Background context of the study
In today's globalized world, English has become essential for national development, leading to its designation as the primary foreign language taught at the tertiary level in Vietnam, as mandated by the Vietnamese government in 2008 However, English language education in Vietnam faces significant challenges in meeting societal demands The longstanding focus on explicit grammar instruction and grammar-based assessments has proven difficult to reform, resulting in Vietnam being categorized as a "low proficiency" country in English, according to Education First in 2013.
To change the situation, various attempts have been made to reform the foreign (especially English) language teaching system, among which is the NFL
In 2008, the Vietnamese Government initiated the NFL 2020 Project, aimed at transforming foreign language education within the national educational system from 2008 to 2020, now extended to 2025 A key component of this initiative is the integration of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) into the local context, serving as an effective solution to restructure and enhance foreign language teaching and learning in Vietnam.
On the basis of the CEFR, a Vietnamese version of the CEFR was developed, approved and legitimated by Vietnamese authorities (MOET, 2014a;
The adoption of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Vietnam aims to establish standards for teacher professionalism and learning outcomes across all education levels, from primary schools to universities Supported by the NFL 2020 Project and outlined in Decision 1400 by the Vietnamese government, this initiative is expected to bring significant improvements to the national foreign language education system Consequently, there has been a comprehensive renewal of language curricula, teaching materials, and assessment methods tailored to various educational levels and learner types throughout the country.
This research was conducted at a regional university located in Central Vietnam, where non-English major students primarily hail from the Central Highlands and various provinces and cities in the central region of the country.
Students enroll in various colleges at their home university based on their major fields of study While they differ in social backgrounds, chosen majors, and levels of English proficiency, the majority begin their university education at the age of 18.
Teachers vary in their backgrounds, experiences, qualifications, and expertise The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has mandated that non-English major students at state-run universities must achieve a CEFR B1 level to graduate In response to this policy, the home university issued an official document in 2012 requiring B1 proficiency as a graduation prerequisite Since 2011, the university's curricula have been revised, aligning both English major programs and general English courses for non-English majors with CEFR standards Non-English major students are now required to complete a 7-credit general English curriculum, totaling 105 hours of teacher-led instruction over their first three semesters, with the goal of achieving B1 level The Faculty selected English Elements by Hueber and Life by Cengage as the primary textbooks, providing detailed syllabi and examination formats General English teachers play a crucial role in integrating learners, materials, teaching practices, and assessments to ensure students meet the B1 learning outcomes, making their perceptions and reactions to this situation important areas for investigation.
Rationale of the study
Soon after its publication in 2001, the CEFR has gained attention and respect not only in Europe but also in the rest of the world (Alderson, 2002; Byrnes, 2007;
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has garnered significant enthusiasm beyond Europe, influencing language education policies in regions such as Latin America, the Middle East, Australia, and parts of Asia Recognized as a "supranational language education policy," the CEFR plays a crucial role in language policy planning across various contexts, as highlighted by multiple scholars (Hulstijn, 2007; Tono & Negishi, 2012; Byram & Parmenter, 2012; Little, 2007; Bonnet, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Nguyen & Hamid, 2015; Pham, 2012).
In recent years, many Asian countries, including Vietnam, have adopted the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) to reform their language teaching systems However, experts caution that the effectiveness of this ambitious policy may be compromised due to its unfamiliar and top-down implementation approach.
The CEFR, originally designed for European contexts, may lead to paradoxes when applied to diverse global settings, particularly in Vietnam, where significant differences exist in social needs, language learning conditions, teacher qualifications, and learner expectations This raises concerns about the suitability of a CEFR-aligned framework in the Vietnamese context (Le Van Canh, 2015; Pham, 2017).
Nearly 10 years after its first introduction in Vietnam, the adoption of the CEFR still faces challenges and obstacles from “limited human resources” (Pham, 2017) to
Research on the adoption of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Vietnam is essential to understand its effects on teachers, students, and the overall English language teaching and learning process Despite existing studies, there remains a significant need to explore the successes and limitations of CEFR implementation to enhance future practices in the field Addressing the deficits in teacher professionalism is crucial for improving educational outcomes and ensuring effective language instruction.
The implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Vietnam has been acknowledged across various areas, including teacher professionalism standards, student learning outcomes, language curriculum renewal, teaching material adaptation, and language assessment practices (Vietnamese government, 2008) However, the rollout of the CEFR-aligned framework has occurred at lower levels without adequate explanation or consultation with the primary language learners and users (Pham, 2017) Additionally, there is a notable absence of prior research and pilot studies regarding this framework's application in the Vietnamese context (Pham, 2012) Currently, there is no official documentation or research evidence demonstrating the involvement of teachers and students in the decision-making process related to the CEFR's implementation in Vietnam.
