VNU Ịciurnal o f Science, l-oreign Languages 24 (2008)167-174
Imperialism of communicative language teaching and possible resistance against it from teachers in Vietnam as an
English foreign languages context
K h o a A n h V i e t ’
D q > a r t m c u l o f ■ A t i i e r i c i ỉ i i L a n ^ n a ‘^ e a n d C u l t u r e , C o l l e ị Ị i ' o f Fcrt'iị^}ì L a n ^ a g e s , V i e t n a m N i i t i o n a l U i n v c r ĩ i t i / , H t v w i , P h a r n V a n D o n '; ; S t r e e t , C a u C i i i y , H m w i , V i e t n a m
Received 08 M(ry 2008
A b s tr a c t. T h is p a p e r dcMÌs w i t h Ih c d o m in iỉtio n o f c tim m u n ic a iiv c la n g u a g e to a c h in g (C L T ) w h ic h h ỏ s b e c o m e p o p u l a r in te a c h in g fo ro ig n la n g u a g e s . H o w e v e r , I h e a p p lic a tio n o f C L T h a s c a u s c d díííícu itics for stu iio n ỉs, Ic n ch crs iitui a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . W ith in th e scopv o f this p a p e r , only teac h ers
aro m o n tu m e d so thilt we can S01.‘ n p o r t of te a c h in g is s u e s when C L T is intr<HÌua*d. rho paper a ls o
m o r e r e s e a r c h s h o u ld c o n d u c t e d b a s e d u p o n th e fa c to rs o f s t u d e n i s a n d a d m in is tr a to r s m o r d e r th a t vve c n n ta k e p r o p e r s t e p s in I n n g u a g c t r a i n i n g in t h e c o u n tr y .
1. In tro d u c tio n
English, Iindcniabiy. lias boco m e a
p l u 'n o m L * n o n i n I h o w o r l d lU id i t is i r r e s i s t i b l e L in g U tig o . I t s p r e a d s t h e f i s o c o n t i n c n L s l i k e a
mngic p ow er. A ccording to C ry stal (as citod
i n \^ r W :^ y |1 Ị ) , «pv«*rAl m . i j o r w h i r h I g n i l o the s p re a d of English arc colonialism , spoil kiT m igration, nnd new technology created in E nglish-speaking counlrics. H e
c l ^ i i m s t h a t o t h e r i n t e l l e c t u a l , e c o n o m i c , c in d
cultural factors also play som e roles in ihis flow of English influence on o th e r co u n trie s cKross th e globo. T h e re are ap p ro x im a te ly 70 co u n trie s w h ic h con sid er English nn official language. T h e totn! esUmatưd n u m b e r of [inglish s p e a k e rs roaches 580,OCX),000, n o t to m e n h o n o ih e r countries w h ic h chcx)se i-:nj>lish Ihcir foreign lan g u ag e w ith an osHmated 750,000,000 spcMkers.
• T d .: 84*4-8337325
E -m a il: k h o a a n h v ie ti? > ’a h o o ,c o m
In o rd e r Ì0 m aintain its strong sp read , a certain system involving m eth o d o lo g y an d teaching staff will have to take the responsibility. Looking back Ihe history of lan g u ag e toaching, w e h av e experienced differenl approache.s, n am ely the G r a m m a r Tmn'^lAtion A p p m n rh . t h r nin*rt M pthnd, thp A u d iolingualism , an d m ost recently C o m m u n ica tiv e L an guage T eaching (CLT).
CLT ow es its populiirily to the s p re a d of English and it is s u p p o rte d to be a d o m in a n t ap p ro a c h in English L an guage Teaching (ELT). This issue will b e fu rther dealt w ith in th e section of im purialism of CLT.
2. Body
2 .2 . VV7ini is lin ^ u i^ tic im p eria lism ?
