TABLE OF CONTENT

List of tables .........................................................................................................................ii

List of figures .......................................................................................................................iii

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1

2. Contextual factors ............................................................................................................2

3. Communicative language teaching ..................................................................................4

4. Evaluation of CLT application at Vinh University ............................................................7

4.1. Time distribution .......................................................................................................8

4.2. Content distribution ..................................................................................................9

4.3. Textbook evaluation ................................................................................................12

4.3.1. Activities ........................................................................................................13

4.3.2. Explicit instruction .........................................................................................15

4.4. Assessment ..............................................................................................................19

4.5. Learners ....................................................................................................................22

4.6. Classroom arrangement ...........................................................................................23

5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................24

References ......................................................................................................................26

Appendix 1. Syllabus of English 1 ..................................................................................33

Appendix 2. Syllabus of English 2 ..................................................................................47

Appendix 3. Sample of one unit in Life pre-intermediate ............................................63

i
 Lists of tables

Table 1. General information about the general English classes for non-majored English

students at Vinh University

Table 2. English in the new general curriculum (Hoang 2010)

Table 3. Structure of a unit in Life Pre-intermediate

(Hughes, Stephenson and Dummett 2012)

Table 4. Content distribution in syllabuses of English 1 and English 2

Table 5. Assessment brief of English 1

Table 6. Assessment brief of English 2

ii
 Lists of figures

Figure 1. Samples of the discussion questions in Unit 1, Life Pre-intermediate

(Hughes, Stephenson and Dummett 2012)

Figure 2. Samples of vocabulary activities in Unit 1, Life Pre-intermediate

(Hughes, Stephenson and Dummett 2012)

Figure 3. Sample of pronunciation activities in Unit 1, Life Pre-intermediate

(Hughes, Stephenson and Dummett 2012)

iii
4
 An evaluation of the general English courses for non-English major students at Vinh

University, Vietnam, from the perspectives of communicative language teaching

1. Introduction

The establishment of an open-door policy called Doi Moi in 1986 shifted Vietnam from a

subsidy economy to a market one that has stimulated more foreign investment and

cooperation (Nguyen and Sloper 1995). In line with the reformation of politics, society and

economy, English 1 was introduced in the university curriculums and has remained crucial in

higher education and recruitment in today’s job market. To boost the quality of learning

and teaching English for long-term economic development, in Decision 1400-QD-TTg in

2008, the National Foreign Language Project (NFLP) was established with one of the goals

that Vietnamese college and university graduates were ‘able to use English to communicate

confidently’ and ‘study and work in a multi-lingual and multi-cultural environment; thus

better enabling young Vietnamese people to contribute to the industrialisation and

modernisation of the country’ (Huong 2010, p.106). To achieve this goal, NFLP requires

innovations in English learning and teaching methodologies in tertiary institutions, with an

urge to alter the traditional methods focusing on forms (e.g., Grammar translation method)

by a more communicative approach (e.g., Project-based learning, Task-based language

teaching) promoting meaningful interaction.

1
In the timeline of history, Vietnam’s foreign language policy and higher education have been significantly
dynamic according to its socio-political situations and colonial regimes, commencing with the dominance of
Chinese in 110 BC (Wright 2002), French before 1975 (Pham and Fry 2004), Russian from 1945 to 1986 (Do
1996, Hoang 2010), and culminating with English as a pivotal means of communication for ‘opening up to the
outside world, mostly in terms of foreign investment and the global market’ (Huong 2010, p. 100).

1
This study evaluates the appropriateness of applying communicative language teaching

(CLT) in the general English courses for non-English major students at Vinh University,

Vietnam. Due to the geographical distance and time constrain, class observation,

questionnaires and interviews with students, teachers and administrators cannot be

implemented. Therefore, this paper will focus on analysing the general contextual factors,

the syllabuses provided by Foreign Languages Department, and available materials,

including the core textbook Life Pre-intermediate, the teacher’s book, and class audios,

which NFLP recommends for English programs at the tertiary level.

2. Contextual factors

Vinh University, established in 1959, is in the North Central part of Vietnam. Currently, the

University offers 57 undergraduate majors, 38 master programs and 17 doctoral ones (Vinh

University website 2023). The training scale of the University is nearly 35,000 students, with

approximately 20,000 undergraduates taking the general English courses, namely English 1

and English 2.

2
These two modules are obligatory in the undergraduate curriculums, and students must

pass English 1 before joining English 2. The number of in-class hours for each module

depends on their credit distribution, with 3 periods 2 per week (equivalent to 150 minutes)

for English 1 and 4 (equivalent to 200 minutes) for English 2. Each module lasts for 15 weeks.

In the syllabuses, both modules are claimed to follow CLT as the instruction of NFLP. Life

pre-intermediate is chosen as the main textbook for both modules, in which units 1-5 are

taught in English 1 and units 6-12 in English 2. For graduation, students must pass the two

modules and then achieve at least level 3 in reference to the CEFR-VN 3 (equivalent to level

B1 in CEFR) in the VSTEP 3-5 4 test.

The levels of students in classes are generally low and uneven. Despite finishing 7- or 10-

year English programs before entering university, with 595 or 805 learning periods,

respectively (See Table 2), most students are at the elementary or pre-intermediate level.

They have some basic linguistic knowledge and can barely communicate in English. Those

living in urban areas tend to have better English competence than those in rural or remote

ones.

2 Each period lasts for 50 minutes, along with 5 minutes for break time among the periods.
3
The common Framework of Reference for Language in Vietnam (CEFR-VN) was adopted from CEFR,
established by the European Union Council in 2001, and introduced in Circular No.01/2014/TT-BGDĐT on
24/01/2014. It includes 6 distinct levels: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, which are equivalent to A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, respectively
in reference to CEFR framework.
4
VSTEP stands for the Vietnamese standardised test of English proficiency. The format of VSTEP 3-5 was issued
in Decision 730/QĐ-BGDĐT on 11/03/2015. It aims to identify students’ language proficiency from levels 3 to
5 through listening, reading, writing, and speaking tests.

3
 Table 2. English in the new general curriculum (Hoang 2010)

Ten teachers, who obtained master’s degrees in language teaching and have at least 15

years of experience from the Foreign Languages Department, are assigned to take charge

of the general English classes every year. They are trained and willing to change their old

teaching habits focusing on linguistic elements and test preparation, and adapt the CLT

approach to promoting students’ communicative competence through student-centred

activities.

As in other Vietnamese universities, class sizes, on average, include 40 – 50 students, which

is crowded (Trinh 2016) and, thus, potentially has negative impacts on the quality of

language teaching and learning (Ming and Jaya 2011), and ‘hinder teachers from employing

more engaging teaching methods’ (Trinh and Mai 2019, p.46). The classrooms have fixed-

set tables and chairs, blackboards, projectors, and internet.

3. Communicative language teaching

The theoretical basis of CLT derived from the work of Wilkins (1976), Brumfit and Johnson

(1979), Widdowson (1978) and other British applied linguistics in the 1970s. Irrespective of

the distinctive features of its weak and strong versions (Howatt 1984), their primary focus

is to achieve ‘communicative competence’, based on the functional theory of language, i.e.,

language as a means of communication. The concept of ‘communicative competence’ was

4
first introduced by Hymes (1972) and has been refined by other scholars (Canale and Swain

1980, Savignon 1983). It includes different components: linguistic,

pragmatic/sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic competence, and fluency (Hedge 2000). The

weak interpretation of CLT has grounded on the premise that communicative features are

teachable via the accuracy-oriented methodology, i.e., PPP method, Present-Practice-

Produce, or Produce-Present-Practice (Brumfit 1984), which is criticised for its insignificant

differences from traditional approaches (Ellis and Shintani 2014). The strong interpretation

of CLT is based on the principle of ‘using English to learn it’ (Howatt 1984, p.279), focusing

on fluency. Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an evident illustration of the strong

version nowadays, in which teaching and learning are constructed around ‘real-life tasks

from which the aspects of communicative language use and a knowledge of grammar can

emerge’ (Richards and Rodgers 2014). From the perspective of CLT, Richards and Rodgers

(2014) describe how language learning happens as a result of the following:

5
Teaching and learning activities are designed to require students to ‘negotiate meaning’,

focusing on meaningful interaction and fluency development rather than forms with

traditional grammatical exercises or memorisation of linguistic features. Functional

communication activities (e.g., giving directions, problem-solving from shared clues, and

photo/picture comparisons) and social interaction activities (e.g., role plays, discussions,

simulations and debates) are dominant types in CLT (Littlewood 1981). Richards and

Rodgers (2014) indicate the principles of CLT activities as follows:

Teachers in CLT classrooms adopt new roles as facilitators, organisers, guides, researchers,

learners (Breen and Candlin 1980), needs analysts, counsellors and group process managers

(Richards and Rodgers 2014). Students are negotiators, actively participating in classroom

activities and pair or group work (Breen and Candlin 1980). CLT require alternative forms of

assessment to capture the whole picture of students’ language proficiency, such as

portfolios, observations, presentations, and interviews, instead of merely multiple-choice

tests and discrete-item tests focusing on linguistic knowledge (Richards and Rodgers 2014).

