felte quarterly issue 3

FFFFELTE QUARTERLY

☼ Issue 3 ☼ Autumn 2012

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education

University of Languages and International Studies, VNU

For internal circulation only


FelteFelteFelteFelte Quarterlyuarterlyuarterlyuarterly




For internal circulation only

Editors Mr. Ngô Xuân Minh (Division II)

Ms. Trần Hoài Giang (Division II)

Layout Editor Ms. Trần Hoài Giang (Division II)

Editorial Advisory Board Ms. Trần Hoài Phương, FELTE Dean

Ms. Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Quỳnh, FELTE Vice Dean

Mr. Khoa Anh Việt, FELTE Vice Dean


Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents

Editors’ Notes............................................................................................... 4 FELTE Rhythm

The “Project 2020” Nguyen Thi Ngoc Quynh ............................................................................... 5 The 14th AUN actual quality assessment at program level for Fast-track Bachelor of Arts in English Teacher Education Nguyen Nhue Giang ...................................................................................... 6 IELTS Oral examiner training workshop 2012 Nguyen Tuan Anh .......................................................................................... 7

FELTE Faces Ms. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Quynh, a multitasking leader Tran Hoai Giang & Ngo Xuan Minh ............................................................... 9

Been there done that Vu Thi Kim Chi & Do Hanh Chi ...................................................................... 12 Tran Hoai Giang & Ngo Xuan Minh ............................................................... 13

Feature Article An investigation into Vietnamese tertiary ELT teachers’ needs in the

emergence of modern assessment paradigm

Duong Thu Mai ............................................................................................. 14

Review Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. London: Hodder

Arnold University Press.

Luong Huong Thao ........................................................................................ 27

Teaching in Focus A guideline for teaching pronunciation

Khoa Anh Viet ................................................................................................ 29

Call for Contribution .................................................................................. 30


EditorsEditorsEditorsEditors’ NotesNotesNotesNotes

November 20th is probably the most delightful day to educators in Vietnam as

they are showered with wishes, flowers and gifts from their beloved students, friends and

families. On this pivotal occasion, FELTE Quarterly would like to extend its acknowledgement to

all teachers, particularly those in the FELTE family, for their devotion and commitment to the

noble teaching career.

To kick-start this third issue, FELTE Rhythm presents an authoritative update on the

National Foreign Languages Project 2020 by a faculty leader, a briefing on the outcome of the

AUN project by an insider, and a report on a critical examiner training workshop by its key

trainer.

In FELTE Faces, the reader will get to know better Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Quynh (FELTE Vice-

Dean) as she confides her personal secrets and philosophies. As in the previous issue, “Been

there, Done that” will provide a snapshot of FELTE teachers’ experience at ELT conferences.

The two events of this time, Cam TESOL 2012 & SEAMEO TESOL 2012, will be of special interest

to early-career lecturers who are seeking approachable and affordable professional

development opportunities.

The feature article of the issue is a research report by Dr. Duong Thu Mai, narrating her

attempt to foster more reliable and valid assessment of writing which so far has been subject to

teachers’ impression. In Material Review, Ms. Luong Huong Thao, a new M.A. graduate from

University of Queensland, introduces a “comprehensive and current” read on Second Language

Acquisition (SLA), a possibly novel subject to FELTE staff, yet increasingly viewed worldwide as

a prerequisite for TESOL practice.

The issue concludes with a concise introduction by Mr. Khoa Anh Viet, FELTE Vice-Dean to

his booklet on teaching pronunciation. Drawn from his research and personal experience, this

will prove handy for teachers wishing to incorporate more pronunciation in their classrooms,

yet in need of more guidance.

Hopefully, FQ readers will take delight in and derive more knowledge from this issue, and

then contribute to the forthcoming one. (Please refer to the last page of the journal for a

detailed contribution guideline.)

FFFF.Q. Editorial Board.Q. Editorial Board.Q. Editorial Board.Q. Editorial Board

4

FELTE Rhythm


The “Project 2020” Nguyen Thi Ngoc Quynh

For further information regarding Ms. Nguyen, please go to p.9

A large-scale education reform, widely

known as the ‘Project 2020’, was launched by the

Ministry of Education and Training in 2008. This

project is aimed at radically innovating the

teaching and learning of foreign languages, of

which English covers 98%, at all levels of the

national education system in order to ensure that

Vietnamese school leavers by 2020 will become

‘independent users’ of a foreign language. As an

ambitious project, it covers a wide range of

issues in foreign language education including

curriculum development and design, assessment,

teaching qualification standards, teacher training,

and quality assurance. However, one of the first

and most crucial steps is to train and retrain

teachers of English at all levels of education so

that they reach the required standards of B2 level

according to the Common European Framework

of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Here is where

ULIS, particularly our FELTE, takes an important

part in.

Our role

As the leading language teacher education

institutions in Viet Nam, ULIS has been a key

participant in the project. It is one of seven

tertiary institutions nationwide authorized to

assess teachers’ foreign language proficiency

according to the CEFR and indeed the most active

one in the North of Vietnam. By far, our

institution has administered tests at sixteen

provinces in the North of Viet Nam with the active

participation of FELTE teachers throughout the

process.

Besides, ULIS has completed two training

courses in English proficiency and teaching

methodology for primary and lower secondary

teachers in May and August, 2012. In July, it was

commissioned by the Project to develop a

national ELT methodology curriculum for lower-

secondary school teachers. This mission was

successfully undertaken by the FELTE.

In addition, a number of FELTE teachers are

participating in several other on-going activities

of the Project 2020 including the development

and management of the national English test item

bank.

Our commitment

The whole university and particularly the

FELTE have been committed to high-quality

fulfillment of the Project 2020 objectives. Despite

the limited human resource, time constraints,

and heavy multi-task workload, FELTE has

actively participated in the assessment as well as

the intensive teacher training during the last few

summer months. Its teachers have been

appraised by partners for reliable and valid

assessment of their teachers’ proficiency as well

as their quality and dedicated teaching. In fact,

activities related to this Project have been

identified as new strategic functions of ULIS in

general and the FELTE in particular. We all

understand that this is how we maintain and

promote our reputation and status as a leading

language teacher education institution in Viet

Nam.

5

FELTE Rhythm


The 14th AUN actual quality assessment at program level for Fast-track Bachelor of Arts in English

Teacher Education. Nguyen Nhue Giang

Graduated from the Fast-track program in 2011, Nguyen Nhue Giang now teaches

proficiency courses for students of the same program at FELTE. As one of the key

members in AUN project, Giang collected documented evidence for the self-evaluation

report as well as joined in the task force in the actual assessment.

Hanoi – 3-5 May 2012. ULIS had the honor to welcome the assessors of the 14th AUN actual quality

assessment at program level for Fast-track Bachelor of Arts in English Language Teacher Education. This

event has long been expected after one year of hard work and preparation by the AUN task force of

FELTE.

In only three days, the assessors undertook tremendous amount of work including reviewing the self-

evaluation report of the program, interviewing teachers, students and other stakeholders of the program,

visiting important campus sites, and finally writing up a report and preparing the presentation for the

closing session of the assessment. They often finished their work very late in the afternoon and even

brought some documents to their hotel for evening work. Fortunately, the assessors were fully supported

by the AUN task force led by Ms. Vu Tuong Vi, Head of the Fast-track Division and FELTE Managerial

Board.

Despite some points for improvement, the program received commendable results with the overall score

of 4.4, which exceeded the point of qualification. The evaluation findings were briefly presented in the

closing session and fully outlined in the final report received after approximately one month. The Fast-

track Division is now working hard on a plan for improvement.

