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

net/publication/339073686

How well do ELT textbooks prepare students to use English in global contexts?
An evaluation of the Vietnamese English textbooks from an English as an
international language (EIL) p...

Article  in  Asian Englishes · February 2020

DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794

CITATIONS READS

32 2,140

3 authors:

Thuy-Minh Nguyen Roby Marlina

University of Otago SEAMEO-RELC
50 PUBLICATIONS   754 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Phuong Cao
Victoria University of Wellington
16 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language View project

Language Assessment in L2 and EFL contexts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roby Marlina on 14 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asian Englishes

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

How well do ELT textbooks prepare students to

use English in global contexts? An evaluation of
the Vietnamese English textbooks from an English
as an international language (EIL) perspective

Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen, Roby Marlina & Thi Hong Phuong Cao

To cite this article: Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen, Roby Marlina & Thi Hong Phuong Cao (2021) How
well do ELT textbooks prepare students to use English in global contexts? An evaluation of the
Vietnamese English textbooks from an English as an international language (EIL) perspective,
Asian Englishes, 23:2, 184-200, DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794

Published online: 05 Feb 2020. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 787 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reng20
ASIAN ENGLISHES
2021, VOL. 23, NO. 2, 184–200
https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1717794

ARTICLE

How well do ELT textbooks prepare students to use English in

global contexts? An evaluation of the Vietnamese English
textbooks from an English as an international language (EIL)
perspective
a
Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen , Roby Marlinab and Thi Hong Phuong Cao c

a
University of Otago, English and Linguistics Department, Dunedin, New Zealand; bSEAMEO-RELC, Training,
Research, Assessment and Consultancy Department, Singapore; cVictoria University of Wellington, Applied
Linguistics and Language Studies, Wellington, New Zealand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In response to the calls to incorporate the changing sociolinguistic Received 24 June 2019
reality of English in classroom practices, textbooks can serve as a Accepted 15 January 2020
powerful tool for equipping learners with knowledge of world KEYWORDS
Englishes and intercultural communication skills. This article English as an international
explores the extent to which a set of locally produced English language; intercultural
textbooks in Vietnam have oriented towards the English as an communication;
international language (EIL)-informed pedagogy and prepared stu- globalization; English
dents to use English for intercultural communication. The findings language teaching materials;
indicate that despite the fact that international communication Viet Nam
may involve a broad spectrum of global English users, the books
tend to focus merely on preparing students to use English for
communication with Anglophone English users, thus only partially
meeting the learners’ multiple communicative needs in the real
world. Our findings highlight the importance of moving towards
an EIL oriented approach in ELT materials development and use, as
well as promoting discourses of multilingualism and globalization,
and avoiding ideological biases.

Introduction
The worldwide spread of English, brought about by the forces of globalization and the
unprecedented growth in the number of multilingual users of English, has impacted the
English language teaching (ELT) discipline and profession in profound ways. For a long
time, the English language was associated merely with Anglophone countries and acquiring
‘native-speaker’ competence was assumed to be the ultimate goal in ELT. However, with the
pluralization of the English language and therefore a shift in ownership of English away
from its Anglophone origins, a monolingual English-speaking model is no longer seen as
the only appropriate model for all English learners (Hu & Jiang, 2011). For those users of
English in multilingual contexts, learning English is not to replace their first language, but
to expand their linguistic repertoire for specific communicative purposes. Consequently,
a majority of them do not necessarily desire to emulate native speakers or be assimilated

CONTACT Roby Marlina roby.marlina@relc.org.sg; roby.marlina@gmail.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 185

into Anglophone cultures. On the contrary, they may only target at becoming competent
users while preserving their own cultural and linguistic identities (Canagarajah, 2007). In
fact, previous English as a lingua franca research has revealed that multilingual users of
English do not always defer to native speakers’ norms when communicating with one
another. Yet they manage to interact successfully by drawing on their multilingual reper-
toire and shared ‘non-nativeness’ to negotiate linguistic and cultural variations and accom-
modate their interlocutors (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011). As the populations of
multilingual users of English have far surpassed the populations of monolingual
Anglophone English speakers and will continue to grow drastically in the future
(Graddol, 2006), communication in English is expected to increasingly involve a broader
spectrum of global English users. Hence, to prepare learners to use English in global
contexts, there is a need for ELT pedagogy to move away from monolingual and mono-
cultural norms to encourage learners to learn to embrace diversity as well as their unique
identities as multilingual users of the language (McKay, 2018). The shift in paradigm from
teaching English as a second/foreign language to teaching English as an international
language (EIL) needs to be manifested not only at the curricular level, but also in classroom
practice and teaching materials.
The goal of this article is to examine the extent to which a set of locally produced English
textbooks orient towards the EIL paradigm. Our focus on textbook analysis stems from the
fact that textbooks are important curriculum and cultural artefacts which can directly shape
learning experience in the classroom and learners’ ideologies (Ilieva, 2018). From the
teaching EIL perspective, textbooks can serve as a powerful tool for heightening learners’
awareness of the messy reality of the English language, awareness of multiple cultural
perspectives embedded within how English is used today, and what it means to be
a multilingual/multicultural English user (Hu & McKay, 2014). It is a disservice to learners
if they are blinded from the complex and changing reality of English (Matsuda, 2018).
Nevertheless, it has been found that such learning opportunities are limited in published
textbooks used in various ELT contexts (e.g. see Dang & Seals, 2016; Hu & McKay, 2014;
Joo, Chik, & Djonov, 2019; Kiss, 2018; Marlina & Giri, 2013; Matsuda, 2002; Nguyen, 2011;
Orton, 2009; Shin, Eslami, & Chen, 2011; Syrbe & Rose, 2018; Tajeddin & Teimournezhad,
2015). Instead of empowering learners ‘to identify different voices and perspectives’ (Shin
et al., 2011, p. 253), English textbooks have been reported to privilege native speakers’ norms
while neglecting other linguistic and cultural practices. Syrbe and Rose (2018), analysing
a set of high school English textbooks in Germany, found an overemphasis on monolingual
English communication and a corresponding neglect of multilingual/multicultural EIL
users in the books. They also found that the books’ language models were heavily informed
by British English, while other varieties were treated as unimportant. In a similar vein, Hu
and McKay (2014), studying a junior secondary school English textbook in China, found
that Anglo-American and western cultural practices featured more prominently in the book
than those of the Chinese and other societies. Further, multilingual practices were largely
overlooked in the book. For instance, a substantial proportion of interactions in the book
were portrayed to occur between Anglo-American speakers of English, or between Anglo-
American speakers of English and English learners, overlooking the pluricentricity of
English and the fast-growing global community of English users in today’s world. The
findings also revealed that there was a lack of attention to code-switching among multi-
lingual interlocutors, thus failing to realistically represent multilingual communication. An
186 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