6
The Four Strands

Based on SLA research, i.e. the input hypothesis (Krashen 1985), extensive reading, the

output hypothesis (Swain 2005), form-focused instruction and speaking and reading

fluency, Nation (2007) introduced the Four Strands framework that well-constructed

language courses should possess, including meaning-focused input, meaning-focused

output, language-focused learning and fluency development. These strands are

recommended to be evenly distributed across a course (both inside and outside class time)

to promote different types of learning, with an ideal allocation of 25% for each strand

(Nation 2007). The meaning-focused input strand relates to ‘learning through listening and

reading – using language receptively’, while the meaning-focused output strand comprises

‘learning through speaking and writing – using language productively’ (Nation 2007, p.2-3).

Language focus learning involves the intentional focus on linguistic knowledge, such as

pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. The fluency strand focuses on ‘getting good at

using what is already known’, instead of new items, which relates to ‘some pressure or

encouragement to perform at a faster than usual speed’ (Nation 2007, p.6-7).

4. Evaluation of CLT application at Vinh University

This part thoroughly analyses factors affecting the application of the communicative

approach in the general English courses for non-English major students at Vinh University

and explores to what extent they impact the quality of teaching and learning. These factors

include time distribution, content distribution, textbook evaluation, assessment details,

learners, and classroom arrangement. The appropriateness and effectiveness of the courses

7
will be examined based on the principles of CLT (Richards and Rodgers 2014), along with

reference to the Four Strands framework (Nation 2007) and other relevant research on

language teaching and second language acquisition. Some recommendations are suggested

for better teaching practice.

4.1. Time distribution

The time allocation for theoretical and practical periods stated in the syllabuses of English

1 and English 2 is not efficient in maximising the communicative opportunities for students.

According to the module description in the syllabuses, the hours distributed for the theory

part involve teaching and learning linguistic knowledge, including grammar, pronunciation,

and vocabulary. In the practical part, students will apply what they learn ‘in basic, familiar

everyday situations through communication, listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills’

(Appendix 1, 2).

It is noticeable in Table 1 that in English 1, the in-class hours allocated for the form-focused

instruction (30 hours) doubles the time for students practising the use of language (15

hours), and the time allocation for the two types of learning is equal, with 30 hours in

English 2. This time dispersion in both modules is not in line with the courses’ focus on

developing learners’ communicative competence and the balance of four important strands

of a successful language course (Nation 2007). In CLT, priority is placed on developing

students’ communicative competence rather than linguistic competence and the

importance of their interactions in pair or small group work. In the weak version of CLT,

‘there is no recognition of the need for learners to attend to form while they are interacting’

8
(Ellis and Shintani 2014). In the strong version of CLT, task-based language teaching,

linguistic forms are noticed through learners’ negotiation, primarily focusing on meaning

(Richards and Rodgers 2014). Irrespective of the positive impacts of language-focused

learning, it should not ‘make up more than one-quarter of the time spent on the whole

course’ (Nation 2007, p.5). Therefore, the idea of separating the theoretical and practical

time in the courses with excessive time allocation for form-focused instruction should be

reconsidered to match their aims. Even though the syllabuses are required to follow the

general requirements of the University for all majors, there is a need to address distinctive

features of second language teaching and learning to justify their own time distribution.

4.2. Content distribution

There are imbalances in content distribution among fifteen weeks of class schedules in both

modules. The units in the syllabuses mainly follow the structure of the textbook Life pre-

intermediate (Hughes, Stephenson and Dummett 2012), with Units 1-5 for English 1 and

Units 6-12 for English 2.

The opener parts are not included in both modules, and Section Fs are optional.

9
10
Table 4 shows that the time allocated for Sections A and B, focusing on studying linguistic

knowledge, exceeds others, and the content divided each week is unbalanced. For instance,

in English 1, each unit is generally taught in three weeks, in which Section A is in one week,

Sections B and C are in the following week, and Sections D, E, and the revision part are in

11
the last one, except for Units 4-5 with Sections B split in two weeks. In particular, in week

13, group presentation is organised along with learning the two first sessions of unit 5,

which is significantly heavier compared to the content for weeks 1, 4, and 7, merely

including one section of the whole unit. A similar tendency is also observed in English 2,

with more time allocated for Sections A and B than the remaining ones, developing critical

thinking and essential productive skills. The fact that the opening parts are ignored might

lead to fewer chances for students to get engaged in the topics or activate their background

and language knowledge through meaningful discussion and listening activities. Thus, there

is a need to revise the content distribution over weeks to maintain the balance among form-

focused instruction, opportunities for meaning-focused input and output and fluency

development (Nation 2007).

4.3. Textbook evaluation

The coursebook is considered ‘the visible heart’ of any language course (Sheldon 1988,

p.237), and ‘an embodiment of the aims, values and methods of the particular teaching

learning situation’ (Hutchinson 1987, p. 37). The fact that many ELT programs tend to

construct their syllabuses primarily based on the structure of the coursebooks, such as

English 1 and 2 in this study, makes the material selection and evaluation among the

abundance of published resources available on the market more crucial and prioritised

(Cunningsworth 1995). Plentiful evaluation checklists have been proposed to assist teachers

in selecting suitable materials for their contexts (Cunningsworth 1995, Hutchinson and

Waters 1987, Littlejohn 1998, McDonough and Shaw 2013, Sheldon 1988, Van Lier 1979,

12
Williams 1983). Due to the limited word count and time, this part only focuses on evaluating

the effectiveness of activities and explicit instruction in Life Pre-intermediate (Hughes,

Stephenson and Dummett 2012).

4.3.1. Activities

Although activities throughout units are designed to involve students in pair and group

work, there are predominantly controlled activities and fewer communicative activities

involving ‘information gaps’, in which learners interact for the missing information to fill the

‘gap’ and successfully complete the given tasks, suggested by CLT (Richards and Rodgers

2014). Take a closer look at Section D, Unit 1, which is claimed to assist learners in

developing their real-life skills, i.e., talking about illness, most of the activities involving

explicit linguistic instruction, which will discuss further in the following part, do not contain

‘information gaps’, and require students to practice in controlled activities, focusing on

accuracy and linguistic aspects rather than engage in meaningful conversations for fluency

development (See Appendix 3). Another point noted is that more activities in Life pre-

intermediate relate to conversations or discussions in which students are asked to share

their own experiences or opinions with their peers (See Figure 1).

13
Such activities might be effective for those who are motivated, while those who are less

driven might speak little, then fall silent and even show no interest in listening to their

friends, which lowers the opportunities for meaning-focused output. Long (1983, 1996)

emphasises the crucial role of interaction in assisting learners’ second language acquisition.

Through interacting with others, they have chances to identify the errors arising in

communication and causing misunderstandings and adjust their erroneous output, which

leads to the improvement of their interlanguage (Long 1996). Although it is admitted that

comprehensible input is a need (Krashen 1985), comprehensible output in communicative

tasks also aids acquisition through opportunities to notice their language gaps in

production, test hypotheses of their second language, and enhance their metalinguistic

14
knowledge (Swain 1995). Therefore, it is advised that teachers should modify the activities

suggested in the coursebook to get students involved in meaningful interactions. Various

‘information-gap’ activities in CLT are suggested, such as jig-saw activities, task-completion

activities (e.g., puzzles, games, and map-reading), information-gathering activities (e.g.,

surveys and interviews), opinion-sharing activities (e.g., ranking tasks), information-transfer

activities (e.g., read the information in a text and represent in a graph), reasoning gap

activities, and role play (Richards and Rodgers 2014), or task types in Tasked-based language

teaching (Prabhu 1987, Willis 1996).