The po w erfu l spread of English re m in d s u s of a linguistic im perialism . Phillipson (as cited in P en nycook (2001) Ị2Ị, defines English 167
168 Khoiì Anh Vieí / Ws/ti líyurnal o f Sàeĩìce, íorviịỊĩi Latigungcs 24 (2()(ÌS) Ì67-Ĩ74
linguistic im perialism in the w a y th a t "[t]he d o m in a n c e of English is a s se rte d and m ain ta in e d by Ihc ostabM shmenỉ and c o n tin u o u s reconstiỉulion of s tr u c tu r a l and cultural inequalities betw een English and o th e r languages''. To illustrate th is view,
C r y s t a l ( a s c i t e d i n M c K a y , 2 0 0 2 ) s t a t e s t h a t
there a r e 12,500 international org an izaiio n s, 85 % of w hich consider English an official use. A pp ro x im ate ly 85 % of ih e w o r ld film m a rk e ts are controlled by the U n ite d States of A m erica. 99% of the p o p g r o u p s in English a r c listed in the enc>xlopedia o f m usic. The w o r l d 's electronic in form ation in English acc o u n ts for ab out 80%. English is u s e d in schools in m an y countries. To s u m up, English penetrates into d iffe ren t area s of politics, economics, culturc, a n d society.
2.2. V ie imperialism o f communicative lantỊuage teachhỉịỊ
To b egin with, I w o u ld like to focus on th e d e v e lo p m e n t of CLT. C o m m u n ic a tiv e lan g u ag e leaching can be r e g a rd e d as a p h e n o m e n o n and a Rreat achievpm pnt in thp search for better approaches, S a v ig n o n (1991) [3] attrib u te s th e increasing n u m b e r of im m ig ra n ts an d w orkers in E urope, th e neo- F irthian system, w ritings of Ju rg en H a b e rm a s (1970, 1971), H y m es (1971), C andlin, Edelhoff, a n d Picpho (1978), H a llid a y (1978), to the b irlh of CLT. CLT is also b ased o n the M o n ito r Model, an "inf]uentìal m o d e l of learn in g in the second la n g u a g e literatu re"
by K rashen (S.M. Gass an d L. Selinkcr (2001) [4]). McKay (2002) stales that C L T gains its popularity as a contrast to audiolingualism totally basing on behaviorisl view of language learning an d focusmg on form of language rather than its meaning. CLT is a com m unicatìve approach an d its ultim ate goal is to develop to communicative competence.
CommunicaHvc competencx’ includes
grammatical comfx?tencc, discoursi' competence, s(x:iolinguistic competence, and discourse compctcnce (Hymcs ÍÌS citcd in Siivignon, 1997 [5]).
A ccording to Tollefson (1991) J6], the s p re a d of English is related Ì0 'm o d e rn iz a tio n iheory' w h ich claim s ih a i "W eslcrn socielie.s p ro v id e the m o st effective m o d e l for 'u n d e r d e v e lo p e d ' societies a tte m p tin g to rep ro d u ce the ach ievem en ts of 'in d u strializ atio n ' H olliday (as cited in McKay^ 2002) argu es that th e s p re a d of CLT
i s a v i v i d p r o o f o f m o d e r n i z a t i o n t h e o r y .
McKay (2002, p. 109) states, " ... English has s p read becau se of the tre m e n d o u s interest in learning the language, so too in m a n y eases CLT has s p re a d not only becau se of thi‘
p ro m o tio n o f the ap p ro a c h by western specialists b u t also bccause e d u c a to rs in these co u ntries h av e advocated its a d o p tio n ." Ho also a d d s that CLT p ro m o tio n h a s been stren g th en ed by ''the tend en cy to ex tend the a s su m p tio n s of Inner Circle (countries whero English is a d o m in an t language] ab out English to o th er countries" (p. 118) a n d bv a large in d u stry of textbook thal is in favour of co m m u n icativ e approaches. S av ig n on (2003) [7Ị ho ld s thal CLT is b eing «ipplied and a p p la u d e d bv a n u m b e r of countries, namely Japan^ H o n g Costa Rica, Taiw an, the*
European U nion, not to m e n tio n countries w h e re English is re g ard ed as the first language a n d second language. Some rescarchers ev en view CLT as an even ỉ of
“pedagogical im perialism ".