imbalanced presentation of English variations is also found in Dang and Seals (2016).
Examining a newly developed series of English textbooks used for primary school children
in Vietnam, the study found that despite the current emphasis on global awareness and
cross-cultural communication in the Vietnamese language education policy, the books
tended to focus exclusively on British English linguistic models, thus failing to represent
the changing sociolinguistic reality of English. Similarly to Hu and McKay (2014), it was also
found that although some bilingual aspects were integrated into the books, bilingual
practices such as code-switching did not feature. As such, the books tended to fail to portray
students as bilingual users of English and did not enable them to capitalize on their
multilingual repertoires in communication.
The predominance of Inner Circle materials and inadequate treatment of English
variations in both globally distributed and localized English textbooks have also been
found in other studies (e.g. Joo et al., 2019; Marlina & Giri, 2013; Matsuda, 2002; Orton,
2009; Shin et al., 2011; Tajeddin & Teimournezhad, 2015). The only exception is Xu’s
(2013) study, which reports an explicit focus on EIL and local functionality of English in
the most recent Chinese senior secondary ELT textbooks. As such, the aforementioned
indicates an urgent need for ELT materials to embrace the paradigm shift currently
discussed in the scholarship on teaching EIL (e.g. Abrar-ul-Hassan, 2018; Jenkins, 2009).
If the primary goal of ELT is to develop competent global users of English, then English
textbooks cannot be ‘anchored in the old native-speaker dominated framework’ (Llurda,
2004, pp. 319–320), but should:
inspire and engage students in learning to develop:

● An awareness and understanding of the emergent, fluid, and self-regulating nature of

English;
● Readiness for the messiness and unpredictability of today’s world of English; and
● The ability to employ various linguistic and multimodal resources to negotiate meanings
as they shuttle between communities and communicative events. (Marlina, 2018, p. 5)

Our study
English language education policy and the role of English in Vietnam
Our study is situated in the ELT context in Vietnam, where foreign language education
policy has ‘always been inspired by political and economic motivations’ (Le & Do, 2012,
p. 106). English as a prominent foreign language first entered the country during the
Vietnam War (1954–1975). Soon after its arrival, English became widely spread in the
south and began to be used for a variety of important local functionalities such as
education, work, and communication (Tran & Nguyen, 2018). After the war ended and
the country became unified in 1975, however, English lost its dominant status and, at the
same time, Russian was promoted as the most important foreign language due to the
country’s increasing ties with the former Soviet bloc (Le, 2007). It was not until the Sixth
National Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party that the situation changed and
English regained its important position in foreign language education (Tran & Nguyen,
2018). Specifically, with the Vietnamese government’s introduction of ‘Đổi mới’ or
‘Renovation Policy’ in 1986, which marked a new era for economic and socio-political
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 187

cooperation with the West, the decades that followed have witnessed a revival of English
as an important tool for the country to participate in the global market and engage with
the region and the world. Within the country’s borders, the new economic policy
resulting in flux of foreign investment and foreign businesses operating in Vietnam as
well as the emergence of tourism as one of the fastest growing domestic industries have
also led to an increase in demand for a local English-speaking workforce to serve in these
sectors (Le, 2007). As a result, English language education began to experience an
explosive growth in the early 1990s, and later even replaced the teaching of Russian
after the collapse of the former Soviet Union (Denham, 1992). As indicated by Le (2007,),
the increased popularity of English has created a so-called ‘English language fever’, with
not only an overwhelming rise in the number of English learners in the formal education
system but also ‘the mushrooming of private evening English language schools through-
out the country, both in urban centres and remote rural areas’ (p. 172). English language
competence has naturally become ‘symbolic capital’ (Bourdieu, 1989) and ‘synonymous
with economic growth and prosperity [. . .] in the political, educational and public
discourses’ (Le, 2019, p. 9).
A significant milestone in English language education has been the National Foreign
Language 2020 Project (hereby, the Project) recently launched by the government, which
has identified English language education as a key factor in national development. With
the advent of the Project, English is now taught from Grade 3 in the national curriculum
(rather than from Grade 6 as previously implemented) and encouraged to be used as
a medium of instruction for other school subjects such as mathematics (Le, Nguyen, &
Burns, 2017). English-medium instruction has also been promoted at the tertiary level by
the government, indicating the role of English as an increasingly important tool for
enhancing Vietnamese young generations’ competitiveness in globalized labour markets
(Tran & Nguyen, 2018).
Despite this strong emphasis on the English language in the national curriculum,
however, it is interesting to note that it has never been made clear as to which English
language model will be taught (Kirkpatrick, 2019). Rather, it has been generally assumed
that ‘native-speaker’ competence should be the assessment standard in the curriculum
(Ho & Nguyen, 2019). This, however, does not seem to reflect the reality of English
language use in the society or Vietnamese learners’ future communicative needs. In the
areas of business and trade, for example, much of international communication involves
Vietnamese speakers and other multilingual users of English rather than communication
with only native speakers (Ton & Pham, 2010). This also seems to hold true for tourism,
as tourists tend to come from all around the globe and not only Anglophone countries
(Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, 2019). English has also been increasingly
used to fulfil local functionalities among Vietnamese speakers in certain contexts. For
instance, Nguyen and Nguyen (2017) have found that outside the classroom Vietnamese
students in international schools may speak both Vietnamese and English with one
another to establish their commonness as bilingual speakers. In the context of business
communication, Nguyen and Oliver (2015) have found that English use seems to become
increasingly common in written correspondence between local workers in Vietnamese-
owned companies. They have also found that the writers tend to have their own semiotic
systems for meaning-making and relationship-building (e.g. using English translations of
Vietnamese kinship terms such as auntie, older brother, and older sister to signal in-
188 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