The AUN actual quality assessment at program level in ULIS can be considered a milestone, marking the

very first success in ULIS’s efforts to reach the international standards. Prof. Nguyen Hoa, ULIS’s

President, has expressed his deep appreciation of all the teachers, students and staff that have

contributed to the achievement of the Fast-track program as well as to the AUN project.

6

FELTE Rhythm


IELTS ORAL EXAMINER

TRAINING WORKSHOP 2012 Nguyen Tuan Anh

Anh Tuan Nguyen has an MA in English Language Teaching from De La Salle University,

Manila, Philippines. He is currently a lecturer in English at Faculty of English Language

Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National

University-Hanoi. He is also involved in mentoring and professional development

programmes at his faculty. His research interests include EFL assessment, TESOL

methodology, discourse analysis and second language acquisition.

Despite the fact that most FELTE teachers are familiar with the IELTS Speaking Test and have

extensive experience in examining students in end-term speaking tests, few of them have

received adequate training in the area. In an attempt to enhance the quality of assessment in

oral tests at FELTE in general and in IELTS-format speaking tests in particular, an intensive

workshop dedicated to FELTE teachers was organized in May, 2012.

For the first time at FELTE, our teachers had an opportunity to explore how the IELTS speaking

test is scored, to analyze what lies behind the IELTS Speaking Band Descriptors, and to apply the gained

knowledge to sample test situations. The training workshop includes two sessions as follows:

A.A.A.A. Morning sessionMorning sessionMorning sessionMorning session 1. An overview of IELTS Speaking

2. An analysis of IELTS Speaking Band Descriptors

3. IELTS Speaking Test Scripts

4. IELTS Speaking Test Sample Rating

B.B.B.B. Afternoon sesisonAfternoon sesisonAfternoon sesisonAfternoon sesison 5. Group Practice on 3rd-year students

6. Final remarks

One of this workshop’s strengths is that the invited trainers are experienced IELTS teachers with

excellent IELTS grades in actual tests. More importantly, the trainers have undergone training sessions

on PET or FCE with Cambridge ESOL assessment experts.

Another good point is that in the afternoon session, FELTE teachers worked in groups, acting as IELTS

oral examiners to evaluate the performances of third-year students with a set of authentic IELTS

speaking test scripts. During this practice session, teachers were encouraged to change partners

frequently so that they would have a better chance to share their views and improve their inter-rater

reliability based on the following assessment criteria:

Fluency and Coherence: Fluency and Coherence: Fluency and Coherence: Fluency and Coherence: This refers to how good the candidate is at keeping talking at the right keeping talking at the right keeping talking at the right keeping talking at the right

speedspeedspeedspeed and how good they are at connecting their ideasconnecting their ideasconnecting their ideasconnecting their ideas together. This is a fairly

general criterion which includes evaluating the relevance of the candidate's

answers, but in terms of the elements identified above, speakers need to be able to

understand and follow the rules of language at a word, sentence and text levelword, sentence and text levelword, sentence and text levelword, sentence and text level.

7

FELTE Rhythm


LexicalLexicalLexicalLexical Resource: Resource: Resource: Resource: This refers to how much vocabularyhow much vocabularyhow much vocabularyhow much vocabulary the candidate has and how well they use ithow well they use ithow well they use ithow well they use it.

As well as the rules of language at a word level, this criterion considers the

communicative functions of speechcommunicative functions of speechcommunicative functions of speechcommunicative functions of speech and the social meaning of speechsocial meaning of speechsocial meaning of speechsocial meaning of speech.

GrammaticalGrammaticalGrammaticalGrammatical RangeRangeRangeRange andandandand Accuracy: Accuracy: Accuracy: Accuracy: This refers to how many structuresstructuresstructuresstructures the candidate has and how

well they use them. Again, as well as the rules of language, this criterion considers

the communicative functions of speechcommunicative functions of speechcommunicative functions of speechcommunicative functions of speech.

Pronunciation: Pronunciation: Pronunciation: Pronunciation: This refers to how well the candidate pronounces the language. As well as

considering the communicative effect of the candidate's pronunciation, there is

evaluation of how much strain it causes on a listenerhow much strain it causes on a listenerhow much strain it causes on a listenerhow much strain it causes on a listener, and how noticeable their how noticeable their how noticeable their how noticeable their

accentaccentaccentaccent is - although accent itself is not a problem. In terms of the elements we

have identified above, this criterion refers to speakers’ need to be able to produce

the phonological features of speech.

The success of the workshop is believed to contribute to realizing FELTE teachers’ desire for professional

development to reach the international standard in English language education. The workshop format

can be a good example for other faculties in building professional development activities for the purpose

of making ULIS a leading language education institution in Vietnam.

8

FELTE Faces


“family and friends would come first in

my agenda”

Ms. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Quynh, a multitasking leader

“To be a leader, one

should be multitasking”

Quick facts:Quick facts:Quick facts:Quick facts:

• Full name: Nguyen Thi Ngoc Quynh

• Positions held: Director of the Center for Distance Education

and Teacher Development; Vice Dean of the Faculty of English

Language Teacher Education

• Research interests: Second Language Acquisition,

Bilingualism, Bilingual Education

• Hobbies: Reading online newspapers and playing chess

FFFFELTE ELTE ELTE ELTE QQQQuarterlyuarterlyuarterlyuarterly Editors (FQEEditors (FQEEditors (FQEEditors (FQE): Thank you, Dr.

Quynh for attending our interview today.

Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Quynh (M.Q): Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Quynh (M.Q): Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Quynh (M.Q): Ms. Nguyen Ngoc Quynh (M.Q): My pleasure.

FQEFQEFQEFQE: Would you please disclose three personal

pieces of information that may be new to our

staff members?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: Maybe the first important piece of

information is that I am not a PhD holder

yet, so please do not call me Dr. Quynh. I am

still waiting for my PhD thesis examination

results. The examination normally takes a

few months in Australia after the

submission. The second piece of information

about me is that I am a fun-loving person,

though I may look serious sometimes! All my

close friends can tell you that. The third,

well, is that although I am leading a very

busy working life, ‘workaholic’, as what

some colleagues are calling me, is not my

type. If I had any chance to choose, family

and friends would come first in my agenda.

FQE: FQE: FQE: FQE: Could you please use three adjectives to

describe your personality?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: Well, I often perceive myself as decisive

since I can make up my mind very quickly

even on challenging issues. Besides, I am

dedicated. I mean whenever I have

chosen to do a job, I will devote my time and

energy to completing it with the best

possible quality. However, I am rather

stubborn, and will not change my mind

easily.

FQE: FQE: FQE: FQE: Recently you have completed your Ph.D

program in Melbourne, Australia. Would you

mind sharing with us more information

about your study?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: I spent more than four years completing

my PhD program. It may be surprising to

some people that half of my time was spent

in Australia and half in Vietnam. What is

more, my research was related not to English

language teaching and learning but to

Vietnamese acquisition of Hmong ethnic

minority children.

FQE: FQE: FQE: FQE: How did you come up with such an original

topic?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: You know, luck and personal interest

played an important part. It all started with

my hobby, photography. I love taking

landscape photos, so I used to travel to the

North of Vietnam several times and have

9

FELTE Faces


“I will devote my time and energy to

completing it with the best possible quality”

“Grasp any opportunity that comes to you”

special love for the natural beauty there.