2.3, Possible resistance fro m teachers agaitĩSt C LT hi Vietnam as an EFL context
Vietnam is not an exception from the spread of English an d CLT. Since the intro du ctio n of dot moi (renovation)
Khcuĩ Anh Viet! VNU loumaì of Science, Foreign Lan^^uages 24 (2008) Ĩ67‘ Ì74 169
im plem ented th ro u g h the op en-d oo r policy, English has gain ed its priority over other foreign languages, n am ely Russian, French, a n d Chinese, becau se the Vietnam ese Party a n d State realise its significant role in m o d ernisation a n d industrialisation. At the
C e n t r a l P a r t y C o m m i t t e e o n e d u c a t i o n i n
D ecem ber 1996; English w as officially regarded as the first foreign lang u ag e to be ta u g h t in schools. In ad d itio n, m o re people both y o u n g a n d old learn English for several reasons, n a m e ly job-seeking, travelling, and further education. In brief, English can bring them a better life an d b rig h t future.
In the field of English teaching, Vietnam has experienced a g ra d u a l shift from the old trndition w a y of teach in g to m o re up-to-date ones. C o m m u n ic a tiv e L an g u ag e Teaching is in the list of n e w w a y s of teaching, Many s ch o o l s a n d u n i v e r s i t i e s nre a t t e m p t i n g to em p lo y CLT into syllabus design;
oxamintitions, a n d teaching- H ow ever, these atlom pts face resistance from language policy-makers, resedrchcrs, teachers and lonrnors, W ithin the scope of the paper, I
VN w u U like* I h e
iigtiinsl CLT from UMchers in Vietnamese as nn EFL conlexl. 1 will deiil w ith ỉhe teachers' misconception of CLT, their m ethodology, th e r e l a t i o n s h i p a m o n g t h e m , t he r e l a t io ns h ip b e t w e e n t e a c h e r s a n d l ear ner s, tc ac hc rs ' training p ro g ra m , an d th eir salary.
• Tcachers' viisconccfHiou o fC L T
Since th e b irth of CLT, com m unicative com petonce h a s been fu rth er discussed by
S a v i g n o n , C e l c e - M u r c i a et al ( i n s p i r e d f r o m
Canale an d Swain), Bachm an, an d Brown. Il is in terp reted in different perspectives. Salo
& Kteinsasscr (1999) (8] state that different in terp retatio n s of CU T are originated from Ihese d iffe re n t perspectives, Therefore,
m isc o n ce p tio n of CLT is inevitable.
A cco rd in g to T h o m p so n (1996) [9]^ the m isc o n ce p tio n is that CLT m ean s not teach in g g r a m m a r, teaching only speaking;
co m p letin g p airw o rk , a n d expecting too m u c h fro m teachers. To som e exỉent, it is also
t h e c a s e w i t h s e v e r a l t c a c h e r s i n t h e E n g l i s h
D e p a rtm e n t o f V N U - CFL (Vietnam N ational University, H a n o i - College of Foreign Languages). Before CLT w as introd u ced ,
g r a m m a r h a d b e e n t h e m a i n d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e
classroom . T e achers tau g h t g r a m m a r and learners le a rn e d English th ro u g h g ra m m a r.
However^ w h e n th e D ep artm en t c h a n g e d its policy o f l a n g u a g e teaching, CLT w as g iven top priority. All the teachers in the D e p a rtm e n t h a d to and still have to adjust th em selves to th e n ew tendency. G r a m m a r is n o m o r e t r e a t e d a s a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t in t he classroom. W h a t the teachers are trying to do is increase th e s tu d e n ts ' talking time. A m o n g n ew a n d o ld -fa sh io n ed teachers, there is a big challenge b e c a u s e thev actually d o not k now w h a t exactly CLT m eans or they only h av e som e g e n e ra l idea aboui Cl-T. O n e of m y
i . u l l e a g u e s :><iyí5 i t i:> b e l i e V L 'd " l l i c m j i n
function 0Í la n g u a g e is to c o m m u n icak ' an d the m a in p u r p o s e of language teaching is to h elp s tu d e n t s c o m m u n ica te in English'' an d in practice it focuses on "language? skills ralhcr th a n on language know ledge;
co m m u n ic a tio n tasks." A n o th e r o n e says CLT m eans:
Teaching ìart‘Ịua<ịe u sin ^ the approaches so that stu d en ts w ill be able to use the language in the real com m unicative situations, m eam ng teachin<^ xvith fo c u s on ìatiịpỉage fu n c tio n s rather than the gram m ar, using more sim ulations, role pỉays, and games.
