The Feasibility of the Project 2020

It is less than five years away for the Project 2020 to expire. With 52% of teachers’

prediction predicted from the teachers interviewed, this study finds that the Project 2020 is difficult to achieve the desired results. The teachers are pivotal to develop new test programs, but the proportion of qualified teachers has not reached 100% so far. According to some interviewed teachers, their students’ levels are still very low in order to engage in the study of the test program. This prediction is consistent with ideas of the negative voice in the literature (Tue, 2014; Minh and Thu, 2013). According to Nguyen Quoc Hung, the consultant of the Project 2020, it is difficult for the locals to accomplish the scheme. Because there are many new problems arise when the scheme is carried out. Mostly, it is not easy to improve language proficiency for 170,000 to 189,000 FLTs across the country within a few years. Additionally, it takes time to publish the new foreign language textbooks from primary schools to high schools.

Another factor is the condition of facilities in service of the teaching foreign language. The rural, remote areas are often poor, so they cannot take initiative about the budget as well as center areas (Lan, 2015).

To recover this point, there some ideas suggest that Vietnam MOET should omit using CEFR to apply for practical situation in Vietnam. This application limits the speed of completion of the project, also causes many complicated problems since the project has been conducted until the present time. According to Dr Vu Thi Phuong Anh, the Deputy Center Director of Training

40

and Supporting the Educated Quality Vietnam, it is impossible with the requirement that all ELTs in whole country must have the same levels as required. Instead of, Vietnam’s MOET needs to set up a supporting system that serves for FLTs in rural, mountainous areas, which help them have opportunities access to foreign language teaching methods, for example, watching movies in English, practicing pronunciation, discussing grammatical problems, making teaching aids and support materials for English language teaching. This can be done by encouraging the support of foreign countries or the units will be the winning offer for Vietnam examination system. Simultaneously, it’s necessary to omit any examination system, "according to European standards", which asks for some university implement because of the quality factors (Dien, 2014).

41

Chapter 5 Conclusion

The study starts with the introduction about the Project 2020. In this part, the general and specific goals of the national project 2020 are presented. By the year 2020, Vietnam’s MOET expects that “most of Vietnamese youth whoever graduate from vocational schools, colleges and universities gain the capacity to use a foreign language independently” (Decision No. 1400/QD-TTg, para. 1). One of the specific goals in this project is the building up a new program that foreign language (English) is compulsory for students from grades 3 to grade 12. And this plan aims to reach 100% by the year 2020. One of the tasks of the project is set up a language framework that consists of six levels and be equivalent with the CEFR. This framework is used to assess language proficiency for students and English teachers in different educational institutes. The research focuses on the students and English teachers in high schools and chooses Haiduong province as the object of the study. As the required of the Project 2020, students need to hold the language proficiency certificate at the level B2 when they graduate their high schools, and teacher there need to reach the level C1 if they want to enroll the new curriculums teaching under the plan of national project.

There are conflicted discussion about the feasibility of the Project 2020 when the results of surveys language capacity of foreign language teachers quite low. Specially, there are 97% of the FLTs in high schools fail in reaching the level C1 as the surveyed of MOET in 2012. FLTs should be the key factors that guarantee for the success of the project. But they are disqualified in teaching the pilot language program. In Haiduong province, there only 31% of the English teachers in high schools can get the level C1 in 2014. This makes questions about the reasons that lead the majority English teacher in high schools of Haiduong to fail in the surveys’ test.

And this is also one of the purposes of this study. From the view of finding the reasons, the

42

research suggests the solutions as the references for educators. By the method of qualitative interviews combines with analyzing secondary data, the research also brings the insights about the pros and cons of the Project 2020, and the feasibility of it.

In the literature review, the research presents the history of developing foreign language in Vietnam. This is divided into five periods of time: (i) one thousand year under Chinese dominations, (ii) more than eighty years under French domination, (iii) the dependent in 1945, (iv) from the reunification 1975 to the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991, and (v) foreign language policies and related problems in Vietnam since 1986~2000s. During these periods of time, there appears of different foreign languages in Vietnam such as Chinese, French, Russian, and English. Moreover, Vietnamese government also issues many language policies that serve for the purposes of developing country in each phase. In the second part of literature review, the study mentions about opposing viewpoints of the Project 2020, the positive and negative voices. The positive voices support for the advantages that the national project brings to learners. In the negative voice, there are two main factors are typical, the number of students who choose English as their graduate subject and the distribution of the capital of 2020 Project to each educational departments. The last one of the literature review part is the featured view about education system in Vietnam. There are four main types of education forms in Vietnam: pre-school education, general education, professional education, and higher education.

