The Contribution of Vietnamese Learners of English To ELT Methodology

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/249870666
The contribution of Vietnamese learners of English to

ELT methodology
Article in Language Teaching Research · May 2004

DOI: 10.1191/1362168804lr140oa
CITATIONS READS
40 1,142
2 authors, including:
Dat Bao
Monash University (Australia)
28 PUBLICATIONS 140 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Flexibility in ELT materials View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dat Bao on 27 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Language Teaching Research 8,2 (2004); pp. 199–222
The contributions of Vietnamese 1
learners of English to ELT methodology 2
Brian Tomlinson and Bao Dat Leeds Metropolitan University 3
This article reports a survey of 300 intermediate-level EFL adult 4
learners’ views about the instruction they receive and of 15 of their 5
teachers at the National University of Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City. 6
Its main focus is on how learners can contribute to ELT method- 7
ology. The article reviews the literature on learner cultures and per- 8
ceptions in language education and on the contributions that learners 9
have made and could make to decisions about classroom method- 10
ology. It also reports the conduct and the results of the survey and 11
uses this to discuss implications for L2 classrooms in Vietnam and 12
elsewhere, and to suggest pedagogic interventions that could help to 13
facilitate learner contributions and cater for learner needs and wants. 14
The survey indicates that the teachers (as reported in other similar 15
studies) were largely unaware of what their students felt and thought 16
about the methodology of their courses, and that the learners would 17
welcome changes to the culture of their classrooms. 18
I Background 19
This study was motivated by our awareness of the apparent reluc- 20
tance of adult Vietnamese students to participate in classroom in- 21
teraction in English and by our feeling that this was at least 22
partially attributable to the lack of congruence between the learn- 23
ers’ and the teachers’ perceptions of the classroom culture in Eng- 24
lish language lessons in Vietnam, and in particular of their 25
perceptions of the role of interaction in English in this culture. 26
From initial observations at our research location we observed 27
that spontaneous discourse was rare in many classrooms and 28
many oral interactions not only did not include any students’ indi- 29
Address for correspondence: Brian Tomlinson, Centre for Language Study, Leeds Metropolitan
University, Beckett Park Campus, Leeds LS6 3QS, UK; e-mail: B.Tomlinson@lmu.ac.uk
# Arnold 2004 10.1191/1362168804lr140oa
File path: p:/Santype/Journals/Arnold/Ltr/140/140.3d Date and Time: 25/02/04 13:21:39 3b2 Ver: 7.51c/W 140
200 The contributions of Vietnamese learners
vidual thoughts or elaborated responses but also fostered a great 30
deal of dependence on the teacher. It was our hypothesis that the 31
learners were dissatisfied with the way English classes are conduc- 32
ted in adult institutions in Vietnam and that they would suggest 33
changes if they were given a say in the decision-making process. 34
In our review of the recent literature we found that many 35
researchers pay attention to learner cultures and perceptions in se- 36
cond language education (Chen, 1985; Scarcella, 1990; Meyer, 37
1991; Wu, 1991; Kramsch, 1993; Johnson, 1995; Ballard, 1996; 38
Cortazzi, 1996; Burns and Joyce, 1997; Karavas-Doukas, 1998; 39
McDonough, 2002), as well as to the contributions that learners 40
can make to the classroom decision-making process (Allwright, 41
1984: 167; Barkhuizen, 1998: 85). This reflects an apparently grow- 42
ing awareness that the learners’ view of the classroom process fre- 43
quently differs from that of the teachers. McDonough (2002) 44
reports on a study of learners and teachers of Greek and French 45
in which, for example, only 20% of the teachers considered gram- 46
mar practice useful compared to 81% of the learners, and Nunan 47
(1988), Williams and Burden (1997: 201–202), Barkhuizen (1998) 48
and Spratt (1999) report similar discrepancies between teacher and 49
learner perceptions of the usefulness of classroom activities. This 50
divergence between teacher and learner perceptions has often been 51
attributed to culturally influenced determinants of classroom be- 52
haviour (Fu, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Lin and Warden, 1998; Sato, 53
1982; Scarcella and Oxford, 1992). 54
Learners’ views are rarely taken into account when decisions 55
about curricula, materials and methodology are made in the per- 56
sistently teacher-centred ministries, staff-rooms and classrooms of 57
the world (Mitchell and Lee, 2003), and it is recognized that learn- 58
ers need assistance in communicating what they cannot communi- 59
cate alone (Scarcella and Oxford, 1992: 45). It is also becoming 60
acknowledged that the awareness of the learning process implicit 61
in students’ classroom behaviour is just as valid a determiner of 62
pedagogic processes as the concepts and theories of academic 63
literature (Altrichter et al., 1991: 4; String, 1999: 167). Failure to 64
acknowledge this has led to the failure of many language EFL 65
innovation projects in the last few decades because they have 66

Brian Tomlinson and Bao Dat 201
unwittingly imposed practices that have promoted inappropriate 67
types of social order in the target classroom (Shamin, 1996; 68
Karavas-Doukas, 1998:49) and have not taken into account that 69
different learners prefer to learn in different ways. In fact, those 70
learners who are pushed to behave in ways that they do not find 71
helpful are very unlikely to be successful (Allwright and Bailey, 72
1991: 149–150; Lewis, 1996; Oxford, 1996). There is considerable 73
evidence, for example, that current course books and examinations 74
favour analytically inclined learners even though the majority of 75
learners prefer to learn experientially (Tomlinson, 1996, 1998a; 76
Islam, 2001; Tomlinson et al., 2001). There is also evidence though 77
that there are some universal learner inclinations, such as a liking 78
for narrative, incongruity and fun (Tomlinson, 2003; Tomlinson, 79
forthcoming), and there is evidence that learners will readily 80
stretch their learning styles if novel approaches are seen to be 81
interesting and potentially useful (Bedell and Oxford, 1996; 82
Tennant, 2001; Kubanyiova, 2002). 83
While theorists emphasize the potential of learner contributions, 84
practitioners continue to overlook the rich resource from their 85
own students that they have at hand. ‘Very many teachers seem to 86
find it difficult to accept learners as people with a positive contri- 87
bution to make to the instructional process’ (Allwright, 1984: 167). 88
Consequently, learners have, as yet, made little contribution to the 89
pedagogic procedures of particular classrooms nor to ELT meth- 90
odology in general. This situation is especially regrettable when, as 91
Daoud (1995: 84) maintains, an essential part of analysis in much 92
action research has been shaped by the contribution of learners’ 93
foreign language ideologies. Arguably, to understand and respect 94
learner identity (Tudor, 1996: 158–59) is not enough; more specific 95
efforts need to be made to link knowledge of learner perceptions 96
with effective teaching intervention. 97
II Rationale of the study 98
This article summarizes a study that was part of a longitudinal pro- 99
ject that eventually arranged for 300 EFL adult learners to take part 100
in methodological reform in their own classrooms. The project 101