A n o th e r o p in io n is that
/ understand C L T as the lan^Ịuage teaching method w hich sees the aim o f language teaching
170 Khoa Anh Viet / VNU jonruitl o/Sàeiice, PoreÌỊỊH Languages 24 (2008) Ì67-174
as fo r the purpose o f m eaningful communication, and language as the means fo r that puryose. The focus o f ỉan^ua<ịc therefore, is ort the
language in use w ith all the 's t u f f that go "with if like ìinỊ^uisiic Ờ $ocioiinguistic knơioìeàge, com m unication sirateịỊÌe$, etc. rather than on the language hy itself.
- Teachers' methodology
Traditionally, teachers are c o n sid e red to b e the m o st po w erful p e rso n and the centre in the classroom . This v ie w p o in t is in flucnccd b y Con fu d a n ideology. Le (1999) (10) states the e n v iro n m e n t of English learn in g in V ietnam can b e c o m p a re d to "a cu ltu ra l islan d w h e re the teach er is expected to b e the sole p ro v id e r of experience in the target la ng u ag e". H all (1998) [11] states:
"Teachers w h o v iew them selves as lead ers of c o m m u n ities of inquiry, w h o view
s t u d e n t s a s a c t i v e a g e n t s i n t h e l e a r n i n g
process a n d th u s take their in v olv em en t seriously, are m o re likely to en g ag e their s tu d e n ts in intellectually challenging interactions. Teachers w h o perceive th em selv es as authorities o f k n o w le d g e an d
s h j H p n U a s r p r i p i p n u o f t h p i r
k n o w le d g e are m ore likely to use the s ta n d a r d I-R-E. (I: T eacher iniiiates; R:
S tu d e n ts response; E: Teacher evaluate!^]''.
U n d en iab ly , the m odel of I'R-E is still so p o p u l a r in th e majority of Vietnam ese teachers. In o th e r w ords, th e teacher-centcred a p p r o a c h still plays a key role in language teaching. M eanw h ile, CLT (Savignon, 2003) by d efinitio n reg ard s learners as th e center in th e classroom . Therefore, there exists a p otential conflict b etw e e n I-R-E a n d CLT.
- A m o n g teachers
H a rg re a v e s (1992) [12] claims, "teachers d o n o t d e v e lo p their strategies a n d styles of teach in g entirely alone... O v e r the years these co lleagues dev elo p w a y s of doing things, a lo n g w ith w h o le n e lw o rk of
associated ed u catio nal beliefs a n d v a lu e s in response to ihc characteristic a n d recurrent p roblem s an d circum stances they face in their w ork".
The cultures o f leaching w hich H argreav es (1992, p. 217) defines as "beliefs, values, habits a n d assu m ed w ay s of d o in g things a m o n g th e c o m m u n ities of teachers" has a po w erful effect on teachers. CLT is n o t really a p o p u la r thing for old teachors w h o have still ap p lie d the G r a m m a r Translation m e th o d a n d those w h o b egin s leach in g and are e a g e r to ap p ly n e w th in g s in to their teaching m a y face resistance. In o th e r w ords, there is clearly a p ed ag o gical conflict b etw een tcachcrs u sin g tra d itio n al m eth o d s a n d those a p p ly in g n e w m ethods.
Paradoxically, the old e x p erien ce d teachers h av e a v e ry po w erfu l influence on th e new inexperienced ones.
From m y observation, the id ea of sharing teaching m aterials a n d ex perience am ong teachers is still not taken into serious consideration. Several ex p la n atio n s can be m ade. Possibly, V ietnam ese tcachers are living in th e w o rld of co m petition. They w an t to be the best teachers a n d reg ard w h a t they k now ab o u t lan g u ag e a n d teaching as a secret. O r n o preced en t of s h a rin g a m o n g teachers h as b een created. It is also likely ihữỉ sh a rin g is not really im p o rta n ỉ in the teachers' mind.
