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

 Tạp chí Khoa học Ngôn ngữ và Văn hóa ISSN 2525-2674 Tập 2, Số 3, 2018 
249 
ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES OF THE CEFR-ALIGNED 
LEARNING OUTCOME IMPLEMENTATION FOR 
NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HUE UNIVERSITY 
Le Thi Thanh Hai* 
University of Foreign Languages, Hue University 
Received: 24/08/2018; Revised: 18/09/2018; Accepted: 20/12/2018 
Abstract: The study was carried out to explore the issues related to the CEFR-aligned 
learning outcome implementation for non-English major students at Hue University. Its 
focus was on the advantages and challenges during the implementation process perceived 
by general English teachers. Qualitative approach was chosen with the data being collected 
by means of in-depth interview. Ten general English teachers who have experienced 
teaching non-English major students at Hue University took part in the study. The findings 
have shown that the CEFR-aligned learning outcome implementation process for non-
English major students at Hue University has gained a number of advantages but still faced 
some challenges. The advantages included appropriate teacher training, modern facilities 
and resources, teacher sound understanding of the policy, and positive changes in teaching 
methodology. The challenges were more related to the imbalance among students’ 
proficiency, assigned textbooks, teacher-led hours and required learning outcome and 
assessment practices. 
Key words: CEFR, learning outcome, language policy implementation 
1. Introduction 
 In the era of globalization and integration, English is more and more indispensable to the 
development of any country. It has become the first foreign language to be taught and a 
compulsory subject for both undergraduates and graduates at tertiary level in Vietnam (MOET, 
2008). Nonetheless, English language education has encountered great difficulties in catching 
up with the society need. Vietnam was still grouped into “low proficiency” countries in terms of 
English (EF Education First, 2013). To change the situation, various attempts have been made 
to reform the foreign (especially English) language teaching system. Especially, in 2008, the 
Vietnamese Government launched a national project named “Teaching and learning foreign 
languages in the national educational system for the 2008-2020 period”, often referred to as the 
2020 Project, as a national strategy aimed at renovating the foreign language teaching and 
learning in the national education system during the period 2008-2020 (MOET, 2008), now 
extended to 2025 (Vietnamese government, 2017). The most significant part of the 2020 Project 
is the adoption of the CEFR, a global framework, into Vietnamese local context of language 
teaching and learning as a “quick-fix” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004) solution to restructure the 
national foreign language education system. 
 This adoption of the CEFR as standard-based outcomes and professionalism in Vietnam, 
underpinned by the 2020 Project has been hoped to bring positive and radical changes in the 
national foreign language education system as it is clearly stated in Decision 1400 of the 
government (MOET, 2008). In effect, this has led to the renewal and modification of language 
* Email: ltthainn@hueuni.edu.vn 
 Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525-2674 Vol 2, No 3, 2018 
250 
curricula, language teaching materials, testing and assessment as well as language learning 
outcomes at different levels of education, for different types of learners and at different schools, 
universities and institutions nationwide. 
 Under the impacts of this innovative national foreign language (mainly English) policy, 
curricula for students at tertiary level of Hue University were changed. Not only foreign 
language (English) major university students’ curriculum became standardized and CEFR-
aligned, but general English curriculum for university students majoring in subjects other than 
English was also modified. A 7-credit general English curriculum was compelled for non-
English major students before their B1 CEFR-aligned examination. In effect, non-English major 
students have a total of 105 teacher-led hours of English classes in their first three semesters, 
divided into 30-30-45 hours respectively, and are expected to achieve level B1. General English 
teachers at Hue University, as implementers, have to bond learners, materials, teaching practice 
and assessment altogether so that non-English major students can achieve the required CEFR-
aligned learning outcome B1 within the given timeframe and curriculum. After six years of 
implementation, it is worth investigating what advantages and challenges the implementation 
process has brought about, which is the aim of the present study. 
2. Literature review 
2.1. The landmark of the CEFR 
 The CEFR gained attention and respect not only in Europe but also in the rest of the 
world very soon after its publication (Alderson, 2002; Byrnes, 2007; Hulstijn, 2007; Tono & 
Negishi, 2012). Its first distribution was in 1996, but has become more widely spread since its 
commercial publication in 2001 (Little, 2006). At first, it was published in English and French, 
and then was almost immediately translated into German (Little, 2006, p.167). Since the time of 
its writing, it has been translated into thirty nine languages (English Profile, n.d.), and its power 
and enthusiasm for the document extends far beyond Europe to Latin America, the Middle East, 
Australia and parts of Asia (English Profile, n.d, p.2). 
