in practice. Before the interview, please complete this form for me to collect your background information. .

02 Bich, Lan, Thao and My: .

03 I: Thank you for completing the form. Now, I would like you to share your perceptions about training and teaching speaking. In your view, how should pre-service teachers be trained to teach speaking? Why do you think that?

04 I: I would like to listen to your view, Thao.

05 Thao: In my opinion, speaking skills are very important. At high school, our students will participate in classroom activities and respect our teaching if our spoken English is good... If a language teacher is good at speaking, he may be good at other skills…

329

06 I: Thanks for your ideas, and how should pre-service teachers be trained to teach speaking?

07 Thao: Uh…in my opinion, the first thing is to help them with speech training. They have to make sounds correctly, for example vowels, consonants, stress, intonation and whatever. That is the basis.

08 I: In your view, you mean that the training is to first help pre-service teachers to pronounce English correctly.

09 Thao: Absolutely true. If pre-service teachers are not good at these essential elements, they cannot teach confidently.

10 I: What is the second thing?

11 Thao: Uh… I think that the second thing is sub-skills of speaking.

12 I: I would like you to talk more about this issue.

13 Thao: There are many sub-skills of speaking that pre-service teachers need to be trained to communicate with one another by using speaking strategies. Accuracy should be emphasized first and then fluency. That’s my opinion.

14 I: Thank you for your ideas. What is your view, Bich?

15 Bich: I totally agree with Dr Thao about providing pre-service teachers with knowledge of the language, particularly about speech training, pronunciation, and sub-skills of speaking. I want to add that in order to teach speaking and other skills at high schools or other schools, pre- service teachers need to learn about methodologies. I mean methods of 330

teaching to students. So, in our courses, we train these teaching methodologies to pre-service teachers. They learn how to prepare a lesson plan and what should be taught in each stage of the lesson…In short, we provide them with general ideas about how a lesson plan should be designed and how many stages they need to conduct in their lessons.

16 I: Thank you for sharing your view, Bich. How about you, Lan?

17 Lan: I also agree with Dr Thao and Bich. I think that in order to teach speaking skills and other skills effectively, pre-service teachers must first prioritize or need to improve their communicative skills even if they may have a good background of linguistic knowledge. They need to be trained to speak English confidently and fluently. Secondly, regarding teaching methodologies, in my courses students are provided with theoretical knowledge, they are then required to prepare lesson plans for a chosen skill and then to conduct their teaching for a period of approximately 15 minutes. This practice is called microteaching.

18 I: Thanks for your ideas, but I want to know if any pre-service teachers chose speaking skills for their microteaching.

19 Lan: Only a few students chose speaking skills for their microteaching… The reason is that speaking is more difficult to teach than grammar or other skills, which leads them to receive lower marks for their microteaching.

20 I: What do you think about the effectiveness of microteaching?

21 Lan: In my personal view, firstly it is not effective because the teaching period is only about 15 minutes long that only focuses on a small part of

331

the lesson. Secondly, the participants are pre-service teachers who are quite good at English, and particularly the teaching and learning facilities here are better equipped. So, microteaching does not reflect clearly what occurs in real situations at high schools.

22 I: Thank you for your ideas. What is your view, Mary?

23 Mary: I agree with these ideas. I find that most students lack confidence to speak English. I try to go around to small groups and I try to get them more comfortable to speak in English. I do think that they need to be trained about pronunciation, methodologies and grammar. I think that today students can get more input of spoken language from different sources such as internet, TV and movies in order to improve their communicative skills.

24 I: Thank you for sharing your ideas. Now, I will move on to another question. What do you expect pre-service teachers to teach their students in a speaking lesson? Why do you think that?

25 I: I would like to hear your view, Thao.

26 Thao: I think that we train our pre-service teachers in all aspects of speaking and teaching methodologies so that they can have a general view for their speaking lessons. I wish they would teach pronunciation and grammar in use. So, how to attain accuracy in speaking, and how to be clear in pronunciation. These are two important aspects. I want to stress that students need to be taught grammar and know how to make use of grammatical knowledge in their speaking. There should be a gradual transition from accuracy to fluency...I see that many students at high schools make mistakes in pronunciation. Why? At high schools, students are no longer children. They are adult learners who often have kinds of fossilized mistakes. And then, in such situations, teachers should 332

use strategies to help students deal with these kinds of fossilized mistakes by making use of activities such as learner-centered activities to help a group of learners or individual learners to overcome mistakes in pronunciation. This means that accuracy comes first, and then fluency does.

27 I: Thank you for your ideas, Thao. How about you, Lan? I would like to listen to your view.

28 Lan: From my point of view, for my pre-service teachers I expect them to help students at high schools to speak English as fluently as possible…Yes, I would also like to see how my pre-service teachers design and organize speaking activities in which students in class can talk together. I mean…I would like to see how students are taught to practise speaking English themselves in a natural way, focusing on fluency rather than on accuracy as many other teachers did.

29 I: Thank you for your ideas, Lan? What is your view Bich?

30 Bich: Uh…students at high schools are adult learners. If we make use of both accuracy and fluency together that is good. But I think that… as you know, children are not self-conscious about making mistakes when producing a language; but, as I said above students at high schools are actually young adults. So, they are quite conscious of their learning. They tend to avoid or fear making mistakes in speaking. Teachers, therefore, should help them to be clear in pronunciation, and make use of grammar correctly in situations of communication.

