Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen, Huong Thu Nguyen, Huy Van Nguyen, Trang Thi Thuy Nguyen 12 Local challenges to global needs in in : The perspective of language policy and planning

English education reforms have been implemented across Asia in response to globalisation and the increasing spread of English as an international language. This has created both opportunities and challenges for local systems of English in non-English speaking countries. This chapter critically examines the role of English education in Vietnam in view of the broad context of the globalisation of English. It starts with a discussion on how globalisation has impacted English language education in general and in Vietnam in particular. It includes a review on the current reforms in English , which is followed by a discussion of three empirical case study findings on the English education policy implementation in Vietnam. The chapter concludes by highlighting the possible implications for policymakers and language educators in Vietnam. All across Asia, English seems to have become more important than ever before due to its increasingly prominent role in globalisation. Globalisation and the spread of English have undeniably resulted in English being recognised as a valuable resource for national development and regional integration. The link between English and globalisation is believed to be the driving force behind reforms in English education policies in most Asian polities (Qi, 2009; Tollefson & Tsui, 2004). As a result, most governments in Asia, including Vietnam, have recently initiated reforms in English language education to improve the language proficiency of the learners (Hamid, 2010; Johnstone, 2010). English has been introduced as a compulsory subject at an increasingly younger age. For example, in China and Korea, English is taught at Grade 3, while in Indonesia it starts at Grade 4, or in Taiwan at Grade 1. As English has been increasingly used as medium of instruction, this has resulted in the transformation of many local English education systems in Asia. For instance, this demand for English offers opportunities to the Teaching English to Speaker of Other Languages (TESOL) profession but at the same time it creates tremendous challenges for the local education system. For most of the countries in Asia, English education innovations have encountered a number of issues, including teacher quality and quantity, teaching and learning resources, and equality of learning outcomes (see Lamb & Coleman, 2008; Kosonen,

Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen, The of New South Wales, Australia Huong Thu Nguyen, Huy Van Nguyen, Trang Thi Thuy Nguyen, The University of Queensland, Australia Globalisation and global English education 215

2013). For example, the introduction of English as Medium of Instruction (EMI) initiative in higher has encountered inefficient implementation, and less desirable learning outcomes (Ali, 2013; Gill, 2012; Lee, 2014). In a similar vein, the issue of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) quality teaching and learning environment is a major concern in the context of Indonesia (Dardjowidjojo, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 2007). In many of the countries in Asia, the introduction of English language policy initiatives has triggered issues of ineffective implementation at the local level. In view of this, there is the need to investigate the tension between policy formulation at the macro level and policy operation at the local level in developing countries such as Vietnam.

12.1 Globalisation and global English education

English has been strongly associated with globalisation since it is the de facto working language in this modern world. Together with Information Technology (IT), English constitutes what is called “global skills” (Tollefson & Tsui, 2007: 1), which redefines labour efficiency in the globalised world. Lo Bianco asserts that the education of English as a foreign language is “profoundly” influenced by globalisation and that the spread of English is attributed to the fact the English is “well-endowed” with “Q value” (Lo Bianco, 2014: 317), a term he borrowed from de Swaan (1993), to refer to the “communication payoff” considering the time and effort one has to spend on learning the language. Majhanovich even considers English as a “tool of neo-liberalism and globalization in Asian contexts” (Majhanovich, 2013: 249). She argues that the spread of English today helps to promote neoliberal ideals inherent in the globalisation process. Neo-liberialism is associated with the ideologies of choice, competition, and the free market (Price, 2014). Therefore, critics have pointed out that the spread of English entails potential danger of “exacerbating or even creating socioeconomic and educational inequalities” (Price, 2014: 569) between individuals, social groups, as well as between developed countries and the less developed or developing ones. Many non-English speakers in Asia are encouraged to attain the ideal English language proficiency that is comparable to the English-speaking world regardless of their local contexts and traditions. For example, Asian are keen to adopt English as the main medium of instruction and establish high-stake language testing as an entry and exit gatekeeper. Consequently, English language education in many Asian countries is constructed based on Eurocentric knowledge, evaluation systems, textbooks, and resources. This also reflects an important neoliberal ideology perpetuated by the English-speaking world in education, and that is the shift from “pedagogical to market values [and] the abandonment of the social and cooperative ethic in favour of individualist and competitive business models” (Block, Gray & Holborow, 2013: 6). 216 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

Empirical research evidence has converged on the challenges and adverse impact of globalisation and neo-liberal agenda on language education in many Asian contexts. For example, Lamb and Coleman (2008) warn that the spread of English in the long run might deepen the “inequalities in the distribution of cultural, social, and economic capital” among young Indonesian learners of English (Lamb & Coleman, 2008: 189). In line with this opinion, Price (2014) has looked at English language education policies in Taiwan from 2000 to 2008 and argued that the neoliberal mantra of choice and competition reflected in English-for-all policies did not guarantee opportunities for learners. On the contrary, she posits that “regions, schools, and individuals are forced to compete with each other on anything but a level playing field given uneven resource allocation in the public education sector between rural and urban areas” (Price, 2014: 586). In her review of current studies in English language education in Asia, Majhanovich (2014) criticises the recent embracement of EMI in some Asian countries including those who were never British colonies like Vietnam. Siding with Kosonen (2013) and Brock-Utne (2013), she advocates for the role of local Asian languages as media of instruction rather than that of English language. She stresses that,

… more micro-level studies, and policy-practice studies, are desirable to highlight the inequities, the contradictions, and the complexities of how language and education play out in a local or national landscape pervaded by global influences and neo-liberal economic policies. (Majhano- vich, 2014: 179)