group identity) without needing to resort to any outside system (such as a native-speaker
variety of English). In the home context, despite English not generally being known as
a home language for the Vietnamese and the controversies around making it one, there
seems to be a growing trend of young professional parents using both English and
Vietnamese to communicate with their preschool children in a hope of raising them
bilingually. For example, some recent news articles have reported cases of Vietnamese
parents who adopt the ‘one-parent–one-language’ policy or switch between the two
languages to raise their young children in both Vietnamese and English (Anh, 2018;
Chung, 2018; Huong, 2019). Further, although there is no literature, to the best of our
knowledge, on the use of English in Vietnamese media, the fact is most major online
newspapers and national television channels have their own English-speaking publica-
tions and programmes for the Vietnamese. Based on the current sociolinguistic reality of
English in Vietnam, therefore, it seems safe to suggest that the functions of English are
expanding as the language continues to play a progressively more significant role in the
various areas of life of the Vietnamese people. This, obviously, carries important implica-
tions for ELT nationwide.

The ELT context

The textbooks that we examine in this study have been developed as part of the National
Foreign Language 2020 Project. As aforementioned, to recognize the important role
played by the English language in the world arena, and the demand for Vietnamese
citizens to achieve high levels of English proficiency, the aim of this Project is to enhance
the quality of ELT and learning in the national education system. In particular, the
Project places a strong emphasis on developing effective English language users who can
function successfully across linguistic and cultural boundaries (Le & Do, 2012).
Consequently, a series of new English textbooks have been designed for use in schools
nationwide since 2012 in order to cultivate students’ intercultural communicative com-
petence and prepare them to become global citizens (Hoang, 2016). However, it is worth
pointing out that despite the aforementioned general curricular guidelines, there has
been criticism that the current teaching and assessment practices in the nation are still
largely underpinned by monolingual and monocultural norms (Nguyen & Cao, 2019).
For example, the Project’s primary school textbooks have been criticized for overempha-
sizing Anglophone norms of communication while neglecting the changing sociolinguis-
tic reality of English (see Dang & Seals, 2016). In a similar vein, the Project’s secondary
school textbooks have been found to display a strong emphasis on monolingual
Anglophone cultures and a static view of culture, hence failing to support students in
intercultural learning (Nguyen & Cao, 2019). Against this background, therefore, our
study sets out to examine the extent to which the Project’s objectives of developing
competent global English users are achieved in the secondary school textbook series,
which have not yet been investigated in previous research. To be more specific, we
explore how the books orient towards the EIL paradigm, and hence the extent to
which the books have adequately engaged students in learning to use English across
cultures. In line with previous EIL textbook evaluation studies (e.g. Hu & McKay, 2014;
Syrbe & Rose, 2018), we focus particularly on two issues: who are positioned as English
language users and to what extent multicultural communication is portrayed; and what
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 189

language ideologies are promoted in the books. According to Galloway and Rose (2015),
EIL-oriented materials portray both native speakers and non-native speakers as English
language users and advocate models of successful multilingual English speakers. We aim
to assess the extent to which these portrayals are present in the books under inquiry.
Based on this analysis, we hope to recommend implications for teacher capacity-building
and ELT policy-making in the context of Vietnam and in similar contexts.

The books
The textbook series analysed in our study – English 10, English 11, and English 12 – and
their accompanying audio material were intended for Vietnamese Grade 10 (aged 16),
Grade 11 (aged 17), and Grade 12 (aged 18) students. These students were supposed to
have learned English for at least six years by the time they entered Grade 10. The books,
joint-published by the Educational Publishing House and Pearson Education, were
written by a team of local English language teacher educators and edited by a native
speaker. Each of the textbooks was accompanied by a student’s workbook and
a teacher’s book, but these were not included in our analysis and discussion due to
space constraints.
The books were said to have adopted a theme-based curriculum approved by the
Ministry of Education and Training (Hoang et al., 2016). This curriculum aims to
develop students’ communicative competence, intercultural awareness, sense of global
citizenship, and knowledge and appreciation of the Vietnamese language and culture.
Each book contained 10 teaching units to be taught over a period of 105 instructional
hours, with three hours per week. Each unit contained various sections focused on
developing students’ linguistic knowledge, language skills, and intercultural knowledge.

Analysis
We adopted Hu and McKay’s (2014) analytic scheme in our analysis of the textbooks.
This scheme was developed based on current EIL principles in particular relation to
materials development (Hu & McKay, 2014, p. 73). Our analysis was guided by the two
research questions outlined in the previous section. The data-coding procedures were as
follows. First, we tested the coding categories on two units (Unit 1 and Unit 2) in the
English 10 book and modified the categories iteratively until the they fit the data
completely and no further modifications were needed (see Table 1 for refined categories).
The third author then used the finalized scheme to independently code the remainder of
the data. Her coding was finally cross-checked by the first author and discrepancies in
coding results were discussed until consensus was reached. Note that our analysis of the
depicted patterns of communication did not make a distinction between Anglophone
and other western speakers because speakers’ national identities were not always pro-
vided, making it impossible to assign them to one group or another. For practicality’s
sake, therefore, we categorize both speakers’ groups as non-Asian speakers (as opposed to
Vietnamese and other Asian speakers).
190 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 1. The analytical framework.