4.3.2. Explicit instruction

Regarding explicit grammar teaching stated in the teacher’s book, it follows the Present-

Practice-Produce approach (PPP) with the inductive presentation, in which the target

grammar structures are introduced in ‘authentic reading and listening texts, adapted for

level as necessary’ and students are encouraged to notice them through ‘using highlighting

within the text, extracting sample sentences or having learners locate examples themselves’

and discover how they work (Hill 2013, p. 10). The practice involves controlled activities

such as gap-fill, sentence correction, and multiple-choice, and then free production through

various formats such as discussions, focusing on fluency and content. PPP is justified based

on the claim of the strong interface position that acquisition initiates from explicit

knowledge (EK) that subsequently converts to implicit knowledge (IK) through practice

(DeKeyser 1998). Nonetheless, it is noted that research shows insufficient evidence for the

effectiveness of error-avoiding controlled practice (DeKeyser 1998, Ellis 1984). In contrast,

15
explicit instruction plus practice, especially free production activities involving students in

using the target structure in communication, assist the growth of IK (White [Link] 1991,

Negueruela 2003, Spada et al. 2006, Ellis and Shitani 2014). Sociocultural theorists also

advocate the positive impacts of students verbalising the target structure provided prior

while performing communicative tasks, which is claimed to facilitate ‘internalization’

(Lantolf and Thorne 2006). Consciousness-raising (CR) tasks (i.e., explicit instruction without

practice) aid in developing EK (Fotos 1993, Fotos and Ellis 1991, Mohamed 2001, Pesce

2008, Eckerth 2008). Therefore, it is recommended that teachers should not strictly follow

the procedure of teaching grammar introduced in Sections A and B of the coursebook Life

pre-intermediate. They should bear in mind that students already learnt these grammatical

structures at lower levels (i.e., lower and upper secondary schools), but have not mastered

and been able to spontaneously produce them in communication, even though there might

be cases that some might forget them. Teachers are suggested to adapt the materials

flexibly, encourage learners to induce the target structures through performing CR tasks

(Ellis and Shitani 2014) in the presentation part, consider excluding the central ‘P’ in the

traditional PPP (i.e., controlled practice), and aim attention at free, meaningful production

with corrective feedback.

Explicit vocabulary instruction in Life pre-intermediate bases on the ground that ‘the

meaning of words can be made clearer by comparing and contrasting them to similar words

in the set’ or ‘words that belong to a group of commonly-confused words (e.g., job and

work)’; therefore, ‘LIFE focuses on these groups as and when they come up’ (Hill 2013, p.

16
10). However, interference theory (Anderson 2003, Baddeley 1997) advises that words in a

semantic set cause confusion and should not be taught together. ‘As similarity increases

between targeted information and other information learnt either before or after the target

information, the difficulty of learning and remembering the targeted information also

increases’ (Papathanasiou 2009, p.313). Evidence is found in SLA research advocating this

theory and recommending that for low-level students, it is more effective to teach words in

unrelated or thematic sets than semantic ones (Erten and Tekin 2008, Tinkham 1997, Al-

Jabri 2005). Even though it is impossible to completely ignore teaching words in semantic

clusters (Nation 2000), in the case of the coursebook Life pre-intermediate, when all

vocabulary activities are designed with the target to focus on them, students might find

similarities among words confused, which hinders their acquisition, if the teachers in English

1 and 2 strictly follow the instructions suggested by Life.

Another noticeable point is that explicit vocabulary instruction in Life pre-intermediate

focus on establishing the form-meaning link, ‘the first and most essential lexical aspects

which must be acquired’ (Schmitt 2008, p.333) among aspects involving word knowledge

(Nation 2001). However, designed learning activities are ineffective due to their less

involvement of ‘engagement’ with new words. The Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer

and Hulstijn 2001) suggests that higher degrees of ‘need’, ‘search’ and ‘evaluation’ lead to

higher effectiveness of vocabulary instructions. It also stresses the crucial role of

‘engagement’, in which productive activities, not merely receptive ones, are required to

enhance learners’ productive knowledge. Take a closer look at activities 4 and 5 in Unit 1B,

17
it shows that students can simply find words from the reading text or dictionaries, even

without knowing their meanings. They do not include a real ‘need’ to search for words,

require students to assess whether they are used appropriately in context, and involve

opportunities for productive activities.

Regarding pronunciation, activities throughout units are limited and mainly involve ‘listen

and repeat’, originating from the Direct Method in which phonological features are taught

through ‘intuition and imitation’ (Celce-Murcia et al 2010, p.3). Students are provided

models of native speakers’ speech, and then through listening and repeating, they enhance

their pronunciation. This way of teaching pronunciation does not follow the principles of

CLT that promote meaningful communication.

(Unit 1, p. 11)

18
4.4. Assessment

There is a weak constructive alignment between the course aims and their assessment,

which might cause negative washback towards teaching and learning. In designing a course,

the integration of all factors, such as course aims, class schedules, assessment, human

resources, instructional materials, facilities, school policies, etc., should be thoroughly taken

into consideration to guarantee that no conflict arises in implementation (Nunan 1988,

Kostka and Bunning 2017). Along with the communicative movement in language teaching

in the 1980s, there have been proposals and discussions on assessing communicative

language ability, focusing on students’ performance or language use instead of solely

linguistic knowledge (Bachman 1990, Davies et al. 1999, Weir 2005, Fulcher 2010).

Irrespective of various opinions on language testing and assessment following the

communicative approach, they all support the idea that ‘it draws on existing theories of

communicative language ability’ that involves language competence, strategic competence

and psychophysiological mechanisms (Bachman 1990) and ‘utilises ‘real-life’ tasks, paying

heed to authenticity and often including interactive performance elements’ (Harding 2014,

p. 190). However, in the assessment plans, it is evident that there is a dominance of

multiple-choice tests (MCQ) assessing linguistic knowledge and reading rather than

communicative language competence, as stated in the course aims.

19
20
In English 1, 70% of the total score depends on the two MCQ tests, with 20% for the first

testing the knowledge of Units 1 and 2 and 50% for the second focusing on Units 3, 4 and

5. Only 20% is for assessing presentation skills and teamwork. A similar tendency is also

recorded in English 2, with the most significant weight falling on the two MCQ tests (60%),

and the remaining distributed for presentation (20%), writing assignment (10%) and other

exercises in class and the E-learning system (10%). These assessment forms are considered

to threaten the validity of score interpretations due to their construct under-representation

(Messick 1989). They do not provide enough evidence of students’ communicative language

use ‘through the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in everyday

situations’ (See Syllabuses 1, 2). Presentation tasks are argued to assess speaking skills;

however, they do not reflect ‘real-life’ daily conversations that might occur in students’

lives.

Besides, the score weighting allocation prioritising MCQ tests on linguistic elements and

reading skills might cause negative washback effects on language teaching and learning. The

fact that they are high-stakes tests that decide whether students pass or fail the course

might lead to the possibility that teachers and students neglect productive skills and put the

main focus on grammar, vocabulary and reading skills. ‘It has frequently been noted that

teachers will teach to a test: that is, if they know the content of a test and/or the format of

a test, they will teach their students accordingly’ (Swain 1985, p.43). Therefore, it is

recommended that the focal constructs (i.e., what students are intended to learn) should

21
be in line with the content of the assessments (Green 2014); in other words, there needs to

be a constructive alignment between course aims and their assessment forms.

4.5. Learners

The fact that learners with limited and mixed abilities and low motivation in language

learning, as described in the contextual part, are arranged in large-sized classes might

hinder the application of CLT in the courses. This situation is also commonly found in other

Vietnamese universities, negatively affecting the quality of teaching and learning English in

these tertiary institutions (Trinh and Mai 2019). There is no placement test to classify

students into classes suitable for their levels; in contrast, they are randomly arranged, and

all start their courses at the pre-intermediate level, which might demotivate those with

higher language proficiency that are forced to re-start at lower levels and those at the

elementary level that might find the programs too challenging and struggle to meet their

requirements. Besides, a widespread current issue in Vietnam is that learning is considered

an ‘examination-focused’ activity (Trinh 2005, p.15), which potentially distorts students’

motivation, i.e. studying for ‘getting a language certificate but not improving English

competence’ (Trinh and Mai 2019, p.47). Regarding learning culture, Asian students are

described as ‘passive, rote learners’ (Pennycook 1998, p.162) who favour listening and

compliance more than speaking and opinion sharing (Kyung Soon and Angela 2006). They

tend to be silent, reluctant to join class discussions and have poor self-study skills. Their

learning is constrained to the classroom context (Nguyen 2007) rather than actively using

English in meaningful communication outside class. These features of learners pose

22
challenges in the application and success of CLT in English 1 and 2, which requires teachers

to notice and adapt different teaching methods to tackle these issues.

4.6. Classroom arrangement

Despite its claim of a shift to CLT, the traditional seating arrangement with rows of fixed

tables and chairs that force students to turn their backs to each other and face a board in

the front remains the same, which minimises and discourages student-student interaction.