W orse still, teachers feel uncom foriable or reluctant w h e n their colleagues atten d Iheir class. Teachers only let o thers to attend their lessons w h e n ih c y are d o s e frie n d s or w h en they h a v e to sit for exa m in atio n s or w h en they are inspected by ed u ca tio n a l officials, CLT (Savignon, 1997) requires teachers and stu d e n ts to b u ild a c o m m u n ity of learning a n d teaching w h e re there is no iear of failure an d w h e re s h arin g is for co ư ưn o n interests.
- Teachers and students
Khoa Auh Viei / V N U journal of Sãetice, Foreign Languages 24 (2008) 167-Ỉ74 171
In th e classroom , teachers a n d students interact so Uiat teaching a n d learning can ttiko pUico. T eachers h av e to deal with different iy p cs of stu d en ts. T h e m ain d u ty of teachers is to d esign activities Ì0 cater their stu d en ts' different levels of proficiency, needs, an d inlercsb. Sincc CLT Wâs inUodua'd, the teacher's roles hnve boi'n tnken into consideration. Brec‘n and Candlin (citcd in Richards <ind Rodgers (1986) |13]) claim:
'T h e U\ichor hos t w o m ain roles: the first role is to fiicilitatL* ihv co m m u n ic atio n proccss betw een nil piirticipnnts in the classroom, nnd betw een these p artic ip a n ts and ihc various activities a n d texts. T h e St'cond role is to act as tin in d e p c n d o n t particip a ni within iho Ictirning-leachinj; g r o u p ... A third role for the* iciichcr is thiit of researcher an d lenrner, w ith m u c h lo co n trib u te in term s of ap p ro p ria te k n o w le d g e and abilities, actual and ob serv ed exporieticu of the n a tu re of learning a n d org an i/iilional ccipcicitios."
(.L* (1999) slates:
"In general, s tu d e n ts of t n g l i s h in V ietnam fill! into ihree m ajor cMtogories in
ỉ c r r i ì b OÍ n o c d ? > . b c n t u * VJL'W L n | ; l i ^ l i d li K)l
tor m ure tittr^icHvc an d lucrativ e em p lo ym ent npportunilic's; o thers noed c\ S()('d kn o w led g e of English Ì0 s tu d y furihor at univorsiUcs or
^'olloges. Till* m ajority of stu den ts, however, kw rn English ju st to pass Ihe national These stu d o n ỉs d o not have an o b v ious co m m u nic.iỉiv c need. All ihey need is a sufficiently good k n o w le d g e of g ra m m a r an d v o cab u lary of the tiirget lan g u ag e to pass ihc nation^il g ram m n r-b a so d «ind norm-
r c f c r c n c o d e x i ^ m i n a t i o n s . "
The p r o b le m that CLT teachers often face is w h e n I heir learn ers have no co m m u n ic a tiv e needs. CLT (Savignon, 1997) is a c o m m u n ic a tiv c ap p ro a c h w hich aim s at d ev e lo p in g c o m m u n ica tiv e com petence
(inc lu din g g ram m atical com pctence, sociocultural com petcncc, d isco u rse com pctence, a n d strategic com petencc). My colleagues w h o arc so in favour of CLT often com plain that their s tu d e n ts te n d to treat co m m u n icativ c activities as g a m e s a n d from ihis point of view ỉhey d o nol seem to learn a n y th in g in o r d e r to pass Ihe exam inations- U n d e r this pressure, m any teachers resort to traditional m ethodology. They p ro v id e s tu d e n ts vviỉh k n o w led g e of g r a m m a r a n d g r a m m a r exercises d om in ate the classroom en v iro n m e n t.
CLT can also be described as a learner- centered a p p ro ach and W cim er (2002) [14) a rg u ed that whL'n app ly in g this a p pro ach , teachers m a y face resistance from stu d e n ts.
T ake my case ciS an exam ple I h av e been teaching English at the College of Foreign L an gu ag es - Vietnam N ational University, H anoi far nearly 6 years. T he college's m a in function is tra in in g tciichcrs iind inierpreters.