derived from complaints among language educators in Vietnam 102
about student reticence in classroom discussion. While some teach- 103
ers hold the students responsible for their passive learning style, 104
others blame it on uninteresting learning materials and activities. 105
Unfortunately, because of institutional hierarchies and the lack of 106
learner feedback policies, the students have never articulated or 107
accounted for their learning difficulties. Our study set out to bridge 108
this gap by giving the students opportunities to express their views. 109
The research questions were as follows: 110
1. Are students able to reveal the factors that cause them dif- 111
ficulty in oral participation in classroom activities? 112
2. How can knowledge of such factors serve as a frame of refer- 113
ence for devising more suitable pedagogical procedures? 114
In this article we focus on the data on student and teacher per- 115
ceptions gathered over two years (1998–2000) at a language centre 116
in Ho Chi Minh City. The research project was later on expanded 117
into a series of classroom interventions in which the pedagogy rec- 118
ommended in the Discussion section of this article was put into 119
action and then re-evaluated. A report of this further project will 120
appear in a future article (Dat and Tomlinson, in progress). 121
III Method 122
1 Participants 123
The voices to be heard in the study were those of 319 EFL 124
adult learners, aged between 16 and 50, from eight lower- 125
immediate classes (receiving 180 to 360 hours of EFL) and seven 126
upper-immediate classes (receiving 360 to 720 hours of EFL) in 127
the Centre for Foreign Languages at the National University of 128
Vietnam. The choice of intermediate levels, which covered be- 129
tween one and two years of learning experiences, allowed the 130
students not only to discuss their present course but to reflect 131
on the history of studying in previous courses. Their roles in the 132
project were to provide a picture of their learning problems and, 133
where possible, to make suggestions on how the teaching could 134
be adapted. 135
In addition, 15 teachers who worked with these classes were 136
invited to listen to their students’ concerns and to interact with 137
them in order to make pedagogic decisions. These teachers, who 138
had ELT experience in adult language institutes, shared the same 139
nationality (Vietnamese) and similar educational backgrounds (a 140
BA in Linguistics and Literature from a local university), and two 141
of them had also received further TESOL training overseas. The 142
main reason for selecting this group was that it comprised EFL 143
teachers who worked closely with our learner sample on a frequent 144
basis and who were likely to stay with these classes through the 145
length of our fieldwork. Their familiarity with learner background 146
and behaviour were valuable sources of data and the fact that 147
some of them were our acquaintances and friends helped in setting 148
up connections, requesting permission, seeking support from 149
other teachers and obtaining co-operation throughout the study 150
project. 151
2 Design 152
Data was collected through a variety of procedures (including 153
interviews with students and with teachers, questionnaires, obser- 154
vation, field notes and diaries). To process the teacher and student 155
responses, we chose our analytical methods that related to the spe- 156
cific needs of our research situations rather than following any sin- 157
gle approach. Although action research has been evolving for half 158
a century (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992: 11), it is still a relatively new 159
approach in second language education (Burns, 1999: 152) and 160
procedures for analysing action research data remain open to a 161
good deal of development (Burns, 1998: 6). In our fieldwork 162
circumstances, we were frequently driven by a need to interpret the 163
varying clusters of data being captured until we were able to 164
decide which variables to continue pursuing. Consequently, we 165
decided to integrate the tasks of data analysis and data gathering – 166
because for us, information, interpretation and action only made 167
sense when they constantly interacted to constitute one dynamic 168
route of progression. 169
For example, through preliminary observation of classrooms, 170
we started to analyse factors that influence classroom participation 171

in order to develop the student questionnaire. Information from 172
this questionnaire then helped us to select specific issues to pursue 173
more deeply by conducting follow-up interviews with a number of 174
learners and interviews with teachers. In addition, observing the 175
teachers’ working patterns in their classroom also suggested points 176
for interviews to follow up what we witnessed in the classroom. 177
Such interviews allowed us to set the teachers’ responses against 178
what the students said about the classroom process to achieve a 179
more complete picture of what might obstruct learner partici- 180
pation. Rather than waiting until the end of the data collection, 181
we treated data analysis as a procedural undertaking that ran 182
through the entire research inquiry at every stage. We coded, inter- 183
preted, triangulated, pursued and categorized every piece of data 184
being captured so that analysis and collection flowed together and 185
supported each other. Interpreting each set of data gave us a bet- 186
ter sense of what to collect next, and then collecting it helped us to 187
revisit our initial interpretation and to modify it. 188
3 Instruments 189
The questionnaire consisted of 44 items that sought information 190
relating to the following: 191
students’ expectations of the classroom, including their perception of learner roles 192
and learning styles, how they define obstacles to classroom interaction, and 193
whether they have a desire to be more orally active; 194
students’ reflections on their previous learning experience, including classroom 195
instances that encouraged or discouraged their oral performance; and 196
conditions for learner participation, kinds of activities, topics, texts, and so on 197
that help students to participate during a lesson. 198
These aspects were focused on as a result of our preliminary 199
investigation in which we conducted a series of eight classroom 200
observations to identify what encourages and what inhibits student 201
participation. Each item in the questionnaire was either structured, 202
open-ended, or both. Here is an example: 203
13. When you do not participate during the lesson, which of the followings would 204
best describe you: 205
(You can tick more than one choice) 206
& a passive learner 207
& a shy learner 208
& a thoughtful learner 209
& a lazy learner 210
& a frustrated learner (why?) ___________________________________ 211