 As for the language use, the CEFR has been applied not only to English, French, Italian but 
also to other non-European languages studied in Europe, including Chinese, Japanese, Urdu and 
so on (Pham, 2012; Casas-Tost & Rovira-Esteva, 2014) and the adaptation is not only for L2 but 
also L1 learning (Figueras, 2012). Besides, many countries have adapted and adopted the CEFR, 
especially ... n short, with the current CEFR-aligned outcomes, insufficient 
time allowance was the greatest pressure general English teachers had to cope with all the time. 
By comparing with Kaplan et al.’s factors (2011), it can be found that insufficient time 
dedicated to language learning was among the factors hindering successful implementation. 
4.2.3. Incompatible textbooks 
 Thirdly, the dissatisfaction with the CEFR implementation policy that many teachers 
reported was the mismatch between the assigned textbook and the CEFR-aligned outcomes. As 
reported by many teachers, together with the implementation of the CEFR-aligned outcomes, a 
new textbook series, English Elements, and recently another one entitled Life were selected for 
non-English major students at Hue University. Both textbook series, especially English 
Elements, were criticized to be incompatible with the CEFR-aligned outcomes. Some of the 
complaints and criticism are cited below. 
 Many teachers maintained that English Elements was a textbook series by Hueber, a 
German publisher whose purposes and target learners were far from similar to those of Hue 
University. Besides, the series was definitely not published for a 105-period English curriculum. 
Applying this series for non-English major students at Hue University caused challenges for 
both teachers and students. Regarding the textbook series Life, which was concurrently used 
with English Elements, the complaints were not as strong in terms of the book contents. Four 
teachers reported that the new textbook series [Life] was more aligned with the A1-B1 learning 
outcomes as it focused more equally on four skills. However, it was certainly designed to be 
taught with a time amount of definitely much longer than the given 105 periods of the current 
curriculum. Although challenges from the book itself were not so serious, general English 
teachers still had problems selecting the appropriate contents that could help students achieve 
the required learning outcomes within the given amount of time. 
4.2.4. Students’ limited admission level of English proficiency 
 The final dissatisfaction originated from students’ low and mixed language proficiency. 
Two teachers, Mrs. Chi and Mrs. Dung, thought that their students’ current proficiency was far 
lower than the required B1 outcome (or level 3 of the six levels) for non-English major students. 
They cited the low percentage of non-English major students achieving the B1 certificate as 
evidences of this viewpoint. Six teachers mentioned the vast difference between students’ 
 Tạp chí Khoa học Ngôn ngữ và Văn hóa ISSN 2525-2674 Tập 2, Số 3, 2018 
259 
English language competence and the required learning outcomes, although the situation was 
different among students of different majors and from different colleges. In conclusion, 
although the problem may not come from the CEFR and its policy, from the reality of students’ 
low English level, the policy has caused enormous challenges to both teachers and non-English 
major students at Hue University. From the viewpoint of implementers, the mismatch between 
students’ current level of proficiency and the required learning outcome caused the 
dissatisfaction among general English teachers during the implementation process. Therefore, 
coherence-making, the seventh driver of change, was not fulfilled. 
 All the aforementioned challenges can be seen as the shortcomings of the CEFR-aligned 
learning outcome implementation process that has been applied for non-English major students 
at Hue University. By comparing with Fullan et al’s theoretical framework of change, it can be 
found that the drawbacks were largely related to the enabling drivers, namely focusing on 
leadership for change, fostering coherence-making and cultivating tri-level development. 
5. Conclusion and implications 
 The results obtained indicated that the CEFR-aligned learning outcome implementation 
process for non-English major students at Hue University has gained a number of advantages but 
still faces some challenges. The advantages include appropriate teacher training, available 
facilities, teachers’ sound understanding of the policy, and positive change in teaching 
methodology. These fit into the foundation drivers of Fullan et al.’s change theory (2005) 
regarding the moral purpose engagement, capacity building and change process understanding. 