Dimension
Description of English users
Portrayal of multicultural
communication
Language and cultural
ideology
Manifestations
What types of communication were found in the textbooks?
(a) Communication between Vietnamese speakers
(b) Communication between Vietnamese and non-Asian speakers
(c) Communication between Vietnamese and other ‘Asian’ English speakers
(d) Communication between non-Vietnamese
(e) Unspecified (i.e. speakers’ names or national identities not given)
Is there an opportunity for students to observe the use of accommodation strategies
(e.g. clarification requests, code-switching, etc., in multicultural communication)?
(a) Yes
(b) No
What language ideologies are promoted?
(a) Native-speakerism (e.g. predominance of native-speaker models, lack of English
variations, portrayal of native speakers as owners of the English language and
better qualified English teachers)
(b) Multilingualism (raising learners’ awareness of linguistic equalities and the role of
other languages in the global market; presence of multilingual linguistic practices
such as code-switching)

Findings and discussion

Depictions of English users and English-medium communication
As stated earlier, the global spread of English and the changing landscape of English users
and contexts of use has meant that English-medium communication increasingly occurs
among a wide spectrum of users from vastly diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic
backgrounds (Matsuda & Matsuda, 2011). In order to determine whether this socio-
linguistic reality was reflected in the books, we examined who were described as English
users in the various texts (e.g. dialogues and letters) used to present language input (see
Table 2), and with whom students were required to communicate or imagine commu-
nicating using English in the various production tasks (see Table 3). With regards to the
portrayal of English users in the texts, we found that the largest proportion of English-

Table 2. Depictions of English users in texts.

English 10 English 11 English 12 Total
Pattern of communication Count % Count % Count % Count %
Between Vietnamese 7 47 9 35 10 45 26 41
Between Vietnamese and non-Asians 5 33 7 27 5 23 17 27
Between Vietnamese and other Asians 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2
Between non-Vietnamese 2 13 4 15 5 23 11 17
Unspecified 1 7 5 19 2 9 8 13
Total 15 100 26 100 22 100 63 100

Table 3. Depictions of target interlocutors in production tasks.

English 10 English 11 English 12 Total
Pattern of communication Count % Count % Count % Count %
Between Vietnamese 78 99 78 94 85 98 241 97
Between Vietnamese and non-Asians 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1
Between Vietnamese and other Asians 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Between non-Vietnamese 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Unspecified 0 0 3 4 2 2 5 2
Total 79 100 83 100 87 100 249 100
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 191

medium communication was depicted as happening between Vietnamese users of

English (26/63 texts, or 41%). This type of interaction was described to take place in
a variety of social settings (e.g. home, school, and workplace), demonstrating the multiple
potential functions English can fulfil intranationally. Table 2 also indicates that a sizeable
proportion of depicted communication occurred between Vietnamese users of English
and non-Asian speakers (17/63 texts, or 27%), suggesting that this pattern of commu-
nication was seen as a main type of intercultural encounters in which Vietnamese
students may find themselves. On the other hand, interaction between non-Vietnamese
participants (11/63 texts, or 17%) and interaction between Vietnamese and other Asian
English speakers (1/63 texts, or 2%) were much less portrayed, revealing a neglect of these
patterns of communication in the books.
A similar tendency was also found regarding the depictions of target interlocutors in
students’ production tasks. As demonstrated in Table 3, production tasks requiring
students to communicate in English with other classmates (e.g. ‘In pairs or groups,
discuss the activities in the pictures and say why they are healthy’) predominated in all
three books (241/249 tasks, or 97%). In contrast, tasks requiring students to imagine
interacting with international audiences (e.g. writing a letter to an English home-stay
student about the host family’s rules) were seriously under-represented (2/249 tasks
involving an imagined non-Asian interlocutor, and none involving an imagined ‘Asian’
interlocutor). This unequal distribution of target interlocutors seems to suggest that the
tasks might have been designed primarily for the purpose of language practice, without
taking the EIL paradigm into full account. While English can be used for certain local
purposes in Vietnam (e.g. English use in education, workplace, and media), the fact that
the books position local students as the main target interlocutors and neglect the global
community of English users does not help heighten students’ awareness of the pluri-
centric nature of English, nor help prepare them to communicate in diverse situations in
the future.
It is also interesting to note that the aforementioned findings appear to contradict the
results of some previous studies. In Hu and McKay’s (2014) study of Chinese ELT text-
books, for example, Anglophone speakers of English were found to predominate the
majority of communicative events while communication between Chinese English speakers
was described more scarcely. In Syrbe and Rose’s (2018) study of German ELT textbooks,
students were frequently depicted as either going to an Anglophone country to commu-
nicate with native speakers or encountering native speakers in their home country, while
there was only a negligible proportion of tasks portraying the target interlocutors as an
international audience, and no tasks portraying local English users. As such, both studies
demonstrate a strong native-speaker bias advocated in localized ELT textbooks, and
a general lack of effort to reflect the changing sociolinguistic reality of English. Our findings,
in contrast, demonstrate an overwhelming emphasis on local functionalities of English (e.g.
English use in education), but inadequate depictions of English use for intercultural
communication. Apparently, neither tendency is desirable in preparing students to use
English in global contexts, and there needs to be a more balanced representation of English
uses and users from varied national, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. Especially, the
neglect of Asian English speakers in the books can be worrisome and may reinforce the
misperception that international English users merely come from Anglophone or European
countries. As predicted by Graddol (2006), Asia will become the largest English-speaking
192 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