& other than these:____________________________________________ 212
______________________________________________________________________ 213
The questionnaire was first written in English and then, to ensure 214
clarity for the respondents, was translated into Vietnamese. 215
4 Procedures 216
Since the questionnaire contained a large number of items, which 217
have could affected the students’ concentration span, we decided 218
to administer it in two sessions. To do this, we requested per- 219
mission from 15 teachers to let us administer the survey in their 220
classrooms twice, each time for 20 minutes. We administered the 221
questionnaire to 300 respondents in the first session and 294 in the 222
second session. The students could answer all the questions in 223
either Vietnamese or English, or a combination of both – which- 224
ever way made them feel most comfortable in getting their mess- 225
age across. 25 follow-up interviews were conducted with individual 226
students to clarify responses in their questionnaires. 227
5 Analysis 228
The students’ responses to the questionnaire were examined and 229
re-examined to form a picture of how the nature of the teach- 230
er=learner relationship is embedded in their everyday classroom 231
behaviour. As we did this, the picture began to reveal many 232
factors that inhibited learner participation and to suggest how the 233
situation could be changed. This process also revealed that all 300 234
student respondents were willing to make a contribution to 235
improving teaching and learning in their classroom, as well as to 236
suggest what they would like the classroom process to be. 237
We made use of the information from the questionnaire to 238
identify those student views that were particularly salient. For 239
example, when informants revealed, ‘I always process ideas in my 240
mind even when not actually participating’, the figure 97.6% (see 241
item 7.4 in Table 1) suggests that there are in fact very few stu- 242
dents who do not respond with their inner voice (Tomlinson: 2000, 243
2001, 2003). We also used it to compare the frequency of 244
responses, as well as the relationship between different variables. 245

Table 1 Summary of student ideologies and suggestions
Number of
Issues of student concern responses %
1 Student feelings about classroom relationship
1.1 I find peer pressure strong and intimidating to 23 7.6

my participation
1.2 I keep quiet when I fell apprehensive of my 105 35
teacher
1.3 I keep quiet when I like my teacher less 15 5
1.4 I keep quiet as part of my shy nature 221 37.6
1.5 I enjoy interaction with my classmates 216 74
1.6 I believe conversation in class is good for my 210 70
study
2 Performance anxiety
2.1 Speaking English in class often makes me feel 136 45.3

shy and unnatural
2.2 Speaking English in class often makes me feel 143 47.6
highly anxious
2.3 The English classroom is a very stressful place 147 49
to be in
3 Low self-esteem
3.1 My participation only wastes class time, es- 24 8

pecially when unauthorized
3.2 I’m ashamed of my limited English 70 23.3
3.3 I’m ashamed of my poor pronunciation 15 5
3.4 I’m less proficient than most of my classmates 112 37.3
4 Consciousness of linguistic incompetence
4.1 My pronunciation is poor 168 56

4.2 My English is inaccurate 132 44
4.3 I’m hopeless about my grammar 221 73.6
4.4 I’m hopeless about listening comprehension 79 26.3
4.5 I’ve failed to meet the standard of my English 112 37.3
courses
4.6 Many courses I’ve taken have not benefited my 247 82.3
speaking facility much
5 Dissatisfaction with classroom climate
5.1 I find my classroom routine monotonous 105 35

5.2 My teacher seems too serious and short of 105 35
humour
5.3 My teacher seems lacking in commitment and 15 5
enthusiasm
5.4 My teacher seems impatient and intolerant of 38 12.6
silence
5.5 I wish my teacher diversified classroom 6 2
activities more
6 Negative or passive perceptions about the

learning process
Table 1 (continued)
Number of
Issues of student concern responses %
6.1 I can learn English well without any verbal 66 22

participation
6.2 My participation makes sense only when it is 140 46.6
accurate
6.3 If I raise questions that would only reveal my 14 8
ignorance
6.4 My questions are often not worth asking 101 33.6
6.4 I am too old for English 28 19.3
7 The need for comprehensible expectation
7.1 I’m willing to participate yet I rarely do so 211 70.3

7.2 I don’t have much practice in speaking skills 268 89.3
7.3 I am frustrated by my teacher’s method of cor- 45 15
rection
7.4 I always process ideas in my mind even when 293 97.6
not actually participating
7.5 The teacher should give more waiting time for 75 25.5
my contribution
7.6 The teacher should encourage me to speak 222 75.5
more
7.8 The teacher should get everyone to volunteer 66 22.5
8 Consciousness of being underestimated or

neglected by the teacher
8.1 I wish I had been encouraged to express my 285 95

ideas
8.2 The teacher should reduce the tendency to in- 51 17
vite only good students to speak
8.3 I wish we were able to provide class discussion 210 71.5
topics
8.4 I hope for opportunities to talk more about my 69 23.5
own experience
9 Communal mentality
9.1 I fear having to break the silent norm of my 53 17.6

class
9.2 I feel comfortable working in groups 204 69.7
9.3 I enjoy learning English from friends 255 87
9.5 The teacher should organize more communi- 102 35
cation among classmates
9.6 I want to learn by repeating after the teacher 63 21.5
10 The need for grammar study
10.1 The teacher should help me make sentences 69 23.5