The challenges were more related to the imbalance among students’ proficiency, assigned 
textbooks, teacher-led hours and required learning outcome and assessment practices. Concerning 
change management theory by Fullan et al. (2005), the implementation failed to address the 
enabling drivers, namely focusing on leadership for change, fostering coherence-making and 
cultivating tri-level development. 
 The results of the present study have compelled the implications for practice. Firstly, 
teachers are the actual deliverers of curriculum across disciplines and across levels. Their 
instructional practice and educational foundations may vary, but they still remain the key 
implementers of the curriculum. This suggests that general English teachers and/or non-English 
major students should be involved in the CEFR-aligned curriculum planning. Therefore, their 
voices must be acknowledged, listened to and acted upon. 
 Moreover, general English teachers should take initiatives in the implementation process. 
They should call for understanding and acceptance among students, parents and local community 
so that the CEFR application becomes more effective. Inside classrooms, they need to perceive 
themselves as leaders and perform the role of active leaders, not just passive implementers. By 
realizing the intentions and plans of policy-makers, they act out the policy and spread the 
leadership to their students and peers, making leadership developed in others on an ongoing basis 
for sustainable reform (Fullan et al., 2005). 
 There is evidence that capacity building, the second driver for change management 
pinpointed by Fullan, has been made in preparation for the CEFR implementation. Nonetheless, 
for capacity building, front-end training is insufficient (Fullan et al., 2005). Teacher training and 
 Journal of Inquiry into Languages and Cultures ISSN 2525-2674 Vol 2, No 3, 2018 
260 
collaboration ought to become a regular part of teacher professional development because 
“successful change involves learning during implementation” (Fullan, et al., 2005, p. 55). This 
offers hints that the home university has planned and continues organizing relevant workshops and 
trainings for general English teachers. For successful CEFR-aligned learning outcome 
implementation, the home university should take these issues into careful consideration to make 
appropriate modifications and adjustments in the coming years. 
References 
Alderson, J.C. (2002). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, Teaching, 
Assessment: Case Studies. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. 
Bérešová, J. (2011). The impact of the common European framework of reference on teaching and 
testing in central and eastern European context. Synergies Europe, 6, 177-190. 
Block, D. (1991). Some thought on DIY materials design. ELT Journal, 45(3), 211-217. 
Bonnet, G. (2007). The CEFR and education policies in Europe. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 
669-672. 
Byrnes, H. (2007). Developing national language education policies: Reflections on the CEFR. The 
Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 679-685. 
Casas-Tost, H., & Rovira-Esteva, S. (2014). New models, old patterns? The implementation of the 
Common European framework of reference for languages for Chinese. Linguistics and Education, 27, 
30-38. 
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, 
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Council of Europe (n.d.). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, 
teaching, assessment. Retrieved on April 12th, 2016 from  
/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp. 
Cambridge, E.S.O.L. (2011). Using the CEFR: Principles of good practice. Cambridge ESOL. 
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Despagne, C., & Grossi, J.R. (2011). Implementation of the CEFR in the Mexican Context. Synergies 
Europe, 6, 65-74. 
Education First (2013). “EF English proficiency index 2013”, available at: www.ef-
australia.com.au/epi/ (accessed 10 August 2015). 
English Profile (n.d.). What is the CEFR. Retrieved on April 15th, 2016 from 
Faez, F., Majhanovich, S., Taylor, S., Smith, M., & Crowley, K. (2011a). The power of “Can Do” 
statements: teachers’ perceptions of CEFR-informed instruction in French as a Second Language 
Classrooms in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 1-19. 
Faez, F., Taylor, S., Majhanovich, S., Brown, P., & Smith, M. (2011b). Teachers’ reactions to CEFR’s 
task-based approach for FSL classrooms. Synergies Europe, 6, 109-120. 
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485. Oxford University Press. 
Freeman, D. (2016). Education second language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). Eight forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff 
Development, 26(4), 54. 
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, 
NY: Longman. 
Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of 
language Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663-667. 
Hyland, K., & Wong, L.C. (2013). Innovation and change in English language education. USA, 
Canada: Routledge. 
Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2009). European language policy: Assessment, learning, and the CEFR. 