12.2 Current English language policy and planning in Vietnam

The constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam stipulates that Vietnamese is the lingua franca of the country (National Assembly, 2013). With 54 ethnic minorities in its territory, Vietnam boasts diverse language ecology. To maintain such linguistic richness, the government tries to support the language capacity of minority people. For example, even though it is stated in the Education Law that Vietnamese is the language of education for all people, it also enshrines that,

The State shall enable ethnic minority people to learn their spoken and written languages in order to preserve and develop their ethnic cultural identity, helping pupils from ethnic mino- rities easily absorb knowledge when they study in schools and other educational institutions. (National Assembly, 2005)

The major historical developments of the country have also contributed to the country’s language environment. Chinese, French, Russian and English have come to Vietnam through warfare, colonial domination, foreign support, economic development and global integration (Lo Bianco, 2001; Wright, 2002). These political, economic and social influences have impacted the government’s policies regarding Current English language policy and planning in Vietnam 217

the teaching of foreign languages as well as people’s attitudes in learning foreign languages (Pham, 2014). At present, like other Asian countries, English is the most popular foreign language in Vietnam for communication, education, trade, science and technology (Goh & Nguyen, 2004). Facing the need to ensure economic growth for the country, the Vietnamese government places special importance on the role of foreign languages especially English education in the national economic development and global integration (General Secretary, 2013). In view of the importance of English education in Vietnam, the government has recently approved the project “Teaching and learning foreign languages in the national education system, period 2008-2020” (known as the Project 2020) (Prime Minister, 2008a). Even though the document provides a framework for the education of foreign languages, the focus is on strategies to develop English proficiency for particularly the students and teachers. For example at level, English as a school subject is introduced earlier, starting in grade 3 instead of grade 5, and includes minority students whose mother tongue is not Vietnamese. In addition, in some schools EMI is used for mathematics and sciences. In some private schools, is offered for the development of primary school children’s English proficiency. In senior high schools, the English programme has also undergone a revamp – the objective is to ensure that there is a continuation of English education from primary school to high school level. This is known as the 10- year English programme, starting from grade 3 to grade 12. In higher education (HE), the two prominent developments are 1) the application of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in setting up core competences in English education and assessment, and 2) the introduction of EMI programs in increasing number of universities in Vietnam. The aforementioned English language policy changes were aimed at improving the quality of the country’s future workforce because once equipped with good English skills, Vietnamese students will have a better chance to work in an international market (Nguyen, 2010). However, what research on language policy and planning has revealed is that planning might not necessarily lead to success and that planners should be prepared for failure (see Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). For the case of Vietnam, we argue that without careful consideration and planning from the government, challenges would outweigh chances. In the case studies that follow, we illustrate some of the challenges triggered by such changes in the new English language policy espoused by Vietnamese government. Adopting the language-in-education theory posited by Kaplan and Baldauf (1997; 2005), this chapter discusses the need to put in place the necessary conditions in order for successful language policy and planning (see Table 12.1). 218 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

Tab. 12.1: Language-in-education goals (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2005: 1014).

Language-in-education planning goals Explanations Access Policy Who learns what, when?

Personnel Policy Where do teachers come from and how are they trained?

Curriculum Policy What is the objective in language teaching/ learning?

Methods and Material Policy What methodology and what materials are employed over what duration?

Resourcing Policy How is everything paid for?

Community Policy Who is consulted/involved?

Evaluation Policy What is the connection between assessment on the one hand and methods and materials that define the educational objective on the other?

In the following sections, three case studies will be discussed to highlight the challenges and implications found in planning and policy, in particular, its Access Policy, Personnel Policy, Methods and Material Policy, as well as Evaluation Policy.

12.2.1 Case study 1: English education for minority students

For the past years, the Vietnamese government has introduced a number of policies that specifically relate to language and education for ethnic minorities, however, until now most of the ethnic minority students in Vietnam still have to join the same education system that uses Vietnamese as the only language of instruction together with their Kinh (Viet) majority counterparts. Many of them have to start their first days of primary school with little or no experience of Vietnamese (Aikman & Pridmore, 2001). The language barrier puts these minority students at a disadvantage when attending school. The language problem becomes more complicated when minority students start learning English as a compulsory subject because they have to depend on the second language i.e., Vietnamese for foreign language learning. The present case study sets its focus on English language policy and minority students. Findings of this study were drawn from a large-scale project examining bilingual identity of ethnic minority students in Vietnam. The data was taken from eight -age students who were focal participants of the larger project, and two issues were surfaced from the data, and they were, the lack of considerations on language and cultural factors, and the lack of students’ needs analysis. Current English language policy and planning in Vietnam 219

12.2.1.1 Lack of considerations on language and culture factors The most salient issue that is related to language and culture discontinuation is the use of the same and English teaching methods to both Kinh majority and minority students. As what was reported by the minority students, because the school language was Vietnamese rather than their mother tongue, they had many initial language difficulties in their early schooling. Some of them related that in their Grade 1, they could not understand what their teachers were saying and hence could not follow the lessons in Vietnamese. One student even revealed that due to language issue, he could not pass the first year and had to repeat Grade 1. Many students also believed that their Kinh counterparts seemed to have more advantages in terms of language than them. All the students confirmed that they had little or no idea about English in primary school and only started leaning it as a subject from Grade 6 (7 students) or Grade 10 (1 student). In early , although many of them were not fluent in Vietnamese and were not confident in communication with their Kinh friends in Vietnamese, they had to rely on Vietnamese to learn English. One student pointed out that English was one more language burden for his study:

On early days of Grade 6, it’s more difficult for them [minority students], because... they haven’t mastered Vietnamese yet, but had to speak English […]. In Grade 6, I was shocked... didn’t know anything.

