Cultures of teaching: voices

from Vietnam
Marilyn Lewis and Fiona McCook

Recent articles have commented on the lack of uptake by teachers in Asia of

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT ) principles, as introduced during
teacher education programmes. One suggested reason for this is that teachers
may assume that there is an opposition between CLT and traditional
approaches. Studies on this topic draw on questionnaires, on the writers’
teaching experiences, and on classroom observation. The present research
quotes from journals written by Vietnamese teachers of English during an in-
service course. The journals reveal that teachers do implement new ideas at the
same time as incorporating the traditional features valued in their educational
systems.

Teacher education The uptake or rejection of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT ) in

and Communicative Asian classrooms continues to attract discussion, with China the most
Language Teaching studied example. Particular interest has been shown in the e¤ect of in-
service courses on later practice. Chinese senior-middle school teachers
on a course taught by Hird (1995: 22) in Hangzhou ‘saw only limited
possibilities for the use of Western methodology in their teaching’. Hird
sums up the teachers’ doubts about CLT in relation to three factors: past
traditions, current practices, and the way in which CLT has been
interpreted. Lamb (1995) also refers to a clash between the new and the
traditional, illustrated by comparing in-service course content in
Indonesia with later classroom practice. The results of his enquiry a year
after the in-service course make discouraging reading. They include ‘no
uptake’, ‘confusion’, and ‘adaptation and rejection’, with only a few
teachers reporting ‘a fundamental change in their approach to teaching’
(Lamb 1995: 78).
In response to this mismatch Ellis (1996), whose experience was in
Vietnam, recommends that Western teachers should look for common
ground between Vietnamese cultural values and CLT . Holliday (1997)
too, having examined six ‘communicative’ English language classes at
universities in India and China, suggests examining classroom culture in
terms of the wider culture to show the interrelationship between local,
national, international, professional, and academic cultures. This report,
therefore, continues with a review of Asian traditions of learning, and of
current interpretations of CLT , before discussing the specific
interpretations of one group of teachers.

146 ELT Journal Volume 56/2 April 2002 © Oxford University Press
Asian traditions of Cortazzi and Jin (1996) speak of a culture of learning in China which may
learning and determine students’ behaviour in language classrooms. When they asked
teaching Chinese students what was expected of a good student, the highest
scoring category (43%) from the list of eleven points was ‘hardworking’,
followed some distance behind by sociability/learning from and with
others (18.5%). Some researchers, however, point to the influence of the
teacher in modifying traditional stereotypes of learners. For example,
Howe (1993), with experience of teaching in Vietnam, addresses the
commonly-held perception of passivity amongst Asian students, by
suggesting that whether language learners are ‘passive’ or ‘active’ in class
depends more on their teachers’ expectations than on culturally-based
learning styles.
Hird’s (1995: 23) impressions are that traditional Chinese teaching styles
involve a meticulous analysis of meaning in all its minute detail, leading
to a ‘painstaking understanding of every language item’, in which
individual interpretations are not valued. Students are considered to be
in class to receive language rather than construct it. The value is on care
and certainty rather than on quantity, and on experimenting with
language. Output is expected to be error-free, and memorization is
valued. The teacher is at the centre of the process. In another China-
based study, Matalene (1985: 191) speaks from her own experience as a
foreign teacher. As she stood before her students she was aware of
‘unbroken cultural continuity for over 3,000 years’: ‘Over my head as I
stood at the yellow lectern with the red star were the thoughts of
Chairman Mao in eight large characters: “Be united, Be alert, Be earnest,
Be lively”.’

Current Tradition is only one influence on teachers’ interpretations of new ideas

interpretations introduced through in-service courses. Hird (1995) suggests that there is
of CLT a mismatch between what teachers believe CLT to be, and the way it has
evolved over a quarter century. In summary, he says, people assume the
following contrasts:
CLT emphasizes …. rather than ….
language use language knowledge
fluency, appropriateness, spontaneity accuracy
oral communication written communication
interaction, informality formality
Some see CLT as failing to incorporate teaching and learning styles, such
as the skill of memorization, and the emphasis on perfection, which are
traditionally valued in Asian countries. This view was reinforced in
questions written by teachers during an earlier in-service course in
Vietnam (Lewis 1996). Asked to express any concerns they might have
had about implementing the ideas suggested in the course, teachers
asked how a communicative approach could work in monolingual
classes, and whether it was acceptable to include some traditional
methods in CLT .
In Holliday’s (1994) observation of current interpretations of CLT , four
categories emerged: the place of text (oral or written, produced by the
teacher or by the students), accuracy and fluency, lecturer authority and