Ignoring teachers' perceptions and the needs of their students undermines teachers' ownership of innovation and limits the potential for valuable feedback (Hyland & Wong, 2013).
The adoption of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) exemplifies a "top-down" approach in language planning, where decision-making is centralized and excludes input from practitioners, particularly teachers and learners at the grassroots level In this framework, teachers are primarily viewed as implementers of policy rather than active participants in the language planning process, limiting their influence on educational practices (Poon, 2000).
The implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Vietnam may lead to discrepancies between government officials who endorse the innovation and the teachers responsible for its execution This highlights the urgent need for research focused on the national language policy regarding CEFR adoption and the challenges associated with its implementation.
The implementation of a CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students at the home university is currently under scrutiny, as it is estimated that around 200 guided learning hours are required for learners to advance from one CEFR level to the next, and 350 to 400 hours to reach the B1 level (Desveaux, 2013) With only 105 teacher-led hours available and the B1 learning outcome mandated by MOET, the feasibility of achieving these goals is questionable Factors such as students' prior language learning experience, study intensity, and additional exposure outside of class time further complicate the situation, making it increasingly difficult for general English teachers and non-English major students in Vietnam to meet MOET's expectations Additionally, as MOET establishes learning outcomes without aligning them with specific curricula or teaching materials, state-run universities, educators, and students face an intensified burden to innovate across all related areas to fulfill these new requirements.
Research indicates that teachers, who are essential to the execution of language education policies, often do not fully adhere to directives or consistently strive to achieve the intended policy goals (Cohen & Ball, 1990; McLaughlin, 1987).
The implementation phase of educational innovations often encounters challenges stemming from teachers' attitudes and behaviors, which interact in a bi-dimensional manner (Borg, 2009) Many teachers are identified as "resistant to change" (Wang, 2008), displaying a reluctance to adopt new teaching methods despite expressing positive sentiments towards them.
Teachers' perceptions and attitudes significantly influence their classroom practices, despite not always being directly reflected in their actions (Borg, 2009) Understanding these perceptions regarding the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is crucial, yet research on this topic remains limited Given the comprehensive nature of CEFR implementation in Vietnam (Vietnamese government, 2008), there is a pressing need for further investigation into its impacts on the language education system, as well as teachers' and learners' attitudes and perceptions This research aims to explore the grassroots implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam, addressing the effectiveness of these language policy changes.
Purpose of the study and research questions
This study investigates the perceptions, knowledge, and responses of General English (GE) teachers at a home university regarding the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for non-English major students It aims to provide an in-depth understanding of how these teachers perceive and interpret the current application of the CEFR at the tertiary level, focusing on their views about its value, necessity, and readiness for implementation Additionally, the research delves into the teachers' understanding and interpretation of the CEFR implementation process.
The study investigates teachers' responses to the adoption of the CEFR in their school environments, focusing on their actions and the influencing factors The findings aim to establish a foundation for methodological and pedagogical implications that will support General English (GE) teachers in adapting the CEFR-aligned curriculum This adaptation seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice, aiding educators and administrators in contextualizing a global framework within local English language teaching and learning settings.
In particular, this study seeks to answer the following two research questions:
1 What are GE language teachers’ perceptions of the CEFR and its use for non-English major students at a university in Vietnam?
2 What are GE language teachers’ responses to the use of the CEFR on the implementation level?
Research design overview
This study investigates teachers' perceptions and responses to the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for non-English major university students Utilizing a mixed methods sequential explanatory model as proposed by Creswell and Clark (2007), the research involved a two-phase data collection process, comprising both a pilot phase and an official phase.
The pilot phase aimed to assess research tools and gather baseline data on general English teachers' perceptions and responses to the implementation of the CEFR for non-English major students The findings from this phase informed modifications to the questionnaire and interview protocol for the official study.
The study was conducted at a university in Central Vietnam, where the researcher has over fifteen years of experience All English language instructors who had been teaching general English to non-English major students for more than one semester were invited to participate in the survey Additionally, eight of these teachers engaged in in-depth interviews to provide further insights.
The literature review and relevant theoretical concepts were synthesized to establish a conceptual framework for this study Based on this framework and findings from the pilot phase, a 49-item questionnaire was developed to investigate General English (GE) teachers' perceptions of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and its implementation, as well as their responses to CEFR-aligned curriculum practices, including teaching activities, textbook usage, and classroom assessment methods Additionally, a semi-structured interview protocol with fifteen key questions was created to ensure the validity and consistency of the data gathered during the interview sessions.
Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 20, revealing Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 70, ranging from 819 to 873, indicating strong reliability of the questionnaire Descriptive statistics, including mean scores and standard deviations for each item, were generated Following the collection and analysis of the questionnaire data, interview sessions were conducted and coded The qualitative data were thematically analyzed and compared with the quantitative findings for comprehensive insights.