Thus, these students have faced many language obstacles in learning English; they need to double their efforts in order to keep pace with their Kinh counterparts. Furthermore, due to the highly centralised education system in Vietnam, the students in this study had to follow the same curriculum together with their Kinh counterparts in which the cultural contents were mainly designed for Kinh majority students. As the curriculum, learning materials, and teaching practices mainly follow the Kinh culture, the inclusion of minority cultures in English lessons has been omitted. Therefore, the policies have failed to take into consideration students’ cultural heritages and linguistic ability when learning English. Basically, the minority students have to learn the Kinh culture and the culture of English language concurrently. In addition, compared to their Kinh counterparts, most of the minority students live in remote places and are usually unfamiliar with the outside world, especially Western culture, thereby making it even harder for them to learn English (Blachford & Jones, 2011).

12.2.1.2 Lack of students’ needs analysis The implementation of English language policy for minority students also failed to accommodate students’ needs and attitudes. The students reported that English did not play any considerable role in their daily communication although common words or phrases such as “hello” or “thank you” were added into their speech. In fact, after a few years of learning English in secondary and high schools, they still could not 220 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

engage in basic communication in English well, as the emphasis was on vocabulary, grammar, reading or writing in English and not communication skills. To them, the Vietnamese language could bring them more practical benefits in school and the mainstream society than English. The students’ limited use of English in their real life and their basic English proficiency is evidence of the failure of teaching and learning English in school in terms of developing English communication skills for young learners. Although English was considered to be less practical in real life by the students, most of them asserted that they had positive attitudes towards this language as they believed that English was useful for them, for communication with foreigners, travel and career opportunities because this language was “the trend” of the society. It is indicated that although the students had to deal with many problems in learning English in school, they did not undervalue the importance of this language. Hence, the hypothesis that minority students often attach little value to English and do not have much motivation to learn English, therefore, is not always empirically true (Sunuodula & Feng, 2011). Students’ needs in learning and using English as well as their attitudes towards English can vary, depending on personal motivation, ethnicity, age or the environment they are living.

12.2.2 Case study 2: English-medium instruction in Vietnamese universities

The introduction of EMI in Vietnam higher education (HE) can be traced back to the early 1990s. This period was marked by the emerging of joint programmes between Vietnamese and partner higher education institutions (HEIs) from overseas for post- graduate level, an attempt to improve the quality of education in HE sector (VIED, 2015). Thus, in 2008 the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) provided financial incentives for Vietnamese HEIs to develop another type of cooperative programmes known as the Advanced Programmes, which are joint collaboration projects with high-ranked universities in the West, such as United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) (Prime Minister, 2008b). The project aims to develop Vietnamese universities to the level of the 200 world’s leading universities. To date, there are 27 Advanced Programmes offered in Vietnamese HEIs. The EMI-based Joint Programmes and Advanced Programmes in local HEIs receive support from their foreign partners in terms of curriculum, materials, assessment, etc., hence their label Foreign Education Programmes (MOET, 2014). In recent developments, local HEIs have also introduced their own EMI-based programmes using foreign English materials from countries, such as Australia, UK and US. These locally developed EMI programmes are known as High Quality Programmes (MOET, 2014), and to date, 21 Vietnamese HEIs are offering 55 High Quality Programmes. This case study was undertaken by the second author over a period of four months in 2012 to 2013; it focused on one Vietnamese HEI (called E-University, a pseudonym), which offers all types of aforementioned graduate EMI-based programmes. In 2006, Current English language policy and planning in Vietnam 221

E-University started its first EMI-based programmes while maintaining the existing Vietnamese-medium-instruction (VMI) programmes. In total, the institution offers two Advanced Programmes with US partners, two Joint Programmes with UK partners, one Joint Programme with a Danish institution, and four High Quality Programmes. However, the existence of both EMI and VMI programmes has created tension in the university.

12.2.2.1 Language barriers Both students and academics reported difficulties in using English for academic functions. The criteria for selecting academics teaching in EMI programmes was that their previous education must be in an English-speaking environment, either in a country or a programme that uses English on a regular basis. Even though all non-native English speaking academics in EMI programmes received an overseas education, such as from Australia, UK, US and the Netherlands, it was different from lecturing in English. Thus, the students would face ‘double difficulty’ learning in English through non-native-English-speaking academics. For example, some international students shared the fact that they were lost in the lectures because of the unfamiliar English spoken by local academics and totally different teaching styles. Many local students revealed that it was also very difficult for them to understand the lectures and even if they did, they could not retain the knowledge for long. Although being admitted to EMI programmes meant that students had had acquired sufficient English proficiency to learn in English, in reality, many students could not function well in the programme. One reason was that the E-University set the language requirement bar low for student admission. Students only needed to demonstrate Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) result of 500 points (ETS, 2014b). This test result could be substituted by Test of English as Foreign Language (TOEFL) paper-based 477 points, or TOEFL internet-based 53 points (ETS, 2014a), or International English Language Testing System (IELTS) band 4.5 (IELTS, 2012). Such low requirements have negative impacts on teaching and learning in EMI setting. For example, foreign lecturers complained that students in Joint Programmes could barely contribute to class discussion or answer questions.