continent in the next 50 years or so. Given the rise of English in Asia, and the close
connection between Vietnam and other Asian countries, there needs to be a concerted
effort from textbook writers to include Asian English speakers and expose students to Asian
Englishes besides language models coming from the Anglophone circle (see Nguyen, 2011,
for a similar discussion).
In relation to the portrayals of multicultural communication in the books, previous
research suggests that multilingual users of English consciously build on their awareness
that they deal with people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and thus rely
a great deal on their strategic repertoires to support other speakers in communication and
resolve communication breakdown when it arises (Sharifian, 2015). However, we found that
there was little room for students to explore and learn to employ accommodation strategies
in these books, because the books tended to present an idealized version of intercultural
encounters, in which people from diverse backgrounds interacted successfully, often with-
out misunderstanding, and hence the need to accommodate one another. Consequently,
negotiation strategies such as clarification requests (e.g. ‘What do you mean?’) and con-
firmation checks (e.g. ‘Do you mean . . .?’) were observed in only a handful number of model
conversations involving second-language speakers (7/44) (see Table 4). Also, out of these
strategies, only confirmation checks were explicitly explained and practised (see English 11,
Unit 6, p. 8). As noted by Canagarajah (2007), the need to engage with multiple English
varieties in postmodern globalization requires that students not only develop an awareness
of diverse communicative norms for a diversity of contexts of communication, but also
acquire accommodation strategies that are not specific to any culture in order to commu-
nicate with people from various lingua-cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it is questionable
that the books adequately support students in expanding their strategic repertoires for
successful negotiation of cross-varietal interaction, hence catering to their multiple com-
municative needs in intercultural contexts.

Language ideologies
Our second research question concerns whether the language ideologies advocated in the
books are in alignment with the EIL paradigm. Research has shown that textbooks are
not neutral; on the contrary, they often present selective forms of knowledge and cultural

Table 4. Distribution of communication strategies.

Unit English 10 English 11 English 12 Total of strategies
1 0/1 0/2 1/2 1
2 1/1 0/1 0/2 1
3 0/2 0/2 0/2 0
4 – 1/2 0/1 1
5 0/1 0/1 1/1 1
6 0/1 0/2 0/1 0
7 0/1 0/2 1/1 1
8 0/1 0/1 0/2 0
9 0/2 0/2 0/2 0
10 1/1 1/2 0/1 2
Review 1 – – – –
Review 2 – – – –
Review 3 – 0/1 – 0
Review 4 – – – –
Total of model conversations 11 18 15 44
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 193

value systems suited to the authors’ and publishers’ own interpretations of social reality
(Ilieva, 2018). As such, textbooks ‘not only mediate subject knowledge but also reproduce
ideologies’ (Hu & McKay, 2014, p. 86). In this respect, we found that the books under
examination tended to support the ideology of native-speakerism, western bias, rather
than globalization and multilingualism. This was demonstrated in their overt emphasis
on Inner Circle linguistic models, and the way they framed the role of English in relation
to other languages. In the following sections, we will discuss each of these aspects:
linguistic models, the native speaker, and multilingualism.

Linguistic models
According to Ton and Pham (2010), an important reason cited by many Vietnamese
teachers for not embracing EIL-informed pedagogical approaches in their classroom
practices is the lack of instructional materials promoting varieties of English. Dang and
Seals (2016) note further that English variations are indeed limited in the design of
English textbooks for Vietnamese primary school children. Our analysis of the linguistic
models presented in the current books tends to corroborate these claims. In particular,
we found a strong preference for British English spelling (e.g. ‘urbanisation’), grammar
(e.g. have got), and punctuation (e.g. absence of series commas), while other English
models, especially those from the periphery (e.g. Singapore English), were generally
overlooked. Notably, localized linguistic features (e.g. ‘challenge phrase’, which means
the singing of the first part of a song in Vietnamese traditional Quan Ho singing) were
relatively scarce, despite there being an abundance of topics related to the local context in
the books. An inspection of the books’ accompanying audio materials also indicated that
Received Pronunciation was the dominant variety. Strikingly, Received Pronunciation
was also heard in recordings of model conversations depicted to be between Vietnamese
local people, thus, inauthentic as it was, demonstrating a strong bias of the books towards
the ‘native-speaker ideal’.

English native speakers

Another manifestation of language ideologies concerns how English native speakers are
depicted in relation to non-native speakers; in other words, whether linguistic equality or
native-speakerism is advocated in the books. ‘Native-speakerism is a pervasive ideology
within ELT, characterized by the belief that “native-speaker” teachers represent
a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of
English language teaching methodology’ (Holliday, 2006, p. 385). In these books, the
native-speaker ideology was demonstrated in the fact that English teachers from
Anglophone backgrounds were always positioned as the best models and language
teachers in the ‘linguistic market’. For example, in a reading text discussing digital
English language learning, students are advised to make use of a software tool to improve
their pronunciation with the assistance of ‘different native English speakers’ (English 10,
Unit 8, p. 29), implying the prestige of native-speaker varieties. In another text depicting
a language course advertisement, ‘native speakers’ are associated with ‘well-qualified’
teachers, apparently mainly on the basis of their speakerhood and ‘Western’ origin
(English 11, Review Unit, p. 45). Undoubtedly, these discourses of Self and Other have
contributed to privileging teachers from Anglophone backgrounds regardless of their
qualifications, while marginalizing and discriminating against highly qualified teachers
194 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

from outside the Anglophone circle on the basis of their non-nativeness. Such unjust
discourses have raised serious concerns about political inequality within ELT and
provoked criticism from many scholars in the field (Holliday, 2006). That the book
uncritically and unreflectingly reproduced this language ideology is hence alarming,
given the crucial role of instructional materials in impacting students’ worldviews and
disposition towards self and others.