Research shows that student learning, motivation, involvement and interactions among

teachers and students, students and their peers are all impacted by the physical setup of

the classroom space (Fernandes, Huang & Rinaldo 2011). The traditional class layout is more

prone to the teacher-centred learning environment and more lecturing than group

discussions compared to others, such as roundtable arrangements, involving higher

interaction and better learning outcomes (Brooks 2012). It is evident that in classrooms

with unmovable sets of tables and chairs, more communication among teachers and

learners in the front rows happens than among those sitting in the back, which might

negatively affect and demotivate them. Therefore, there is an urgent need to alter the

classroom setup in a student-centred style with flexible and mobile seating arrangements,

promoting collaboration and communicative activities and contributing to student learning

progress (Rands and Gansemer-Topf, 2017).

23
5. Conclusion

The analysis of syllabuses in terms of time and content distribution, coursebook choice, and

assessment details, learners and other contextual factors reveals that irrespective of being

claimed to follow the principles of CLT, the general English courses (i.e. English 1 and 2) are

designed to prioritise form-focused instruction with teacher-centred lecturing, rather than

the development of students’ communicative competence through promoting meaningful

interactions.

Every lesson is provided with input through listening and reading activities; however, the

input quantities are relatively limited due to its dependence on the coursebook. The

opportunities for output involve more controlled activities to prevent learners’ errors and

focus on accuracy than allowing them to ‘experiment and try out what they know’ (Richards

and Rodgers 2014, p.95) and notice the gaps in their interlanguage while attempting

language production (Swain 1995). An excessive allocation of time, content and assessment

forms is put into language-focused learning. It is noticeable that evidence for the

opportunities of the fluency development strand (Nation 2007) is unclear. Therefore, it is

doubted that English 1 and 2 achieve the balance of the Four Strands that Nation (2007)

suggested for effective language courses.

It is recommended that there is a need to revise the time and content distribution in the

syllabuses, the choices of the course book and assessment forms, and thoroughly consider

learners’ levels and features, classroom setup and other local contextual factors. Due to the

time, word count and geographical constraints, this study has not examined other factors

24
challenging the application of CLT at Vinh University through questionnaires and interviews

with teachers, students, and administrators or class observation, which should be

investigated further in the future research to capture the whole picture for better

recommendations.

25
 References

Al-Jabri, S. S., 2005. The Effects of Semantic and Thematic Clustering on Learning English
Vocabulary by Saudi Students. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Anderson, M. C., 2003. Rethinking interference theory: Executive control and the
mechanisms of forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 (4), 415-445.

Bachman, L. F., 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Baddeley, A. D., 1997. Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology press.

Breen, M. P., and Candlin, C. N., 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in
language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 89-112.

Brooks, D. C., 2012. Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces
on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1 (2).

Brumfit, C. J., and Johnson, K., 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brumfit, C., 1984. Language and Languages; Communicative Competence; Study and
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Canale, M., and Swain, M., 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M. and Goodwin, J.M., 2010. Teaching pronunciation hardback
with audio CDs (2): A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Cunningsworth, A., 1995. Choosing Your Coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.

Davies, A., ed., 1999. Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

26
DeKeyser, R., 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing
second language grammar. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., ed. Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 42-63.

Do, T. H., 1996. Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: The reemergence of English
and its impact on higher education. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Eckerth, J., 2008. Task-based learner interaction: investigating learning opportunities,

learning processes, and learning outcomes. In Eckerth, J., ed. Task-based Language Learning
and Teaching: Theoretical, Methodological, and Pedagogical Perspectives. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.

Ellis, R., 1984. Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon.

Ellis, R., and Shintani, N., 2014. Exploring language pedagogy through second language
acquisition research. Routledge.

Erten, I. H., and Tekin, M., 2008. Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words
in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36 (3), 407-422.

Fernandes, A. C., Huang, J. and Rinaldo, V., 2011. Does Where A Student Sits Really Matter?-
The Impact of Seating Locations on Student Classroom Learning. International Journal of
Applied Educational Studies, 10 (1).

Foreign Languages Department, 2020. Syllabus of English 1. Vinh: Vinh University.

Foreign Languages Department, 2020. Syllabus of English 2. Vinh: Vinh University.

Fotos, S. S., 1993. Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task
performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14 (4), 385-407.

Fotos, S., and Ellis, R., 1991. Communicating about grammar: A task‐based approach. TESOL
Quarterly, 25 (4), 605-628.

Fulcher, G., 2013. Practical language testing. London: Hodder Education.

Green, A., 2014. Exploring language assessment and testing. London: Routledge.

27
Harding, L., 2014. Communicative language testing: Current issues and future
research. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11 (2), 186-197.

Hedge, T., 2000. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Hill, D. A., 2013. Life Pre-intermediate Teacher’s Book. Hampshire: National Geographic
Learning.

Hoang, V. V., 2010. The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in Vietnam. 立
命館言語文化研究, 22 (1), 7-18.

Howatt, A. P. R., 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. and Dummett, P., 2012. Life Pre-intermediate. Hampshire:
National Geographic Learning.

Huong, T. T., 2010. Insights from VIETNAM. In Johnstone, R., ed. Learning through English:
Policies, Challenges and Prospects. Insights from East Asia. Malaysia: British Council, 2010,
pp. 96-114.

Hutchinson, T., 1987. What’s underneath? An interactive view of materials evaluation. In

Sheldon, L. E., ed. ELT Textbooks and Materials: Problems in Evaluation and Development.
London: Modern English Publications/ The British Council, pp. 37-44.

Hutchinson, T., and Waters, A., 1987. English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hymes, D., 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J.,

ed. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972, pp. 269-293.

Kostka, I. and Bunning, L., 2017. Curriculum design in English Language Teaching. TESOL
Press.

28
Krashen, S. D., 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Addison-Wesley
Longman Limited.

Krashen, S., 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.

Kyung Soon, L., and Angela, C., 2006. Korean college students in United States: Perceptions
of professors and students. College Student Journal, 40 (2), 442-457.

Lantolf, J. P., and Thorne, S. L., 2006. Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language
development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laufer, B., and Hulstijn, J., 2001. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 1-26.

Littlejohn, A., 1998. The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse. In
Tomlinson, B., ed. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998, pp. 190–216.

Littlewood, W., 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Long, M., 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In:
Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T., ed. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego:
Academic Press.

Long, M., 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 126–141.

McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H., 2013. Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher's
guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Messick, S., 1989. Validity. In Linn, R. L., ed. Educational measurement. New York:
Macmillan, 1989, pp. 13-103.

Ming, C., and Jaya, S. G., 2011. Factors Affecting the Implementation of Communicative
Language Teaching in Taiwanese College English Classes. English Language Teaching, 4 (2),
3-10.

29
Mohamed, N., 2001. Teaching grammar through consciousness-raising tasks: learning
outcomes, learning preferences and task performance. Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland.

Nation, P., 2000. Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESOL Journal,
9 (2), 6–10.

Nation, P., 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Nation, P., 2007. The four strands. International Journal of Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 2-13.

Negueruela, E., 2003. A sociocultural approach to teaching and researching second

languages: Systemic-theoretical instruction and second language development. The
Pennsylvania State University.

Nguyen, D. and Sloper, D., 1995. Socio-Economic Background of Vietnam since 1986: Impact
on Education and Higher Education. In: Sloper, D. and Thac Can, L. ed. Higher Education in
Vietnam: Change and Response. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, pp. 26-40. DOI:
10.1355/9789814379267-008 [Accessed 26 January 2023].

Nguyen, T. M. H., 2007. Developing EFL learners’ intercultural communicative competence:

A gap to be filled. Asian EFL Journal, 21, 122-139.

Nunan, D., 1988. Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Papathanasiou, E., 2009. An investigation of two ways of presenting vocabulary. ELT

Journal, 63 (4), 313-322.

Pennycook, A., 2002. English and the discourses of colonialism. Routledge.

Pesce, S., 2008. Focused tasks in L2 Spanish grammar learning and teaching. In Eckerth, J.,
ed. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching: Theoretical, Methodological, and
Pedagogical Perspectives. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008, pp. 67–88.

30
Pham, L. H., and Fry, G. W., 2004. Education and economic, political, and social change in
Vietnam. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3, 199-222.

Prabhu, N. S., 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rands, M. L., and Gansemer-Topf, A. M., 2017. The Room Itself Is Active: How Classroom
Design Impacts Student Engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6 (1), 26-33.

Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S., 2014. Approaches and methods in language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Savignon, S. J., 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading,
Mass.: Adison-Wesley.

Schmitt, N., 2008. Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching
Research, 12 (3), 329-363.

Sheldon, L. E., 1988. Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 237-246.

Spada, N., ed., 2006. The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused
instruction. In Housen, A. and Pierrard, M., ed. Investigations in Instructed Second Language
Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005, pp. 199-234.

Swain, M., 1985. Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. New Directions
in Language Testing, , 35-46.

Swain, M., 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. Principles and
Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of HG Widdowson, 125-144.

Swain, M., 2005, The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: Hinkel, E., ed. Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning. London: Routledge, 2005, pp. 471-
483.

Tinkham, T., 1997. The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second
language vocabulary. Second Language Research, 13 (2), 138-163.

31
Trinh, Q. L., 2005. Stimulating learner autonomy in English language education: A
curriculum innovation study in a Vietnamese context. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Trinh, T. T. H. and Mai, T. L., 2019, Current challenges in the teaching of tertiary English in
Vietnam. In: Albright, J. English tertiary education in Vietnam. Routledge, 2019, pp. 40-53.

Trinh, T. T. H., 2016. Achieving cultural competence in Vietnamese EFL classes: A case study
from an intercultural communicative competence perspective. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Newcastle.

Van Lier, L., 1979. Choosing a new EFL course. Mextesol Journal, 3 (3), 2-14.

Vietnam. Ministry of Education and Training, 2008. Decision No. 1400/QD-TTg on the
approval of the project “Teaching and learning foreign language in the national education
system in the period 2008–2020. Vietnam: MOET.

Vietnam. Ministry of Education and Training, 2014. Circular No.01/2014/TT-BGDĐT on

Vietnamese 6-level foreign language competence framework. Vietnam: MOET.

Vietnam. Ministry of Education and Training, 2015. Decision 730/QĐ-BGDĐT on the format
of VSTEP3-5. Vietnam: MOET.

Vinh University, 2023. Vinh: Vinh University Press. Available at [Link]

[Accessed 25 January 2023].

Weir, C., 2005. Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Palgrave
MacMillan.

White, L., ed., 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12
(4), 416-432.

Widdowson, H. G., 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Wilkins, D. A., 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williams, D., 1983. Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37 (3), 251-255.

32
Willis, J., 1996. A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman.

Wright, S., 2002. Language education and foreign relations in Vietnam. In: Tollefson, J.,
ed. Language policies in education: critical issues. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2002, pp. 225-244.

33
Appendix 1
SYLLABUS
MODULE: ENGLISH 1

1. General information
1.1. Information about lecturers

1.2. General information about English 1

- Module (Vietnamese): TIẾNG ANH 1
(English): ENGLISH 1
- Module number: E0001
- Common module for non-English majors
- Module type: Compulsory Optional
- Credit number: 03
+ Theory period: 30
+ Practical period: 15
+ Self-directed learning period: 90
- Module requirements:
+ Students must attend at least 80% of the course in class.
+ Students must submit assignments on the E-learning system.
+ Students must participate in practical periods.

2. Module description
English 1 is part of the compulsory general knowledge block of the university-level
training program for non-English major students. The course is designed to include both theory
(30 periods) and practice (15 periods). The basic linguistic knowledge will be provided in the
theory part, and the practical part will allow students to apply the knowledge they have learned
in basic, familiar everyday situations through communication, listening, speaking, reading and
writing skills. Besides, practical activities are designed to help students develop effective
teamwork and communication skills.

3. Module aims
English 1 is taught based on the principles of Communicative Language Teaching. At the
end of this module, learners are (1) equipped with linguistic knowledge about vocabulary,
grammar, and phonology, and develop listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills to be able
to communicate in English effectively in familiar everyday situations; (2) develop teamwork skills;
(3) form communication ideas, build communication materials, implement communication
activities, and improve communication activities in English.

4. Learning outcomes, teaching methods, assessment

Learning Description of learning outcome Teaching Assessment

outcome methods
CLO3.1 Use linguistic and socio-cultural Self-directed MCQ tests
knowledge to communicate in basic learning Presentation
English through the 4 skills of listening, Presentation
34
 Learning Description of learning outcome Teaching Assessment
outcome methods
speaking, reading, and writing in everyday Discussion
situations.

CLO3.2 Develop teamwork skills with a positive Discussion Observation

and effective attitude. Presentation Rubric for
Group work marking
presentation,
and group
work
CLO3.3 Forming communication ideas, building Discussion Observation
communication materials, implementing Presentation Rubric for
communication activities, and improving Group work marking
communication activities in English at a presentation.
basic level. and group
work

5. Assessment details

Assessment form Assessment brief Assessment Learning % of % of

tools outcome assessment Total
form
A1. Formative assessment 50%
A1.1. E-learning Assignments in class and Answer CLO 3.1 100% 10%
E-learning system keys
(Calculate the average
score for all exercises)
A1.2. MCQ test 1 Multiple-choice test - Unit Answer CLO3.1 100% 20%
1,2 keys
A1.3. Assess group work and Rubric 1 CLO 3.2 70% 20%
Presentation and presentations on given Rubric 2 CLO 3.3 30%
group work topics
A2. Summative assessment 50%
A2.1. MCQ test 2 Multiple-choice test - Unit Answer CLO 3.1 100% 50%
3,4, 5 keys

The formula for calculating the course score:

Course score = (A1.1 + A1.2*2 + A1.3*2 + A2.1*5)/10

35
6. Books
Textbook
[1] Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. & Dummett, P. (2012). Life Pre-intermediate. Asia ELT/School.
Supplementary materials
[1] Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. & Dummett, P. (2012). Life Elementary. Asia ELT/School.
[2] Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. & Dummett, P. (2012). Life Intermediate. Asia ELT/School.

36
7. Class schedule

Teaching aids: board, chalk, projector, computer, speaker, LIFE online software
How to check and assess students’ self-study: Through exercises on Self-study software and
assignments. In addition, teachers can check homework, class tests, and group work.

Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment

class activities outcome
activities

1 1. Course introduction Lecturing - Getting a copy CLO3.1 A1.1

1.1. Requirements and Discussion of the textbook CLO3.2 A1.2
Assessment (Life - Pre- CLO3.3
1.2. Online class sign in intermediate)
1.3. Group devision - Logining into
online class
- Joining one’s
group

2. Unit 1 Individual - working with a CLO3.1 A1.1

2.1. 1a: How well do you work partner to ask CLO3.2 A1.2
sleep Pair work and answer the CLO3.3
2.1.1. Reading and Question quiz
speaking and aswer - Listening to the
2.1.2. Grammar: Present quiz and
simple and Adverbs of checking with
frequency the teacher.
2.1.3. Pronunciation: /s/, -Doing grammar
/z/, or /iz/ exercises and
2.1.4. Practice pronunciation
practice

2 2.2. 1b: The secret of Lecturing - Reading about CLO3.1 A1.1

long life Individual the secret of CLO3.2 A1.2
2.2.1. Reading: The secret work long life/ health CLO3.3
of long life Pair work and happiness
2.2.2. Vocabulary: do, Group work and answering
play, go the given
2.2.3. Grammar: Present questions and
simple and present checking with
continuous friends and then
2.2.4. Practice the teacher.

37
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

2.3. 1c: Health and - Doing grammar

Happiness exercises to
2.3.1. Reading: measuring identify the form
Health and Happiness and use of verb
2.3.2. Word focus: Feel tenses: present
2.3.3. Critical thinking: the simple and
main argument present
continuos
- Developing
critical thinking
skill through
reading tasks

3 2.4. 1d: At the doctor’s Lecturing -Getting to know CLO3.1 A1.1

2.4.1. Vocabulary: medical Individual and finding out CLO3.2 A1.2
problems work the meaning of CLO3.3
2.4.2. Pronunciation and Online medical
spelling writing vocabulary
2.4.3. Real life: Talking Role play - Practising
about illness Pronunciation -
with each others
2.5. 1e: medical advice - Listening to 2
online conversations at
2.5.1. Writing: Online a pharmacy and
advice at a doctor’s
2.5.2. Writing skill: - Playing the role
conjunctions (and. or, but, of doctor and
so) patient to talk
2.5.3. Speaking: giving about medical
advice problems and
give advice
2.6. 1f: Slow food - writing about
(optional) medical
2.7. Review problems by
using
conjunctions

38
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

- writing online
advice and post
it into class
gmail
- Revising
language
knowledge and
language skills
learnt in the
whole unit

4 3. Unit 2: Competitions Lecturing - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