Following the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, an integration of these findings was conducted The results were organized according to the research questions, sub-clusters from the questionnaire, and themes identified during the interview sessions Ultimately, comprehensive discussions, conclusions, and pedagogical implications related to the conceptual framework were presented and documented.
Scope of the study
This study aims to assess the implementation of a CEFR-aligned curriculum as perceived by General English teachers in non-English major classes at the home university from 2015 to 2018.
The study examines teachers' perceptions of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), focusing on its values, the necessity and readiness for its application among non-English major students, and the work involved in implementing the CEFR Additionally, it investigates teachers' responses to the CEFR-aligned curriculum renewal, highlighting how General English (GE) teachers adapted their teaching activities, modified assigned textbooks, and altered classroom assessment practices The findings suggest that the results can be generalized to similar contexts within the same field.
The generalizations may not necessarily be applicable to other contexts and situations far different from the present one
In particular, the present study explores a top-down policy of adopting a global framework to local contexts without much explanation and piloting (Pham,
The study's findings are based solely on the perspectives of teachers, as it did not include input from administrators or students during data collection Consequently, the results may not be applicable to policies that extend beyond this limited scope.
The study examines teachers' perceptions and responses during the implementation of the CEFR at their university, aiming to uncover challenges they faced and their strategies for overcoming them The goal is to derive meaningful methodological and pedagogical insights for General English (GE) teachers It is noted that perspectives from administrators or students may yield different results and implications; however, this research is specifically focused on language education and teaching methodologies rather than broader language policy and planning issues.
The study focuses on a CEFR-aligned curriculum specifically designed for non-English major university students, whose motivation and language proficiency differ significantly from those of English majors Key elements such as the timeframe, textbooks, assessment methods, and teaching activities are distinct, making it inappropriate to generalize the findings to English-major students at the same institution.
The research was conducted at a regional university in Central Vietnam, highlighting the unique cultural and socio-economic factors that distinguish it from larger cities in the country Consequently, while the study's findings may be relevant to other regional universities with similar contexts, they should not be generalized to institutions in Northern or Southern Vietnam, nor to universities outside of Vietnam.
Significance of the study
This study significantly enhances the understanding of top-down implementation policies in foreign language education, contributing valuable insights into their effects on various aspects of language teaching methodology It highlights the implications for curriculum renewal, adaptations in teaching practices, and modifications in testing and assessment approaches.
Firstly, since the 1990s, the urge to promote foreign language competency, especially English, among Vietnamese workforce and citizens has never ceased
In Vietnam, significant efforts have been undertaken to reform foreign language teaching and learning, notably through the integration of global educational frameworks like the CEFR However, these reforms often follow a top-down approach, neglecting the realities of human resources and facilities at the grassroots level Consequently, researching and analyzing such policies is crucial for gaining insights and valuable lessons that can inform the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and policymakers.
The study aims to illuminate the implementation of a CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major university students, focusing on teachers' insights regarding the policy's successes and challenges By analyzing their perceptions, the research will highlight the advantages and disadvantages encountered during implementation, as well as the lessons learned This evaluation will assist the home university and faculty in reassessing the policy, determining necessary improvements, and identifying ways to better support both teachers and students, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness and success of the curriculum.
Above all, the study is beneficial to teachers and non-English major students
The study's findings offer crucial insights for teachers and administrators, enhancing their understanding of their roles in the implementation process It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students, as well as the challenges faced during its execution and the reasons behind these obstacles.
The primary goal of the suggested changes is to enhance students' English proficiency and improve their learning outcomes This study is particularly beneficial for non-English major students, as it supports their efforts to obtain the CEFR B1 certificate, which is a requirement for graduation from university.
Organization of the study
The present study consists of five chapters
Chapter One describes the territory of the research by presenting the background context, procedures, the aims and importance, as well as the structure of the study
Chapter Two offers a comprehensive literature review on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and its implementation, focusing on essential theoretical concepts such as teachers' cognition and behavior, as well as the interplay between these elements.
This chapter explores the role of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in language education, focusing on its implementation as a catalyst for change and innovation Drawing on various theories and studies, it establishes a conceptual framework that underpins the research.
Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the study, beginning with an overview of the research approach and the mixed-method design It includes the formulation of research questions and the context of the research setting Detailed discussions on data collection and analysis follow, concluding with an examination of the validity, reliability, and ethical considerations associated with the chosen research design.
Chapter Four presents a comprehensive analysis of the findings related to General English (GE) teachers' perceptions of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and its implementation It explores the values that GE teachers associate with the CEFR, their readiness to apply it, and the rationale behind its necessity for non-English major students, alongside the efforts required for its application The chapter further examines GE teachers' responses to CEFR implementation across three key areas: teaching activities, teaching materials, and classroom assessment Additionally, it highlights emerging themes regarding both the perceptions of GE teachers and their responses to the CEFR implementation process.