from the language provided
10.2 The teacher should help me revise the 6 2
language taught
10.3 The teacher should lecture about how the 111 38
language works
10.4 The teacher should teach me more vocabulary 177 60
and sentence patterns
For example, the fact that 37.3% of students who revealed that 246
‘I’m less proficient than most of my classmates.’ (see item 3.4) can 247
be linked to the finding that 17% of the students thought that, 248
‘The teacher should reduce the tendency to invite only good 249
students to speak’ (see item 8.2). 250
The main issues raised in the analysis of the questionnaire 251
responses were followed up by in-depth interviews. Then by 252
reporting the student responses in a seminar with the 15 class 253
teachers and inviting teachers to make comments we strived for a 254
more complete picture of the classroom process. We also com- 255
pared our findings to those in the relevant literature for further 256
insights. 257
IV Results 258
Table 1 presents the results of the questionnaire. It shows the 259
number and percentage of responses relating the key factors that 260
were identified. The presentation of these key factors that follows 261
draws on both the questionnaire responses and the interviews with 262
the 15 class teachers. 263
1 Learners want deeper social relationships in the classroom 264
Many learners enter the classroom with a desire not only to 265
improve their language proficiency but also to socialize and be 266
accepted by the classroom society (74% enjoy interaction with 267
their class mates – see 1.5 in Table 1). The socialization objective, 268
unfortunately, often seems to be neglected by teachers. A large 269
number of students in this project admitted failing to establish an 270
open, friendly relationship with peers and suffering from their own 271
timid, unsociable nature (37.6% – see 1.4). When many students in 272
the same classroom are shy, others share a reluctance to break the 273
silent norm (17.6% – see 9.1). 274
2 Learners need to reduce their performance anxiety 275
Difficulty in listening comprehension (26.3% – see 4.4), fear of 276
making mistakes (44% – see 4.2), fear of teacher criticism (12.6% 277
– see 5.4), peer pressure (7.6% – see 1.1) and unfamiliarity with 278
using English in communication (45.3% – see 2.1) are among rea- 279
sons that seem to make many students feel apprehensive when 280
speaking out during a lesson and to create the impression that the 281
English classroom is a stressful environment (49% – see 2.3). 282
3 Students need to overcome their low self-esteem 283
Many students in the study feel they risk losing face while sharing 284
the same class with better students (37.3% – see 3.4). Not only do 285
they lack confidence due to their perception of their limited English 286
proficiency (23.3% – see 3.2), but they also feel inferior because 287
their potential is not respected by the teacher (17% – see 8.2). 288
4 Students need to deal with their linguistic limitations 289
For many weak students, feeling frustrated by the lack of conver- 290
sational practice in their classroom in the past (82.3% – see 4.6) 291
and failing to meet the standard of their ongoing course (37.3% – 292
see 4.5) make them reluctant to participate. Interview data also 293
shows that many students’ extreme desire for correctness plays a 294
part in making them feel inadequate and powerless in the class- 295
room. One student stated that speaking a little but correctly is 296
more important than verbalizing a lot but wrongly, an attitude 297
that came from many of her teachers in the past who had laid 298
much emphasis on perfection. This coincides with Lewis and McC 299
(2002: 147) view that verbal perfection has been traditionally 300
valued across many Asian cultures. 301
5 Students experience a classroom atmosphere that does not 302
stimulate discussion 303
Students reported having worked with teachers who were impatient 304
with mistakes and poor performance (12.6% – see 5.4), or who 305
followed classroom routine (35% – see 5.1) with little commitment 306
or enthusiasm (5% – see 5.3). ‘What and how teachers do and say 307
things greatly affects the atmosphere of the class community’ 308
(Fu, 1995: 199). If the teacher criticizes harshly, students are likely 309
to avoid risking any behaviour that makes them vulnerable. 310

6 Learners need to deal with negative conceptions of the learning 311
process 312
Unfamiliarity with learner-centred approaches and lack of trust in 313
some teachers in the past have led students to believe that mis- 314
takes bring shame (46.6% – see 6.2), that oral communication in 315
the classroom is not helpful (22% – see 6.1), and that asking ques- 316
tions reveals ignorance (8% – see 6.3) or is even not worth doing 317
(33.6% – see 6.4). These beliefs are likely to inhibit interaction. 318
One of the 25 students interviewed revealed: ‘If the teacher asks 319
me a question that seems too easy, it’s not worth answering thus I 320
keep quiet. If the question seems too difficult, I wouldn’t have the 321
answer to give, so again I remain quiet.’ 322
7 Learners have expectations they wish to see fulfilled 323
Although it is has been claimed that self-initiated interaction 324
speeds up acquisition of a second language (Seliger, 1983: 252–53), 325
our data consistently indicate that such interaction might not 326
benefit all learners in the same way. Some students who appreciate 327
some level of freedom and spontaneity may welcome opportunities 328
to volunteer to speak out (22.5% – see 7.8). Others find the idea of 329
self-initiation somewhat threatening or a waste of class time (8% – 330
see 3.1). Instead, they feel the need to rely on some form of sup- 331
port, such as their own written notes or being called on by the 332
teacher, in order to feel secure and operate effectively. 333
8 Teachers tend to underestimate learner competence 334
The interview data show that some of the teachers refused to be- 335
lieve in the learners’ willingness to participate and their potential 336
to express themselves fluently in English. They thus form self- 337
fulfilling beliefs about their students’ incompetence (see, e.g., 8.2) 338
that lead to acceptance of learner reticence and prevention of 339
change. In particular, seven of the 15 teachers interviewed thought 340
that their students might not be willing to increase their partici- 341
pation much because of their limited oral competence in English. 342
The survey data, however, indicates that many students have the 343
desire to express their thoughts orally (95% – see 8.1), provide 344
discussion topics (71.5% – see 8.3) and share their experiences 345
with the class (23.5% – see 8.4). 346
9 Classroom methodology should reflect the students’ preference 347
for a ‘family style’ 348
One typical feature that stands out in the Vietnamese learning cul- 349
ture, as is evident during much classroom observation, is the ideal of 350
social harmony built into the participating act (see, e.g., 9.1). Every 351
time the teacher directs an activity that happens to challenge or 352
undermine this ideology, learners are unlikely to respond. The follow- 353
ing anecdote taken from an interview with a teacher is a case in point: 354
During one lesson I decided to challenge my students to speak more by deliber- 355
ately trying to disturb their emotion. I made up a series of provocative statements 356
that described Vietnamese people in a negative light, and asked the class whether 357
they thought the statements were true. . .. To my surprise, everyone calmly told 358
me that they accepted the statements. As I insisted on further reactions, the stu- 359
dents remained silent, showing no intention to argue with the teacher whom they 360
had always respected and agreed with. I felt hopeless having created a conflict 361
that led me nowhere. 362
In many of the lessons we observed, the students seemed quiet and 363
reluctant to articulate their personal ideas; but some of them 364
responded as a group to a teacher’s question or interactive initiation. 365
This seemed to increase a sense of communal acceptance among 366
peers but it was noticeable that it occurred during learner response to 367
display questions, to which answers were already in the teacher’s 368
mind, rather than to referential questions, to which answers came 369
from the learners’ minds. Choral response allowed learners to partici- 370
pate securely, but it also encouraged imitation and restricted individ- 371
ual attempts towards more original contributions. Further evidence 372
of the reassurance of social harmony is provided by the 69.7% of the 373
respondents who said they were comfortable working in groups (9.2) 374
and the 87% who said they enjoy learning from their friends (9.3). 375
10 The classroom methodology needs to cater for student 376
expectations of grammar teaching in the preparation and feedback 377
stages of oral lessons 378
Vietnamese learners view grammar as an indispensable component 379
of their language course (see 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4). This was 380
also true of the 236 high school students in China and the 189 381
high school students in Spain who took part in a research project 382
in which Tomlinson and Masuhara (in progress) are investigating 383
learner similarities and differences across cultures. Both the Chi- 384
nese and Spanish students rated grammar explanation as one of 385
the least popular but most useful classroom activities. 386
V Discussion 387
We will now revisit each of the factors identified in the Results 388
section in order to consider the implications for language teaching. 389
In so doing we will seek to answer research question two. 390
1 Learners need deeper social relationships in the classroom 391
The most practical way that teachers could help students to social- 392
ize would be through organizing more group work, as 69.7% of 393
our student respondents said they were comfortable working in 394
groups (9.2), 87% said they enjoy learning from their friends (9.3) 395
and 35% thought the teacher should organize more communi- 396
cation among classmates. During the seminar, many of the 15 397
teachers agreed with us when we suggested that an appropriate sol- 398
ution for this problem would be to provide conditions to stimulate 399
openness and interpersonal communication through activities that 400
assist students in socializing more comfortably with one another. 401
2 Learners need to reduce their performance anxiety 402
Fear of taking risks could be reduced by using a multi-layered ap- 403
proach to eliciting speech. For example, shy students are invited to 404
speak while keeping a low profile, such as speaking to a classmate. 405
If a question requires a public answer, the teacher could first give 406
thinking time and then look for signs of willingness before inviting 407
a response; or even encourage a quick preparatory exchange of 408
ideas between peers before inviting a public response. When the 409
answer is ready, it can be provided either by individuals or 410
sometimes even in choral response. And students who are strongly 411
oriented to the printed word and do not enjoy interacting with oth- 412
ers, might wish to plan their responses before answering a question. 413
3 Students need to overcome their low self-esteem 414
The problem of students’ low self-esteem can be dealt with by not 415
disparaging students in front of others, by helping them to develop 416
an awareness of personal worth, by setting them achievable chal- 417
lenges, and by encouraging them to develop and express their 418
views (Arnold, 1999; Tomlinson, 1998b). Gibson and Chandler 419
(1988: 394) observe that students often learn most from teachers 420
who do their best to increase their students’ self-esteem. Scarcella 421
and Oxford (1992: 58) also emphasize the need to make students 422
feel good about themselves on a consistent basis and interestingly 423
argue that a little bit of positive self-delusion might be better than 424
brutal self-honesty. There are at least three techniques that we 425
agree can help to make students value themselves in oral lessons: 426
. set classroom goals in the light of student ability; 427
. warmly receive student talk; and 428
. provide positive feedback on a lesson-to-lesson basis. 429
Teachers can also help students develop higher self-esteem by 430
training them to set reasonable objectives in the first place and to 431
assess their own progress toward these objectives realistically and 432
positively. Even within one task, the teacher can assign different 433
students to different roles, each of which is at an appropriate level 434
of challenge. 435
4 Students need to deal with their linguistic limitations 436
To assist weaker students, it may be helpful to use a sequential 437
approach to guide them through performance. Support could be 438
provided to facilitate learner output by temporarily not paying 439
attention to what they do not know while utilizing what they do 440
know. For example, they could be invited to write down topics for 441
which they have enough relevant vocabulary and structures to talk 442
about and then later they could be helped to enrich their 443
discussions by providing them with opportunities to acquire new 444
language relevant to those topics. When linguistic support is 445
offered, the teacher must make sure that it is always in the context 446
of immediate need and interest rather than in isolation, being 447
incorporated in practical tasks that lead to increased oral facility. 448

