doi:10.1093/elt/cci063
|
readers respond University English classrooms in Vietnam Pham Hoa Hiep In her article ‘University classrooms in Vietnam: contesting the stereotypes’, Phan Le Ha (Phan 2004) observes that Vietnamese teachers locate themselves within two identity umbrellas: a teacher of English and a Vietnamese teacher. As teachers of English, Vietnamese teachers assert that they like to be their ‘students’ friend, a facilitator, a companion, but not a controller’ (p. 54). But as good Vietnamese teachers, they ‘need to perform their duty as behaviour educator or moral guide’ (p. 55). Drawing on the espousals of beliefs and practices of two Vietnamese teachers of English returning from training in Australia, the author claims that ‘[their] ways of doing things demonstrates a harmonious combination of global and local practices’ (p. 52). The author concludes that these Vietnamese teachers ‘have succeeded’ in their work. The two identities Phan Le Ha observed are all pertinent to Vietnamese English language teachers. However, the author seems to ignore the conflicts between these identities and the real dilemmas Vietnamese teachers confront in their aspirations to resolve them. Vietnamese teachers, especially those who have been abroad, may have learnt interesting things about Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Many are convinced that CLT enhances the learning process; it puts focus on learners, assuming that learners’ needs and aspirations are the basis for elaborating instructional goals (Savignon 2002). Thus, teachers feel inspired to use CLT in their classroom. But adopting CLT principles such as ‘calling for learner involvement, allowing learners choice, changing teachers’ and students’ roles, and breaking down hierarchic barriers in the classroom’ (Larsen-Freeman 2000: 66) would challenge the basic Vietnamese cultural and educational values. As Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) point out, at the heart of the pedagogical practices in Vietnam is the traditional view of the teacher-student relationship in which teachers are considered mentors and masters of knowledge in the classroom. Teachers thus have the responsibility to guide students not only in academic matters but also in moral behaviour. Furthermore, whatever the long-range purpose, English teaching in Vietnamese universities is always part of the formal education of the country. Hence, teachers of English must not neglect the educative role of their institutional system. 336 ELT Journal Volume 59/4 October 2005; doi:10.1093/elt/cci063 q The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. The ‘in theory’ points suggest that a perfect teacher must be the one who knows how to combine global and local practices, to perform his or her work in a way that can satisfy his and her students’ global and local needs. Following this principle, Vietnamese teachers need to integrate traditional teaching methods with the new teaching methods they have learnt in the West. Many teachers, like the ones in Phan Le Ha’s study, can easily make statements like ‘I am flexible in my teaching’, ‘I encourage my students to do things by themselves and ask questions instead of pouring knowledge into their minds’, ‘I never impose my ideas on my students’ (p. 52). However, the real issues ‘in practice’ are not that simple. My research has shown that to resolve the conflicts between what teachers want to do and what they actually can do is often a less-than-satisfactory experience (Pham 2004). Many Vietnamese teachers are conflicted, feeling that their circumstances oppose, or at least, militate against attempts to use communicative practices. For example, they have to prepare students for a grammar-based examination, and have to finish a certain content in the textbook in a certain amount of time. They may have classes of 60 students, many of whom are more concerned about the immediate goal—to pass exams, to get a degree, rather than the long term goal—to develop communicative competence. It is thus uncommon for teachers to take a binary approach to teaching: it is to be teaching grammar or teaching communication; one thing has to be done at the expense of the other. I am afraid that Phan Le Ha’s article may add to Vietnamese teachers’ disappointment, rather than illuminate possible ways out of their dilemmas. Although the author claims that the teachers in her study were successful in harmonizing their two roles, the data she provided are not convincing. For example, the teacher called Mai recounted that in one class, ‘she spent the whole lesson revising, explaining, or teaching some grammatical structures’. In the other class, she has ‘more freedom’, so ‘she felt she had more flexibility to design her own syllabus . . . to create more [communicative] activities’ (p. 54). I was left wondering what other things this teacher could do in the first class to harmonize the two roles she expounded, given that she did not have freedom, and had to teach according to a prescribed syllabus. Didn’t she resign herself to the feeling that the only way she could do it was to ‘spend the whole lesson revising, explaining, or teaching some grammatical structures’? In the other case, the author argues that a teacher called Lan successfully harmonized her two roles: the facilitator and the moral guide. Lan says: Normally I only educate my students when they don’t behave properly . . . I mean I don’t give them moral lessons but do tell them how to behave . . . (p. 55) We [teachers?] always select what we teach. We tend to select works that have moral or ethical lessons to teach students . . . we direct our students to ‘good’ behaviour in life . . . (p. 56: my emphasis) It is surprising that while the author describes that Lan ‘saw herself as a friend of her students’, the above quotes seem to reveal this teacher’s Readers respond 337 didactic role. Was Lan ready to give her students the opportunity to participate in the learning process? The way she saw her role as that of a moral guide conflicts with the role of ‘a friend of a students’. In studying teachers’ beliefs and practice, it seems insufficient to ask them to say what they believe, or even to recount what they say they do. Borg (2001) suggests that we need to distinguish ‘espoused beliefs’— what is said—from ‘beliefs-in-action’—what is done. Argyris and Scho¨n (1974) has also made this distinction, using the terms ‘espoused theory’ and ‘theory-in-use’. According to these writers, when someone is asked how he/she behaves under a certain situation, the answer given is his/her ‘espoused theory’ of action, but the theory that governs his/her actual behaviour is his/her ‘theory-in-use’. Argyris and Scho¨n stress that someone’s ‘espoused theory’ may or may not be congruent with his/her ‘theory-in-use’. Observing teachers in action, many other researchers (e.g. Sakui 2004; Sato and Kleinsasser 1999) show that while teachers may easily espouse principles such as ‘use appropriate methodology’, or ‘combine teaching grammar and promoting communicative activities’, many fail to realize these principles in practice. Ambiguities and tensions are characteristic of teachers’ ways of thinking and acting. Without acknowledging and making explicit their contradictions, teachers can hardly reach the level of ‘success’ that Phan Le Ha claims. References Sakui, K. 1996. ‘Wearing two pairs of shoes: Argyris, C. and D. Scho¨n. 1974. Theory in Practice: language teaching in Japan’. ELT Journal 58/2: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: 155 –63. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Sato, K. and R. Kleinsasser. 1999. ‘Communicative Borg, M. 2001. ‘Teachers’ beliefs’. ELT Journal 55/ language teaching (CLT): practical under 2: 186 –8. standings’. Modern Language Journal 83/4: Kramsch, C. and P. Sullivan. 1996. ‘Appropriate 494 –517. pedagogy’. ELT Journal 50/3: 199 –212. Savignon, S. J. 2002. ‘Communicative curriculum Larsen-Freeman, D. 2000. ‘On the appropriateness design for the 21st century’. English Teaching of language teaching methods’ in J. Shaw, Forum 40: 2 –7. D. Lubeska, and M. Noullet (eds.). Language and Development: Partnership and Interaction. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. The author Pham, H. H. 2004. ‘Trained in the West, teaching Pham Hoa Hiep is a lecturer in the English in the East: Vietnamese teachers returning from Department at Hue College of Foreign Languages. TESOL courses abroad’. Victoria: University of His experience includes training teachers at the Melbourne. Vietnam-Australia Training Project and teaching Phan, L. H. 2004. ‘University classrooms in EAP to Vietnamese scholars who are granted Vietnam: contesting the stereotypes’. ELT Journal scholarships to study in Australia. 58/1: 50 –7. Email: hiepsuu@dng.vnn.vn 338 Pham Hoa Hiep Document Outline |