There besides the awe-inspiring scenery, I

got to know really well ethnic minority kids

and their difficulties in learning Vietnamese

as a second language. Interestingly, my PhD

supervisor in Australia is a leading expert on

bilingual education for indigenous people;

hence, she shared my great interest in

Hmong group in Vietnam and after thorough

discussion I finally decided on the above

mentioned research topic.

FQE: FQE: FQE: FQE: Did you face any problems during your

study?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: My research was conducted in a quite

special setting that my supervisor termed as

‘laboratory-like’. To collect the data, I had to

travel to the top of a mountain every

fortnight during a year and stay with isolated

Hmong children so that I could find out how

they learnt Vietnamese as a second

language. So one challenge I had to face was

indeed the travel itself. After a train,

followed by a bus and a motorbike taxi, I

would have to walk to the school to reach

the children because there was simply no

direct road to that site. The road up to the

mountain was bumpy, and there was always

a danger of landslide and flash flood

whenever it rained. I still remember once

when I got stuck in the mountain for 10 days

without electricity due to a flood. Another

problem was that I worked with minority

people who were very shy and did not speak

much. Therefore, it was hard to predict the

volume of language they would produce

since I recorded them in natural settings. It

took me quite some time to get myself

familiarized to the kids before I could start

the data collection. And the biggest

challenge was the nature of my research. I

started out with an exploratory research in

which there was no intervention to the

teaching and learning process in any way.

With this research design, I could not predict

beforehand where I was led to in the

research process. In fact, halfway in the

candidature, I had to change my research

design and simply collect a total different set

of data.

FFFFQEQEQEQE: Lots of FELTE teachers intend to upgrade

their qualifications in Australia. What pieces

of advice do you give them especially

regarding scholarship application and course

selection?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: My advice for scholarship application

would be to grasp any opportunity that

comes to you. My own story is an example. I

decided to pursue a PhD degree when the

deadline for submission of an Australian

Leadership Awards scholarship had been

over. However, I was not at all discouraged

and went on to apply for the Melbourne

University scholarships. You know, many

roads lead to Rome. Take one and head

there.

Regarding the choice of courses, I would say

we are in great need of experts on teacher

professional development and curriculum

design. Also, bilingual education is a

potential, yet unexplored area in Vietnam.

FQE: FQE: FQE: FQE: You currently take two management

positions. How do you manage so well to

fulfill all your duties?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: To be a leader, one should be multi-

tasking; I mean the ability to do many

things at the same time. Therefore, I’m

trying to adjust myself to this kind of job.

Still, I am in the process of discovering my

own capacity so that I can fulfill all the

missions I’m assigned to. Indeed leadership

is now my adventure.

10

FELTE Faces


“Leadership is now my adventure”

“It is my belief that in two or three years we will

successfully reach the destination.”

FQE: FQE: FQE: FQE: Quite a few FELTE teachers are concerned

about the dramatic changes in our faculty

lately. On behalf of the management board,

could you please clarify the directions of our

faculty in the near future, say the next five

years?

M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: M.Q.: “Adventure” can be used to describe both

my work and FELTE. There have recently

been lots of remarkable changes in the

management positions, staff members and

the new missions (most importantly the

Project 2020). I imagine the whole faculty as

a four-wheel drive car, utilizing all our

energy to venture off the beaten track. We

are experimenting with the integrated

methodology in language skill subjects and

simultaneously preparing an array of new

subjects. However, we should not be

alarmed and it is my belief that in two or

three years we will successfully reach the

destination. By the end of this year, we will

have completed the proficiency subjects and

started developing contextual and additional

subjects. By the end of next year, we will

have finished revising the proficiency

subjects for the first time, and will have

finalized the contextual and additional

subject syllabi. Then we will need around

one more year to pilot and make necessary

amendments to the whole curriculum.

FQE: FQE: FQE: FQE: We guess the faculty staff will be glad to

hear about this. Thank you, Ms. Quynh for

sharing with us such interesting and useful

information about your life and career. On

behalf of the FELTE Quarterly, we wish you

health, happiness and success in all your

personal and professional pursuits.

M.Q.:M.Q.:M.Q.:M.Q.: Thank you for introducing me to FELTE

Quarterly readers.

11

BEEN THERE DONE THAT


Having recently taken a course? Gone on a trip? Done something interesting? Met new

people? In this space of each issue of FELTE Quarterly we post a question for you to

share your experience and to learn about, and from, our colleagues.

Do Hanh Chi Do Hanh Chi Do Hanh Chi Do Hanh Chi & Vu& Vu& Vu& Vu Thi Kim Chi Thi Kim Chi Thi Kim Chi Thi Kim Chi

Hanh Chi is currently teaching in Division

of English skills 3. Her research interest is

in Task-based Language Teaching and

Teaching English to Young Learners.

Kim Chi is an English lecturer

of English skills 2. She had one

year studying in the US in

2009-2010.

8888thththth CamTESOL Conference, Phnom PenhCamTESOL Conference, Phnom PenhCamTESOL Conference, Phnom PenhCamTESOL Conference, Phnom Penh ---- “Language and “Language and “Language and “Language and Development”Development”Development”Development”

The four-day trip to Cambodia was an eye-

opening experience to both of us, not just

because of the knowledge we picked at the

conference but also because of the discovery of

Cambodia we never expected we would have.

The conference offered a lot of workshops in

different fields of language teaching, some of

which were by famous speakers in TESOL. One

workshop we found worth attending was

“Introducing humour into the ELF classroom”

done by a humourous-but-deny-to-be teacher.

Thanks to him, we have got some creative and

useful suggestions to integrate humour into the

lessons. The last session about teacher education

which was spoken by Jack Richard, one recognized scholar in ELT field made a deep impression on us

both and evoked much thinking. What has been bearing in my mind since his speech is the concept of

“take-away values” which is what learners can get and remember after each lesson

Cambodia was much more than our reach of imagination. The country is peaceful and surprisingly

resembles Vietnam in many ways. We actually did not feel that we were being in a foreign country, but

rather in the South of Vietnam. Impressed me the most was the people here who are hospitable and

spontaneous in English speaking, both in capital Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, the land of Angor Wat. The

seven-hour coach to Siem Reap exhausted us, but the spectacular Wonder of the World energized and

really took our breath away.

FELTE teachers with Professor Jack C. Richard

12

BEEN THERE DONE THAT


Tran HoaiTran HoaiTran HoaiTran Hoai Giang Giang Giang Giang & Ngo Xuan Minh & Ngo Xuan Minh & Ngo Xuan Minh & Ngo Xuan Minh

Tran Hoai Giang and Ngo Xuan Minh have been teaching language skills and research

methodology to TESOL and Translation – Interpretation majors for the past three years at

School of English II, Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, ULIS - VNU. Their

research interests include vocabulary acquisition, extensive reading and corpus linguistics.

3333rdrdrdrd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TESOLINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TESOLINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TESOLINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TESOL

Jointly organized by TESOL HCM, SEAMEO RETRAC Vietnam, Curtin University and

College of Foreign Languages, Da Nang University

Along with the Vietnamese ELT community’s expansion,

quite a few TESOL conferences have recently been organized

in Vietnam. Among the most prestigious of these is

probably the annual TESOL conference jointly held by TESOL

HCM and SEAMEO RETRAC Vietnam. Following two highly

successful conferences in Ho Chi Minh (2010) and Hue

(2011), the third was convened in Da Nang City between

June 9th and 11th. There we had the honor to present our

research findings together with two FELTE colleagues, Dr.

Duong Thu Mai and Ms. Pham Thu Ha.