The central idea is to guide students through specific steps gradu- 449
ally. When students begin to show some sign of progress, no mat- 450
ter how little, it should be noticed and acknowledged. ‘If a task 451
produces only small gains that learners might not notice, teachers 452
should provide evidence that gains are taking place’ (Gibson and 453
Chandler, 1988: 353). Such acknowledgement can motivate stu- 454
dents to engage in further communication. 455
5 Students experience a classroom atmosphere which does not 456
stimulate discussion 457
Appropriate strategies can create a caring climate by responding 458
positively to student talk. Teacher talk can also develop from 459
instances of student talk so as to actively involve the students in 460
sustained interaction related to their personal thinking, and to ex- 461
pose them to purposeful input (though many of our 15 teachers 462
worried that developing interaction from learner talk might pre- 463
vent them from covering the syllabus). For a characterization of 464
the Good Teacher, who can stimulate a positive class atmosphere, 465
see Tomlinson (forthcoming). 466
6 Learners need to deal with negative conceptions of the learning 467
process 468
To repair negative attitudes, teachers could try being explicit to 469
the class about the rules of oral participation and their benefit in 470
the learning process. As Phillips (1991: 16) suggests, shy people 471
often need to be given more instructions on how to behave. Cohen 472
(1998: 66) also points out that learning will be facilitated if stu- 473
dents are explicitly trained to become more aware of the strategies 474
that can be utilized throughout the language learning process. In 475
the seminar, almost all the 15 teachers were positive about these 476
suggestions. 477
7 Learners have expectations they wish to see fulfilled 478
It would be useful if teachers established classroom rules that were 479
flexible enough to satisfy different expectations, and if both teach- 480
ers and students articulated their expectations before the course 481
began. As Prabhu (1992: 228) says, ‘The classroom lesson is a 482

recurrent encounter between people and, like all recurrent encoun- 483
ters, needs a sense of security arising from shared expectation.’ In 484
one extreme case of conflicting expectations, one student said: ‘I 485
wish my teacher would teach us more conversational skills instead 486
of lecturing so much like he’s doing now.’ When this comment was 487
brought up in the seminar, one teacher remarked: ‘If my students 488
participated more, I would interact more with them instead of lec- 489
turing so much as I’m doing now’, and about one-third of the 490
teachers thought that it was partly the students’ fault for misun- 491
derstanding their good intentions. Many teachers were also scepti- 492
cal about trying to bridge the gap by getting teachers and students 493
to articulate their expectations prior to a course. They thought 494
that many students might not know what they wanted and also 495
that it would be very difficult to try to please all the students all 496
the time. 497
8 Teachers tend to underestimate learner competence 498
Some of the teachers were unaware that they were underestimating 499
their learners’ ability to speak in English, as is evident in these spon- 500
taneous remarks during the seminar discussion: ‘I don’t think my 501
students will be able to perform this task’; ‘You don’t know them, 502
they just won’t speak’; ‘If you use a lot of English during the lesson, 503
the students will not understand’; ‘Their level is much lower than 504
you think’; and ‘Some students are simply lazy.’ We feel that stu- 505
dents will only reveal their real ability to speak in English if their 506
teachers encourage and value oral participation, foster a positive and 507
supportive atmosphere, provide constructive feedback, encourage 508
peer interaction and give thinking and rehearsal time. 509
9 Classroom methodology should reflect the students’ preference for 510
a ‘family style’ 511
Collective classroom behaviour is characterized by Kramsch and 512
Sullivan (1996: 199) in the term ‘classroom-as-family’, which is 513
sometimes manifested in choral response, a form of participation 514
interpreted by Scarcella (1990: 198) as a strong tendency for 515
mutual reliance. This can help to facilitate a sense of communal 516
acceptance among peers but it can encourage imitation, it distorts 517