Once, 1 a p p lied the technique “Let yo u r studcftts teach ilicir class" p ro p o sed by O g a w a and Wilkinson (1997) (15] in the class of 24
i l l . W e l l a1us,Ìc i i ỉ9 t u iv n c v v a i t i i
Iciiming en v iro n m en t. [.atcT on, Ĩ held both positive nnd negative feedback. Belter slu d o n ts said ỉhcy loved the <ictivity bcciiuse it g av e them a chancc to p ro v e them selves.
Others complnined that they had m ore w ork and difficullies in carrying out the activity and ihey were even frightened of it.
• Tcaclwrs’ lan<ịua'ịt iraittitt*;; ịĩro^^ram
Usually; teachcrs' training p r o g ra m s are held M different levels of ed u catio n al institutions, nam ely schools, universities, m u n icip al/p ro v in cial D e p a rtm e n t of E d u a itio n a n d Training, and M inistry of Education a n d Training. Besides, th ere are several foreign-funded ed u c atio n al org an izations su c h as UNESCO, British
172 KIuhĩ /Aíf!r Viet / V N U lo u rtta ỉ of Sàetice, h’oreigti Ijin g u a g e fi 24 (2 0 0 8 ) Ĩ 6 7 - Ì 7 4
Council, IDP, w hich also offer seminars, w o rk sh o p s, conforences, an d teaching m aterials. In g e n e r a l VN’hcn they take p a rt in these program s, CLT is n o t only the issue that is discussed. Rather, a siructural cu rric u lu m still ho lds its irreplaceable role.
Even w h e n CLT receives attention, it is not d e a r l y expressed. It can b e said lhat Ihore h a v e b een no large-scale discussio n s on CLT.
This situation is just the sam e as that of A u stralia w h e re Sato an d Kleinsasser (1999) co n d u c te d Iheir survey into the practical u n d e r s ta n d in g of CLT. They claim, 'T e a c h e rs w h o atte n d ed a teacher d e v e lo p m e n t course gain ed so m e idens about CLT b u t did not seem to h av e very th o ro u g h explanations of w h a t C L T m e a n r (p.511).
- Teachers' salary
Salary for teachers is a b ig issue in V ietnam . Even th o u g h th eir salary ranks the sccond in the list after m ilitary officers.
H o w ev er, the salary is not e n o u g h for their living, lei alone their teaching career.
Tcachers' salary varies from the elem entary level to tertiary level, O n av e ra g e each
t p a r h e r A f r o m V N O 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
to V N D 4,000,000. Because they h av e to w ork extra tim e or extra job to c*irn m o re m oney, they d o not s p e n d sufficient time on thcir lesson plan, scientific research, a n d olher tra in in g program s. This p ro ble m is sh ared by P h a m (2006) |16) w h o claim s th a i he has to e a rn extra m oney as a freelance translator because o f ihe m o d e st salary as full-time lecturer al the university, w hich leaves him little tim e to carry o u t rcse<irch. CLT requires teachers to be en g ag ed seriously in teaching a language. Tcachers not only p re p a re lessons before th e classroom, teach d u r in g the lesson, b u ỉ also g et contact w ith learn ers outsid e the classroom . To m a k e the m a tte r worse, CLT teachers h av e to rep ro d u ce the activities w h ic h d o not carry an y co m m unicative
p u r p o s e s in th e book- G lisan & D resch c r (as ciled in Kloinsasser (1996) Ị17Ị claims:
. d esp ite to d a y 's w id e sp rea d accep tance of teaching la n g u ag e io r oral co m m u n ic a tio n , cu rren t textbook g r a m m a r is still d reflection of classical g ram m a tica l rules
b a s e d o n f o r m a l , w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e " .
In brief, within their inadequate salar>' teachers will find it a big challenge to apply CLT.
3. C o n c lu s io n
So far I h ave a rg u ed th a t CLT is an event of p ed ago g ical im perialism . H o w ev er, it faces resistance from ỉeachers in V ietnam as a n EFL context becau se of their m isco n c e p tio n s of CLT, their m ethodology, th e relatio n sh ip a m o n g tcachcrs a n d betw een teachers a n d students^ th eir train in g pro g ram a n d salary.