12.2.2.2 Insufficient language support Both students and academics faced this language stumbling block in EMI classrooms, and the support available for them was inadequate. For example, an English course was once made available for academics and was provided by British Council. However, what they received was general English skills, such as presentation skills and not specific pronunciation and teaching skills in English i.e., appropriate English and support for their teaching needs in EMI settings. Likewise for students, English classes were available for them throughout their study but the lessons did 222 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

not support their academic needs. For example, students practiced IELTS tests that included academic English content but it was not catered to specific academic purposes, i.e., academic style, citation and referencing.

12.2.2.3 Quality downgrade It was also found that students constantly compared the curriculum between EMI and VMI programmes. They discovered that academics had simplified and shortened the course content for EMI class due to language barrier and felt that upon graduation their knowledge might not be as good as VMI peers. Another concern was due to the aforementioned difficulties in comprehension and knowledge retainment, many of them thought that they would not perform well in the examinations but somehow they still managed to obtain good results in the end. Such disparity had led to students questioning the quality of EMI programmes since these programmes were more expensive and promised to provide students with international standard quality programmes, and the opportunity to study with foreign/native-English-speaker academics.

12.2.2.4 Social division and tensions Another unequal treatment between the VMI and EMI programmes is that academics who taught in EMI programmes received from four to seven times higher payment than those teaching in VMI stream, and they were waived from administrative work. Furthermore, EMI programmes were labelled as High Quality and Advanced Programmes whereas VMI programmes were perceived as ‘normal quality programmes’. In other words, education in English was associated with high quality and Vietnamese with low quality. In addition, the presence of foreign academics put pressure on local academics. Students preferred studying with foreign academics not only because they were native English speakers but also because they had Western teaching styles. Students found these academics more open, catering for students’ needs (such as ready to stop the lecture and explain any unclear point) and friendlier than local academics whose teaching styles were more distant and hierarchical. In summary, although the introduction of EMI in E-University has been a good initiative, as mentioned previously, there are pressing issues that require institutional attention in order for the EMI programmes to be sustainable over time.

12.2.3 Case study 3: The CEFR policy in Vietnam

In 2008, Decision 1400 was issued by the Prime Minister of Vietnam to complement Project 2020 guidelines that required a nationally unified framework to be developed Current English language policy and planning in Vietnam 223

and implemented to strengthen teaching and learning of foreign language within the Vietnamese education system. Based on a Western-based model, known as the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), a detailed description of language competence levels compatible with international categorisation of foreign language competence was introduced. This framework serves as a platform for curriculum design, course materials development, teaching plans, and evaluation i.e., assessment. The objective was to ensure that there was connectedness between the different stages of learning in the national education system of foreign language teaching and learning. This new policy have triggered a lot of debate among educators and attracted the attention of many researchers in the field of language education. Policymakers believed that this CEFR-based policy would lead to a comprehensive reform in foreign language education and transform the way language educators and learners carry out their daily work. However in reality, there are enormous challenges in its translation process due to huge financial and contextual barriers. Educators from many Vietnamese universities have indicated that the new CEFR-based language outcome is over-ambitious and likely unachievable for students in the near future. To further complicate matter, institution administrators have been confused and could not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the policy, resulting in possible intuitive coping strategies which could do more harm than good to the foreign language education system in the long term. This study explored how CEFR was adopted in Vietnam and how this process had influenced language learning and teaching activities in a Vietnamese tertiary . The data were obtained from a larger research project that looked at how local actors’ agency in the implementation of the CEFR in Vietnamese higher education. In-depth interviews were conducted with academic administrators, teachers and students in University A (UA ‒ a pseudonym). The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis procedures (Krippendorff, 2013). Findings from our data showcased the challenges generated by the CEFR policy enactment, which have been reported in details elsewhere by the third author in Nguyen and Hamid (2015). In this section, we recapitulated three important challenges for lecturers and students in a Vietnamese tertiary institution.

12.2.3.1 Overdependence on ready-made Western teaching and testing materials An important aspect of CEFR-related practice observed at UA was that the CEFR was mainly used to set obligatory language proficiency standards for both lecturers and students. It was employed to design high-stake language proficiency testing which then served as a powerful tool to execute obligatory changes in curricula and teaching methodology. For example, lecturers were found to adopt a pragmatic approach towards teaching by employing ready-made international textbooks with invalidated 224 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

claims of being aligned to the CEFR common levels of reference65. In addition, they also used ready-made practice tests designed by Cambridge English Language Assessment66 that could be easily found and downloaded for free from the Internet. Such practice seemed to suggest that teachers at UA had run out of alternatives and had to rely heavily on invalidated CEFR-aligned textbooks and testing materials proliferated in local market by different commercial agencies.

12.2.3.2 A poor sense of ownership towards the framework Despite UA administrators’ effort to communicate the value of CEFR as a reforming tool to all teachers, the majority of them still preferred testing scores and numbers. Some teachers had adopted other testing mechanisms, such as IELTS, TOEFL, TOEIC to present the students’ English language competency level. According to an administrator at UA, this had reduced the understanding of the framework, which had also reflected a lack of engagement and a poor sense of ownership towards the framework.

12.2.3.3 Lack of learner-centred pedagogical tools Despite the fact that some lecturers had started to incorporate can-do statements67 in their lessons, students at UA appeared to be less informed about the framework and how it could work to the best benefits of their study. Many students confided that they mainly heard of the CEFR “through the grapevine”. They preferred ready-made self- assessment tools from some textbooks rather than reflected on their actual need for language use. They seemed to have failed to internalise the self-assessment can-do statements that promote a learner-centred approach to language learning.