pronunciation, it does not facilitate individual teacher feedback 518
and it can restrict individual attempts to achieve a more original 519
contribution. In order to cater for a family-style preference, we 520
would recommend frequent use of group work in oral lessons to 521
cater for students who are inhibited by the demands of plenary 522
communication and to encourage collaborative sharing and devel- 523
opment of ideas. We would, however, also recommend sometimes 524
inviting groups to provide choral summaries of their conclusions. 525
10 Classroom methodology should cater for student expectations 526
of grammar teaching in the preparation and feedback stages of 527
oral lessons 528
What needs to be further discussed in Vietnam and elsewhere is 529
how to teach grammar in a meaningful and useful way. Theorist 530
views regarding the value of grammatical instruction are quite 531
mixed. Some question its value because of the large gap between 532
practising structures in a classroom and using new language in real 533
life, which they see as ‘a vast no-man’s land which some never 534
manage to cross’ (Dubin and Olshtain, 1977: 201). They believe 535
that form-focused instruction does not necessarily contribute to 536
fluency (see, e.g., Krashen, 1987: 37), affects only short-term learn- 537
ing (Whitlow, 2001: 177), and is not helpful for real communi- 538
cation (Taylor, 1983: 70). Others express more support for 539
pedagogical grammar (Rutherford, 1988: 15; Scarcella and 540
Oxford, 1992: 140; Holliday, 1994: 165; Thompson, 1996: 10). 541
They identify grammatical competence as one component of 542
communicative competence (Scarcella and Oxford, 1992: 140), a 543
sufficient condition for successful language learning (Rutherford, 544
1988: 15), and a contribution to the speakers’ fluency (Scarcella 545
and Oxford, 1992: 140; Thompson, 1996: 10). 546
More moderate views refuse to judge the significance of gram- 547
mar teaching in isolation but suggest avoiding decontextualization 548
by being more sensitive to learners’ particular needs (Taylor, 1983: 549
70; Pienemann, 1985; Grant, 1987: 11; Nunan, 1998: 102; Stranks, 550
2003). It is argued that instruction of grammar rules will benefit 551
learners who are psychologically ready to learn structures and find 552
pleasure in learning them (Pienemann, 1985) when a new form 553

being taught is dramatically linked to the discourse contexts in 554
which it occurs (Nunan, 1998: 102), and when learners recognize 555
the immediate communicative utility of that form (Taylor, 1983: 556
70). Ellis argues for what he terms ‘interpretative grammar tasks’, 557
which ‘. . . focus learners’ attention on a targeted structure in the 558
input and. . . enable them to identify and comprehend the mean- 559
ing(s) of this structure’ (Ellis, 1995: 88), and Long and Robinson 560
(1998) advocate helping learners to notice how forms are actually 561
used to communicate meaning in contexts. Interviews with many 562
Vietnamese students show that they feel that the teaching of gram- 563
mar can be linked to both intellectual and affective needs (e.g., 69 564
out of 177 students (23.5%) said that the opportunity to create 565
sentences of their own helped them to participate). For them, 566
grammar is considered negative if it is presented in humdrum 567
mechanical practice in long, formal sessions, and positive if taught 568
in learnable amounts and made enjoyable in discovery activities of 569
an interactive nature connected with pleasant experiences. For 570
ways of achieving this see (Bolitho and Tomlinson, 1995; 571
Tomlinson, 1994; Bolitho et al., 2003). 572
VI Conclusion 573
From this study we have learned that while many teachers keep to 574
their classroom routine with self-satisfaction, many learners find 575
such routines tiresome and uninspiring for oral communication. 576
For example, of our 15 teachers, eight (53.3%) felt contented with 577
their habitual performance and did not wish to participate in the 578
intervention for change. When reading student responses, many 579
teachers were surprised to learn that many students wanted to talk 580
but felt their teachers inhibited them. Such ‘revelations’ raise the 581
need for course teachers to seek a better understanding of what 582
learners think and how they feel rather than simply how they be- 583
have, bearing in mind that, in Holliday’s (1994: 7) words, ‘all 584
teachers are outsiders to the cultures of their students’. 585
Our study also suggests a need for more culturally sensitive 586
pedagogy as a vehicle to transfer culturally appropriate subject 587
matter. This does not mean that we think that each distinctive cul- 588
ture needs its own distinctive methodology; but it does mean that 589
we think that pedagogic procedures which have proved effective in 590
one culture need sensitive modification if they are to be accepted 591
with effect by both teachers and students in another culture (Tom- 592
linson, forthcoming). What we need in order to achieve locally 593
effective variations of pedagogic procedures is the willingness and 594
ability to listen to our students and to involve them in decisions 595
about what they do in their English lesson. 596
VII References 597
Allwright, D. and Bailey, K.M. 1991: Focus on the language classroom. 598
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 599
Allwright, R.L. 1984: The importance of interaction in classroom lan- 600
guage learning. Applied Linguistics 5(2): 156–71. 601
Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1991: 602
Defining, confining or refining action research? In Zuber-Skerritt, O., 603
editor, Action research for change and development. Aldershot: Ave- 604
bury, 3–9. 605
Arnold, J., editor, 1999: Affect in language learning. Cambridge: 606
Cambridge University Press. 607
Ballard, B. 1996: Through language to learning: preparing overseas stu- 608
dents for study in western universities. In Coleman, H. editor, So- 609
ciety and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University 610
Press, 148–68. 611
Barkhuizen, G.P. 1998: Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL class- 612
room teaching/learning activities in a South African context. 613
TESOL Quarterly 32(1): 85–108. 614
Bedell, D.A. and Oxford, R.L. 1996: Cross-cultural comparisons of 615
language learning strategies in the People’s Republic of China 616
and other countries. In Oxford, R.L., editor, Language learning 617
strategies around the world: cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa, HI: 618
University of Hawai’i Press. 619
Bolitho, R. and Tomlinson, B. 1995: Discover English (new edition). 620
Oxford: Heinemann. 621
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanic, R., Masuhara, H. and 622
Tomlinson, B. 2003: Ten questions about language awareness. ELT 623
Journal 57(3): 251–59. 624
Burns, A. 1998: Critical questions in action research. In Burns, A. and 625
Hood, S., editors, Teachers’ voices 3-teaching critical literacy. Syd- 626
ney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, 627
Macquarie University, 2–10. 628
—— 1999: Collaborative action research for English language teachers. 629
Burns, A. and Joyce, H. 1997: Focus on speaking. Sydney: National 631