This p a p e r hopefully gives language p o licy -m ak e rs food for th o u g h ỉ in Vietnam before th e v in tro d u ce th e co m m unicative c u rric u lu m inlo langua)je classroom. They should pay d u e attention \o the prcscni situation o f teachers. The u n an sw ered question is w h a t sho u ld be do n e to increase the quality of loachers' profession an d their life. T h e paper also helps raise teachers' aw areness of applying CLT. T here are slill risks they have to facc inside a n d ou tside the classroom.
The p a p e r also s u g g ests th a t future rcscarch cs sh o u ld b e co n d u c te d into the possible resistance against CLT from la n g u a g e policy-m akers, researchers, and learn ers s o th a i a c o m p reh e n siv e v iew of CLT will b e fo rm ed . Tho fu tu re of language teachin g in V ietnam will experience tr e m e n d o u s ch anges in the flow of m e th o d o lo g y . CLT globally can be c o n s id e re d a iashion. H o w ev er, w h e n it is
Kỉìon Aỉỉlỉ Vicí / VhỉU joitrnai of Sãetĩce, Foreign ÌMỉỉịỊuagcs 24 (200S) ĩ 67'174 173
placed in lo a local context of a specific country, m u c h still needs to b e done.
U ndeniably, w h e th e r o r not a n y ap p ro a c h proves effective d e p e n d s so m u c h on a h arm o n io u s com bination of policy-m akors, researchers, teachers m d learn ers in a
s p e c i f i c c o n i e x t .
R eferences
(1| S. I„ WcKăy. Teai'hĩĩt\» r.ĩi^ỉiỹh as an itĩtơrĩĩíìtionaì O x fo rd : O x fo rd U n iv c rsit)' P rci» . 2002.
[2 | A. P c n n y c o o k , Critical applied lifĩị*ui$tic: A criticnl iĩĩtrodĩỉctioìỉ, U SA: L a v v re n c c H rlb a ư m A ssD ciati’s, Inc., ( \ib h s h c r s , 2001.
|3| s, J. Savignan, C om m unicative language t w c h m g : S ta te o f th o art, TESOL Quarterly 25
(1991)261-
|4 ) S. Ni. C a s s . L. S t'lin k e r, Second laỉĩ\»na>^e ncqiiừition - A n introductory course, I .o n d o n : L tisv rcn cc E rlK iu m A sso c h ito , 2001.
Ị3Ị S. J. Sivignon, c o ĩiiỊy e tc tỉc e : T h i V i y
Oĩui cliì»$room ỊĩrnctĩLr. St'a»nii e d itio n , N l’U’ Y<>rk:
M .iiX ìm vv-H ill C o m p a n ie s , Inc., Ỉ997.
| 6 | J. vv. lo lle ÍM ín , nanniH ^ p la n n i n g in c q iu ility , L o n d o n : I.cin g n io n , 1991.
[7 | S. ). S a v i^ n o n , reach in g ; ỉỉn g lis h ăs c o m n ìu n ic a tio n : A rIoIxìI p o r s p e c tỉv c / WiJWii
r/i^'//s/a*5 22 (2D03) 55.
Ị 8 Ị K S c i t d . R .
c,
K l c l r v S i ì s s L T , C o m m u n J C í ì ỉ J V Cl »>n>;ujpL* re a c h in g ; (C Í.T ): ÍV .ictical U n d iT s ta n d ín g s , The Modern Íjììi\ỊUfí^e lournỉỉỊ W(1W )494.
[9 | G . T h o m p s o n , S o m e m is c o n c e p tio n s ủbciut c o m m u n lc a tiv c l a r p u a g u te a c h in g , ELT lournal 5 0 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 9 .
[10) L e V a n C a n h , L a n g u a g e a n d V ietnam L*sc p e d a g o g ic a l a > n tex ts, R e trie v e d 2 0 D c c e m b c r, 2007, fro m
h ltp ://w w w .la n g u a g L 's .ú i( .a c th /h a n o ỉ.p r < K e c d ln g s /c a n h .h tm , 1999. A . s . C a n a g a r a |â h . Resisting Linguistic impenaỉiỹìĩì ỉn Etỉịịỉish Teachin<ị, O x fo rd : O x f o r d U n iv e r s ity T ress, 1999,
[11] ), K. íỉa ll, The Communication Staruừĩrds, (n J. K.
