Advantages and challenges of the cefr-Aligned learning outcome implementation for non - English major students at hue university

 Tạp chí Khoa học Ngôn ngữ và Văn hóa ISSN 2525-2674 Tập 2, Số 3, 2018 
249 
ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES OF THE CEFR-ALIGNED 
LEARNING OUTCOME IMPLEMENTATION FOR 
NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HUE UNIVERSITY 
Le Thi Thanh Hai* 
University of Foreign Languages, Hue University 
Received: 24/08/2018; Revised: 18/09/2018; Accepted: 20/12/2018 
Abstract: The study was carried out to explore the issues related to the CEFR-aligned 
learning outcome implementation for non-English major students at Hue University. Its 
focus was on the advantages and challenges during the implementation process perceived 
by general English teachers. Qualitative approach was chosen with the data being collected 
by means of in-depth interview. Ten general English teachers who have experienced 
teaching non-English major students at Hue University took part in the study. The findings 
have shown that the CEFR-aligned learning outcome implementation process for non-
English major students at Hue University has gained a number of advantages but still faced 
some challenges. The advantages included appropriate teacher training, modern facilities 
and resources, teacher sound understanding of the policy, and positive changes in teaching 
methodology. The challenges were more related to the imbalance among students’ 
proficiency, assigned textbooks, teacher-led hours and required learning outcome and 
assessment practices. 
Key words: CEFR, learning outcome, language policy implementation 
1. Introduction 
 In the era of globalization and integration, English is more and more indispensable to the 
development of any country. It has become the first foreign language to be taught and a 
compulsory subject for both undergraduates and graduates at tertiary level in Vietnam (MOET, 
2008). Nonetheless, English language education has encountered great difficulties in catching 
up with the society need. Vietnam was still grouped into “low proficiency” countries in terms of 
English (EF Education First, 2013). To change the situation, various attempts have been made 
to reform the foreign (especially English) language teaching system. Especially, in 2008, the 
Vietnamese Government launched a national project named “Teaching and learning foreign 
languages in the national educational system for the 2008-2020 period”, often referred to as the 
2020 Project, as a national strategy aimed at renovating the foreign language teaching and 
learning in the national education system during the period 2008-2020 (MOET, 2008), now 
extended to 2025 (Vietnamese government, 2017). The most significant part of the 2020 Project 
is the adoption of the CEFR, a global framework, into Vietnamese local context of language 
teaching and learning as a “quick-fix” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004) solution to restructure the 
national foreign language education system. 
 This adoption of the CEFR as standard-based outcomes and professionalism in Vietnam, 
underpinned by the 2020 Project has been hoped to bring positive and radical changes in the 
national foreign language education system as it is clearly stated in Decision 1400 of the 
government (MOET, 2008). In effect, this has led to the renewal and modification of language 
* Email: ltthainn@hueuni.edu.vn 
 Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525-2674 Vol 2, No 3, 2018 
250 
curricula, language teaching materials, testing and assessment as well as language learning 
outcomes at different levels of education, for different types of learners and at different schools, 
universities and institutions nationwide. 
 Under the impacts of this innovative national foreign language (mainly English) policy, 
curricula for students at tertiary level of Hue University were changed. Not only foreign 
language (English) major university students’ curriculum became standardized and CEFR-
aligned, but general English curriculum for university students majoring in subjects other than 
English was also modified. A 7-credit general English curriculum was compelled for non-
English major students before their B1 CEFR-aligned examination. In effect, non-English major 
students have a total of 105 teacher-led hours of English classes in their first three semesters, 
divided into 30-30-45 hours respectively, and are expected to achieve level B1. General English 
teachers at Hue University, as implementers, have to bond learners, materials, teaching practice 
and assessment altogether so that non-English major students can achieve the required CEFR-
aligned learning outcome B1 within the given timeframe and curriculum. After six years of 
implementation, it is worth investigating what advantages and challenges the implementation 
process has brought about, which is the aim of the present study. 