Centre for English Language Teaching & Research (NCELTR). 632
Chen, I.M. 1985: Elimination of student’s fear towards English learning. 633
In Chen, C., Huang, H., Hsiao, L., Kuo, J., Chen, M. and Wang, G., 634
editors, Papers from the second conference on English teaching and 635
learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: The Grane Publishing 636
Co., 87–96. 637
Cohen, A.D. 1998: Strategies in learning and using a second language. 638
London: Longman. 639
Cortazzi, M. 1996: Researching language and culture: cultures of 640
research. In Cortazzi, M., Gales, S.R. and Hall, B., editors, Aspects 641
of language teaching, learning and research methodology in the con- 642
text of education. Selected papers from the research students’ confer- 643
ence: the University of Leicester, School of Education, 1–19. 644
Daoud, S.A. 1995: Action research: a need and a challenge for EFL/ESP 645
practitioners. In Cortazzi, M., Gales, S.R. and Hall, B., editors, 646
Aspects of language teaching, learning and research methodology in 647
the context of education. Selected papers from the research students’ 648
conference: the University of Leicester, School of Education, 81–98. 649
Dat, B. and Tomlinson, B. in progress: Experimental intervention in the 650
teaching of oral English in Vietnam. 651
Dubin, F. and Olshtain, E. 1977: Facilitating language learning – a guide- 652
book for the ESL=EFL teacher. New York: McGraw-Hill Inter- 653
national Book Company. 654
Ellis, R. 1995: Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quar- 655
terly 29(1): 87–105. 656
Fu, D.L. 1995: My trouble is my English: Asian students and the American 657
dream. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton=Cook Publishers Heinemann. 658
Gibson, J.T. and Chandler, L.A. 1988: Educational psychology – master- 659
ing principles and applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 660
Grant, N. 1987: Making the most of your textbook. Longman: Harlow, 661
Essex. 662
Holliday, A. 1994: Appropriate methodology and social context. Cam- 663
bridge: Cambridge University Press. 664
Islam, C. 2001: A different beginner textbook. FOLIO 6(2): 15–19. 665
Johnson, K.E. 1995: Understanding communication in second language 666
classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 667
Karavas-Doukas, K. 1998: Evaluating the implementation of educational 668
innovations: lesson from the past. In Rea-Dickins, P. and 669
Germaine, K.P., editors, Managing evaluation and innovation in 670
language teaching: building bridges. London: Longman, 25-50. 671
Kramsch, C. 1993: Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: 672
Oxford University Press. 673
Kramsch, C. and Sullivan, P. 1996: Appropriate methodology. ELT Jour- 674

nal 50(3): 199–212. 675
Krashen, S.D. 1987: Applications of psycholinguistic research to the 676
classroom. In Long, M.H. and Richards, J., editors, Methodology 677
in TESOL: a book of readings. New York: Newbury House Pub- 678
lishers, 33–44. 679
Kubanyiova, M. 2002: Drama with Thai students (a couple of tried ideas 680
on how to start). The English Teacher: An International Journal 681
5(2): 178–80. 682
Lewis, R. 1996: Indonesian students’ learning styles. Elicos Association 683
Journal 14(2): 27–32. 684
Lewis, M. and McCook, F. 2002: Cultures of teaching: voices from Viet- 685
nam. ELT Journal 56(2): 146–53. 686
Lin, H. and Warden, C.A. 1998: Different attitudes among non-English 687
major EFL students’. The Internet TESL Journal 4(10): 1–9. 688
http:==www.aitech.ac.jp= iteslj=Articles=Warden-Difference, acce- 689
ssed May 2002. 690
Long, M.H. and Robinson, P. 1998: Focus on form: theory, research and 691
practice. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in 692
second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University 693
Press. 694
McDonough, J. 2002: The teacher as language learner: worlds of differ- 695
ence? ELT Journal 56(4): 404–11. 696
Meyer, M. 1991: Developing transcultural competence: case studies of 697
advanced language learners. In Buttjes, D. and Byram, M., editors, 698
Mediating languages and cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 699
136–58. 700
Mitchell, R. and Lee, J.H. 2003: Sameness and difference in classroom 701
learning cultures: interpretation of communicative pedagogies in 702
UK and Korea. Language Teaching Research 7(1): 35–64. 703
Nunan, D. 1988: The learner centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge 704
University Press. 705
—— 1998: Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal 52(2): 101–109. 706
Oxford, R.L. editor, 1996: Language learning strategies around the world: 707
cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. 708
Phillips, G.M. 1991: Communication incompetences – a theory of training oral 709
performance behaviour. Carbonale, IL: Southern Illinois University 710
Press. 711
Pienemann, M. 1985: Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hylten- 712
stam, K., editor, Modelling and assessing second language acqui- 713
sition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 714
Prabhu, N.S. 1992: The dynamics of the language lesson. TESOL Quar- 715
terly 26(2): 225–41. 716
Rutherford, W. 1988: Grammatical consciousness raising in brief histori- 717