As stated by the organizing committee, the conference “English Learning: A Focus on English Use”

was intended to be an ELT forum discussing a range of issues with a particular stress on the

Vietnamese context. Besides, the embedded networking activities in the conference program were

expected to develop linkages among domestic and international educational institutions. From our

personal experience, all these goals have been achieved even beyond our initial expectations. We

were, on one hand, exposed to novel theories presented by Australian professors and, on the other

hand, got an insight into the disadvantaged English learning and teaching contexts of Vietnamese

colleagues and their innovative measures to make the best out of those situations.

The most memorable presentation in our personal view was presumably Professor Andy

Kirkpatrick’s on Asian English in use. According to him, as English is now a lingua franca,

international intelligibility rather than native-like proficiency should be the foremost target of

English language teaching and learning. Moreover, Asian/ ASEAN cultural knowledge should be

integrated into the English program since most students will use English in that regional context

rather than with native speakers of the language. Interestingly enough, this is also the direction

taken by ULIS where two new subjects named World Englishes and An Introduction to ASEAN

countries are under preparation and will be offered to English majors in the next academic year.

For the conference’s remarkable benefits and its reasonable fee, we highly recommend it to early-

career ELT teachers who are committed to professional development, yet cannot afford the luxury of

a week-long foreign trip to an international conference.

FELTE Teachers at Da Nang

A souvenir from the conference 13

Feature Article


An investigation into Vietnamese tertiary ELT teachers’ needs in the An investigation into Vietnamese tertiary ELT teachers’ needs in the An investigation into Vietnamese tertiary ELT teachers’ needs in the An investigation into Vietnamese tertiary ELT teachers’ needs in the

emergence of modern assessment paradigmemergence of modern assessment paradigmemergence of modern assessment paradigmemergence of modern assessment paradigm

Dr. Duong Thu Mai

Dr. Duong Thu Mai has been the Head of School of Language Skills 2 for a year

since her completion of the PhD of Education from the University of Melbourne,

Australia. Her areas of expertise include language assessment, performance

assessment, L2 writing, learning strategies, instrument development and

validation.

\

This paper presents an examination of ten Vietnamese ELT teachers’ perception of two

validated instruments, which are aimed to measure local students’ writing competence. The

results from this investigation reveal what these teachers need in the growth of modern

assessment paradigm in Vietnam, where norm-referenced and classical assessment is still

predominant. The paper contains a thorough analysis of trends and special exceptions in the

teachers’ opinions. The quotations are exactly what they spoke in English.

I. The dynamics of writing assessment

For over a hundred years, writing assessment has been considered a significant field. Looking

through the lens of assessment methods, Yancey (1999) identifies three overlapping paradigms

of writing assessment namely objective testing, holistic scoring and portfolio/ performance

assessment. This is a comprehensive capture of the writing assessment history, as also

reflected by other earlier and later authors.

Since the late nineteenth century, essay assessment has been used at Harvard University in

entrance examinations (Morison, 1930). However, it sometimes disappeared completely, as in

the 1940s, when parametric tests were the reigning educational assessment tool, and the word

“writing examination” meant answering selected-response questions in either standardized or

locally developed tests (Ruth & Murphy, 1988). This indirect writing assessment period lasted

through the World War 1 into the 1950s.

The switch from the first to the second paradigm of writing assessment happened in the 1960s

(Valentine, 1961). Direct writing assessment and criterion-referenced test interpretation were

the most widely discussed issues. From the 1960s to the 1970s, writing assessment was

argued to be more direct than multiple-choice tests; writing skills could only be assessed with

real writing products and that students’ mistakes in writing should be investigated to inform

followed-up instruction. Most language teachers then believed that they had found in holistic

scoring a reliable, and therefore valid, method for assessing writing. In the classrooms,

teachers assessed students’ one-and-final drafts based on the rubrics (Applebee, 1980). Essay

14

Feature Article


examinations and assessment were standardized and produced highly consistent results.

Today, holistic scoring is still considered the biggest breakthrough in writing assessment and

“the most common assessment tool” (Connor, 1991, p. 215). The paradigm is named holistic

scoring (Yancey, 1999) for this reason.

In the middle of the 1980s, it was noticed that more evidence than the holistic scores was

needed to make correct inferences about student ability. “In holistic scoring, the notion of a

true score is replaced by a consensus score because two scores are generated for each essay”

(Huot, 1990, p. 203). This seems to lead to even more serious errors of estimation and much

more emphasis on rater consensus than the more substantial issues of assessment validity,

raters’ personal judgment and students’ roles. A restriction of selves for the important

stakeholders in writing assessment resulted (Yancey, 1999). Moreover, asking students to

generate only one timed-impromptu essay to draw a conclusion about their writing ability

forms the impression that good writing is generated in a short time, and in only one sitting.

The problems with holistic scoring are even more obvious (Hamp-Lyons, 1991) where the role

of diagnostic feedback for students is highly important, such as in L2 performance assessment.

Meanwhile, the late 1980s witnessed a large number of great changes in education. One was

the increasing popularity of cognitive learning theories and learner-centred approaches to

teaching, which drove the shift from parametric to personalized assessment in educational

assessment in this period (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992; Shepard, 2008). In addition

are the social-context approach and the expressive approach to the writing process (Grabe &

Kaplan, 1996). These changes in education and language assessment appeared to address

exactly the needs of writing assessment stakeholders, resulting in critical reforms. Specifically,

students’ essay writing started to be treated as a communication act: students and teachers

should be given the opportunities to express their (multiple) selves (Yancey, 1999). Assessing

writing also means discovering and assessing those processes of self-expressing. It was also

argued that writing ability should be assessed through many samples of writing produced at

different time and under no pressure (CCCC Committee of Assessment, 1995; Yancey, 1999).

Accordingly, there was a tremendous shift from objectively based, empiricist methods of

evaluating writing to one which is more contextually situated, more rhetorically defined and

more process-oriented (Hamp-Lyons, 1995; Lucas, 1988). Alternatives in writing assessment

methods have become popular. Besides journals, diaries, process-based tests, the method

which can best represent the reforms is writing portfolios, hence the name for this paradigm.

Another change is the connection of writing assessment researchers in different areas,

resulting in a prosperity of research, a rich variety of research approaches and a broadened

range of research questions (Bachman, 2000).

15

Feature Article


In summary, each period in the global writing assessment history has been dominated by

particular assumptions about assessment methods, technical quality and writing competence.

The modern paradigm of writing assessment, named portfolio writing assessment,

performance-based writing assessment or alternative writing assessment, has emerged, along

with two other paradigms. On balance, the co-existence of the new and old paradigms in

writing assessment can be advantageous, since there is no single best way to do assessment

(Brown, 1998).

In Vietnam, the adoption of multiple assessment methods has been indicated in many

documents by the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). Chapter 3 of the

Regulations on University and College Training (Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training,

2007) highlights a number of assessment methods and the weighting given to them. These

include essay writing, oral tests, term papers, major assignments, or combinations of these. In

other regulations, such as those for accredited mainstream tertiary and college training

(Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training, 2007), students’ final scores are required to be a

combination of scores from their attendance and participation, practicum, mid-term tests,

major assignments, group assignments, term papers and final-term tests (which are

compulsory and must account for at least 50% of the course credit). From these regulations and

policies, it appears that assessment reliability is a well-discussed issue. However, the rarity of

regulations on the validity of assessment, especially in alternative assessment methods, is

noticeable. In the regulations for Accredited Mainstream Tertiary and College Training (Vietnam

Ministry of Education and Training, 2007), the only relevant point is that: “final examination

contents of each subject should be appropriate to the course contents determined in the

curriculum” (p.10).