31 I: Thank you for your ideas. I would like to listen to your view, Mary.

333

32 Mary: I found that I struggle with my teaching here. I think that final consonant sounds are a big problem in Vietnam. Students need to learn how to speak English correctly first, since clarity and confidence are two very necessary factors when communicating with others.

33 I: Thank you for sharing your ideas, Mary.

34 I: Is there anything else you would like to say about your expectations regarding the teaching of speaking in English classes?

35 Bich: No.

36 Lan: No.

37 Thao: I want to add one thing that, if possible, pre-service teachers should add to some activities in speaking lessons in order for students to have more opportunities to develop their speaking skills. As I said above, after students engage in activities for the development of accuracy and fluency, they need to be provided with other activities so that the focus of accuracy and fluency can go hand in hand. But, I think that achieving this goal is very challenging to language teachers, particularly to pre- service teachers.

38 I: Thanks for sharing your ideas. Now, I move to the next question. What are the main strengths of the teacher-training programme? I would like to hear your view, Thao.

39 Thao: In my opinion, the present curriculum can meet most of requirements of the MOET and our students here. They can study in a professional way, and of course what is very essential is learner-

334

centredness. I stress that the point of the curriculum is now updated, and to some extent, I feel comfortable in teaching this curriculum.

40 I: Thanks for your ideas. How about you, Bich?

41 Bich: I would like to mention one thing besides the curriculum and that is the knowledge we provide to our students. What I mean is that pre- service teachers are not only equipped with knowledge about theory, methodologies, but also with ability and skills of using technology. That’s one of the main strengths of our training programme.

42 Lan: Yes, I totally agree with Dr Thao and Bich. I would also like to mention that we have a group of team teachers in methodologies. In our English department, there are many teacher educators who are very experienced with high degrees or qualifications.

43 I: Thanks for your ideas, Lan. I would like to hear your view, Mary.

44 Mary: Actually, I have been teaching at this university for over a year. I think… I have no new ideas about this issue. But I see that after the practicum, pre-service teachers often got high marks for their teaching practice at high schools.

45 I: Thanks for sharing your ideas. What are the main weaknesses or constraints of the teacher-training programme? I would like to hear your ideas, Thao.

46 Thao: I was involved in designing and adapting the new curriculum; but I see that it still has problems. In the curriculum concerning speaking teaching for example, a number of lists of speaking skills need to be taught and practised, and the textbooks selected should satisfy these

335

requirements. However, instead of choosing the textbook like that teacher educators tend to choose the textbooks that are available, and particularly they tend to ignore the curriculum requirements, following Uni1, Unit 2 without caring how their students learn and practise sub- skills of speaking. That’s the point, the mismatch between the curriculum and the reality of teaching materials.

47 I: Thanks for your ideas, Thao. What is your view, Bich?

48 Bich: I agree with Dr Thao. I think that this is one of the problems. I want to add that I do not know why pre-practicum was cut off the programme…But, in general I think that our training programme is innovative.

49 I: Thanks for your ideas, Bich. How about you, Lan?

50 Lan: Yes, as I mentioned above, microteaching is, to large extent, not effective. I think that pre-service teachers should be provided an opportunity to familiarize themselves in real teaching contexts before approaching the practicum. This is, in my view, a big weakness of the training.

51 I: Thanks for your ideas, Lan. I would like to hear your view, Mary.

52 Mary: I think that, as Lan said, it is good if pre-service teachers are provided with opportunities to have some tutoring experience before the practicum.

53 I: Thanks for your ideas. I want to know what changes or recommendations you would like to make about the training.

336

54 Thao: I think that we have to sit down and find solutions.

55 I: What is your view, Bich?

56 Bich: I think that pre-practicum should be added to the training programme rather than microteaching.

57 Lan: I totally agree with Bich’s suggestion.

58 I: Thanks for your ideas, Bich and Lan. How about you, Mary?

59 Mary: I have no ideas.

60 I: Thank you so much for sharing your ideas.

61 Is there anything else you want to say about the training programme?

62 Thao: I think that’s enough.

63 Lan: No.

64 Bich: No.

65 Mary: No (smiles).

66 Xuan: No.

337

67 I: Once again, I would like to thank all of you for attending the focus group interview today. I highly appreciate your views. Thank you very much for your co-operation.

The interview ends.

338

APPENDIX Q SAMPLE OF LESSON PLAN

339

340

341

342

APPENDIX R COMPULSORY SUBJECTS AT HIGH SCHOOLS IN VITENAM

No Các môn học bắt buộc Subjects 1 Toán Maths 2 Vật lý Physics 3 Hoá học Chemistry 4 Sinh học Biology 5 Công nghệ Technology 6 Ngữ văn Literature 7 Lịch sử History 8 Địa lý Geography 9 Giáo dục công dân Civic education 10 Ngoại ngữ English 11 Thể dục Physical education 12 Tin học Informatics

343

APPENDIX S TRANSCIPTION CONVENTIONS

#1, #2 Number of the extract 01, 02 Speaker turn T Teacher S1, S2 Unknown student Ss More than one student or the whole class < > Explanation or Interpretation Italics Translation Bold Teacher’s emphasis 01.G10 The first observed lesson, Grade 10 02.G11 The second observed lesson, Grade 11 01.SRI The first stimulated recall interview 02.SRI The second stimulated recall interview

344

APPENDIX T SAMPLE OF TEXTBOOK LESSON

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357