In the methodology section, the study explains the design process of qualitative research that is used as the main method in the process of data collection and data analysis. There are ten interviews with different high school English teachers in Haiduong province are conducted by the researcher. The time for each interview is 45 minutes and interviewers are free to agree or disagree to enjoy the interviews. The results in the data analysis supply value insights to the

43

validity of the research. The study found that there are three main reasons that cause English teachers to fail in surveys tests: teacher’s attitude and language proficiency, student’s attitude and language proficiency, English textbook’s program and content design. The study also makes suggestions for these problems such as creating the exchange environment in education for English teachers, opening retraining classes for teachers in improving both their abilities in language skills and language teaching methods; designing reasonable language programs to develop all sides of languages to learners, combining the relationship between learning, teaching and examining system. The pros and cons of the Project 2020 are emphasized in this study.

Vietnamese people are more positive awareness about the important of foreign languages in the process of the integration and globalization. FLTs have more opportunities to improve their language teaching methods and skills. However, it is better if the MOET praises the qualified teachers instead of making the pressure for disqualified teachers. It prevents disqualified teacher from being discriminated by their colleagues and students. This is also a moral perspective in education. There are also some suggestions from professional educators that Vietnam’s MOET should delete the criteria for Vietnamese English teachers’ proficiency according the standard of CEFR. This criterion is considered as the main factor that delays the progress to complete the project, and makes the project fail at the first step. The Project 2020 has been conducted with a long period of time (2008-2020), it is acceptable if there are flexible changes to match with the real situation in Vietnam.

The study presents point of views to assess the feasibility of the national project. By the way of making interviews with English teachers who are involved directly in the scheme, consulting the precious ideas from related parties, the research proclaims the feasibility of this project is not high. The main cues for this statement are based on the percentage of disqualified

44

FLTs according to the surveys of Vietnam’s MOET in 2012 (97 % of high schools, 93% of elementary and secondary schools within 30 provinces and cities in whole country), surveys of Haiduong’s DOET in 2014 (the percentage of qualified high school FLTs are only 31%), prediction of interview English teachers (52%). However, the research is conducted based on ten interviews from different high schools in Haiduong province. Therefore, the number of interviewed teachers can not cover all high school English teachers’ ideas of Haiduong province.

Besides, the Project 2020 is still in the progress, so the survey results for student language proficiency are unknown. The study is lacking in overall viewpoint about the language levels of students. Meanwhile, teachers and students are main roles in the feasibility of the project.

Vietnam’s MOET and DOETs are making efforts to rearrange and overcome the weaknesses of the scheme. This can make the big changes and the predicted result of this study may be changed.

Although the research is limited at covering all sides of the national project, but it cannot be denied to provide a meaningful vision about current issues of English teaching in Vietnam. In summary, through Project 2020, English teachers and other teachers can see the important of self-retrain in their process of teaching. Besides, the policy makers get more awareness in assessing related factors before making decision. For example, if the policy makers in this project can recognize the weaknesses of foreign language teachers in advance, they will build the plan more suitable to the practical situation. By way, they can prevent the Project 2020 from

“rebuilding” in capital investment section as the statement of Minister of Vietnam’s MOET.

45

References

Abuza, Z. (1996). The Politics of Education Diplomacy in Vietnam: Education Exchanges Under Doi Moi. Asian Survey, 36(6), 618-638.

Babbies, E. (1986). The practice of Social Research. Belmont, California: Wads Worth Publish Co.

Britten, N. (1999). Qualitative interviews in healthcare. Qualitative research in health care, 2^nd ed. London: BMJ Books.

Chinh, D. Q. (1972). The history of Quoc Ngu (1620-1659). Saigon: Ra khoi Press.

Chung, V. (December, 2013). De an ngoai ngu “boi” trong kho khan. Retrieved from vietnamnet.vn

Committee, H. (August, 2014). Report No. 1593/UBND-VP. Ve viec: xay dung du toan kinh phi trien khai De an ngoai ngu quoc gia 2020 nam 2015.

Denham, P. (1992). English in Vietnam. World English. 11(1), 61-69.

Dien, A. (December, 2013). Roi boi de an ngoai ngu quoc gia ky 2 kho dat duoc muc tieu.

Retrieved from thanhnien.com.vn

EF. (2013). English Proficiency Level. Retrieved from www.ef.com/epi

Ellen, T. P., & Marcos, R. (2003). Analysis Qualitative Data. Program Development &

Evaluation. University of Wisconsin-Extension.

English teacher in Southern Vietnam on the run to meet European standards. (July, 2014).