Multilingualism
Finally, it is worth pointing out that despite much discussion in current ELT scholarship on
the need to integrate multilingualism in language pedagogy (e.g. Conteh & Meier, 2014),
monolingual ideology still prevails in ELT materials (see Dang & Seals, 2016; Hu & McKay,
2014). The books under investigation in our study are not an exception. We found that
although the books incorporated some form of multilingualism on the surface (e.g. non-
English words and geographical names, texts about the local language, etc.), they seemed to
display an implicit monolingual bias at a deeper level. This was observed in the way the values
and significance of English were depicted in relation to other languages. On the one hand,
English was advocated as a language of social prestige and economic value, as illustrated in
Figure 1. As can be seen, in this dialogue a Vietnamese and a student who appears to be from
the ‘West’ (judging from the names of the speakers) discussed their education options after
finishing high school. The Vietnamese student expressed her wish to become a doctor and
said she wanted to go to a medical university in the United Kingdom to achieve her dream.
The two students then went on to talk about English language requirements for university
admission in the United Kingdom. The conversation ended with the Vietnamese student
wishing to speak English as fluently as the ‘Western’ student and the ‘Western’ student
advising the Vietnamese student to improve her English so that her dream would come true.
In contrast to this portrayal, however, local languages were mainly confined to ‘the ideologies
of identity politics and language preservation’ (Sharma & Phyak, 2017, p. 231), as seen in
claims such as ‘[Vietnamese] is the most meaningful part of my cultural identity’ (English 12,
Unit 5, p. 65). Similar depictions were found in eight out of eight instances in English 12 in
which the role of the ethnic language was discussed (see Table 5). Unfortunately, as cogently
as indicated by Sharma and Phyak (2017, p. 251), such ideologies need to be critically
examined and challenged. This is because although English is undoubtedly still a dominant
language in the global market, ‘new forces of globalization [. . .] give new meanings to the
multilingual repertoire’ (2017, p. 251). In the diverse contexts of globalization, local languages
are not just tools for ethnolinguistic identity, but ‘interact with English and other foreign
languages to fulfill the needs’ of the market (2017, p. 251). As such, competence in English
alone does not suffice to enable nations and individuals to thrive. Obviously, these findings
suggest that in order to avoid linguistic imperialism and support multilingualism, textbooks
need to represent a more balanced view towards the roles played by different languages in the
society. There also need to be topics that critically deal with the taken-for-granted dominance
of English in order to raise students’ awareness of its implications for multilingual societies in
terms of linguistic, communicative, and social equality (see Hu & McKay, 2014, for a similar
discussion on this point).
In addition to an implicit display of monolingual ideologies as stated earlier, our
analysis of the books’ language samples also indicated a general lack of support of
‘flexible multilingualism’ in language pedagogy (Weber & Horner, 2012). This was seen
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 195

Figure 1. Depiction of English as ‘symbolic’ capital.

in the complete absence of multilingual practices such as translanguaging between

multilingual speakers. Translanguaging (e.g. code-switching, language brokering, etc.)
is a natural part of language use for people speaking multiple languages/dialects, and
thus part of their multilingual identities. In the classroom context, these practices are
often employed by multilingual students to support their learning. To enable students
to make use of their multilingual resources to benefit their learning, it has been argued
that translanguaging practices need to be leveraged in instruction (Daniel & Pacheco,
2016). The manifestation of such practices in instructional materials, therefore,
deserves attention.
196 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

Table 5. Instances in which the role of the ethnic language is discussed in the books.
Language as identity marker Language/culture preservation
‘Q: I’m not quite sure how people express their ‘At home we speak Japanese only’ (English 12, Unit 5, p. 59)
cultural identity.
A: I think people can do that through the
language they speak.’ (English 12, Unit 5, p. 59)
‘Language is the most important cultural ‘Many ethnic groups find it difficult to maintain their own
identifier’ language or preserve their culture’ (English 12, Unit 5, p. 60)
‘Vietnamese is the language that can unite
people’
‘Language is what makes me Vietnamese’
‘(It) is the most meaningful part of my cultural
identity’ (English 12, Unit 5, p. 65)
‘Language as a feature defining identity’ (English ‘Migrants may lose their cultural identity as they become
12, Unit 5, p. 69) assimilated into the new community’ (English 12, Unit 5, p. 60)
‘Preserve native language’
‘Language is a vital part of culture’ (English 12, Unit 5, p. 65)
‘Migrants pass down their culture to the next generation’ (English
12, Unit 5, p. 66)

Implications and conclusion

In this article, we have evaluated the extent to which a newly developed set of upper-
secondary school ELT textbooks in Vietnam orient towards EIL and prepare students to use
English in this context. In general, we have found that although communication in the
twenty-first century involves a broad spectrum of speakers from vastly diverse back-
grounds, the books tend to focus merely on preparing students to use English for commu-
nication with non-Asian English users, such as those from the West. This is seen in the
depiction of global English users with whom students may encounter as mainly coming
from western countries, as well as an overt focus on British English models, and
a corresponding neglect of successful intercultural English users’ models. As such, it is
questionable that the books present linguistic materials that are entirely representative of
what Vietnamese students are likely to need for communication in today’s twenty-first
century, and heighten their awareness of what it means to be intercultural users of English.
The books also display only minimal effort to teach strategies for handling communication
breakdown, which is an inevitable part of intercultural communication involving people
with diverse linguistic abilities and communicative norms. Consequently, it is unlikely that
students using the books can learn how to use English and their plurilingual repertoire
strategically in engaging their interlocutors collaboratively in achieving mutual intellig-
ibility. Finally, although textbooks are not only an important source of language input but
also a powerful tool for imparting ideologies, and thus it is imperative that English
textbooks foster respect for linguistic pluralism and avoid promoting linguistic imperialism
(Hu & McKay, 2014), our findings indicate that the books tend to advocate native-
speakerism while treating multilingualism only superficially. As such, taken together, our
findings, in congruence with previous ELT textbook evaluation research, once again high-
light the importance of moving towards an EIL-informed approach in ELT materials
development and use, as well as promoting discourses of multilingualism and globalization,
and avoiding ideological biases.
At the practical level, our findings also suggest some significant implications for text-
book writing, classroom practices, teacher educations, and policy-making. First, as far as
textbook writers are concerned, it is important to realize that if the EIL paradigm is to be
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 197