II. The signs of modern assessment paradigm at ULIS-VNU

In ULIS-VNU, the third paradigm of writing assessment and the validity issues in assessment

have started to be demonstrated. Portfolios have been applied. The instruments for assessing

portfolios have recently been developed and validated following a rigorous process of iterative

validation, an emphasis of the modern assessment paradigm. However, to obtain those final

products, the process of training teachers to be raters for the instrument validation process, as

described by the researchers, reveals their struggle to fulfil the role required from them

(Duong, Nguyen, & Griffin, 2011). What do these teachers need for the process of instrument

validation and for the new assessment paradigm? Obviously, the inadequate attention to this

issue may lead to the questionable quality of local ELT writing assessment, the unempirical

decisions made based on this assessment and the limited impact of assessment on instruction.

16

Feature Article


As stated, the writing assessment instrument for second year English-majored students at

ULIS-VNU is a representation of the features of the modern assessment paradigm. The

framework for the instrument has been established on both theoretical and practical

backgrounds (Duong, Nguyen & Griffin, 2011). It entails that portfolio writing competence is

measurable through two domains of knowledge, each represented by three capabilities. The

capabilities in the first domain are further clarified into 20 indicators, 66 quality criteria while

the second domain has 13 indicators and 53 quality criteria. The quality criteria in the portfolio

instrument have been calibrated into continua of writing competence. The final instrument to

assess writing competence can avoid ambiguity, the most serious criticism of alternative

methods of assessment (Calfee & Perfumo, 1996).

III. The study

The study originated from the desire to understand what teacher participants in the

development process of the modern assessment instrument above need to be trained for using

it. Their participation includes drafting the instrument components before panelling, piloting

and trialling them. The research questions in this study involve the teachers’ reflection of all

those steps. Specifically, two questions are targeted:

What are the teachers’ perceptions of the instrument?What are the teachers’ perceptions of the instrument?What are the teachers’ perceptions of the instrument?What are the teachers’ perceptions of the instrument?

What do the teachers need in the modern paradigm of writing assessment?What do the teachers need in the modern paradigm of writing assessment?What do the teachers need in the modern paradigm of writing assessment?What do the teachers need in the modern paradigm of writing assessment?

IV. Methodology

1. Data collection1. Data collection1. Data collection1. Data collection

Table 1 Characteristics of Raters

Raters Qualifications Teaching

experience

Portfolio

experience

Division Participation

1 Master degree 6 years, writing

course designer,

team leader

4 years 2 Y (panelling and

piloting)

2 Master degree 7 years 3 years 2 and 3 N

3 Master degree 6 years 1 year 2 Y (piloting)



6 Master student 3 years 2 years 2 N

7 Doctoral student 9 years 4 years 1 N


9 Master student 2 years 1 year 2 Y (piloting)

10 Master student 2years 1 year 2 N

17

Feature Article


Interviews - a regularly applied method in L2 research - were chosen as the instrument for this

data collection because they offer a convenient and flexible access to the perceptions of the

teacher participants. With interviews, the researchers can discover data at the depth they desire

and take plenty of steps to improve the credibility of the received data. Semi-structured

interviews, the most popular type of interviews, were also selected because they offer the

researcher opportunities to interrupt and probe for more information from raters, such as the

specific information which may clarify the raters’ answers and relate them to the research

focus.

Ten raters agreed to participate in interviews and signed consent forms. The interview

questions were designed to reveal the scale users’ opinions of its validity and what they need to

demonstrate in using the instruments well. Specifically, the main questions address:

a) the extent to which the raters satisfy with the content coverage of the instruments for the

second-year students’ writing course

In order to answer the question well, the teachers need to understand the course contents well.

b) the extent to which the instruments discriminate second-year students’ levels of

competence

The raters’ answers will show whether they understand different levels of students’

competence.

c) the applicability of the instruments compared to other existing instrument

Through the comparison and contrast between the new instruments with the existing ones, it is

possible to address the areas of highest concern for the teachers in using the new instruments.

d) the opportunity for the instruments to be used in the following semesters and the issues to

be addressed to improve their use

This question aims at discovering the feasibility of applying the instruments in local

assessment contexts in the near future. In answering this question, the raters had to assess the

available resources and contexts. More information on the means of formalizing the

instruments for assessment purposes in the future can thus be acquired. This question most

relates to the practicality of the instruments, and the possible consequences of using them in

the research contexts.

A popular problem with interview data collection is the trustworthiness of the collected data.

Regarding this, Morrow (2005) has mentioned that qualitative data collection and analysis

should comply with standards of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

Several measures were taken so the data collection in this study could meet these standards.

First, the collection involves all rater participants and using semi-structured interviews.

Moreover, the interviews were recorded and transcribed by the researcher before the

18

Feature Article


transcriptions were sent back to the teacher participants for an accuracy check. By providing

specific descriptions of the contexts of data collection and the relation between the researcher

and the participants, as well as emerging problems during the collection process, the

researcher aims at achieving transferability (generalizability) and dependability (reliability).

Lastly, the interview questions were worded carefully so that they did not convey the

researcher’s emotion for their answers. Additionally, as already stated, the researcher as the

interviewer always probed for further explanations for the participants’ answers, especially for

negative answers..

2. Data2. Data2. Data2. Data analysisanalysisanalysisanalysis

After quantitative data analysis, raters’ interviews were analysed to obtain additional evidence

for the functioning of the developed instruments. From the detailed transcription of interviews,

information was studied for its relevance to the questions. Similarities and differences between

raters’ answers were studied to discover patterns, which were then coded and grouped

thematically by the researcher. Notable answers from the raters were utilized to make

generalizations. The coding scheme was then subjected to confirmation by the researcher’s

supervisors and one representative rater, who provided feedbacks on the meaning attached to

the codes and the simplification or complication of meaning which the research has integrated

in the development of the codes and the coding schemes. Revisions were made as many times

as necessary until the final themes helped to describe the overall perception of raters on the

use of the instrument. This iterative process of data analysis and revision was carefully kept

track of to ensure the dependability and relative objectivity of the research findings.

V. Results

1. Content coverage1. Content coverage1. Content coverage1. Content coverage

Almost all raters were able to give overall feedback on the course contents coverage of the

instruments, i.e. the instruments basically cover all the instruction areas for the targeted group

of students in the targeted time. When they were asked, raters were able to name the main

contents of the course, which included the titles of the course book units and the contents

related to the adopted writing instruction approach (process-oriented). Understanding that the

indicators are the areas of knowledge in the course, no raters answered that it was necessary to

add any others.

Two raters suggested possible additions of components for the instruments before ultimately

rejecting their own answers. The first was rater 8, who suggested adding the indicator of

creativity as a bonus for students’ ideas. On reasoning to herself that this indicator had already

been integrated in the two existing indicators of “select a variety of topics and cover the key

points” and “use multiple resources in writing, and that creativity was not instructed, she

19

Feature Article


withdrew the idea. “I think the scales cover all the contents in the writing course….One thing I

want to add here is some creativity for the students….. When we do that, we need to have the

teachers to do that in all the classes. But this one will be difficult because it is up to the

individuals, this idea is brilliant or that idea is crazy”. This rater is currently teaching many

groups of students and did not participate in earlier stages of the study, which may be the

reason why they needed to be reminded of the course contents and requirements. Thus,

although the raters generally agreed on the content coverage of the instruments, they may

need to be retrained on the contents of the course before entering the assessment.