65 The CEFR common reference levels categorise language learners into three kinds of users and six levels of proficiency, including A1 (Breakthrough) and A2 (Waystage) for basic users, B1 (Threshold) and B2 (Vantage) for Independent users and C1 (Effective operational proficiency) and C2 (Master) for proficient users. 66 Cambridge ESOL/Cambridge English practice test papers include Key English Test for A2 level, Preliminary English Test for B1, First Certificate in English for B2, Certificate of Advanced English for C1 and Certificate of Proficiency in English for C2. 67 The CEFR can-do statements constitute a self-assessment grid that guides learners to progress with their learning. For example, a can-do statement for level B1 listening skill is “I can understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc.” An overview of the effectiveness and sustainability of the reforms 225

12.3 An overview of the effectiveness and sustainability of the reforms

As a lingua franca, English has been increasingly recognised as a mediating communicative tool for people of diverse linguistic background in Asia in communication in this globalised world. As such, in recent years, there have been reforms in English language education in many Asian countries including Vietnam. However, as discussed previously, English education reform in Vietnam has led to problems and dilemmas for the country. The implementation of new English education initiatives in Vietnam is one of the governmental responses to the impact of globalisation. However, the effectiveness and sustainability of these initiatives remain a major concern. As illustrated in the three case studies, there are a number of implementation issues at the micro level. Using Kaplan and Baldauf’s framework (1997; 2005), this chapter highlights a number of issues associated with the implementation of English language education reforms in Vietnam.

12.3.1 Access policy

Access policy designates who learns what languages at what age or what level, and this will provide guidelines in the designing of school-based language programmes (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2005). In Vietnam, this new initiative requires the minority students to learn English and Vietnamese at the same time while maintaining their ethnic languages, and this has placed them in a disadvantaged position. Such demand shows that inadequate consideration has been given to the minority students’ language, culture, their needs and attitudes (Bui & Nguyen, 2016; Nguyen, Le, Tran, & Nguyen, 2014). By applying the same English language education system that is mainly constructed for the majority, schooling in Vietnam “focuses more on providing access to the high status language than on promoting diversity and a distinct sense of cultural identity” (Adamson & Feng, 2009, p. 329). Hence, such a biased access policy empowers the majority Kinh group and alienates the minority peoples even more (Bastid-Bruguiere, 2001; Beckett & Macpherson, 2005). Although Kirkpatrick (2010) explains that the Vietnamese school curriculum can be seen a good example of pressures on minority students to learn the national language along with the international lingua franca while still maintaining the language of their ethnic group, the introduction of English into the school system have caused more challenges for minority language education and policy (Blachford & Jones, 2011). The second case study on the practice of EMI also reveals the differences between the English-medium programmes and Vietnamese medium programmes. Social division and tensions were reported to impact on lecturers’ teaching methods and students’ perceptions toward their learning. The study shows the inequality on access to teaching and learning conditions and instruction methods of different groups of 226 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

students. Further discrimination has been created through higher tuition fees, higher payments and better conditions for the EMI population. This supports the claim in a recent study on Vietnamese primary school education that the implementation of the national language policy has failed to address the equal access to quality teaching and learning conditions at the primary level (Nguyen et al., 2014), and this has led to the division between VMI for the mass and EMI for the elite (Wilkinson, 2013). As seen in E-University, the difference in access to resources has divided the students, academics and programmes depending on which programmes that they were enrolled. Without further consideration of this symbolic dichotomy, division will be clearer and more serious in the near future such as in the case of Bangladesh (Hamid & Jahan, 2015). It can be seen that the current reform in English education in Vietnam allegedly brings along the division and gap among individuals and communities, which, in according to Sung-Yul Park and Wee, such social division is an example of the “problems and dilemmas that globalization engenders or exacerbates” (Sung-Yul Park & Wee, 2013: 3).

12.3.2 Personnel policy

Kaplan and Baldauf (2005) believe that when a new language policy is introduced, the authorities need to consider the role of teachers in implementing a new language curriculum program. A number of researchers (e.g., Baldauf 2005; Chua, 2010; Hamid, 2010; Li, 2007) agree that if the policy does not deal with the issues related to teachers effectively, failure to achieve policy goals is inevitable. Findings from case study two on the practice of EMI in universities in Vietnam revealed that academics had difficulty in using English for academic functions. This difficulty couldbe attributed to the fact that graduation abroad served as the eligibility for teaching in EMI for academics while in practice many academics revealed many problems faced, such as mispronunciation or inflexibility in classroom communication. In fact, these findings confirm claims about the serious lack of English competence of Vietnamese academics and students in EMI programmes by a number of scholars in Vietnam (Department of State & MOET, 2009; Duong, 2009; Le, 2012; Vu & Burns, 2014). This finding also supports the findings from research in other non-English dominant contexts such as in Europe (Tatzl, 2011; Wilkinson, 2005), Africa (Jones, 2013; Wyk, 2014) or Asia (Cho, 2012; Toh, 2014). Similarly, findings from the third case study on the use of the CEFR in also revealed that the teachers’ inability to employ the new framework in their designing of teaching materials and teaching in class. This could be attributed to lack of appropriate teacher training and teacher professional development in the midst of education reforms. These issues not only deprive students from effective learning but also bring about confusion to teachers when they are not trained to effectively implement an innovation. An overview of the effectiveness and sustainability of the reforms 227

12.3.3 Methods and material policy

Methods and material policy, which are often specified in curriculum policy, are two important areas in the curriculum implementation process (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; 2005). In the third case study, it was found that teachers and students turned to coping strategies and adopted teaching-and-learning-to-the-test rather than switching to innovative teaching and learning methods. Such practice could lead to “detrimental implications for language educators and learners, making the enactment process of the CEFR in Vietnam a conundrum” (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015: 71). The high-stakes testing mechanism generated by the convenient adoption of the CEFR was found to lead to a reductive and narrow curriculum, pedagogy and teaching professionalism. Furthermore, by depending on high-stake tests proliferated by commercial agencies in the market could further complicate, rather than alleviate, the consequences of wash-back effects on learning and teaching English in the country.