promoted, it is time for textbooks to move away from monocultural English models and
embrace English variations as well as linguistic pluralism. That is, instead of relying on
Inner Circle linguistic models, multilingual competent users’ models should be used for
students to observe how multilingual and multicultural communication can be success-
fully negotiated in different situations (McKay, 2002). To prepare students to use English
in diverse contexts, there should also be opportunities for them to engage in multicultural
communication experience (see Newton, 2016), through which they can figure out various
voices and perspectives, evaluate interactional consequences of different choices, and make
communicative decisions accordingly. Since teachers and students in non-English-
speaking contexts such as Vietnam rely mostly on textbooks for teaching and learning,
it is crucial that textbook writers support them in embracing the pluricentric nature of
English and understanding its implications for communication in the globalized world.
Given that, as cultural artefacts, textbooks are ideological, our findings also suggest the
need for implementation of critical, reflective pedagogies to enable effective textbook use in
the classroom (see Babaii & Sheikhi, 2018, for a similar discussion). Teachers need to be
equipped with knowledge and skills essential for the development of reflective practices and
competence in material utilization. Specifically, since teachers play a major part in mediat-
ing students’ learning and, in many learning contexts, do not have control over the
ideological content of the textbooks, they need to adopt a reflective approach to textbook
materials so that they can assist their students to become aware of and able to challenge
ideologies imposed by textbooks. As pointed out by Byram, Gribkova, and Starkey (2002),
‘textbooks can be presented in a way that suggests that the materials are authoritative and
definitive or in . . . [a] critical perspective’ (p. 21). Therefore, in order to use textbooks
effectively to facilitate students’ intercultural skills, teachers should also be guided in how to
customize teaching materials to reflect current thinking in ELT (see McConachy,).
As concerns policy-making, in order to support schools, teachers, and students in the
implementation of EIL pedagogy, it is essential for language policy planners to be aware of
the need to advocate English variations, especially peripheral varieties (e.g. Singapore
English), in guideline documents (see Ho & Nguyen, 2019). Interactional competence
and negotiation skills, rather than native-speaker competence, should be made the focus of
classroom and assessment practices, and schools, teachers, and students can be granted
greater autonomy in the selection of instructional materials that are best suited to these
objectives. Finally, it should be noted that no curricular innovations can be successfully
implemented without the collaboration among language policy-makers, textbook writers,
teacher educators, and classroom teachers (see Dang & Seals, 2016). Therefore, in order for
changes to be successfully implemented, such collaborations are strongly recommended.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7820-751X
Thi Hong Phuong Cao http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8069-621X
198 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

References
Abrar-ul-Hassan, S. (2018). Introduction to Teaching English as an International Language. In The
TESOL Encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–2). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eeltv01
Anh, K. (2018, November 14). Ông bố vờ không biết tiếng Việt để con gái nói tiếng Anh.
VnExpress: Vietnam. Retrieved from https://vnexpress.net/doi-song/ong-bo-vo-khong-biet-
tieng-viet-de-con-gai-noi-tieng-anh-3838361.html
Babaii, E., & Sheikhi, M. (2018). Traces of neoliberalism in English teaching materials: A critical
discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(3), 247–264.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language
teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Language Policy Division, Directorate of School,
Out-of-School and Higher Education, Council of Europe.Strasbourg.
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language
acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.
Chung, D. (2018, October 24). Ông bố có con nhỏ “nói tiếng Anh như gió” chia sẻ bí quyết dạy con
để không bị “loạn ngữ”. The Labour Newspaper: Vietnam. Retrieved from https://laodong.vn/
giao-duc/ong-bo-co-con-nho-noi-tieng-anh-nhu-gio-chia-se-bi-quyet-day-con-de-khong-bi-
loan-ngu-637773.ldo
Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities
and challenges (Vol. 40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dang, T. C. T., & Seals, C. (2016). An evaluation of primary English textbooks in Vietnam:
A sociolinguistic perspective. TESOL Journal. doi:10.1002/tesj.309
Daniel, S. M., & Pacheco, M. B. (2016). Translanguaging practices and perspectives of four
multilingual teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(6), 653–666.
Denham, P. A. (1992). English in Vietnam. World Englishes, 11(1), 61–69.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). London: British Council.
Ho, T. M. H., & Nguyen, T. H. (2019). English as a Lingua Franca for Vietnam: Current issues and
future directions. In V. C. Le et al. (Ed.). English-for-everyone policy and its social impact:
Discourses, realities, and social impact in Vietnam (pp. 166–183). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Hoang, V. V. (2016). Renovation in curriculum design and textbook development: An effective
solution to improving the quality of English teaching in Vietnamese schools in the context of
integration and globalization. VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 32(4), 9–20.
Hoang, V. V., Hoang, T. X. H., Phan, H., Hoang, T. H. H., Kieu, T. T. H., Vu, T. L., . . . Kaye, D.
(2016). English 10- 11-12- students’ book. Vietnam: Education Publisher & Pearson.
Holliday, A. (2006). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2014). Multilingualism as portrayed in a Chinese English textbook. In J.
Conteh & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and
challenges (pp. 64–88). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hu, X.Q., & Jiang, X.X. (2011). Kachru’s three concentric circles and English teaching fallacies in
EFL and ESL contexts. Changing English, 18(2), 219-228.
Huong, T. (2019, October 1). Cô giáo tự dạy con tiếng Anh ở nhà: 4 tuổi con tự tin nói tiếng Anh
sõi như tiếng mẹ đẻ. Afamily: Vietnam. Retrieved from https://afamily.vn/bi-kip-tu-day-con-
tieng-anh-o-nha-cua-co-giao-4-tuoi-nhung-con-tu-tin-noi-tieng-anh-soi-nhu-tieng-me-de
-20191007172201664.chn
Ilieva, R. (2018). Textbooks. In J. I. Liontas, T. International Association, & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.),
The TESOL Encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–13). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0666
Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: A resource book for students (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as
a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281–315.
 ASIAN ENGLISHES 199