Chapter Five highlights the main findings of the study, focusing on the implications of the CEFR for non-English major university students It outlines significant conclusions, discusses pedagogical and methodological considerations, and addresses the limitations of the study while offering suggestions for future research.
REVIEW
Definitions of the key terms
This article provides a list of definitions essential for understanding the study and its data, utilizing terminology commonly found in the educational field Key terms will be further defined in the literature review, with appropriate citations included.
Change refers to the process of moving from a current state to a future state through a transition, particularly within the educational system This transformation can encompass systematic changes in organization, policy, programs, and courses (Fullan, 2001b) Successful educational change is more likely when the concerns and perspectives of teachers are taken into account (Hall & Hold, 1987).
The curriculum serves as a comprehensive framework for a course, outlining the design and organization of content to facilitate effective teaching and learning It acts as a blueprint that guides educators in achieving specific learning outcomes, ensuring that educational objectives are met efficiently (Richards, 2013).
General English, also known as English for General Purposes or English for Educational Purposes, is a term used to differentiate it from English for Specific Purposes This approach is commonly found in educational settings where specific language needs are not easily defined It encompasses the teaching of language as part of the overall school curriculum, focusing on essential skills such as listening, writing, speaking, and reading For the purposes of this study, General English is specifically concerned with enhancing these core language skills among students.
Therefore, General English teachers mean teachers who teach General English and in this study, it refers to teachers for non-English major students only
Implementation in education refers to the process of putting a new curriculum, policy, or learning program into action (Marsh & Stafford, 1988) In this study, implementation specifically pertains to the application of the CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students, encompassing the adoption, accommodation, or adaptation of the policy or learning program.
Innovation refers to the process of introducing new elements or making changes to established concepts (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2008) In this context, the term is used synonymously with the concept of change.
Non-English major students are defined as university students specializing in fields other than English, as outlined by Khader and Mohammad (2010) This classification highlights the diverse academic pursuits of students who do not focus on English language studies.
Perception Perception refers to a person’s interpretation and understanding about the surrounding environment (Lindsay & Norman, 2013; Quick & Nelson, 1997)
Response Response is what a person does to the stimuli (Brink, 2008) In the present study, it is used synonymously and interchangeably with action or behavior.
The CEFR in language education
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment, developed by the Council of Europe, was officially published in 2001 after over twenty years of research and two draft versions in 1996 It is available in both English and French.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), published by the Council of Europe in 2001, serves as a foundational document for developing language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, and textbooks throughout Europe It categorizes language proficiency into six reference levels, assessing abilities in speaking, reading, listening, and writing The CEFR offers a descriptive framework that aids language professionals in articulating their educational goals and objectives This section will explore the CEFR's definition, content, purpose, limitations, and effective usage, as well as its influence on language education.
2.2.1 A sketch of the CEFR: Definition, content, purpose, limitations and suggestions for good use
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) serves as a descriptive scheme that outlines language learners' abilities across six levels in speaking, reading, listening, and writing As a language-neutral framework, it provides a standardized reference for assessing language proficiency (Little, 2006; Cambridge, 2011).
(English Profile, n.d.) and “language independent” (Little, 2006, p.178) and thus can be adapted for use to different foreign language learning situations
The CEFR utilizes an action-oriented approach that recognizes language users and learners as individuals and social agents This perspective highlights the importance of cognitive processes, strategies, and knowledge in developing language competence Consequently, the CEFR emphasizes the significance of both language competencies and communication strategies, asserting that effective communication requires learners to select suitable linguistic resources and strategies.
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) serves as a comprehensive, transparent, and coherent planning tool for language learning It aims to clearly define language knowledge, skills, and usage, allowing users to align their objectives with its guidelines The CEFR's formulaic and explicit information enhances its transparency, while its harmonious integration of needs, objectives, content, selected materials, and teaching methods ensures coherence without internal contradictions To better understand the CEFR, an initial overview or sketch is recommended.
2.2.1.2 Content of the CEFR: An outline
The term CEFR can be understood in two ways: as a document and as a framework In this study, we focus on CEFR primarily as a framework, referring to it exclusively in that context.
The CEFR’s best known and most influential components (Alderson, 2007;
Little, 2006), are the so-called “global scale” and “self-assessment grid” organized in a vertical and a horizontal dimension
The global scale of the CEFR defines six levels of communicative proficiency across three bands: basic, independent, and proficient user, using “can do” descriptors These statements offer a clear perspective on language capabilities, making them essential for establishing communicative and functional learning objectives The framework is deemed accessible to a wide range of stakeholders, including learners, curriculum designers, textbook authors, teachers, and examiners (Little, 2006, p.168).