P h ilip s (Ed.)/ F o reig n la n g u a g e s ta n d a rd s ; L in k in g research, thtx)r>', a r d p ra c tia ', U na>lnw <xxl, ÍL;
N atio n al T extb(x)k C o m p a n y , 1998.
|1 2 ) A . H a r g r o a v c s , M. c . F u lla n ,
U'ncher developmer.t, N e w Y ork: T o*ichers C o lle g e P re s s , 1992
(13) J. c . R ic h a rd s , T. s . K o d g e rs , ApproiJchcs and methods in icachin^ị: A ỉiescrìỊytion find a m i V s in, C a m b rill gc‘: c a m b r I d g e u n i \ 'c r s i ty
P r e s s 1986.
[1 4 j M. W ei m o r, Learner-Cf^ntered Teachinsị, S a n
Itjpcisco: Josscy-Btiss, 2002.
115) N . E .D . W ilk in so n , Lei Your Students Ti‘fỉch Vĩcir Clas, R i'tn e v c d M a rc h 29. 2004, fro m h tlp ://itc s )j.o rfj/T e c h n iq u t* s /(> B a w a - S t u d o n l s T e a c h . h t m l , 1997.
[16] P h o m H o a M iep, R e s e a rc h in g Ih c ro so a rc h c u ltu r c m E n g lis h [,ủ n g u a g e K d u c a h o n in V ie tn a m , R e trie v e d 2 0 D c c o m b o r, 2007, f n 'm
ww VVI i
K,J/t‘j3 8 /a l 0 .h t n i l / 2 ( ) 0 6 .
(1 7 | R. c . K Ic in sa ssc r, Co»jmí/»irrrt/jỉv
i«5(rw dio«; VVTiự eUmattary iiin\^ua^e textiĩooks faii Uỷ, In c . A- So\a, J R. l a n / ill. R. S u s s e x (R d s.).
W h o ’s a f r a id o f to iic h in j; g r a m m a r ? , R n sb iin c . Q ld : C L T R . 1996.
Sự bành trướng của phương pháp dạy học theo đường hướng giao tiếp và những khả năng chông lại từ phía giáo
viên Việt Nam trong bôi cảnh tiêhg Anh là một ngoại ngữ
174 Khoa Aỉìh Vict ỉ V N U lounĩal of Sàence, Foreign ỈMỉĩịịunỊỊes 24 (2008) ỉ 67'174
K h o a A n h V i ộ t
Khoa Ngôn n g ữ và Vđn hoá A n h ‘ M ỷ , T rư ờ ng Dại học Ngoại ngữ,
D ại học Q uôcgia H à Nội, Đ ường Phạm Văn ĐônịỊ, Câu Giâĩ/, Hà Nói, Việl N am
Bài viê't này đ ể cậ p tới s ự th ố n g trị cúa việc g iả n g d ạ y n g o ại n g ữ theo d ư ò n g h ư ớ n g g iao tiếp (CLT). Đ ây là m ộ t trong n h ử n g xu thé p h ổ biên ữ o n g việc d ạ y ngoại n g ữ hiện nay. T u y nhiên việc á p d ụ n g đ ư ờ n g h ư ớ n g n à y g ặ p phái n h ữ n g k h ó k h ả n x u ấ t p h á ỉ từ p hía g iáo viên, sin h vién, v à ng ư ờ i q u à n lí. T ro ng k h u ỏ n k h ồ bài viết này, y ế u tô g iá o viên sẽ đ ư ợ c bàn đ ế n đ ế c h ú n g ta th â y m ộ t p h ẩ n c ủ a bứ c tra n h g iá n g d ạy khi á p d ụ n g đ ư ờ n g h ư ớ n g này. Bài vic't cOng gọi ỷ n h ữ n g n ghién cứ u tiếp th eo liên q u a n đ ến s in h viên v à n g ư ò i q u ả n lý đ ế c h ú n g ta sẽ có n h ữ n g b ư ó c đ i đ ủ n g đ ắ n tro n g việc đ à o tạo ngoại n g ữ tro n g nưỏc.