12.3.4 Evaluation policy

According to Kaplan and Baldauf (2005: 1014), evaluation policy is concerned with the “the connection between assessment on the one hand and methods and materials that define the educational objectives on the other”. Cumming (2009) highlights that consistency between these two aspects is one of the critical factors in the success of policy implementation. As evident in case study three, there was a mismatch between what was taught and what was evaluated when the new framework was employed to impose a CEFR-based evaluation mechanism. Although the framework was originally adopted and expected to serve as a reforming tool in curriculum design, course materials development, teaching plans, and evaluation, it was conveniently to be adopted for testing and evaluating purposes at the school level. The situation could be traced to the nature of the CEFR. According to Little (2011), the CEFR is originally designed for two purposes. The first purpose of the CEFR is to place learners ina criteria-based system of assessment for comparison purposes while the second is to encourage language learner autonomy and learner self-assessment. As Alderson has pointed out the most influential part of the CEFR is the illustrative scales, and warns that some politicians and civil servants have been too eager to adopt a partial use of these illustrative scales to define standards “without considering achievability or justifiability” (Alderson, 2007: 662). The case studies show that although English language reform has gained momentum in Vietnam, English language education is suffering from inconsistencies and inadequacies in terms of equality, implementation, quality insurance, resources, and infrastructure. Therefore, it is critical that these reforms need to be carefully drafted, and adequate support needs to be in place since students are the direct subjects of the policy changes. In addition, the language used to teach English for 228 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

minority students and the cultural references made during English lessons should be further researched and debated (Sunuodula & Feng, 2011). Scholars have suggested that the use of mother tongue as the medium of instruction is more effective in learning another language (Sunuodula & Feng, 2011). Based on this argument, when providing English education to minority students, it is better to apply a first-language-based education as a transition by which the students are able to gradually transit to second and other languages in their schooling progress (Bui & Nguyen, 2015). The reasons for maintaining students’ first language in school need to be stated clearly (Gao, 2011). In the classroom, more ethnically sensitive teaching approaches should be developed (Blachford & Jones, 2011). It is therefore necessary to reposition languages and its accompanying culture references used in teaching and learning. In other words, there is a need to restructure the curriculum and conduct more research to compare minority language and culture to English language and culture (Blachford & Jones, 2011; Sunuodula & Feng, 2011). Basically, top-down language policy makers need to carefully analyse the roles, benefits, risks and costs of English education for minority students (Coleman, 2011). Thus, the students’ linguistic desires, geographical characteristics, professional trajectories, their socioeconomic and educational challenges must be taken into consideration when they participate in the mainstream society and the global world through the languages they learn (Bui, 2013).

12.4 Conclusion

Policies can conserve traditional values, reinforce heritage identity and provide more access to mainstream opportunities or they can result in marginalisation and social disadvantage (Edwards, 2004). As in the case of Vietnam, first, in order to minimise the side effects, it is necessary to ensure a range of options for minority people to create their own pathways (Adamson & Feng, 2009). In English education provision for minority students, reimagining and redefining multilingualism is needed; and flexible attainment goals set in all languages that allows students to determine their own language target could provide a way forward to enhancing equity in language education policies for minority people (Adamson & Feng, 2009; Bui & Nguyen, 2015). In other words, sufficient and appropriate support must be provided at the macro level. This chapter argues the need to put in place sufficient and adequate resources to support the recent language reform. In order to improve the quality of teaching, both language and pedagogical training for teachers is essential, and this should be done on needs-analysis basis because as revealed in the case study two, the general English course provided through British Council was of no value to academics. This supports Mai’s (2014) suggestion that a holistic approach is needed to improve language proficiency of Vietnamese teachers. He further highlights three major factors challenging teachers’ English proficiency development, namely personal, school- related, and socio-cultural challenges. References 229

Regardless of the state’s effort and investment in enhancing the quality of teacher professional development programs, the school or in this case the university should contextualise the policy to their own context to ensure that the outcomes of such programmes are met (Bui & Nguyen, 2016; Mai, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2014; Nguyen, 2011). For example, the EFL teacher professional development has not been effective because at the micro level the programmes do not meet the teachers’ needs. Instead, different models of mentoring for language teachers are needed in order to address context-specific needs of the teachers and to exploit more efficient human resources (see Nguyen, 2017). As seen in the findings from case study two, local academics valued useful experiences of observing and mingling with foreign academics. In view of this, collaborative models of professional development such as mentoring and peer mentoring could be organised for academics to learn from one another. Foreign academics could also benefit from this opportunity as they could learn more about Vietnamese market and culture to add a few aspects into their lectures. Previous studies also reveal that non-native-English academics might benefit from specific training about pedagogy in EMI settings (Klaassen & De Graaff, 2001). Therefore, it is critical for the ministry to provide platform for teachers to raise their concerns, and their needs and suggestions should be taken into consideration. Likewise, similar platform should be provided for EMI students so that the aims and objectives of the English reforms can be successfully achieved.