The self-assessment grid evaluates a learner's communicative language competences and the strategies employed to attain them It allows for an analysis of how a language learner's abilities, various language activities, and contextual factors interact to influence effective communication.
2.2.1.3 The purpose of the CEFR
In the context of a multicultural and multilingual Europe, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was developed and published by the Council of Europe in 2001 to promote cooperation and unity among its members while enhancing communication quality The CEFR aims to provide a comprehensive foundation for creating language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, teaching materials, and assessing foreign language proficiency, making it an essential tool for all aspects of language learning and a straightforward resource for improving teaching and learning.
The CEFR serves as a crucial educational framework for languages among Europeans with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, aiming to facilitate the mutual recognition of qualifications from various learning contexts and assist stakeholders in coordinating their efforts While it has become perceived as a uniform pan-European system, its primary goal is to promote reflection and discussion among practitioners, highlighting the diversity in language teaching and learning Rather than dictating methods or procedures, the CEFR raises pertinent questions, encouraging educators to align their practices with the specific needs, motivations, and resources of their learners.
The CEFR aims to equip Europeans for the challenges of increased international mobility and collaboration, fostering mutual understanding and tolerance It seeks to enhance the richness and diversity of European cultural life through improved knowledge sharing, while addressing the needs of a multilingual and multicultural Europe by developing communication skills across linguistic and cultural boundaries Additionally, the CEFR promotes cooperation among educational institutions across different countries.
2001, p.5) and is intended for such uses as the planning of “language learning programs”, “language certification” and “self-directed learning” (CoE, 2001, p.6)
2.2.1.4 The limitations of the CEFR
While the CEFR has significantly influenced language teaching and learning over the past decade, it does have its limitations Cambridge describes the CEFR as a "work in progress," indicating it is not an "international standard" or a definitive solution for every context Additionally, the framework is not exhaustive enough to address every possible situation or applicable to all languages Therefore, the assumption that the CEFR, as a European model, is universally valid without the need for adjustments in non-European countries warrants scrutiny.
The CEFR's second limitation is its language-neutral nature, as explicitly stated in the framework's documentation, which emphasizes that it is neither context- nor language-specific (CoE, 2001) This language-independent approach means that the framework does not address specific languages, placing the application of CEFR to individual languages outside the Council of Europe’s scope (Little, 2006).
The CEFR faces criticism for its descriptors, which are seen as an abstract and complex system that lacks accessibility for readers (Figueras, 2012; Anderson, 2007; North, 2007).
There are overlaps, ambiguities, insufficiencies, inconsistencies and incoherencies in the use of terminology in the CEFR scales (Anderson, 2007, p.661; Figueras,
Hulstijn (2007) highlights critical concerns regarding the application of the CEFR scales for assessing language proficiency Specifically, there is a lack of evidence to support three key points: first, that learners progress to a higher level by successfully completing the requirements of the preceding level; second, that individuals at a particular level can perform all tasks associated with lower levels; and third, that learners who achieve the overall competencies of a specific level exhibit uniformity in their linguistic skills within that level.
Teachers’ perceptions and responses
Perception in psychology refers to the ability to recognize and interpret sensory information, encompassing sight, sound, and awareness It involves understanding and forming mental impressions of the world around us More precisely, perception is the process through which individuals select, organize, and interpret sensory stimuli to derive meaningful insights about their environment (Rao & Narayana).
1998, p.329), of “interpreting information about another person” (Quick & Nelson,
1997, p.83), or of “interpreting and organizing sensory information to produce a meaningful experience of the world” (Lindsay & Norman, 2013, p.161) In brief, perception refers to a person’s interpretation and understanding about the surrounding environment
Since the 1970s, educational research has shifted from focusing on "what teachers do" to "what teachers think," highlighting the influence of teachers' beliefs and thoughts on their actions in language teaching (Borg, 2003, p.81) This evolution in cognitive psychology has led to the adoption of various terms to describe this complex relationship between teacher cognition and behavior.
“teachers’ mental lives” such as pedagogical knowledge, theoretical belief, perception, attitude, perspective, awareness, understanding, etc (Borg, 2003, p.83)
The concepts of those terms are quite intertwined and not at all easy to differentiate
This study emphasizes the importance of teacher cognition, a term coined by Borg to describe the "unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching" (Borg, 2003, p.81) Understanding teacher cognition is essential as it encompasses teacher perception and related concepts, providing a comprehensive framework for exploring how educators think and understand their teaching practices.
Over the past three decades, Borg has extensively revised and developed the concept of teacher cognition, defined as "what teachers know, think and believe" (Borg, 2003, p.81) This definition highlights two key components: teachers' beliefs and their knowledge and thoughts Teachers' beliefs encompass their attitudes, judgments, and opinions, which are often used interchangeably in educational discourse (Kagan, 1992; Mansour, 2009; Nespor, 1987).
Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Tomchin & Impara, 1992) Meanwhile, what teachers think and know is labeled teachers’ perception, knowledge, understanding, awareness, etc (Borg, 2009; Lindsay & Norman, 2013; Pickens, 2005; Quick &
The current study focuses on the dynamic and flexible aspects of teacher cognition, leading to the selection of the term "teacher's perception" as the most suitable descriptor While previous research has highlighted subjective and emotional elements of cognition, this study emphasizes the objective and adaptable nature of teachers' perceptions.
This study focuses on teachers' perceptions, which encompass their interpretations of teaching and learning issues shaped by their experiences, knowledge, and education (Borg, 2009) Specifically, it examines General English (GE) teachers' understanding of the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) policy regarding the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) at the tertiary level This includes their awareness of the policy's significance and necessity, as well as their views on its application for non-English major students at their university.
The present study's understanding of responses is grounded in Skinner's operant conditioning theory, which emphasizes that learning results from changes in observable behavior due to an individual's reactions to environmental stimuli When a specific Stimulus-Response (S-R) pattern is reinforced or rewarded, the individual becomes conditioned to respond accordingly This foundational concept has since been expanded upon by subsequent psychologists.
Brink (2008) defines a response as the way an organism, such as a person, reacts to a stimulus, encompassing thoughts, feelings, and actions (p.7) This broad concept includes behavioral, cognitive, and affective components, which are closely related to cognition, perceptions, and attitudes For this study, the focus is primarily on the behavioral aspect of teachers' responses, which align with teachers' practices as described by Borg (2003) These practices can be categorized into two main areas: the instructional strategies employed in the classroom and the collaboration and teamwork with peers and colleagues outside the classroom (Isac et al., 2015).
In this study, teachers' responses are characterized as their actions and behaviors aimed at facilitating the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) This is evident in their efforts to create and adapt teaching materials, modify instructional activities, and update assessment practices, both within and beyond the classroom, to support students in achieving the targeted CEFR-based learning outcomes.
2.3.3 The relationship between teachers’ perceptions and teachers’ responses
Since the 1970s, cognitive psychology has highlighted the intricate relationship between actions and thoughts In language teaching, significant focus has been directed towards understanding both teachers' classroom practices and their underlying cognition Research indicates that teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and thoughts significantly impact their classroom behaviors (Baker, 2014; Borg, 2003).
Teachers' decisions regarding classroom instruction are heavily influenced by their theoretical beliefs about teaching and learning (Freeman & Richards, 1996; Harste & Burke, 1977) Their cognition shapes various aspects of the educational process, including goals, procedures, materials, classroom interactions, and their roles within the school environment (Borg, 2009) Thus, teaching is characterized as a thoughtful process rather than mere behavior, positioning teachers as active decision-makers rather than passive implementers of external guidelines Additionally, teachers' practices can inform and even transform their cognitive beliefs about teaching (Borg, 2003).
2009) From Phipps and Borg (2007) and his previous work on the field, Borg
In 2009, it was highlighted that teacher cognition significantly influences instructional practices, suggesting a long-term impact on teaching methods However, this cognition does not always align with actual classroom behavior The interaction between teacher beliefs and practices is bidirectional, meaning that while beliefs shape teaching practices, experiences in the classroom can also lead to shifts in those beliefs.
Putting teacher cognition and practices in their relationship with each other and with the environment, a conceptualization of teacher psychology is synthesized and illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 2.1: The teacher iceberg (Waters, 2009, p.442) Based on Malderez and Bodoczky (1999), Waters (2009) provided this three- level of teacher’s iceberg, which can be noticed to resonate with Borg’s theory
Teacher psychological processes consist of both visible and unseen components The visible part includes behaviors, actions, and responses, while the unseen aspect encompasses cognition, which can be divided into ideas, perceptions, and deeply rooted attitudes or beliefs, as described in Borg’s theory These elements interact bidirectionally, highlighting the significant influence of the submerged cognition on educational practices and the socio-cultural context Understanding this interplay is crucial for effective teaching and professional development.
The teacher iceberg model proposed by Waters (2009) effectively illustrates the intricate levels and relationships of teacher psychological processes In this study, the interactions between perceptions and responses among university teachers, specifically GE teachers, are likely to be more pronounced due to their greater authority and flexibility in altering the curriculum or syllabus compared to primary or high school educators Consequently, shifts in their perceptions can lead to significant changes in their responses.
Teachers play a crucial role in the implementation of innovations in education, as they are the primary implementers of changes (Waters, 2009, p.461) For effective change to occur, it is essential to address the psychological processes of teachers, ensuring that they fully accommodate the change at all levels This study focuses on the implementation of the CEFR for non-English major students, highlighting the importance of investigating General English (GE) teachers' perceptions, responses, and interactions during the CEFR implementation process.