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51-63. 
 Tạp chí Khoa học Ngôn ngữ và Văn hóa ISSN 2525-2674 Tập 2, Số 3, 2018 
261 
Kaplan, R.B., Baldauf Jr, R.B., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2011). Why educational language plans 
sometimes fail. Current issues in language planning, 12(2), 105-124. 
Little, D. (2006). The common European framework of reference for languages: Content, purpose, 
origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167-190. 
Little, D. (2007). The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the 
making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-655. 
Little, D. (2011). The common European framework of reference for languages: A research agenda. 
Language Teaching, 44(3), 381-393. 
Mison, S., & Jang, I.C. (2011). Canadian FSL teachers’ assessment practices and needs: Implications 
for the adoption of the CEFR in a Canadian context. Synergies Europe, 6, 99-108. 
MOET (2011). Dispatch No. 20/ ĐANN Guidance on improving language proficiency for teachers. 
Hanoi, October, 2011. 
MOET (2014). Circular No. 01/TT-BGDĐT Issuing Six-level framework for foreign language 
proficiency in Vietnam. Hanoi, January, 2014. 
Nagai, N., & O’Dwyer, F. (2011). The actual and potential impacts of the CEFR on language education 
in Japan. Synergies Europe, 2011, 141-152. 
Nguyen, V.H. & Hamid, M.O. (2015). Educational policy borrowing in a globalized world: A case 
study of common European framework of reference for languages in a Vietnamese University. English 
Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14(1), 60-74. 
Pham, T.H.N. (2012). Applying the CEFR to the teaching and learning English in Vietnam: 
Advantages and challenges. Journal of Foreign Language Studies, 30, 90-102. 
Pham, T.H.N. (2015). Setting the CEFR-B1 level as learning outcomes: Non-English major students’ 
voices. Paper presented at the proceedings of Regional Conference on Interdisciplinary Research in 
Linguistics and Language Education Hue, Vietnam (pp.53-62). University of Foreign Languages, Hue 
University. 
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers 
College Press. 
Tomlinson, B. (2005). The future for ELT materials in Asia. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language 
Teaching, 2(2), 5-13. 
Tono, Y., & Negishi, M. (2012). The CEFR-J: Adapting the CEFR for English language teaching in 
Japan. Framework & Language Portfolio SIG Newsletter, 8, 5-12. 
Westhoff, G. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of the CEFR for reimagining foreign language 
pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 676-679. 
White, R.V. (2008). From teacher to manager: Managing language teaching organizations. Ernst 
KlettSprachen. 
THUẬN LỢI VÀ THÁCH THỨC CỦA VIỆC ÁP DỤNG CHUẨN 
ĐẦU RA THEO CEFR CHO SINH VIÊN KHÔNG CHUYÊN NGỮ 
ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ 
Tóm tắt: Nghiên cứu được thực hiện nhằm tìm hiểu những vấn đề liên quan đến việc áp dụng 
chuẩn đầu ra theo CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại Đại học Huế. Bài báo này tập 
trung làm rõ những thuận lợi và thách thức trong quá trình áp dụng qua nhận thức của giáo 
viên phụ trách. Nghiên cứu áp dụng phương pháp định tính với công cụ khảo sát là phỏng 
vấn. Mười giáo viên dạy tiếng Anh cơ bản có kinh nghiệm dạy cho sinh viên không chuyên 
ngữ tại Đại học Huế tham gia vào nghiên cứu này. Kết quả cho thấy quá trình áp dụng chuẩn 
đầu ra theo CEFR cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ ở Đại học Huế đã có những thuận lợi nhất 
định nhưng cũng không trách khỏi các thách thức. Về phía thuận lợi, giáo viên được đào tạo, 
tập huấn. Họ có những hiểu biết sâu sắc về chính sách và cũng đã có những thay đổi tích cực 
trong phương pháp giảng dạy cho phù hợp. Tuy nhiên những thách thức trong quá trình áp 
dụng gồm sự không đồng đều giữa năng lực của sinh viên, giáo trình được chọn, thời gian học 
và các yêu cầu của chuẩn đầu ra và kiểm tra đánh giá. 
Từ khóa: CEFR, chuẩn đầu ra, áp dụng chính sách ngôn ngữ