Joo, S. J., Chik, A., & Djonov, E. (2019). The construal of English as a global language in Korean EFL
textbooks for primary school children. Asian Englishes, 1–17. doi:10.1080/13488678.2019.1627636
Kirkpatrick, A. (2019). Foreword. In V. C. Le, T. M. H. Nguyen, T. T. M. Nguyen, & R. Bernard
(Eds.), Building teacher capacity in English language teaching in Vietnam: Research, policy and
practice (pp. x –xvi). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Kiss, T. (2018). Developing intercultural communicative competence: An example of the new
college English textbook series. Indonesian JELT, 12(1), 79–98.
Le, D. M., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Burns, A. (2017). Teacher language proficiency and reform of
English language education in Vietnam, 2008–2020. In D. Freeman, & L. Le Dréan (Eds.)
Developing classroom English competence: Learning from Vietnam experience (pp. 19-23).
Phnom Penh: Language Teaching in Asia/International Development Programme.
Le, V. C. (2007). A historical review of English language education in Vietnam. In Y. H. Choi &
B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies (pp. 167–179). Seoul: Asia
TEFL.
Le, V. C. (2019). English language teaching in Vietnam aspirations, realities, and challenges. In V.
C. Le, T. M. H. Nguyen, T. T. M. Nguyen, & R. Bernard (Eds.), Building teacher capacity in
English language teaching in Vietnam: Research, policy and practice (pp. 7 –22). Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
Le, V. C., & Do, T. M. C. (2012). Teacher preparation for primary school English education: A case
of Vietnam. In B. Spolsky & Y. Moon (Eds.), Primary school English education in Asia: From
policy to practice (pp. 106–128). New York, NY: Routledge.
Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an International Language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 314–323.
Marlina, R. (2018). Revisiting the pedagogy of English as an International Language. RELC
Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 49(1), 3–8.
Marlina, R., & Giri, R. (2013). “We provide the best international education and use international-
oriented learning materials”: Questioning the ‘international’ from the perspective of English as
an International Language. In N. T. Zacharias & C. Manara (Eds.), Contextualising the pedagogy
of English as an International Language: Issues and tensions (pp. 75–98). Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Matsuda, A. (2002). ‘International understanding’ through teaching world Englishes. World
Englishes, 21(3), 436–440.
Matsuda, A. (2018). Is Teaching English as an International Language all about being politically
correct? RELC Journal, 49(1), 24–35.
Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. (2011). Globalizing writing studies: The case of U.S. technical com-
munication textbooks. Written Communication, 28(2), 172–192.
McConachy, T. (2009). Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis: Some tools
for teachers. ELT Journal, 63(2), 116–125.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking goals and perspec-
tives. New York: OUP.
McKay, S. L. (2018). English as an International Language: What it is and what it means for
pedagogy. RELC Journal, 49(1), 9–23.
Newton, J. (2016). Teaching English for intercultural spoken communication. In H. P. Widodo &
W. Renandya (Eds.), English language teaching today: Building a closer link between theory and
practice (pp. 161–177). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Nguyen, B. H., & Oliver, R. (2015). Relationship building in Vietnamese English written business
communication: A systemic functional analysis. Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 6.
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2011). Learning to communicate in a globalized world: To what extent do school
textbooks facilitate the development of intercultural pragmatic competence? RELC Journal, 42
(1), 17–30.
Nguyen, T. T. M., & Cao, T. H. P. (2019). An evaluation of the intercultural orientation of
secondary English textbooks in Vietnam: How well are students prepared to communicate in
global contexts? In V. C. Le, T. M. H. Nguyen, T. T. M. Nguyen, & R. Bernard (Eds.), Building
 200 T.T.M. NGUYEN ET AL.

teacher capacity in Vietnamese English language teaching: Research, policy and practice (pp.
150–165). Oxon, UK:: Routledge.
Nguyen, T. T. T., & Nguyen, H. T. M. (2017). Thinking globally or “glocally”? Bilingual identity of
Vietnamese international school students. International Journal of Educational Research, 85,
24–32.
Orton, J. (2009). Just a tool’: The role of English in the curriculum. In J. Lo Bianco, J. Orton, & Y.H.
Gao (eds.), China and English: Globalization and the dilemma of identity (pp. 137–154). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sharifian, F. (2015). Cultural linguistics and world Englishes. World Englishes, 34(4), 515–532.
Sharma, B. K., & Phyak, P. (2017). Neoliberalism, linguistic commodification, and ethnolinguistic
identity in multilingual Nepal. Language in Society, 46(2), 231–256.
Shin, J., Eslami, Z. R., & Chen, W.-C. (2011). Presentation of local and international culture in
current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
24(3), 253–268.
Syrbe, M., & Rose, H. (2018). An evaluation of the global orientation of English textbooks in
Germany. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 152–163.
Tajeddin, Z., & Teimournezhad, S. (2015). Exploring the hidden agenda in the representation of
culture in international and localised ELT textbooks. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2),
180–193.
Ton, N. N. H., & Pham, H. H. (2010). Vietnamese teachers’ and students’ perceptions of global
English. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 48–61.
Tran, L. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Internationalisation of higher education in Vietnam through
English Medium Instruction (EMI): Practices, tensions and implications for local language
policies. In I. Liyanage (Ed.), Multilingual education yearbook 2018 (pp. 91–106). Springer
International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77655-2_6
Vietnam National Administration of Tourism. (2019, February 10). International visitors to Viet
Nam in September and 9 months of 2019. Vietnamtourism. Retrieved from http://vietnamtour
ism.gov.vn/english/index.php/items/14259
Weber, J. J., & Horner, K. (2012). Introducing multilingualism: A social approach. New York:
Routledge.
Xu, Z. (2013). Globalization, culture and ELT materials: A focus on China. Multilingual Education,
3(1), 6.

View publication stats