2. Literature review 
2.1. The landmark of the CEFR 
 The CEFR gained attention and respect not only in Europe but also in the rest of the 
world very soon after its publication (Alderson, 2002; Byrnes, 2007; Hulstijn, 2007; Tono & 
Negishi, 2012). Its first distribution was in 1996, but has become more widely spread since its 
commercial publication in 2001 (Little, 2006). At first, it was published in English and French, 
and then was almost immediately translated into German (Little, 2006, p.167). Since the time of 
its writing, it has been translated into thirty nine languages (English Profile, n.d.), and its power 
and enthusiasm for the document extends far beyond Europe to Latin America, the Middle East, 
Australia and parts of Asia (English Profile, n.d, p.2). 
 As for the language use, the CEFR has been applied not only to English, French, Italian but 
also to other non-European languages studied in Europe, including Chinese, Japanese, Urdu and 
so on (Pham, 2012; Casas-Tost & Rovira-Esteva, 2014) and the adaptation is not only for L2 but 
also L1 learning (Figueras, 2012). Besides, many countries have adapted and adopted the CEFR, 
especially the six-level scale (commonly known as the global scale) as the salient guideline for 
their language teaching and learning context, which resulted in the commonplace use of the CEFR 
in all educational levels [not only for adults and young adults learning foreign languages, but also 
for young learners and for L1 learners] by different stakeholders [government officials, publishers, 
admissions officers at universities, immigration authorities] with different degrees of validity 
(Figueras, 2012, p. 479). 
 In short, the CEFR has had large-scale influences on teaching/learning both European and 
non-European languages as L1 and L2, at all educational levels with different stakeholders all 
over the world. 
 Tạp chí Khoa học Ngôn ngữ và Văn hóa ISSN 2525-2674 Tập 2, Số 3, 2018 
251 
2.2. The domains of the CEFR use 
 So far, the impact of the CEFR in different countries has been documented to be diverse 
and partial (Little, 2011), on various domains in language education. Within European contexts, 
the CEFR, first and above all, has impact on assessment (Little, 2006; Little, 2007; Figueras, 
2012, Jones & Saville, 2009, Beresova, 2011) which is claimed to “outweigh” its impact on 
curriculum design and pedagogy (Little, 2007, p. 648). Evidence is the appearance and 
development of DIALANG, the free-of-charge online self-testing service, available in fourteen 
(14) European languages aiming at helping learners to familiarize themselves with the six- 
reference-level tests (Figueras, 2007; Little, 2007). 
 Outside the European contexts, the CEFR has been observed to have such major 
influences in language policy planning (Bonnet, 2007; Byrnes, 2007; Little, 2007; Pham, 2012; 
Nguyen & Hamid, 2015) that it is called a “supranational language education policy” (Little, 
2007, p. 645) especially in countries where English is taught as a foreign language. 
Specifically, Asian countries have witnessed the implementation of the CEFR in national 
contexts as an attempt to reform the system of language teaching in the country. In Japan, a 
newly-developed framework called the CEFR-J, dated back to 2004, is one of such attempts 
(Tono & Negeshi, 2012). In Vietnam, the launch of the Project 2020 in 2008 acknowledged the 
need to adopt the CEFR as a language policy to renew the national foreign language education 
system (MOET, 2008). Similar impacts have also been found in Canada (Faez, Taylor, 
Majhanovich, Brown, & Smith, 2011a; Faez, Taylor, Majhanovich, Brown, & Smith, 2011b; 
Mison & Jang, 2011) or Mexico (Despagne & Grossi, 2011). 
 In terms of curriculum design, until the mid-twenties of the 21st century, Little (2006) 
noticed that the impact of the CEFR was not so strong and the reconstruction of curricula using 
the CEFR’s descriptive apparatus was scarce despite its declared purposes of “elaboration of 
language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines” (CoE, 2001, p. 1). However, in contexts where the 
CEFR as a global framework is adopted as a local standard in language planning policy, its 
impact on curriculum development has been observed to start prevailing. Specifically, the 
influence of the CEFR on curricula is mainly related to setting desired language learning 
outcomes aligned with the CEFR in Japan (e.g. Nagai & O’Dwyer, 2011) or Vietnam (Pham, 
2015). For teacher education and pedagogy, its impact has been sparse (Little, 2006; Westhoff, 
2007; Nguyen & Hamid, 2015). 