The interviews also revealed useful insights from the raters on the use of the indicators. For

example, rater 5 had difficulty understanding the differences between “identify weaknesses”

and “reflect on problem solving skills”, and between “reflect on planning strategies” and “reflect

on writing process monitoring strategies” so she supposed there was an overlap between these

pairs of indicators. This is also a problem of rater 10. Neither of these raters participated in the

study until the trialling stage. Therefore, although their suggestions should be taken into

consideration, the raters’ answers may have resulted from not participating in earlier stages,

when the justifications for and the meanings of indicators had been clearly articulated by other

teachers. In other words, there is a strong objective desirability for raters to be involved as

soon as possible into the instrument development process.

2. Competence discrimination among second year students2. Competence discrimination among second year students2. Competence discrimination among second year students2. Competence discrimination among second year students

Interestingly, the raters’ answers reveal two different perspectives on the word “discrimination”;

one is the discrimination of general proficiency levels, and the other is the discrimination of

specific indicator performances. Most of the answers were related to the latter perspective. For

example, rater 4 said: “I think some indicators cannot cover all the levels of the students” as

soon as she was asked about the discrimination of the instruments, and then continued to give

examples of indicators which could not cover the range of students’ performances, so this rater

did not look at discrimination of the overall ability of students, but at the specific and analytical

performances in each indicators. Other raters gave more ambiguous meanings to the word

“levels”. Only rater 6 clarified what she meant by “levels” in both perspectives that “the most

interesting thing is we not only can see the groups of students in general writing competence,

but also in different parts of writing competence”. Despite that the analytical nature of the

instruments are new at the local contexts, the teachers are able to familiarize themselves with

it and learn their advantages soon.

Furthermore, many raters stated the complicatedness of student competence, which infers their

ability to judge the students analytically as well as holistically. In general, all the raters

mentioned the large proportion of students “in the middle levels” and that the proportions of

20

Feature Article


students in the highest or lowest levels amounted to “only 10-20%” or “just a little”. Raters

seemed to be disappointed to find the small number of students at the extreme levels. This, in

fact, is reasonable because each of them scored only 30 portfolios, and it is normal for the

students to cluster in the middle levels. This result highlights the need for fundamental

assessment knowledge to be provided to teachers.

A subjective need of raters is revealed when raters expressed their difficulty in making

judgments which accurately reflected student ability. Firstly, some raters mentioned the need

to add more criteria because the writing products they rated were in the middle of two adjacent

criteria in certain indicators (raters 4 and 9). To be exact, these raters reflected a typical

difficult rating situation when “you can see they have some characteristics in this part (criterion)

and some characteristics in the other parts (criteria)” (rater 7). Another issue which made the

process of judging more difficult was the failure of students to succeed in the newer areas of

knowledge such as process-writing and reflection. Rater 5 suggested that the reason for this

was the different instructional focus of the teachers in different classes and the students’

different interpretations of the course guide. This rater is among those working in other

divisions and teaching other writing course and hesitating in giving the lowest scores to the

special cases.

At the first look, the above analyses would necessitate the provision of more rater training on

the skill of making judgments. However, raters themselves reported different strategies to deal

with difficult rating situations. First, they all agreed that it was the job of the rater to make a

fair judgment based on the evidence found on the portfolios. Besides, they reported the

comparisons of the difficult cases with other writings to determine the fairest judgment in

order to look for more evidence. A very interesting insight came from rater 3, who stated the

importance of making “holistic” judgments in an analytical instrument, especially for portfolios.

This means the raters have to make an overall or “holistic” judgement of students’ performance

levels in each indicator. This rating strategy for writing portfolios, interestingly, has been

discussed widely (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 1993). Due to the comprehensive nature of

portfolios, it is hard for raters to maintain an even level of attention to all the details. What they

resort to, then, is making a general impression of the indicator they need to assess in the

student writings.

Thus, from the answers to question 2, the raters show a good understanding of the

discrimination aspect of assessment instruments despite differences in the use of terms of the

instrument components and the occasional lack of awareness of the writing programmes or

basic assessment knowledge. Faced with scoring difficulties, some of them even gradually

21

Feature Article


discovered the right method to score with an analytical instrument, which is to make holistic

judgments of student performances in each indicator.

3. Differences between the instruments and the existing instruments3. Differences between the instruments and the existing instruments3. Differences between the instruments and the existing instruments3. Differences between the instruments and the existing instruments

A neutral opinion was stated by many raters that the scoring analytical instrument required

more efforts, attention and consistency from the raters, which could bear both positive and

negative connotations. It is positive because the raters felt more effective to be totally absorbed

in the rating tasks, but it is negative because of the exhaustion scoring could entail. Moreover,

most raters stated that the instruments were long, complicated, and time consuming to use.

Each portfolio, for example, could take from 30 minutes to one hour to score (rater 10). The

first few reflection letters, as another example, could take a rater half an hour because some

students did not write according to the order of indicators in the instruments (rater 9).

Although most raters stated that rating speed increased when they got used to the

instruments, adopting the instruments in general means taking on a considerable burden. In

balancing this burden with the advantages of the instruments, most raters showed clear

hesitations.

In addition to comparing and contrasting the new instruments with the existing ones, the raters

also showed concerns about other issues of developmental assessment, many of which reveal

interesting insights into the local assessment contexts. For example, all the raters wondered

about the transformation of the analytic scores into normal scores for the Vietnamese students,

normally a range from 1 to 10. Vietnamese teachers and students are used to giving and being

given scores in this range without a clear definition of what each number indicates. Rater 3, an

experienced rater, described another dilemma for the raters when they had to omit a minority

of mixed evidence and made a holistic judgement based on the majority of evidence, so there

was a waste of evidence. In sharing this idea and similar ideas on the nature of the scoring

process, this rater appeared to be very committed to teaching and assessing. No other raters

were able to mention this controversy in writing assessment and the dilemma between scoring

or not scoring writing products (Huot, 1990). She, on the other hand, was fully aware that this

was a big issue, but did not want to go into detailed discussion on it. What she meant was only

the difficulties faced by raters when having to change the old method of rating (scoring all the

writing entries with a numeric score and giving specific comments on each of them) and when

learning to use new instruments which were developed from a totally new assessment

philosophy. Another matter the novice raters faced is their limited experience in capturing the

ability range of the students and matching the criteria with the evidence in the writing products

(rater 10). Rater 9 also noted the inequality of similarly-coded criteria in different indicators,

such as between 1.1.1.2 and 1.1.2.2, which made it even harder to rank the students. It was

these concerns about the new assessment method which led to the more time-consuming

ratings, especially for the first few portfolios.

22

Feature Article


In short, question 3 illuminates the needs of raters in understanding how to merge the

criterion-referenced instruments in the local norm-referenced contexts.

4. Feasibility of applying the instruments in the future4. Feasibility of applying the instruments in the future4. Feasibility of applying the instruments in the future4. Feasibility of applying the instruments in the future

Following question 3, this question gives the most direct answers about the teachers’ needs.