Acknowledgement

This chapter is dedicated to our late supervisor and mentor, Professor Richard (Dick) Baldauf Jr, a world-leading scholar in Language Policy and Planning field. We are indebted to his expertise in scholarly supervision, valuable guidance, and support throughout our PhD candidature and academic career. His mentorship has had a significant impact on us, both personally and professionally.

References

Adamson, B., & Feng, A. 2009. A comparison of trilingual education policies for ethnic minorities in China. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39(3), 321-333. Aikman, S., & Pridmore, P. 2001. Multigrade schooling in ‘remote’ areas of Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Development, 21(6), 521-536. Alderson, J. C. 2007. The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659-663. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_4.x Ali, N. L. 2013. A changing paradigm in language planning: English-medium instruction policy at the tertiary level in Malaysia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 73-92. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2013.775543 Baldauf , R. B. J. 2005. Micro language planning. Multilingual Matter, 133, 227-239. Bastid-Bruguiere, M. 2001. Educational diversity in China. China Perspectives, 36, 17-26. 230 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

Beckett, G. H., & Macpherson, S. 2005. Researching the impact of english on minority and indigenous languages in non-Western contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 299-307. Blachford, D. R., & Jones, M. 2011. Trilingual education policy ideals and realities for the Naxi in Rural Yunnan. In A. Feng (Ed.), English language education across greater China (Vol. 80, pp. 228-259). Tonawanda, NY; Bristol, UK: Multilingal Matters. Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. 2013. Neoliberalism and applied linguistics: Taylor and Francis. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com Brock-Utne, B. 2013. Language and liberation. Language of instruction for mathematics and science: A comparison and contrast of practices focusing on Tanzania. In C. Benson & K. Kosonen (Eds.), Language Issues in Comparative Education: Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Non-Dominant Languages and Cultures (pp. 77-96). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Bui, T. T. N. 2013. “Can a basket hide an elephant?”--- Engaged language policy and practices toward educational, linguistic, and socioeconomic equity in Vietnam. (Dissertation/Thesis), ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. Bui, T. T. N., & Nguyen, H. T. M. 2015. Standardizing English for educational and socio-economic betterment? A critical analysis of English language policy reforms. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English education policy in Asia. Switzerland: Springer. 363-388. Cho, J. 2012. Campus in English or campus in shock?. English Today, 28(02), 18-25. doi: 10.1017/ S026607841200020X Chua, S. K. C. 2010. Singapore’s language policy and its globalised concept of Bi(tri)lingualism. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 413-429. Coleman, H. 2011. Developing countries and the English language: Rhetoric, risks roles and recommendations. London: British Council. Cumming, A. 2009. Language assessment in education: Tests, curricula, and teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 90-100. Dardjowidjojo, S. 2000. English teaching in Indonesia. English Australia Journal, 18(1), 21-30. Department of State & MOET. 2009. Final report: US - Vietnam education task force. : Embassy of the United States. de Swaan, A. 1993. The evolving European language system: A theory of communication potential and language competition. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, 14(3), 241-255. doi: 10.2307/1601192 Duong, T. H. H. 2009. The modernization of the national higher education of Vietnam, 1990s - present: American universities - A resource and recourse. (Doctor D.A.), St. John’s University (New York), Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. (3365691) Edwards, J. 2004. Language minorities. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied Linguistics (pp. 451-475). Oxford: Blackwell. ETS. 2014a. English Testing System (ETS) - TOEFL. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/toefl?WT. ac=toeflhome_faq_121127 ETS. 2014b. English Testing System (ETS) - TOEIC. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/toeic Gao, Y. 2011. Development of English language education in ethnic minority schools in Inner Mongolia autonomous region. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(2), 148-159. General Secretary. 2013. Resolution No. 29/2013-NQ/TW on “Fundamental and comprehensive innovation in education, serving industrialization and modernization in a socialist-oriented market economy during international integration” ratified in the 8th Congress session. Hanoi: Communist Party. Goh, E., & Nguyen, B. 2004. Vietnam. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian Countries in the next decade Vol. 2. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. 342-353. Gill, S. K. 2012. The complexities of re-reversal of language-in-education policy in Malay. In A. Kirkpatrick & R. Sussex (Eds.), English as an international language in Asia: Implications for language education. Dordrecht: Springer.45-61. References 231