2.3. The CEFR in English language learning outcomes in Vietnam 
 In Vietnam, the CEFR was first introduced in September 2008 through Decision No. 
1400/QD-TTG by the Prime Minister. It was then drafted several times and officially launched 
six years later through Circular No. 1 on January 24, 2014. This CEFR-based reference 
framework was stated to be developed “on the basis of the CEFR and the English frameworks of 
some other countries, together with the reality of language teaching and learning in Vietnam” 
(MOET, 2014, p. 3). Nonetheless, it is criticized to be merely “a translation of the original 
CEFR with limited modifications and adaptations” (Pham, 2015, p. 54) and “still embryonic” 
(Nguyen & Hamid, 2015, p. 64). Besides, although first introduced in 2008, not until 2014 was 
 Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525-2674 Vol 2, No 3, 2018 
252 
the Vietnamese version of the CEFR-based framework officially promulgated and is still subject 
to more adjustment in the future (Nguyen & Hamid, 2015). 
 Since 2011, three years after its first introduction in Vietnam, the CEFR has been widely 
applied in language education from setting teacher professionalism standards and student learning 
outcomes to renewing language curriculum, adapting teaching materials and modifying language 
assessment practice. With an aim to reform learners’ language proficiency, MOET also states the 
language proficiency requirement for different school levels. Specifically, Level 1 - A1 is 
compulsory for learners after primary education, Level 2 - A2 for learners after secondary education, 
and Level 3 - B1 for high school leavers and non-English major university students. Graduate 
students of foreign language majors at junior colleges are required to obtain a Level 4 - B2 
certificate, whereas those at senior colleges and language teachers are supposed to achieve Level 5 - 
C1 of the CEFR (MOET, 2008, pp. 2-3). However, there has been little explanation or arguments 
from MOET for their decisions (Pham, 2017). Although the requirements are itinerary, 
implementing such standards nation-wide regardless of the current stakeholders’ real capacity, the 
differences in infrastructure between big cities and remote areas, the local and regional culture 
varieties and learners’ needs, etc. is prone to being subjective and impractical. 
 Based on the learning outcomes set by MOET, state-run universities develop the 
curriculum and select the textbooks for their non-English major students. Nonetheless, since it is 
hard to find an available textbook that can be totally aligned with the CEFR and suitable for the 
local context in Vietnam, adapting and developing the ready-made materials are encouraged and 
have been applied at state-run universities in Vietnam at present. After the selection of a certain 
textbook (sometimes by university’s administrators as the case at Hue University) and its 
implementation, the duty of textbook adaptation and material development belongs to general 
English teachers, the direct practitioners who clearly know all the issues of contextualization, 
individual needs, personalization and timeliness (Block, 1991; Tomlinson, 2005). The success 
or failure of material development can be said to be dependent on general English teachers, their 
understanding of the CEFR or the six-level framework and their willingness to create such 
changes or adaptations. 
 In short, since its first commercial publication in 2001, the CEFR has caught world-wide 
interest and applications of the CEFR have been found in different domains for different 
purposes in various countries. Despite its attempt to be comprehensive, its descriptions are 
claimed to be never exhaustive nor total (Little, 2006; Cambridge, 2011). Besides, its 
comprehensiveness also poses a challenge to language education across countries, whose 
adaptation and implementation require cautions and careful consideration. 
 Applying the CEFR into English education is both a language policy for education 
innovation (Freeman, 2016) and classroom grass-root intervention as it steps in different 
major areas in language teaching from curriculum to teaching materials, assessment and 
teacher education. As such the implementation of the CEFR into a specific education can be 
considered as change. For profound understanding of the perceptions of responses to this 
change of the stakeholders, especially teachers involved in this change process, we need to 
have insights into educational change management in the areas in which the CEFR 
intervenes. The following section then presents the theoretical framework on how 
 Tạp chí Khoa học Ngôn ngữ và Văn hóa ISSN 2525-2674 Tập 2, Số 3, 2018 
253 
educational change should be implemented. Whenever relevant, references to the 
implementation of the CEFR as change are made. 