3.1. 2a: Competitive Discussion/ difference in use CLO3.2 A1.2
sports group work between Verb- CLO3.3
3.1.1. Grammar: Verb_ing Individual ing form and
forms/ like_ing/ would work would like to by
like to practising doing
3.1.2. Pronunciation: grammar
3.1.3. Vocabulary and exercises
listening: talking about - Practising
sports pronunciation
3.1.4. Speaking: ambitions - working with
for the future groups and tak
3.1.5. Practice about sports/
favorite sports
- Practising
listening
- Talking about
ambitions

5 3.2. 2b: Crazy Lecturing Think – pair - CLO3.1 A1.1

competitions Group work share CLO3.2 A1.2
3.2.1. Grammar: Modal Presentation - Finding the CLO3.3
verbs meaning and use
3.2.2. Vocabulary: of competition
competitions vocabulary
3.2.3. Speaking: - working in
describing a competition group to

39
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

describe a
3.3. 2c: Bolivian wrestlers competition
3.3.1. Reading: Bolivian - Presenting in
wrestlers front of the class
3.3.2. Word focus: like - Reading the
article “Bolivian
wrestlers” and
answering given
questions
- differentiating
the use of the
verb “like”
- developing
critical thinking
through reading
questions

6 3.3. 2d: Joining a club Lecturing - talking with CLO3.1 A1.1

3.3.1. Speaking: joining a Group work friends about CLO3.2 A1.2
club Pair work experience of CLO3.3
3.3.2. Real life: talking Individual joining a club.
about interests work - Talking one’s
3.3.3. Pronunciation: interests
silent letters - Practice
pronunciation
3.4. 2e: Advertising for
- writing an
members
advert or notice
3.4.1. Writing: an advert and peer
or notice checking
3.4.2. Writing skill: - Doing grammar
checking your writing and vocabulary
exercises
3.5. 2f: Cheese rolling
- Revising
(optional)
language
3.6. Review knowledge and
language skills

40
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

learnt in the
whole unit

Mid-term test (MCQ test 1 – Unit 1-2) CLO3.1 A1.2

CLO3.2

7 4. Unit 3: Transport Lecturing - Read about CLO3.1 A1.1

4.1. 3a: Transport in the Individual transport in the CLO3.2 A2.1
future work future CLO3.3
4.1.1. Reading: Transport Pair work - Finding out the
in the future differences
4.1.2. Vocabulary: between words
Transport 1: nouns relating to
4.1.3. Grammar: transport
comparartive and - Doing grammar
superlative exercies
4.1.4. Practice - Asking and
4.1.5. Listening answering the
4.1.6. Pronunciation: than questionnaire,
4.1.7. Speaking and then writing
writing: questionnaire down
information
from
questionnaire

8 4.2. 3b: Animal Transport Individual - Doing grammar CLO3.1 A1.1

(Optional) work exercises with CLO3.2 A2.1
4.2.1. Grammar: As..as Pair work “as…as” CLO3.3
4.2.2. Listening Group work - Reading the
4.2.3. Reading: the best best way to
way to travel travel/ last days
of ricksaw
- Indentifying
4.3. 3c: Last days of the the differences
ricksaw between verbs
4.3.1. Reading: Last days relating to
of the ricksaw transports

41
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

4.3.2. Vocabulary: - Developing

Transport 2: verbs crtitical thinking
4.3. 3 Critical thinking: thorugh reading
reading between the lines tasks

9 4.4. 3d: Getting arounf Lecturing - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

the town Individual appropriate CLO3.2 A2.1
4.4.1. Vocabulary and work expressions/ CLO3.3
listening: taking transport Pair work sentences to use
4.4.2. Pronunciation: Group work when taking a
Intonation transport

4.5. 3e: Quick - Recognizing

communication the rules of
4.5.1. Writing: Notes and writing a note/
messages message
4.5.2. Writing skill: writing - Writing a note/
in note form message to a
friend in a given
4.6. 3f: Indian Railways situation
(optional) - Revising
language
4.7. Review knowledge and
language skills
learnt in the
whole unit

10 5. Unit 4: Adventure Lecturing - Recognizing CLO3.1 A1.1

5.1. 4a: Aventure of the Individual the form, use CLO3.2 A2.1
year work and meaning of CLO3.3
5.1.1. Grammar: Past Pair work verbs used in
Simple past simple and
5.1.2. Practice past continous.
5.1.3. Pronunciation: /d/, - Doing grammar
/t/ or /id/ exercices
5.1.4. Speaking: asking relating to past
about partners’ pasts simple and past

42
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

continuous to
5.2. 4b: The survivors identify the
5.2.1. Grammar: Past differences
Continous between the
5.2.2. Practice uses of these
tenses.
- Practising
Pronunciation
- Working with
group members
and talking
about the past

11 5.2.3. Vocabulary and Lecturing - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

speaking: Individual form, meaning CLO3.2 A2.1
Personal qualities work and use of CLO3.3
5.2.4. Speaking: Past Games vovabulary
events Group work about
personalities
5.3. 4c: The right decision - Participating in
5.3.1. Reading: The right guessing games
decision (a classmate will
5.3.2. Vocabulary: describe any one
Geographical features/ in the class and
on, in, at for time all the other
expressions students try to
5.3.3. Critical thinking: find out who is
identifying opinion that person)
- Reading the
text individually
to answer the
questions and
discussing with
friends about
the answer.

43
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

- Developing the
critical thinking
skill: identifying
opinion, through
the reading task
- Recognizing
the use of
preposition and
practising with
exercises.

12 5.4. 4d: A happy Lecturing - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

ending Group work information of CLO3.2 A2.1
5.4.1. Listening: Real life Presentation camping trip CLO3.3
5.4.2. Pronunciation: through
Intonation for listening
responding - Working in
5.4.3. Speaking: Telling a groups and
story making a story
by sequencing
5.5. 4e: A story of the story.
survival - Working in pair
5.5.1. Writing: a true and practising
story conversations
5.5.2. Writing skill: using by using
–ly adverbs in expressions to
stories react to good
news and bad
5.6. 4f: Alaskan ice news
climbing (optional) - Writing their
own stories by
5.7. Review using adverb_ly
- Presenting the
stories in front
of the class

44
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

13 6. Unit 5: The Lecturing - Recognizing CLO3.1 A1.1

environment Pair work the form, CLO3.2 A2.1
6.1. 5a: Recycling Individual meaning and use CLO3.3
6.1.1. Vocabulary: work of vocabulary
household items about household
6.1.2. Listening items and
6.1.3. Grammar: recycling objects
Quantifiers - Identifying the
6.1.4. Practice differences
6.1.5. Reading: E-rubbish between
countable nouns
6.2. 5b: The Greendex and uncountable
6.2.1. Grammar: definite nouns through
articles (the) or no article exercises
6.2.2. Practice - Working with
friends and
doing grammar
exercise to
practice using
appropriate
quantifiers
- Using
appropriate
articles in
sentences
thanks to the
ability of
recognizing the
differences in
use and
meaning.

Presentation Groupwork Presentation in CLO3.2 A1.3

groups
CLO3.3

14 6.2.3. Vocabulary: results Individual - Practising CLO3.1 A1.1

and figures work Pronunciation CLO3.2 A2.1

45
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

6.2.4. Pronunciation: /ðə/ Role play and recognizing CLO3.3

or /ði:/ Group work the difference
between two
6.3. 5c: A boat made of sounds
bottles - Reading the
6.3.1. Reading: A boat text “a boat
made of bottles made of bottles”
6.3.2. Critical thinking: individually and
close reading answer the
6.3.3. Word focus: take related
questions
6.4. 5d: Online - developing the
shopping critical thinking
6.4.1. Real life: Phoning through
about an order answering
6.4.2. Pronunciation: reading
Sounding friendly questions
- Doing exercises
to identifying
the use of the
verb “take”
- Role playing to
practice a phone
call and trying to
sound friendly

15 6.5. 5e: Problem with - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

an order Individual differences CLO3.2 A2.1
6.5.1. Writing: emails work between formal CLO3.3
6.5.2. Writing skill: Role play and informal
formal language Group work langangue used
in an email
6.6. 5f: Coastal clean- through doing
up exercises
6.6.1. Watching the - writing an
video intereactive

46
Week Content Suggested Students’ Learning Assessment
class activities outcome
activities

6.6.2. Speaking: Role- email in an given

play situation
- watching the
6.7. Review video about the
coastal clean-up
- Roleplay a
conversation
about the
environment

Final test – MCQ test 2 (Unit 3-5) CLO3.1 A2.1

CLO3.2

47
 Appendix 2
SYLLABUS
MODULE: ENGLISH 2

1. General information
1.1. Information about lecturers

1.2. General information about English 2

- Module (Vietnamese): TIẾNG ANH 2
(English): ENGLISH 2
- Module number: E0001
- Common module for non-English majors
- Module type: Compulsory Optional
- Credit number: 04
+ Theory period: 30
+ Practical period: 30
+ Self-directed learning period: 90
- Module requirements:
+ Students must attend at least 80% of the course in class.
+ Students must submit assignments on the E-learning system.
+ Students must participate in practical periods.