Hamid, M. O. 2010. Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: Language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 289 - 310. Hamid, M. O., & Jahan, I. 2015. Language, identity, and social divides: Medium of instruction debates in Bangladeshi print media. Comparative Education Review, 59(1), 75-101. doi: 10.1086/679192 IELTS. 2012. The world speaks IELTS. Retrieved from http://www.ielts.org/ Jones, J. M. 2013. The ‘ideal’ vs. the ‘reality’: Medium of instruction policy and implementation in different class levels in a western Kenyan school.Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(1), 22-38. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2014.857565 Johnstone, R. 2010. Learning through English: Policies, challenges and prospects: Insights from East Asia. Malaysia: British Council. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. 1997. Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. 2005. Language-in-education policy and planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1013-1034. Kirkpatrick, A. 2007. Teaching English across cultures: What did English language teachers need to know to know how to teach English. English Australia Journal, 23(2), 20-36. Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong [China]: Hong Kong University Press. Klaassen, R. G., & De Graaff, E. 2001. Facing innovation: Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction in a non-native context. European Journal of , 26(3), 281-289. doi: 10.1080/03043790110054409 Kosonen, K. 2013. The use of non-dominant languages in , Thailand and Vietnam: Two steps forward, one step back. In C. Benson & K. Kosonen (Eds.), Language issues in comparative education. Inclusive teaching and learning in non-dominant languages and cultures. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 39-58. Krippendorff, K. 2013.Content analysis: An Introduction to its methodology. Los Angeles, London: Sage. Lamb, M., & Coleman, H. 2008. Literacy in English and the transformation of self and society in post-Soeharto Indonesia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(2), 189-205. doi: 10.2167/beb493.0 Le, D. M. 2012. English as a medium of instruction at system in Vietnam. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(2), 97. Lee, S. C. 2014. A post-mortem on the Malaysian content-based instruction initiative. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 24(1), 41-59. Li, M. 2007. Foreign language education in primary schools in the People’s Republic of China. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8(2), 148-161. Little, D. 2011. The common European framework of reference for languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 44(03), 381-393. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000097 Lo Bianco, J. 2001. Vietnam: Quoc Ngu, colonialism and language policy. In N. Gottlieb & P. Chen (Eds.), Language Planning and Language Policy: East Asian Perspectives. Richmond: Curzon. 159-206. Lo Bianco, J. 2014. Domesticating the foreign: Globalization’s effects on the place/s of languages. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 312-325. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12063.x Mai, N. K. 2014. Toward a holistic approach to developing the language proficiency of Vietnamese primary teachers of English. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11(2), 341-357. Majhanovich, S. 2013. English as a tool of neo-colonialism and globalization in Asian contexts. In Y. Hébert & A. Abdi (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on International Education Vol. 15. Sense Publishers.249-261. 232 Local challenges to global needs in English language education in Vietnam ...

Majhanovich, S. 2014. Neo-liberalism, globalization, language policy and practice issues in the Asia-Pacific region.Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 168-183. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2013.875650 MOET. 2014. Circular No. 23/2014/TT-BGDĐT on “Regulations on high-quality programs in universities”. Hanoi: Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). National Assembly. 2005. Education Law (No. 38/2005/QH11). Hanoi: The Government. National Assembly. 2013. The constitution of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (adopted on November 28, 2013, by the XIIIth National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, at its 6th session). Hanoi: The Government. Nguyen, C. D., Le, L. T., Tran, Q. H., & Nguyen, H. T. 2014. Inequality of access to English language learning in primary education in Vietnam. In H. Zhang, P. W. K. Chan & C. Boyle (Eds.), Equality in education: Fairness and inclusion. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publisher. 139-153. Nguyen, H. T. M. 2011. Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 225-249. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2011.597048 Nguyen, H. T. M. 2017. Models of mentoring in language teacher education. Switzerland: Springer. Nguyen, N. H. 2010, 15 September. Innovation in English language education in Vietnam: Challenges, opportunities and solutions. Paper presented at the English for All - International Conference in TESOL, Hue, Vietnam. Nguyen, V. H., & Hamid, M. O. 2015. Educational policy borrowing in a globalized world. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(1), 60-74. doi: 10.1108/ETPC-02-2015-0014 Pham, N. T. 2014. Foreign language policy. In T. Ly-Tran, S. Marginson, M. Hoang-Do, T. N. Quyen-Do, T. T. Truc-Le, T. Nhai-Nguyen, P. T. Thao-Vu, N. Thach-Pham & T. L. Huong-Nguyen (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 169-186. Price, G. 2014. English for all? Neoliberalism, globalization, and language policy in Taiwan. Language in Society, 43(5), 567. Prime Minister. 2008a. Decision No. 1400/QD-TTg on “Teaching and learning foreign languages in the national education system, period 2008-2020”. Hanoi: The Government. Prime Minister. 2008b. Decision no. 1505/QD-TTg on “The introduction of advanced programs in some Vietnamese universities in the period of 2008-2015”. Hanoi: The Government. Qi, S. 2009. Globalization of English and English language policies in East Asia: A comparative perspective. Canadian Social Science, 5(3), 111-120. Sunuodula, M., & Feng, A. 2011. Learning english as a third language by Uyghur students in Xinjiang: A blessing in disguise? In A. Feng (Ed.), English language education across greater China Vol. 80. Tonawanda, NY; Bristol, UK: Multilingal Matters.260-283. Sung-Yul Park, J., & Wee, L. 2013. Markets of English: Linguistic capital and language policy in a globalizing world. New York: Routledge. Tatzl, D. 2011. English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 252- 270. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.003 Toh, G. 2014. English for content instruction in a Japanese higher education setting: Examining challenges, contradictions and anomalies. Language and Education, 28(4), 299-318. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2013.857348 Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. M. (Eds.). 2004. Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. 2007. Language policy, culture and identity in Asian contexts. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vu, T. T. N., & Burns, A. 2014. English as a medium of instruction: Challenges for Vietnamese tertiary lecturers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(3), 1-31. References 233

VIED. 2015. List of approved joint education programs. Retrieved from http://www.vied.vn/images/ lien_ket_dao_tao/LKDT%202015%207.1.15%20-%20up20website.pdf Wilkinson, R. 2005. The impact of language on teaching content: Views from the content teacher. Paper presented at the bi- and multilingual universities – Challenges and future prospects, Helsinki. Wilkinson, R. 2013. English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Canada: Multilingual Matters. 3-24. Wright, S. 2002. Language education and foreign relations in Vietnam. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 225-244. Wyk, A. V. 2014. English-medium education in a multilingual setting: A case in South Africa. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 205-220. doi: 10.1515/ iral-2014-0009