The CEFR implementation as change management in English language
The concept of creating and managing change has garnered attention across various fields, particularly in education Among the numerous theories developed, Lewin’s (1947) change management model stands out as one of the most recognized This model outlines three essential steps: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing, which focus on altering the beliefs and practices of stakeholders Lewin's model offers a straightforward and practical framework for comprehending the change process and has influenced many contemporary change management approaches.
Fullan (2007a) built upon Lewin's change management model in education, proposing a framework consisting of three interconnected phases: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization He emphasized that these phases are non-linear, often overlapping and co-existing in practice, as illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Fullan (2001b) emphasizes that successful innovation requires monitoring the implementation of change He argues that the change model is not linear; instead, it consists of three interrelated phases that interact with one another, as indicated by the two-way arrows between them Fullan (2007b) cautions that this model merely represents a simplified version of a more intricate and dynamic reality Consequently, his educational change model is deemed practical and significant, as it recognizes the complexity of the change process, highlights the multi-dimensional relationships among its phases, and underscores the non-linear nature of change in practice.
The initiation phase marks the critical moment when individuals recognize the necessity for change and commit to pursuing innovation This stage involves dismantling outdated customs, beliefs, and practices, preparing both individuals and groups to embrace new alternatives.
The implementation phase is crucial in the process of educational innovation, as it is when ideas and reforms are actively put into practice Successful change is more likely when individuals and groups are prepared for it and have effective models to emulate Teachers play a vital role as the primary implementers of these innovations (Waters, 2009, p.461), and their actions—what they model in their speech and the choices they make regarding student engagement—reflect their underlying theories and approaches to language (Bianco, 2013, p.146) Therefore, understanding the psychological processes of teachers during the implementation phase is essential for effective educational reform.
The third stage of the model, known as innovation institutionalization, focuses on ensuring the sustainability of innovation within a system The success of innovation largely depends on its design and implementation, which can either integrate it into the system or lead to its disappearance According to Waters (2009), several critical factors influence the likelihood of successful innovation, including effective implementation, appropriate sustainability strategies, conducive conditions for implementers' ownership, and essential support for ongoing success Furthermore, Waters highlighted that the absence of these factors in foreign language teaching innovation projects has contributed to their lack of long-term success.
The innovation process consists of three distinct phases, each playing a crucial role in fostering change Innovation initiation is essential for sparking change, while innovation implementation is critical for translating new ideas into practice Lastly, innovation institutionalization ensures the sustainability of these changes Although initiation and institutionalization often occur outside the classroom and are linked to policymakers, implementation is closely tied to teachers as the primary executors of change Fullan (2001) and Fullan, Culttress, and Kilcher (2005) further elaborate on this model by identifying eight key drivers that facilitate successful educational change management.
2.4.2 Factors influential to successful educational change management
Fullan (2001, 2005) identifies key factors known as foundation and enabling drivers that are crucial for the successful implementation of educational change These drivers help to understand not only the outcomes of change initiatives but also the perceptions and reactions of stakeholders within educational systems The relationships between these change knowledge drivers are visually represented in Figure 2.3.
Fullan et al (2005) identify eight drivers of change, categorized into foundation and enabling drivers The three foundation drivers prioritize engaging people's moral purpose, which serves as the "overriding principle" of change This concept focuses on understanding "the why of change" and emphasizes the commitment to improving student achievement by involving all key practitioners in the reform process When moral purpose is at the forefront, the other seven drivers function as supportive forces to realize this goal The second driver, capacity building, involves enhancing the knowledge, skills, and competencies of individuals, emphasizing that this development should occur collectively across entire schools, districts, or systems.
Capacity building also involves improving the infrastructure so that the system can provide new capacity such as training, consulting and other support Fullan et al
In 2001, it was highlighted that a crucial element in driving change is the understanding and insight into the change process itself Fullan (2001a, p.5) argues that "moral purpose without an understanding of change will lead to moral martyrdom," emphasizing that without this understanding, efforts can be futile and frustrating Thus, while comprehending the dynamics of change may be challenging, it remains a significant catalyst for effective transformation.
Following the initial three foundational drivers of change, the five enabling drivers emerge, with the fourth and fifth focusing on cultivating cultures of learning and evaluation The fourth driver emphasizes strategies that encourage peer learning during implementation, which is crucial for successful change In educational settings, fostering a culture of learning aligns with enhancing teachers' knowledge and skills to create impactful student learning experiences Additionally, integrating cultures of learning with cultures of evaluation enriches the understanding of the learning process.
Sustainable reform emphasizes the importance of leadership for change, as highlighted by Fullan (2001), who asserts that leadership should permeate the entire organization Effective change requires a network of leaders who can nurture and promote further leadership within the system Typically, efforts to innovate can lead to fragmentation; thus, establishing coherence is vital for connecting ideas and aligning efforts to create a unified vision Finally, it is essential to focus on tri-level development, which involves not only transforming individuals but also enhancing organizational systems and contexts for comprehensive improvement.