2. Module description
Module English 2 belongs to the compulsory general knowledge block of the
university-level training program for non-English major students. The course is designed to
include both theory (30 periods) and practice (30 periods). The language knowledge in this
module follows module English 1 and at a higher level. In this module, learners develop English
communication skills in familiar situations and develop effective teamwork skills.

3. Module aims
English 2 is taught based on the principles of Communicative Language Teaching. At the
end of this module, learners are (1) equipped with linguistic knowledge about vocabulary,
grammar, and phonology, and develop listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills to be
able to communicate in English effectively in familiar everyday situations; (2) develop
teamwork skills; (3) form communication ideas, build communication materials, implement
communication activities, and improve communication activities in English.

4. Learning outcomes, teaching methods, assessment

Learning Description of learning outcome Teaching Assessment

outcome methods
CLO3.1 Use linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge to Self-directed MCQ tests
communicate in basic English through the 4 learning Presentation
skills of listening, speaking, reading, and Presentation Writing
writing in everyday situations. Discussion assignment

48
Learning Description of learning outcome Teaching Assessment
outcome methods

CLO3.2 Develop teamwork skills with a positive and Discussion Observation

effective attitude. Presentation Rubric for
Group work marking
presentation,
and group
work
CLO3.3 Forming communication ideas, building Discussion Observation
communication materials, implementing Presentation Rubric for
communication activities, and improving Group work marking
communication activities in English at a basic presentation.
level. and group
work

5. Assessment details

Assessment form Assessment brief Assessment Learning % of % of

tools outcome assessment Total
form
A1. Formative assessment 50%
A1.1. E-learning Assignments in class and E- Answer CLO 3.1 100% 10%
learning system keys
(Calculate the average score
for all exercises)
A1.2. MCQ test 1 Multiple-choice test - Unit 6, Answer CLO 3.1 100% 10%
7, 8 keys
A1.3. Assess group work and Rubric 1 CLO 3.2 70% 20%
Presentation presentations on given Rubric 2 CLO 3.3 30%
topics
A1.4. Writing Writing letters/ emails Rubric 3 CLO 3.1 100% 10%
assignment
A2. Summative assessment 50%
A2.1. MCQ test 2 Multiple-choice test - Unit 9, Answer CLO 3.1 100% 50%
10, 11, 12 keys

The formula for calculating the course score:

Course score = (A1.1+A1.2+A1.3*2+A1.4+A2.1*5)/10

49
 6. Books
Textbook
[1] Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. & Dummett, P. (2012). Life Pre-intermediate. Asia ELT/School.
Supplementary materials
[1] Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. & Dummett, P. (2012). Life Elementary. Asia ELT/School.
[2] Hughes, J., Stephenson, H. & Dummett, P. (2012). Life Intermediate. Asia ELT/School.

7. Class schedule

Teaching aids: board, chalk, projector, computer, speaker, LIFE online software
How to check and assess students’ self-study: Through exercises on Self-study software and
assignments. In addition, teachers can check homework, class tests, and group work.

Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment

activities activities outcome

1 1. Course introduction Lecturing - Getting a copy of CLO3.1 A1.1

1.1. Requirements and Discussion the textbook (Life CLO3.2
Assessment - Pre- CLO3.3
1.2. Online class sign in intermediate)
1.3. Group devision - Logining into
online class
- Joining one’s
group

2. Unit 6 Individual work - Working CLO3.1 A1.1

2.1. 6a: Changing your Pair work individually to CLO3.2 A1.2
life complete the CLO3.3
2.1.1. Vocabulary: stages vocabulary task in
in Life the coursebook
2.1.2. Grammar: verb
pattern + to infinitif -Doing grammar
2.1.3. Pronunciation: /tə/ exercises and
3.1.4. Practice pronunciation
practice

50
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

2 2.2. 6b. World party Lecturing - Reading World CLO3.1 A1.1

2.2.1. Reading: World Individual work party answering CLO3.2 A1.2
party Group work the given CLO3.3
2.2.2. Vocabulary: questions and
celebrations checking with
2.2.3. Grammar: Future friends and then
forms the teacher.
2.2.4. Listening: Mardi - Doing grammar
Gras exercises to
2.2.5. Speaking: plan and identify the form
prepare a celebration and use of futire
forms;
2.3. 6c: Masai rite of - Group work:
passage speaking about
2.3.1. Reading: Masai rite celebrations.
of passage - Reading “Masai
2.3.2. Critical thinking: rite of passage”
identifying key and answering
information given questions.
2.3.3. Word focus: Get - Developing
critical thinking by
identifying key
information
- differentiate the
use of “Get”

3 2.4. 6d: An invitation - Listening to 2 CLO3.1 A1.1

2.4.1. Real life: inviting, Individual work conversations and CLO3.2 A1.2
accepting and declining Pair work identifying CLO3.3
2.4.2. Pronunciation: Online writing structures
emphasizing words expressing the
2.5. 6e: A wedding in invitation/
Madagascar

51
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

2.5.1. Writing: a acceptance and

description decline;
2.5.2. Writing skill: - Practice
descriptive adjectives Pronunciation -
with each others
- working in pair to
2.6. 6f: Steel drum practice the
(optional) invitation
2.7. Review conversation;
- Practising writing
a description;
- Practising writing
skill by using
different
adjectives;
- Revising
language
knowledge and
language skills
learnt in the whole
unit.

3. Unit 7: Work Lecturing - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

3.1. 7a: X-ray Group work difference in use CLO3.2 A1.2
photographer Individual work between different CLO3.3
3.1.1. Grammar: preposition of
Prepositions of placement and
placement and movement by
movement practising doing
3.1.2. Pronunciation: grammar
Intrusive /w/ exercises;
- Practising
pronunciation

52
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

3.1.3. Listening: the - Working with

photographer Nick friends to practice
Veasey new words
3.1.4. Vocabulary: office - Practising
equipment listening
3.1.5. Practice

4 3.2. 7b: The cost of new Lecturing Think – pair - CLO3.1 A1.1
jobs Individual work share CLO3.2 A1.2
3.2.1. Grammar: Present Pair work - Thinking the big CLO3.3
perfect simple change in life and
3.2.2. Listening: The share with friends
changes in the region - Identifying the
3.2.3. Speaking: asking meaning and use
ans answering questions of Present Perfect
relating familiar topics Simple and
practice with
3.3. 7c: Twenty-first exercises.
century cowboys - Reading the
[Link]: Job article “Twenty-
sastifaction first century
3.3.2. Reading: Twenty- cowboys” and
first century cowboys answering
3.3.3. Word focus: make comprehension
or do questions
3.3.4. Critical thinking: - Differentiating
the author’s opinion the use of “make”
and ‘do”
- Developing
critical thinking
through
identifying the
author’s opinion.

53
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

5 3.4. 7d: A job interview Lecturing - Recognizing and

3.4.1. Vocabulary: Job Group work using appropriate
adverts Pair work words relating to
3.4.2. Real life: Job Individual work jobs
interview - Practising a job
3.5. 7e: Applying for a interview after
job listening to a
sample
3.5.1. Writing: a CV - Writing a CV
3.5.2. Writing skill: action following the
verbs for CVs provided sample
and using different
3.6. 7f: Butler school
actions verbs;
(optional)
- Writing a
3.7. Review complete CV of
one’s own and
post on google
doc.

Mid-term test (MCQ test 1 – Unit 6-7) A1.2

6 4. Unit 8: Technology Lecturing - Listening about a CLO3.1 A1.1

4.1. 7a: Invention for the Individual work science CLO3.2 A1.3
eyes Group work programme about CLO3.3 A1.4
4.1.1. Listening: science the glasses and
programme about the identifying the
glasses main and then
4.1.2. Grammar: defining detail information
relative clauses from the listening;
4.1.3. Practice
4.1.4. Speaking: talking - Finding out the
about an imaginary robot meaning and use

54
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

of relative clauses
by doing grammar
exercise;

- Group working
and discussing
about an
imaginary robot.