2.4. Factors for successful language policy implementation 
 Implementation, the phase when the ideas or reform are put into practice, is more likely to be 
successful when the individuals and groups ready for change have models they can support and 
emulate. Kaplan, Badaulf & Kamwangamalu (2011) stated that language policy making and 
implementation are “complex processes” (p. 105) that there may be a number of factors hindering 
their successful implementation. Accordingly, twelve factors were listed as causes to lead to a failure 
of language policy implementation, including time dedicated to language learning, teacher training, 
materials, methodology, resources, continuity of commitment, etc. 
 In the same effort, Fullan, Cuttress and Kilcher (2005) develop a substantial list of factors 
which allow the change to be implemented successfully. Although the terms for factors are not the 
same, the viewpoints of both expert groups share a lot in common. For Fullan et al. (2005), the 
factors, which they refer to as drivers or forces, have been provided the ground on which not just 
the failure or success of change implementation but also the perceptions and responses of the 
stakeholders in educational systems involved in the change process are understood (e.g., White, 
2008; Hyland & Wong, 2013). Specifically, Fullan et al. divide the eight forces into foundation 
and enabling drivers. Three foundation drivers include engaging people’s moral purpose, building 
capacity and understanding the change process. Five enabling drivers are developing cultures for 
learning, developing cultures of evaluation, focusing on leadership for change, fostering 
coherence-making and cultivating tri-level development. Both emphasize that language policy is 
not easy to be implemented and much harder to be successful. The two viewpoints serve as the 
theoretical framework for the present article. 
3. Methodology 
3.1. Research question 
 For the present study, the following question is addressed: What are the advantages and 
challenges of the B1 CEFR-aligned learning outcome implementation at Hue University? 
3.2. Research instrument 
 The study investigated the advantages and challenges of the B1 CEFR-aligned learning 
outcome implementation for non-English major students at Hue University. A qualitative research 
design was found appropriate and chosen for the present study. An in-depth semi-structured 
interview protocol, which had two parts, was thus designed. The first part consisted of a preamble 
and demographic questions. Its major aims were to get the demographic information of the 
participants as well as develop a good rapport between the interviewer and participants. The main 
part included eighteen questions exploring teachers’ perceptions and responses to the CEFR 
implementation. For the purpose of this article, five major questions delving into the advantages 
and challenges during the implementation process, perceived by general English teachers, the key 
implementers of the policy were chosen for analysis. 
 Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525-2674 Vol 2, No 3, 2018 
254 
3.3. Research participants 
 For qualitative in-depth interviews, issues to ensure the richness and comprehensiveness 
of data were more focused (Creswell, 2013). Ten teachers who have experience in teaching 
general English for non-English major students for at least a semester were thus recruited on a 
voluntary basis for the semi-structured interviews. In other words, those who participated in the 
present study were willing to share information on the issue under investigation and thus, their 
willingness demonstrated an evidence to contribute reliable and constructive information. Eight 
of them did participate in the interviews. The two remaining teachers refused due to their 
businesses. Since data analysis showed repetition of stories among participants after eight 
interviews, the data reached the “saturation point” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). The researcher 
stopped selecting new participants for their study. 
3.4. Data collection and data analysis procedures 
 The data collection procedure of the present study occurred in December, 2017. Ten 
teachers were invited to take part in the one-to-one in-depth interviews. Eight interviews were 
actually carried out in December 2017. The interviews took place at a time and place of 
convenience for the participants, either at coffee shops, classrooms or their home. Although the 
interviews took place only after having teachers’ agreement, informed consents were obtained 
in written form before the interviews were started. Each interview lasted from thirty to forty-
five minutes. All the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and recorded for later 
transcription. The interviews were then transcribed, coded and analyzed. Two or three weeks 
after the interviews, the researcher sent the transcripts for those participants to do member-
checking. No participants requested any changes to the transcripts. 
 Data analysis was conducted carefully and with consideration to ensure the reliability and 
validity of the study. After being transcribed and sent back to the interviewees for accuracy 
checking, interviews recordings were listened to many times and transcribed notes were read 
and reread, assisting in assuring the accuracy of the languages captured in the transcribed notes. 
Simultaneously, participants’ voices and tones were captured to deeper understand their 
perceptions and atti