Cultures of teaching 147

 control, and cultural continuity. Holliday saw more communicative
involvement when there was a focus text than there was during oral
practice. He also found that communicative involvement can be achieved
even without group or pair work provided teachers do not dominate the
lesson discourse. The detail of where teachers stand, and how a large
class is seated, do not have to inhibit communicative engagement. His
final observation was similar to Ellis’s (1996): that innovation will
succeed only if there is cultural continuity between CLT and more
traditional forms.

Planning the study The studies summarized above draw on a number of sources: classroom
observation, learners’ reports, and the impressions of local or overseas
teachers. The present study examines the views of 14 Vietnamese high
school teachers of English, as expressed in their journal entries during
ongoing in-service workshops. In examining their writing we ask the
following questions:
1 What beliefs and practices about language teaching and learning do
they express?
2 How do these compare with reports in the literature from various
parts of Asia?
The workshops were conducted by the primary researcher (McCook
1998), who was working on a teacher education project in Central
Vietnam, which was funded by New Zealand. Two of the teachers had
also attended a shorter in-service seminar conducted two years earlier by
the second researcher (Lewis 1996). The focus of the workshops was
CLT , and included attention to the written language. The role of the state
textbooks in secondary schools was acknowledged.
As a prompt to their writing, the teachers were provided with a written
guide that listed questions under three headings.
their teaching objectives, materials, language techniques, the lesson
plan (following or modifying it)
the students whether they were ‘active’, whether they understood the
lesson, what they learnt, liked, and didn’t like
being a teacher sources of teaching ideas, development as a teacher.
In total, 260 journal entries referring to the students were extracted.
These entries were grouped under two headings which emerged from
the data: the learning focus, and the teachers’ understanding of what
makes a ‘good’ student. The number of occurrences in each sub-topic
were not counted, since many comments touched on more than one sub-
topic. The results were then compared with the literature.

The teaching-learning Unlike the Indonesian teachers reported by Lamb (1995), these
focus Vietnamese teachers were clearly interested in applying the principles of
CLT that had been introduced during their workshop. At the same time,
they retained traditional aspects of language teaching. Their journal
entries emphasized fluency and accuracy, contextualized language use,
and knowledge about language, oral and written language, and pair work,
as well as individual exercises marked on the board.
148 Marilyn Lewis and Fiona McCook
While not always satisfied with the results, the teachers had both
fluency and accuracy of form as a focus of their teaching. Fluency
included reading aloud (‘They can’t read fluently.’) and speaking
spontaneously (‘They could speak but a little but not very well and
naturally.’). Some teachers consciously put aside their usual concerns
about accuracy (‘They made many mistakes on spelling but to make
them feel confident I didn’t pay attention so much on it.’). At other
times, form was definitely the focus, although students sometimes
‘pronounced badly’ and ‘usually forget adding ‘s’ at the noun’. The
teacher’s role included modelling correct intonation. (‘I play the roles
of the persons in the dialogue saying the dialogue with correct
intonation.’)
Other entries emphasized language in context and knowledge about
language. The teachers reported going beyond the textbook to create, or
help students to create, local contexts for language use.
‘The pupils practised in real situations I gave them.’
‘Students had a lot of fun when I took real examples in the local area.’
‘They could use this structure in real situation.’
The traditional role of the teacher in explaining grammar was important.
(‘I used pictures and time-line to illustrate the use of this tense, so the
pupils could understand the lesson.’) Again, success was mixed. (‘I think
they couldn’t distinguish infinitive from simple past.’)
The teachers seem to have avoided the belief mentioned by Hird (1995),
that CLT only emphasizes oral language. Writing was a part of their
classroom practice (‘They could make sentences of their own.’) as was
oral language, although it was sometimes in the context of repeating
fixed dialogues. (‘I play the roles of people in the dialogue saying the
dialogue with correct intonation. I see that my students look more
interested in listening to me than they used to be.’)
Continuing their balance between CLT and traditional methods, the
teachers mentioned memorizing and understanding as being important.
Dialogues, in particular, were memorized and then recited individually
and in chorus, sometimes successfully (‘They spoke out the conversation
naturally without looking at any words on the board.’), and sometimes
not (‘Most of them couldn’t remember the speech of dialogue.’).
Students’ understanding was also valued, and in some cases its lack of
success was noted:
‘My pupils comprehended the contents of the text. But when I asked
them “why?” they couldn’t answer correctly.’
‘The lesson was successful because students used their own words to
summarise the text. One gives the first idea, and others added next
ideas.’
Understanding included the teachers’ explanations in English. (‘It’s very
hard for them to understand my explaining, although I use very easy
simple sentences. They said they didn’t hear the teacher speak in English
at secondary school.’) Some tried English and then reverted to