The common trend of answers is that the instruments can be used if some facilitating actions

are taken. Training for teachers and raters was mentioned by all of the raters. The instrument

users, especially younger ones and those from other Divisions (raters 2, 5 and 7), wished to

have better training and more discussions on indicator clarification, score transformation and

scoring time management. It is noteworthy that no rater in Division 2 with experience in

scoring writing products for second-year students mentioned indicator clarifications in

answering this question. The two youngest raters in the groups (raters 9 and 10) also named

the new teachers’ problems in classifying the student ability, the need to have other teachers’

assistance and the difficulties of marking even after a lot of training. From these answers, it

seems that what the raters desire to be trained on are also the reasons for their problems in

using the instruments, such as the inadequate knowledge of the second-year students’ writing

programme, the limited understanding of the rationale for certain indicators and the difficulties

of making holistic judgments. The training needs are also closely related to what raters

considered to be disadvantages of the instruments: their complexity and time consumption. For

example, one opinion is that raters should be trained on time saving tips in scoring. Rater

training therefore should be a contextualized task and should suit specific raters’ experience.

Beside rater training, student orientation was also mentioned as an important measure if the

instruments are to be used. The responsible persons for the training would be the teachers.

The reasons were that the assessment indicators needed to be reinforced by the teachers

during the semester for students to remember. As rater 5 stated: “The course supposed that by

reading the course objectives, the students know what they have to do, and the teachers know

what to do. But now after marking, we find that this is not what happens”. This is a valuable

recognition on the ineffectiveness of students’ self-study, which has never been studied at the

Department before. In other words, students need to be assisted in their self-study of writing

assessment indicators. Similar to answering the question on the advantages and disadvantages

of the instruments, the answers to this question reveal the need to strengthen the link between

instruction and assessment at the Department.

This message was even further emphasized in the answers of the more experienced raters. The

difference between their perspective and those of the novice raters is quite clearly expressed.

More experienced raters showed a broader view and stressed the importance of changing all

the stakeholders’ beliefs on assessment. The rater in the group with the most experience in

teaching writing stated that “first, if you are the group leader, all the teachers must be willing

23

Feature Article


to do assessment... Second, the students must know that they are going to be assessed in this

way and they will learn something from self-assessment, peer assessment and teachers’

assessment. Many other things we cannot do, such as the rules of the school; sometimes, they

are out of our control”. Experienced teachers seemed to be highly aware of the relation

between teachers’ beliefs and actions, as well as the need to have the collaboration of all

stakeholders in reforming deeply-rooted assessment practices. They therefore are not being

confident about the chances that the instruments will be used in the near future.

To improve the chance for the instruments also means to find solutions for what the raters

considered the instruments’ weaknesses. Some methods were proposed to lighten the rating

burden at the end of the semester such as dividing the instruments into many parts to

familiarize the students with them during the semester and specialising the rating tasks so that

each dimension is scored separately. If these individual interviews had been changed into a

focus group interview, these tips and the discussion on time consumption and the instruction-

assessment relationship would have been very beneficial for the novice raters in particular and

for the writing teachers in general.

Compared to other questions, question 4 provides the clearest insight into the practicality of

the instruments, the needs of teachers and the future development of the local assessment

contexts. A variety of rating tips employed by the raters were shared, but the most important

message is their call for action from all the concerned stakeholders: teachers, raters,

administrators, and students. This is a very important issue in Vietnamese education in general

and at VNU in particular.

VI. Summary and discussion

In general, three main themes can be detected in the teachers’ perception of the new

assessment practice, namely appreciations, depreciations, and aspirations.

Appreciations

On the whole, this is a clear pattern in the raters’ answers. The raters appreciated the quality of

the new assessment practice by complimenting the complete range of writing knowledge for

second-year students in the instruments. Analogously, they found it easy to place second-year

students’ writing performances on the continua. The modern assessment instruments are also

claimed to be most appropriate for local students’ ability range. To paraphrase, they are

relevant and well-targeted. Besides other advantages over the existing assessment methods,

the concreteness and clarity of the new assessment practice are highly appreciated by the

raters for instructional and assessment purposes.

Depreciations

24

Feature Article


Most raters named time burden as the most serious disadvantage of the new assessment

practice for portfolios and tests. The reason for this complaint may be that analytical

instruments themselves are often more complicated and take more time than holistic

instruments. Analytical instruments for scoring performance-based subjects are even more so.

Moreover, because simple holistic instruments are still the only assessment tool available in the

studied context, the raters easily became exhausted when they were introduced to new

analytical instruments. The process of adaptation to the new method cannot happen in a short

time.

Aspirations

In order to improve the use of the instruments, two trends of needs evolve from the analysis.

Firstly, raters suggested that a more careful training programme should be provided for them,

other teachers, and students. The proposed contents for the training vary from general

assessment principles, assessment methods, rating techniques, indicator clarifications to

hands-on experience and related course features. Administrators and educational leaders

should also play an important role in emphasizing the benefits of the new assessment

methods. It is clear from the raters’ interviews that the attention paid to-date to assessment in

the local context has not equalled their needs, an issue reflected on a macro-scale in the

incompleteness of Vietnamese educational regulations in terms of assessment validity (section

1.1.1) (National Assembly of the Social Republic of Vietnam, 1998, 2005; Vietnam Ministry of

Education and Training, 2007).

Additionally, teachers indirectly revealed the need for reinforcement on the content of the

course, the construct of assessment and the targeted group of students’ competence. They

also need to be involved in the whole process of assessment rather than just the rating

component. The teachers’ feedback is summarized in Figure 1

25

Feature Article


Figure 1. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Use of the Instruments

In general, the themes show that positive perceptions are held by the raters on the new

assessment practice. Also, although many obstacles still stand on the way of reforming the

assessment in the context, specific solutions have been suggested and are highly feasible. It is

hopeful that once the teachers’ needs as addressed in this study are considered and an action

plan is made accordingly, there will be a hopeful future for alternative assessment in L2 writing

instruction in the researched university.

References

Applebee, A. N. (1980). A study in writing in the secondary school. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of

Teachers of English.

Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that what we count

counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1-42.

Calfee, R. C., & Perfumo, P. (Eds.). (1996). Writing portfolios in the classroom : Policy and practice,

promise and peril. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

CCCC Committee of Assessment. (1995). Writing assessment: A position statement. College Composition

and Communication, 46(3), 430-437.

Connor, U. (1991). Linguistic/Rhetorical measures for evaluating ESL writing. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.),

Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. . Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

Duong, M. T., Nguyen, C., & Griffin, P. (2011). Developing a framework to measure process-oriented

writing competence : A case of Vietnamese EFL students' formal portfolio assessment. RELC

Journal, 42(2), 167-185.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing : an applied linguistic perspective. New

York: Longman.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Uncovering possibilities for a constructivist paradigm for writing assessment.

College Composition and Communication, 46(3), 446-455.

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (1993). Questioning assumptions about portfolio-based assessment.

College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 176-190.

Herman, J., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review

of Educational Research, 60(2), 237-263.

Lucas, C. K. (1988). Toward ecological evaluation. The Quarterly, 10(1), 1-17.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and Trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.

National Assembly of the Social Republic of Vietnam. (1998). The education law.

National Assembly of the Social Republic of Vietnam. (2005). The education law

Ruth, L., & Murphy, S. (1988). Designing writing tasks for the assessment of writing. Norwood, New

Jersey: Ablex Publishing Inc.

Shepard, L. A. (2008). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Journal of Education, 189(1), 95-108.

Valentine, J. (1961). College Entrance Examination Board. CCC, 12, 88-92.

Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training. (2007). Regulations for accredited mainstream tertiary and

college training.

Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment. College

Composition and Communication, 50(3), 483-503.