Retrieved from Tuoitre News: http://tuoitrenews.vn

Foster, M. J., Joma, F. E., & Froske, P. S. (2013). Does Teacher Professional Development Improve Math and Science Outcomes and Is it Cost Effective? Education Finance, 38(3), 255-275.

46

Giap, N. T. (2006). Chinh sach ngon ngu o Vietnam qua cac thoi ky lich su. Ngon ngu.

Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. British Council.

Grill, P., K., Treasure, E., & Chadwik, B. (2008). Method of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus group. British Dental Journal, 291-295.

Hac, P. M. (1995). The education system of Vietnam. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Haiduong’s DOET. (2014). Dispatch No. 825/SGDDT-GDTrH. Ve viec: Day hoc tieng Anh cap THCS & THPT theo De an Ngoai ngu quoc gia 2020 nam hoc 2014-2015.

Haiduong’s DOET. (2015). Official Letter No. 629/SGDDT-GDTrH. Ve viec: Boi duong nang cao nang luc ngoai ngu cho giao vien tieng Anh theo De an Ngoai ngu quoc gia 2020 nam hoc 2015.

Haiduong’s DOET. (2015). Document No. 631/SGDDT-GDTrH. Ve viec: Day hoc tieng Anh cap THCS & THPT theo De an Ngoai ngu quoc gia 202 nam hoc 2015-2016.

Hanh, H. (2014). Vietnam dung thu 28 tren 60 quoc gia gioi tieng Anh tren the gioi. Retrieved from Dantri: http://dantri.com.vn

Hoa, P. V. (2015). From the National Project of Foreign Language 2020, Studying the Positive Impacts on English Teacher’s Quality. Journal Article of Sciency and Technology.

Hoepfl, Marie, C. (1997). Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Educational Researchers. Journal of Technology Education.

Hung, N. N. (2013). National Foreign Languages 2020 Project Presentation at Vietnam Engineering Education Conference. Can Tho University.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviews. California:

Sage Publications.

47

Lan, B. (January, 2013). Phai nang chuan cho 170,000-180,000 giao vien day ngoai ngu.

Retrieved from Bao Dien Tu VOV.

Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16^th). Dallas, TE: SIL International.

Mai, N. K. (2004). Towards a Hoslistic Approach to Developing the Language Proficiency of Vietnamese Primary Teachers of English. Foreign Language Teaching, 11(2), 315.

May, K. M. (1991). Interview techniques in qualitative research: concerns and challenges.

InMorse J M (ed) Qualitative nursing research. 187-201. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Minh, X., & Thu, H. (November, 2014). Phan hoi hang loat bai nhin lai de an day va hoc ngoai ngu. Retrieved from baotintuc: http://baotintuc.vn

MOET, V. (2011). Notice No. 826/TB-BGDDT. Thong bao ket luan cua thu truong Nguyen Vinh Hien tai cuoc hop voi cac co so giao duc tham gia ra soat nang luc giao vien tieng Anh.

MOET, V. (2015). Cong thong tin giao duc. Retrieved from http://thi.moet.edu.vn

MOET, V. (2013). Education in Vietnam in the early years of the 21^st century. Vietnam Education Publishing House.

MOET, V. (2014). Dispatch No. 2653/BGDDT-GDTrH. Ve viec huong dan trien khai day hoc tieng Anh cap THCS & THPT theo De an ngoai ngu 2020, nam hoc 2014-2015.

Mohammat, K. K. (2015). Qualitative Methods in Educational and Social Research. Department of Sociology Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto-Nigeria.

Thannien News. (June, 2012). English teachers in Vietnam lag behind the world standards.

Retrieved from Thanhnien News: http://www.thanhniennews.com Ngoc, N. Q. (2006). Tien trinh lich su Vietnam. Hanoi: Giao duc.

48

Phu, N. (June, 2014). Dau tu ca nghin ti dong van chua hieu qua: Lam lai de an nhu the nao.

Retrieved from Thannien News: http://www.thanhnien.com.vn Pontin, D. (2000). The research process in nursuring. Oxford.

Quynh, T. H., Lam, D. X., & Han, L. M. (2003). Dat nuoc tren con duong doi moi. (1986-2000).

Dai cuong lich su Vietnam. 1129-1134. Hanoi: Giaoduc.

Shaprio, L. (1995). English training in Vietnam in the era of Doi Moi. A descriptive case study.

Silveman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Son, Q. (May, 2015). De an ngoai ngu 2020 co nguy co pha san. Retrieved from Sinvien Vietnam: http://svvn.vn

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

The Government of The Democratic Republic of Vietnam. (1968). Instructions 43-TTG/VG of the Prime Minister on pushing foreign languages teaching and learning in secondary schools, vocational colleges, for scientists, technicians, economists, and technical workers.