Cultures of teaching 149

 Vietnamese for greater understanding. (‘During the lesson the pupils
can only understand it when I explain in Vietnamese.’)

The ‘good’ student Cortazzi and Jin (1996) reported on expectations of the ‘good’ student.
The highest scoring category from their study was hard work. The
Vietnamese teachers, too, valued hard work, which they measured partly
in terms of the amount of studying done outside class.
‘They didn’t want to prepare the lessons at home …’
‘I asked him if he studied at home. He said “yes”, and he began to cry.
He said “I studied them and I forget everything.”’
One teacher took the credit for this hard work: (‘… and I found that I was
successful because the students prepared the lesson at home very well.’).
Being active in class as well as at home was valued by a number of
teachers in our study. (‘Most of the pupils were active during the lesson.’)
However, in one comment the use of ‘but’ suggested that liveliness and
happiness might not be the same thing. (‘The class time was quite [lively]
but they were very happy and clapped their hands aloud …’) Does this
suggest that the word ‘lively’ can have negative connotations, as in ‘out of
control’? Creating a positive learning environment, and motivating less
able students, were seen as essential parts of the teacher’s role:
‘My pupils were happy.’
‘P … is a weak student, but today he could answer.’
‘I asked them to play a game of vocabulary to consolidate their
vocabulary. I found that they have not many words.’
In his Vietnam study, Howe (1995) suggested that whether students
were passive or active depends on the teacher’s expectations. The
comments of these teachers suggests that they wanted, and worked
towards encouraging an active attitude in their students.
The second feature in the Chinese students’ list (Cortazzi and Jin 1996)
was sociability, and learning from others. These were also valued by the
teachers in our study. So they organized pair activities:
‘I think students really learned from the lesson because they can
practise with a partner fluently.’
‘My pupils worked in pairs to make up new conversations after they
saw me demonstrate with a pupil.’
The teachers were on the lookout for anything that spoiled this co-
operation. One teacher was unhappy when humour was introduced at
the expense of particular students:
‘When they chose the weak students, it was seemingly that they made
jokes because the latter spoke stammeringly and unclearly.’
At the same time as encouraging co-operation through pair work, the
teachers continued with traditional exercises marked on the board:
‘I asked some pupils to go to the blackboard to fill in. They did quite well.’
Whether classroom initiative belongs to the students or the teacher is

150 Marilyn Lewis and Fiona McCook

 sometimes described as a distinction between CLT and more traditional
methods. Some teachers in our study encouraged their students to
suggest activities and ask questions.
‘They often suggest me singing more songs.’
‘… pupils were allowed to ask any questions they like. So they asked
me many di¤erent words and phrases … which they hear on TV from
the football commentator.’
This policy did not always lead to the intended outcome.
‘… the students were too embarrassed to answer my questions.’
‘They didn’t give many examples because they were afraid of speaking
English.’
By contrast, other teachers liked to retain control of the topic and the
activity.
‘I had a big problem, because the students kept talking about the
pictures and got to another topic.’

Summary and Table 1 uses Hird’s (1995) summary of ‘oppositions’ between traditional
discussion of results and communicative language teaching to summarize the emphases
mentioned by the teachers in our study.