26

Review


Second language learning theoriesSecond language learning theoriesSecond language learning theoriesSecond language learning theories

Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004)

London: Hodder Arnold

Review by Luong Huong ThaoLuong Huong ThaoLuong Huong ThaoLuong Huong Thao

Being collaboratively written by a linguist (Myles) and an educationalist (Mitchell), this

book draws on the expertise of two specialists in both second language acquisition and second

language pedagogy. It is aimed at providing a comprehensive and current introduction to the

field of second language acquisition for all readers from undergraduate students to teachers

and researchers. This revised and updated version of the book builds on the strengths of the

previous edition and incorporates more recent empirical studies and expands the evaluation

sections in each chapter.

The book consists of nine chapters, through which the authors have presented a broad

overview of the most significant theories and research findings of relevant studies. The first

chapter is dedicated to introducing key concepts and issues such as learning and acquisition,

property and transition theories, universal grammar and interlanguage, which will be further

discussed in the subsequent chapters. The second chapter offers a historical overview of SLA

field, focusing on theoretical foundations of current approaches. The two major theories during

the period from 1950s to 1980s - Behaviourism and Monitor Model - are extensively

examined. In this chapter, the authors also give a thorough review of the early approaches and

hypotheses such as Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and Input hypothesis. Meanwhile, the

next six chapters deal with the current formal theories such as Universal Grammar and

interaction approaches. Each chapter provides an insight into one of the above-mentioned

theories and follows the same structure: the authors always begin with an introduction to the

theory or approach, which is supplemented with the explanations of the basic terminologies,

and then they examine the theories from the perspectives of first language acquisition and

second language acquisition. Furthermore, the empirical studies supporting those theories are

described and analysed, followed by the evaluation of the application of those theories. The

book ends with a chapter summarizing the current research emphasis and trends, and

prediction of future direction for second language learning research.

One noticeable strength of the book is that the presentation of issues and theories in the

book is particularly comprehensible and readable; therefore, the book successfully provides an

Thao Luong has worked as a teacher of English at the University of Languages and International Studies- Vietnam National University for over 4 years. Her research interests include English phonetics and semantics, computer assisted language learning and pronunciation in second language teaching and learning.

27

Review


introductory survey of the most significant theories and perspectives in the field of SLA for a

wide range of audience ranging from language teachers and researchers to undergraduate

students. For example, the explanation of key concepts at the beginning of each chapter

followed by the description of theories is useful for readers without substantial background

knowledge of the field whereas the analysis of the empirical studies and the final evaluation are

valuable to readers such as graduate students, teachers and researchers who want to

investigate further into the theories.

This book also offers a wealth of valuable and updated information that can reflect the

rapid development of the field, which is essential to the study of second language acquisition.

As the authors mentioned in the introduction, this edition of ‘Second Language Learning

Theories’ is updated with recent empirical studies which either support or reject the application

of the theories. Chapter 3 can be taken as an example. In this chapter, the authors cited a

number of recent empirical and theoretical studies inspired by the Universal Grammar approach

such as Herschensohn (2000), Hawkins (2001), White (2003), and Chomsky (2000). The UG

approach is supported by a series of studies (Bishop, 2001; Jenkins, 2000; Lorenzo and Longa,

2003) investigating the relation between language learning and intelligence. The principles and

parameters of the UG approach are more specified by Chomsky (2000) with the Minimalist

Program, Hawkins (2001) and Herschensohn (2000) with the head parameter. The fact that

more recent empirical evidence is still added to the explanation of a theory shows that the

theory is still controversial and has influence on the studies in the second language learning

field.

Nevertheless, one limitation of the book is that although most theories are explained in

connection to each other, some relations are still vague. The comparison between processing

and constructionist approaches presented in chapter 4 is an example. Though they are both

inspired by Cognitive theory, they are developed in two different strands. However, their

differences are not extensively analyzed. Moreover, in terms of supporting evidence, the

second chapter provides insufficient results from relevant empirical studies. In this chapter, the

authors analyzed little evidence from researches concerning the hypotheses developed during

the 1950s and 1960s. The lack of research evidence makes their explanation not as strong as

expected.

These shortfalls are relatively insignificant given the book's many strengths, particularly

the richness of information about SLA theories and the analysis of these theories from different

perspectives. This edition is clearly an ideal introduction to the field, especially for those

students without substantial prior background in second language learning.

28

TEACHING IN FOCUS


A guideline for teaching pronunciation Khoa Anh Viet

Mr. Khoa Anh Viet is the Vice-Dean of FELTE and Director of Center for

Information and Technology. He was an ULIS graduate and obtained an MA

from the University of Queensland, Australia. His main interests are teaching

language skills, methodology, and using technology in learning, teaching,

testing and researching.

Pronunciation plays an integral part in teaching and learning a language.

However, it has never been paid due attention partly because it is not included in the

curriculum, even if included it is not given enough time, partly because teachers are not

confident to teach. They claim that they do not have enough knowledge and skills.

To provide a solution to this problem, I have composed a compact guideline for

teaching pronunciation. It is comprised of five parts, beginning with a theoretical

overview of pronunciation, followed by a recommendation on the elements of

pronunciation to be taught, a communicative framework of teaching pronunciation,

techniques for teaching pronunciation, and concluding with a review of latest

technology used in teaching pronunciation.

All these parts are introduced in the task-based approach with keys provided at

the end to support teachers working on their own. To download the e-book, please

follow the link below.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?2eaxw1dyst97g89

It is my hope that FELTE Quarterly readers will find this guideline useful. Should

you need any further information, please contact me at [email protected].

29


Call for Contribution Editorial Board

FELTE Quarterly (FQ) is a journal of, for and by FELTE teachers to report on

multifaceted life at Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, ULIS, VNU and to engage its

staff members in collegial discussion about issues in the TESOL field.

The journal is published every two quarters in the electronic format and for internal

circulation only. FQ invites you to submit articles in accordance with the guidelines below.

1.1.1.1. Submission categoriesSubmission categoriesSubmission categoriesSubmission categories

- News (in FELTE RhythmFELTE RhythmFELTE RhythmFELTE Rhythm) about pre-eminent activities involving FELTE teachers to keep the

whole faculty staff up to date.

- Interviews (in FELTE FacesFELTE FacesFELTE FacesFELTE Faces) with conspicuous faculty figures so that their colleagues can

learn from their recipes for success.

- Brief travel reports (in BBBBeen there done thateen there done thateen there done thateen there done that) on FELTE teachers’ trips to conferences or

study tours domestically and internationally.

- Research reports (in Feature Feature Feature Feature ArticleArticleArticleArticle) on a variety of ELT issues.

- Reviews (in Review Review Review Review corner) of ELT- related books, articles, and other teaching – learning

materials

- Practical ideas for classrooms (including but not limited to lesson plans, worksheets and

Power Point slide shows) (in Teaching in FocusTeaching in FocusTeaching in FocusTeaching in Focus)

2.2.2.2. Technical requirementsTechnical requirementsTechnical requirementsTechnical requirements

- The submission should conform to the style guidelines in The Publications Manual of the

American Psychological Association (6th edition). For information, see the APA Web site.

- Authors may use British or American spelling, but they must be consistent.

- A short self-introduction (biodata) of no more than 50 words and a profile picture should be

attached to the submission email.

- All manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the FQ Managerial Board via the email

address [email protected].

- Submissions should be in Microsoft Word or compatible program. Please submit figures,

graphs, and other graphic elements in a standard graphic format (e.g., JPEG) or Excel.

Tables should be created in Microsoft Word or compatible program.

- All quoted material must be cited in text and in a reference list. The FQ Editorial Advisory

Board will determine a clear policy and definition of plagiarism, and its decision will be final.

30

FFFFELTE QUARTERLY




31