The Government of The Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (1973). Inter-Ministry Circular Letter 28/TT-LB on instructions for implementing Instructions 251-TTg issued September 7, 1972 by the Prime Minister and the Circular Letter 132-TTg issued May 31, 1973 by the Prime Minister on improving and increasing foreign language teaching and learning in secondary schools.

The Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (1994). Instructions 422-TTg of the Prime Minister on giving support to state administrators and cadres to enhance foreign language competence.

49

Thinh, D. H. (1999). Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: The emergency of English and its impact on higher education. The Fourth International Conference on Language and Development Proceedings. Hanoi

Thinh, D. H. (2006). The role of English in Vietnam’s foreign language policy: A brief history.

The 19^th Annual EA Education Conference. Australia.

Toan, V. (2010). English and foreign policy in Vietnam in time of integration. Ngon ngu, 252(5), 27-37.

Tue, N. (June, 2014). Dau tu ca ngan ti dong van chua hieu qua. Retrieved from Thannien:

http://www.thannien.com.vn

Van, H. V. (2013). The Current Situation and Issues of the Teaching of English in Vietnam.

Retrieved from: http://r-cube.ritsumei.ac.jp/bitstream/10367/4129/1/LCS_22_1pp7-18_HOANG.pdf

National Foreign Languages 2020 Project. Retrieved from http://dean2020.edu.vn

VietnamNewsAgency. (2014). De an ngoai ngu 2020: se kien quyet chuyen cong tac nhung giao vien khong dat chuan. Retrieved from Bao dien tu dai truyen hinh viet nam: vtv.vn

Vuong, Q. (2013). Giao ban cong tac trien khai thuc hien de an ngoai ngu quoc gia 2020 can phai tuan theo phuong cham chat luong la thuc chat. Retrieved from Thong tin truyen thong: http://ictdanang.vn

50

Appendix A Frameworks for Converting Foreign Language Levels Issued By Thainguyen University, Vietnam

51

Chinese framework

HSK mới Lượng từ vựng Tiêu chuẩn năng lực tiếng Trung quốc tế

Khung tham chiếu Châu Âu (CEF)

HSK cấp 6 Hơn 5000 Cấp 6 C2

HSK cấp 5 2500 Cấp 5 C1

HSK cấp 4 1200 Cấp 4 B2

HSK cấp 3 600 Cấp 3 B1

HSK cấp 2 300 Cấp 2 A2

HSK cấp 1 1500 Cấp 1 A

52

French Framework

DELE A1: trình độ giao tiếp ban đầu sơ cấp khám phá (decouverte) DELF A2: trình độ giao tiếp sơ trung cấp (survie)

DELF B1: trình độ giao tiếp ngưỡng (seuil)

DELF B2: trình độ giao tiếp độc lập (independant) DALF C1: trình độ giao tiếp tự chủ (autonome) DALF C2: trình độ giao tiếp ở trình độ cao (maitrise)

53

Russian Framework

Tэy (TEU)

Elementary Level

A-1 (Breakthrough) Tƃy (TBU)

Intermediate Level

A-2 (Waystage) TPKи-1 (TRKI-1)

Certificate Level 1

B-1 (Threshold) TPKи-2 (TRKI-2)

Certificate Level 2

B-2 (Vantage)

TPKи-3 (TRKI-3) Certificate Level 3

C-1 (Effective Operational Proficiency) TPKи-4 (TRKI-4)

Certificate Level 4

C-2 (Mastery)

54

Appendix B Language Proficiency Framework in Vietnam

KNLNNVN [Vietnamese Foreign Language Framework] CEFR

So cap [Elementary] Bac [level] 1 A1

Bac [level] 2 A2

Trung cap [Intermediate] Bac [level] 3 B1

Bac [level] 4 B2

Cao cap [Adcanced] Bac [level] 5 C1

Bac [level] 6 C2 Source: No. 01/2014/TT-BGDDT, MOET, Vietnam

55

Appendix C Common Conference Levels: Global Scale

Proficient user C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can

summarise information from different spoken sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations

C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer text, and recognize implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching or expression. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes.

Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

Independent user B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete

andabstract topics, including technical discussion in his/her field of specialization. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strains for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subject and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options

B1 Can understand the main points of cleat standard input of familiar matter regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situation likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans

Basic user A2 Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to

areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can

communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediateneed.

A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrase aimed at the satisfaction of needs a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions

A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrase aimed at the satisfaction of needs a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions

在文檔中 Current Issues of English Teaching in Vietnam: An Analysis of the Results of the Foreign Language Teachers' Proficiency Report (頁 50-101)