cal perspective. In Rutherford, W. and Smith, M.S., editors, Gram- 718
mar and second language teaching. New York: Newbury House 719
Publishers, 15–18. 720
Sato, C.J. 1982: Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In Hines, M. and 721
Rutherford, W., editors, On TESOL ’81, Washington, DC: Teach- 722
ers of English to speakers of other languages, 11–24. 723
Scarcella, R. 1990: Teaching language minority students in the multi- 724
cultural classroom. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. 725
Scarcella, R.C. and Oxford. R.L. 1992: The tapestry of language learning 726
– the individual in the communicative classroom. Boston, MA: 727
Heinle & Heinle Publishers. 728
Seliger, H.W. 1983: Learner interaction in the classroom and its effect on 729
language acquisition. In Seliger, H.W. and Long, M.H., editors, 730
Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, 731
MA: Newbury House, 246–67. 732
Shamin, F. 1996: Learner resistance to innovation classroom method- 733
ology. In Coleman, H., editor, Society and the language classroom. 734
Spratt, M. 1999: How good are we at knowing what learners like? 736
System 27(2): 141–55. 737
Stranks, J. 2003: Materials for teaching grammar. In Tomlinson, B., 738
editor, Developing materials for language teaching. London: 739
Continuum Press, 000–000. 740
String, E.T. 1999: Action research, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: 741
Sage Publications. 742
Taylor, B.P. 1983: Teaching ESL: incorporating a communicative, 743
student-centered component. TESOL Quarterly 17(1): 69–88. 744
Tennant, S. 2001: Teaching English as a foreign language by exploring 745
the art and culture of the students’ own culture. The English 746
Teacher: An internation Journal 5(1): 35–50. 747
Thompson, G. 1996: Some misconceptions about communicative lan- 748
guage teaching. ELT Journal 50(1):9–15. 749
Tomlinson, B. 1994: Pragmatic awareness activities. Language Awareness 750
3(2&4): 119–29. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 751
—— 1996: New directions in materials development. Arena 11: 24–25. 752
—— 1998a: Affect and the coursebook. IATEFL Issues 145: 20–21. 753
—— 1998b: Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: 754
—— 2000: Talking to yourself: the role of the inner voice in language 756
learning. Applied Language Learning II(1): 123–54. 757
—— 2001: The inner voice: a critical factor in language learning. Journal 758
of the Imagination in L2 Learning VI: 26–33. 759
—— 2003: Stories to tell: storybooks as coursebooks. FOLIO 7(1): 14– 760

18. 761
—— forthcoming: English as a foreign language: matching procedures to 762
the context of learning. In Hinkel, E., editor, A handbook of 763
research in second language teaching and research. Hillsdale, NJ: 764
Lawrence Erlbaum. 765
—— 2003: Helping learners to develop an effective L2 inner voice. 766
RELC Journal 34(2): 179–95. 767
Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. and Rubdy, R. 2001: EFL courses 768
for adults. ELT Journal 55(1), 80–101. 769
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. in progress: Matching pedagogic proce- 770
dures to the context of learning. 771
Tudor, I. 1996. Learner-centreness as language education. Cambridge: 772
Whitlow, J. 2001: Comments on Shinichi Izumi and Martha Bigelow’s 774
Does output promote noticing in second language acquisition? 775
Some methodological and theoretical considerations. TESOL Quar- 776
terly 35(1): 177–81. 777
Williams, M. and Burden, R.L. 1997: Psychology for language teachers – 778
a social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University 779
Press. 780
Wu, Y.H. 1991: Why don’t they speak up? A study of factors that affect 781
classroom participation in English language learning. In Yaofu, L., 782
Huang, H., Jeng, H., Liao, S., Chou, S., Lin, S. and Hadzima, A., 783
editors, Papers from the seventh conference on English teaching and 784
learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: The Grane Publishing 785
Co., 159–87. 786
Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1992. Action research in higher education – examples 787
and reflections. London: Kogan Page. 788
View publication stats

The Contribution of Vietnamese Learners of English To ELT Methodology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Contribution of Vietnamese Learners of English To ELT Methodology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The contribution of Vietnamese learners of English to

Article in Language Teaching Research · May 2004

Flexibility in ELT materials View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The contributions of Vietnamese 1

learners of English to ELT methodology 2

Brian Tomlinson and Bao Dat Leeds Metropolitan University 3

This article reports a survey of 300 intermediate-level EFL adult 4

learners’ views about the instruction they receive and of 15 of their 5

teachers at the National University of Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City. 6

Its main focus is on how learners can contribute to ELT method- 7

ceptions in language education and on the contributions that learners 9

have made and could make to decisions about classroom method- 10

uses this to discuss implications for L2 classrooms in Vietnam and 12

elsewhere, and to suggest pedagogic interventions that could help to 13

welcome changes to the culture of their classrooms. 18

This study was motivated by our awareness of the apparent reluc- 20

tance of adult Vietnamese students to participate in classroom in- 21

teraction in English and by our feeling that this was at least 22

partially attributable to the lack of congruence between the learn- 23

ers’ and the teachers’ perceptions of the classroom culture in Eng- 24

lish language lessons in Vietnam, and in particular of their 25

perceptions of the role of interaction in English in this culture. 26

From initial observations at our research location we observed 27

that spontaneous discourse was rare in many classrooms and 28

# Arnold 2004 10.1191/1362168804lr140oa

vidual thoughts or elaborated responses but also fostered a great 30

deal of dependence on the teacher. It was our hypothesis that the 31

ted in adult institutions in Vietnam and that they would suggest 33

changes if they were given a say in the decision-making process. 34

In our review of the recent literature we found that many 35

researchers pay attention to learner cultures and perceptions in se- 36

cond language education (Chen, 1985; Scarcella, 1990; Meyer, 37

1991; Wu, 1991; Kramsch, 1993; Johnson, 1995; Ballard, 1996; 38

Cortazzi, 1996; Burns and Joyce, 1997; Karavas-Doukas, 1998; 39

McDonough, 2002), as well as to the contributions that learners 40

can make to the classroom decision-making process (Allwright, 41

1984: 167; Barkhuizen, 1998: 85). This reﬂects an apparently grow- 42

quently diﬀers from that of the teachers. McDonough (2002) 44

reports on a study of learners and teachers of Greek and French 45

in which, for example, only 20% of the teachers considered gram- 46

mar practice useful compared to 81% of the learners, and Nunan 47

(1988), Williams and Burden (1997: 201–202), Barkhuizen (1998) 48

and Spratt (1999) report similar discrepancies between teacher and 49

learner perceptions of the usefulness of classroom activities. This 50

divergence between teacher and learner perceptions has often been 51

attributed to culturally inﬂuenced determinants of classroom be- 52

1982; Scarcella and Oxford, 1992). 54

Learners’ views are rarely taken into account when decisions 55

about curricula, materials and methodology are made in the per- 56

sistently teacher-centred ministries, staﬀ-rooms and classrooms of 57

ers need assistance in communicating what they cannot communi- 59

cate alone (Scarcella and Oxford, 1992: 45). It is also becoming 60

acknowledged that the awareness of the learning process implicit 61

in students’ classroom behaviour is just as valid a determiner of 62

pedagogic processes as the concepts and theories of academic 63

literature (Altrichter et al., 1991: 4; String, 1999: 167). Failure to 64

acknowledge this has led to the failure of many language EFL 65

innovation projects in the last few decades because they have 66

unwittingly imposed practices that have promoted inappropriate 67

types of social order in the target classroom (Shamin, 1996; 68

Karavas-Doukas, 1998:49) and have not taken into account that 69