Therefore, tri-level development involves focusing on all three levels of the system: school and community level, district level and the level of the state
The implementation of the CEFR in Vietnam, guided by Project 2020, represents a top-down language policy aimed at educational reform (Vietnamese government, 2008) This study focuses on the CEFR's application at the tertiary level, highlighting the importance of understanding educational change theories Grounded in Fullan’s (2001) change management theory, it examines the perceptions and responses of teachers—key stakeholders in English education—toward the CEFR Fullan et al (2005) emphasize that while knowledge of change does not guarantee success, its absence leads to failure Therefore, successful change requires that change theory and knowledge be comprehended by individuals who understand the dynamics of the influencing factors (Fullan, 2007).
2.4.3 The implementation of the CEFR in the light of educational change management
The adoption of the CEFR in various regions, including Vietnam, necessitates a careful implementation strategy to ensure positive outcomes in English language education Understanding how this change is perceived and responded to by teachers, who are essential stakeholders in the CEFR implementation process, is crucial for its success.
2.4.3.1 The CEFR and curriculum design
Language education comprises three key elements: input (content and syllabus), process (teaching methods and materials), and output (learning outcomes) These elements are interrelated, and the implementation of language teaching programs can vary based on how these components are addressed (Richards, 2013) The curriculum serves as a framework that connects these elements, guiding the achievement of desired outcomes through suitable learning activities, materials, and assessments Different approaches to curriculum design—forward, central, or backward—reflect varying starting points The introduction of the CEFR has shifted the focus toward learning targets, exemplifying a backward design approach in curriculum development (Richards, 2013, p 26).
The conceptual framework
Theoretical frameworks for implementing and changing language curricula are still in their infancy This study draws on teachers' cognition theories (Borg, 2003; 2009; Waters, 2009) and change management theory (Fullan, 2007), alongside a thorough literature review of the CEFR values and their application across various contexts, to establish a pertinent conceptual framework.
This study assumes that teachers' perceptions significantly affect their responses, which in turn impact the success of curriculum renewal Specifically, it investigates General English (GE) teachers' perceptions and reactions to the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) The research aims to explore the variables that influence the CEFR implementation process, determining whether it fosters innovation or leads to withdrawal A conceptual framework illustrating these interactions is presented in Figure 2.5 below.
The values of the CEFR
The necessity of the CEFR application
The readiness for the CEFR implementation
The work involved in the CEFR implementation process
Successful curriculum innovation, improving students’ learning outcome
The CEFR implementation for non-English major students
The framework posits that general education (GE) teachers' perceptions of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)—including its value, readiness for application, necessity, and the effort required—significantly influence their engagement with a CEFR-aligned curriculum for non-English major students These perceptions shape how teachers modify teaching activities, adapt materials, and update assessment practices to align with CEFR outcomes Conversely, their responses in these areas reflect their perceptions of CEFR implementation Additionally, the interplay between teachers' perceptions and responses plays a critical role in the CEFR implementation process, impacting the overall success or failure of the curriculum innovation Finally, applying Fullan’s (2007a) change management principles can help evaluate the CEFR implementation for non-English major students, suggesting that successful curriculum change hinges on teachers viewing it as feasible and effectively integrating it into their classrooms.
Chapter summary
This chapter provides a comprehensive literature review that establishes the conceptual framework for data discussion and analysis It begins by defining key terminology relevant to the thesis and then briefly examines the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and its integration into language education Additionally, it summarizes related studies from both global and Vietnamese contexts, highlighting the attributes and benefits of the CEFR, as well as its implementation and impact on language education The findings underscore the CEFR's significant influence in this field, identify gaps for further research on teachers' perceptions and responses, and emphasize the necessity to investigate the adoption and adaptation of the CEFR framework within local and institutional settings.
This chapter explored the perceptions of teachers and their responses, highlighting the interconnected relationship between the two It emphasizes that teacher cognition functions in a bi-directional manner, where their beliefs shape their teaching practices, while those practices can also lead to shifts in their beliefs.
To achieve significant improvements in foreign language education, it is essential to explore the implementation phase of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) at both institutional and individual levels Understanding change management theory is crucial for addressing the challenges involved Additionally, as teachers play a pivotal role in the implementation of these innovations, the success of the CEFR in Vietnam largely hinges on their beliefs and acceptance of the reform.
Due to the underdevelopment of theoretical frameworks for language curriculum implementation and change, a conceptual framework was created to explore General English teachers' perceptions and responses to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) This framework aims to guide the renewal of the General English curriculum for non-English major university students at a university in Vietnam.
The next methodology chapter will present the choice for the research design, research methodology and procedures of the current study.