CLT Traditional
Fluency Accuracy

Contextualized language use Knowledge about language

Oral language Written language

Understanding Memorizing

Students active and happy Students working hard

Pair work and co-operation Exercises

table 1 Student initiative Teacher control

Teachers’ emphases
Given Ellis’s (1996) advice to have cultural continuity between CLT and
traditional forms of teaching, we were interested to see that, collectively,
the teachers stated their roles in terms of both communicative and
traditional language-teaching principles. Like the teachers in Hird’s
(1995) study, they seemed willing to take aspects of CLT and incorporate
them into their classrooms. However, Hird’s reference to the
undervaluing of individual interpretations does not seem to be supported
in our study. While he found that the traditional role of students was to
receive rather than create language, these teachers in our study clearly
valued the use of authentic language by students. While Hird reported

Cultures of teaching 151

 that the teacher was at the centre of the process, our journal entries
showed not only that the teachers used pair work, but also that they
encouraged the students to take the initiative in suggesting activities, and
in the choice of what vocabulary to learn.
The general picture of these Vietnamese teachers’ classrooms recalled,
from quite a di¤erent context, Matalene’s (1985) reference to Chairman
Mao’s words about being ‘united, alert, earnest, and lively’. Perhaps this
illustrates Howe’s (1993) belief about the relationship between liveliness
and teachers’ expectations. As in the Cortazzi and Jin (1996) study of
Chinese students’ values, teachers in our study valued hard work in their
students, as illustrated by references to homework. The 18.5% of the
Cortazzi and Jin students who valued sociability, and learning from
others, seemed to be reflected in the diary entries about co-operative
learning. One teacher was concerned when students laughed at
someone who spoke unclearly. In summary, the dated view of CLT
mentioned by Hird’s teachers (1995) was not shared by the teachers in
our study.

Conclusion The present study records teachers’ attempts to implement CLT in one
region of one country. It is important to note that the diary entries were
written during the in-workshop period, and not, as in the case of Lamb’s
(1995) study, a year later. The results suggest that teachers were applying
what they had been introduced to, sometimes successfully, sometimes
less so. Their comments add to an understanding of the initial uptake of
ideas presented in a workshop. It would have been interesting to survey
those same teachers a year or two later, as in the Lamb (1995) study.
However, as neither of the researchers is working in the region now, that
would be impossible. A more ambitious study could compare the
language learning of students in these teachers’ classes with results from
colleagues who had not attended the workshop. This could be divisive, of
course, since other teachers would have liked to be selected for the
course, and would not want to be left behind, and seen as less successful.
A long-term study of these teachers’ classrooms would probably be
carried out more e¤ectively by the local authorities, who have
responsibility for the ongoing in-service programme.
Final version received November 2000

References Holliday, A. 1997. ‘Six lessons: cultural continuity

Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin. 1996. ‘Cultures of learning:
language classrooms in China’ in Hywel Coleman
(ed.). Society and the Language Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, G. 1996. ‘How culturally appropriate is the
communicative approach?’ ELT Journal 50/3:
213–18.
Hird, B. 1995. ‘How communicative can language
teaching be in China?’ Prospect 10/3: 21–7. Sydney:
NCELTR .
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and
Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
in communicative language teaching’. Language
Teaching Research 1/3: 212–38.
Howe, S. 1993. ‘Teaching in Vietnam’. Interchange
22: 29–32.
Lamb, M. 1995. ‘The consequences of INSET ’.
ELT Journal 49/1: 72–80.
Lewis, M. 1996. ‘Teaching English in Vietnam’.
Occasional Papers: 1. Institute of Language
Teaching and Learning, University of Auckland.
McCook, F. 1998. ‘A longitudinal study of
responses to in-service teacher education by
Vietnamese English language teachers’.
Unpublished MA thesis. Massey University.

152 Marilyn Lewis and Fiona McCook

Matalene, C. 1985. ‘Contrastive rhetoric: an
American writing teacher in China’. College
English. 47/8: 789–808.
The authors
Marilyn Lewis is a senior lecturer in the
Department of Applied Language Studies and
Linguistics at the University of Aukland. She has
taught in India, Cambodia, run workshops for
Cultures of teaching
language teachers in several countries, and written
materials for language teachers and learners.
Email: mn.lewis@auckland.ac.nz
Fiona McCook has taught English and trained
teachers in Central Vietnam. She is now teaching
in Hanoi.
Email: fionam@fpt.vn
153