4.2. 8b: Technology for Individual work - Doing vocabulary

explorers Pair work exercises relating
4.2.1. Vocabulary: The to the Internet;
Internet - Doing grammar
4.2.2. Grammar: Zero exercises with
and first conditional zero and first
4.2.3. Reading: NGM conditional
BlogWild - Practising
4.2.4. Pronunciation: pronunciation
intonation in conditional - Indentifying key
sentences information from
the reading
“Design from
4.3. 8c: Design from Nature”;
Nature - Developing
4.3.1. Reading: Design crtitical thinking
from Nature through reading
4.3.2. Word focus: have tasks.
4.3. 3 Critical thinking:
reading between the
lines

7 4.4. 8d: Gadgets Individual work - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

Pair work appropriate verbs CLO3.2 A1.3

55
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

4.4.1. Vocabulary: and nouns about CLO3.3 A1.4

Technology verbs technology;
4.4.2. Real life: asking - Practising asking
how something works and explaining
how something
works

4.5. 8e: An argument for - Recognizing the

technology format of writing a
4.5.1. Writing a paragraph , using
paragraph connecting words
4.5.2. Writing skill: in a paragraph
connecting words - Writing a
paragraph about
4.6. 8f: Wind power technology
(optional) - Revising
language
4.7. Review knowledge and
language skills
learnt in the whole
unit

8 5. Unit 9: Language and Lecturing - Differentiating CLO3.1 A1.1

learning Individual work the use of CLO3.2 A1.3
5.1. 9a: Ways of learning Group work education CLO3.3 A1.4
5.1.1. Vocabulary: vocabulary;
Education - Practising
5.1.2. Pronunciation: pronunciation of
stress in two-syllabe two-syllabe words;
words - Doing grammar
exercices relating
to present and

56
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

5.1.3. Grammar: Present past simple

simple passive/ by + passive;
agent - Working with
5.1.4. Speaking: discuss group members
given topics and talking about
the given topics in
5.2. 9b: The history of Ex 10 (p.107)
writing
5.2.1. Grammar: Past
Simple passive
5.2.2. Practice

9 5.3. 9c: Saving languages Lecturing - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

5.3.1. Reading: Saving Individual work form, meaning CLO3.2 A1.3
languages Pair work and use of phrasal CLO3.3 A1.4
5.3.2. Vocabulary: verbs in the
Phrasal verbs reading;
5.3.3. Critical thinking: - Reading the text
fact or opinion individually to
answer the
questions and
discussing with
friends about the
answer.
- Developing the
critical thinking
skill: identifying
fact or opinion.

6.8. 9d: Enrolling on a Lecturing - Working in

course Group work groups and
Presentation

57
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

6.8.1. Reading and discussing the

speaking evening classes;
6.8.2. Real life: - Working in pair
describing a and practising
process conversations by
using expressions
6.9. 9e: Providing to describe a
information process;
6.9.1. Writing: filling in - Learn how to fill
a form in a form
6.9.2. Writingskill:
providing the
correct
information.
6.10. 9f: Disappearing
voices (optional)

6.11. Review

10 7. Unit 10: Travel and Lecturing - Discovering CLO3.1 A1.1

Holiday Pair work cultural CLO3.2 A1.3
6.1. 10a: Holiday stories Individual work differences CLO3.3 A1.4
6.1.1. Reading: Holiday through reading
stories text “Holiday
6.1.2. Grammar: Past stories”;
perfect simple/ subject- - Recognizing the
object questions. form, meaning
6.1.3. Practice and use of Past
6.1.4. Speaking: ask perfect simple/
questions about one’s subject-object
holiday questions by doing
grammar
exercises;

58
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

6.2. 10b: Adventure - Working with

holidays friends, taking
6.2.1. Grammar: ed/ing turns to ask
adjectives questions about
6.2.2. Vocabulary: each other’s
Holiday adjectives holiday or journey;
6.2.3. Listening: Radio - Recognizing the
interview about holiday differences in use
and meaning of
ed/ing adjectives;
- using
appropriate
adjectives to
describe a holiday.

11 6.3. 10c: A tour under Individual work - Reading the text CLO3.1 A1.1
Paris Role play individually and CLO3.2 A1.3
6.3.1. Reading: A tour Group work answer the related CLO3.3 A1.4
under Paris questions
6.3.2. Critical thinking: - Developing the
reading between the critical thinking
lines through answering
6.3.3. Vocabulary: places reading questions
in a city
- Role playing to
7.4. 10d: At tourist practice asking
information direct and indirect
6.4.1. Real life: direct and questions
indirect questions
6.4.2. Pronunciation: -Practising writing
/ʤə/ a formal letter and

59
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

6.5. 10e: Requesting post it on google

information doc
6.5.1. Writing: a formal
letter
6.5.2. Writing skill:
formal expressions

6.6. 10f: Living in Venice

(optional)

6.7. Review

12 8. Unit 11: History -Reading about CLO3.1 A1.1

7.1. 11a. An ancient Individual work the structure CLO3.2 A1.3
civilisation Role play used to and make CLO3.3 A1.4
7.1.1. Vocabulary: Group work two sentences
archeology with this
7.1.2. Listening: an structure.
interview with an - Thinking of some
archeologist important
7.1.3. Grammar: Used historical events
to about some of
7.1.4. Pronunciation: these topics:
/s/ or /z/ world politics,
famous
7.2. 11b: Modern individuals, space
History exploration,
7.2.1. Reading: culture and the
Moments in arts, countries
space history and cities,
7.2.2. Grammar: technology.
Reported speech - Recognizing the
form and use of

60
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

7.2.3. Vocabulary: Say Reported speech

or Tell by doing grammar
exercises;

13 7.3. 11c: The life of Individual work - Reading the text CLO3.1 A1.1
Jane Goodall Pair work and answering CLO3.2 A1.3
7.3.1. Reading: The life the CLO3.3 A1.4
of Jane Goodall comprehension
7.3.2. Critical thinking: questions
relevance - Developing
7.3.3. Word focus: set critical thinking
through reading
7.4. 11d: A journey to questions
Machu Picchu - Identifying the
7.4.1. Real life: giving a use and meaning
short of the verb “set”
presentation -Practising
7.4.2. Pronunciation: presenting a
pausing short talk
- Practising writing
7.5. 11e: The greatest a biography and
mountaineer using
7.5.1. Writing: a puncatuation in
biography direct speech
7.5.2. Writing skill: appropriatly
punctuation in
direct speech

7.6. 11f: The lost city

of Machu Picchu
(optional)

61
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

7.7. Review

14 8. Unit 12: Nature Individual work - Identifying the CLO3.1 A1.1

8.1. 12a: Nature in Pair work key information CLO3.2 A1.3
one cubic foot Group work from the listening CLO3.3 A1.4
8.1.1. Listening: a - Recognizing the
documentary use and meaning
about David of different
Liittschwager infinite
8.1.2. Grammar: infinite determiners
determiners: - Reading the text
any/ some/ “extreme
every… weather’ and
equipe
8.2. 12b: The power themselves with
of nature new words;
8.2.1. Vocabulary and - Recognizing the
reading: extreme use and meaning
weather of conditional
8.2.2. Grammar: second sentences by
conditional doing related
8.2.3. Pronunciation: exercises.
would/ ‘d - Developing
8.2.4. Speaking critical thinking
by answering
8.3. 12c: Changing reading questions
Greenland - Working in group
8.3.1. Reading: to discussion
Changing solution to
Greenland change one’s
8.3.2. Critical thinking: country or
close reading regions.

62
Week Content Suggested class Students’ Learning Assessment
activities activities outcome

8.3.3. Vocabulary:
society and
economics
8.3.4. Grammar: Will/
might
8.3.5. Speaking:
Changing your
country

15 8.4. 12d: Saying the - Group work - Group working CLO3.1 A1.1
zoo - Individual work and discussing CLO3.2 A1.3
8.4.1. Speaking and - Pair work the solution for CLO3.3 A1.4
reading: talk the zoo;
about the zoo - Writing a press
8.4.2. Real life: finding a release of nay
solution topic and post it
on google doc;
8.5. 12e: Good news - Watching video
8.5.1. Writing: a press relating to animal
release rescue and
8.5.2. Writing skill: discussing the
using bullet solution to
points protect animals
- Revising all
8.6. 12f: Cambodia related items
animal rescue learnt thoughout
8.7. Review the unit.

Final test – MCQ test 2 (Unit 8-12) A2.1

63
Appendix 3

Sample of one unit in Life pre-intermediate (Hughes, Stephenson and Dummett 2012)

64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75