University Classrooms in Vietnam Contesting The ST
University Classrooms in Vietnam Contesting The ST
net/publication/31309687
CITATIONS READS
53 416
1 author:
PHAN LE HA
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
56 PUBLICATIONS 487 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
EMI, Mobilities, and Globalization and Internationalization of (Higher) Education View project
All content following this page was uploaded by PHAN LE HA on 26 May 2014.
English Language Pennycook (1998) shows that the status of both English and ELT is
Teaching (ELT ) and bound up with the images of the Self (native English speakers—the
constructs of colonizer) and the Other (the colonized) which have been created and
colonialism nurtured through the spread of English and the expansion of ELT
worldwide. These images are cultural products of colonialism. They have
been constructed through English and ELT , and have shaped the
language and associated pedagogy. He also indicates that the way the
articles welcome
images of the Self and the Other were constructed is closely connected to
colonial practices, and it is colonialism that positioned the superior Self
over the inferior Other. This has resulted in assumptions about the way
the Other teaches and learns English.
Images of the Other Pennycook (1994) provides a comprehensive picture of how native
(student and English-speaking academics perceive learning strategies used by some
teacher) created by Oriental students. For example, a Chinese student’s resistance to
the Self ‘informal class discussion’ (p. 160) is interpreted as indicating
The Other student ‘backwardness’ and ‘closed minds’ (p. 161); their acts of respect are
decoded as a lack of ‘independent thinking’ (ibid.) and freedom of
speech. Pennycook (1998) demonstrates that the West’s perceptions of
the Other (the SOL in TESOL ) are not only taken for granted, but >xed as
well. He lists a number of commonly-held beliefs about the Other:
Chinese students are consistently seen as ‘passive, rote learners, whose
logic follows a strange spiral pattern’, and who are products of a ‘static,
unchanging, traditional’ society (p. 162); Malay people are described as
being ‘good imitators, lacking originality in thought and culture’ (Alatis
1977: 115, cited in Pennycook 1998: 167); Arab peoples are viewed as
being ‘a limited, narrow-minded people, whose inert intellects lay fallow
in incurious resignation’ (Porter 1994: 155, cited in ibid.: 167).
Ballard and Clanchy (1997) mentioned a number of stereotypes that
Australian academics often have towards Asian students. For example:
‘. . . all their essays tend to be just summaries, repetitions . . . No real
understanding. No analysis at all. No evaluation’ (p. 2). Another example:
‘I’ve got one international PhD student from China . . . But there’s no
sign of intellectual independence’ (p. 2). Those academics imply a
superior–inferior relationship between their way and the Asian way.
Chalmers and Volet (1997) criticize some authors for stereotyping
students from South-East Asia as ‘rote learners’ and ‘passive learners’
who adopt a ‘surface approach to learning’ (p. 88, 90). Being seen as
‘passive learners’, Asian students are commonly perceived as those who
‘really want to listen and obey’, a characteristic which Littlewood (2000)
has questioned. More seriously, Asian students are thought not to have
developed ‘the intellectual skills of comparing, evaluating di=erent
points of view, arguing and presenting one’s point of view’ (Samuelowicz
1987: 124), which suggests they lack the skills for analysis and critical
thinking.
The Other teacher Likewise, the way the Other teacher is viewed is re?ected in a series of
characteristics well matched with how the Self assumes the Other
students to be. The Other teacher is often compared with the Self teacher
in light of the communicative approach. In other words, the Other
teacher’s teaching is commonly judged according to how much they
conform with CLT . Thus, being a ‘learning facilitator’, a ‘friend’, or a
‘counselor’ is often contrasted with being a ‘knowledge transmitter’,
and/or an ‘authoritarian teacher’. Below are some examples of
stereotypical images of the Other teacher.
The teacher is seen as a ‘fount of knowledge, which is delivered without
any concession to students and which students must struggle to attain’
articles welcome
(Holliday 1994a: 59, cited in Liu 1998: 5). Thus, a teacher in Asia ‘is not
seen as a facilitator’ as Liu (ibid.) observes. Ballard and Clanchy (1997: 17)
also stress the ‘authority of the teacher in the Asian classroom’, whom
they see as the authoritarian transmitter of knowledge. Furthermore,
Campbell and Zhao (1993, cited in Liu 1998: 5) state speci>cally that
‘English teaching in Asia is still dominantly didactic, product-oriented,
and teacher-centred.’
If Holliday (1994a, cited in Liu 1998), Kramsch and Sullivan (1996), and
Ellis (1996) show their appreciation of Asian teachers’ e=ective teaching
of English without applying Western teaching standards, there are
authors who still hold negative and taken-for-granted views about ELT in
Asia, believing it is in all cases worse than that in the West. Pennycook
(1994: 159) demonstrates that the West assumes its ELT to be ‘developed,
modern, e;cient and scienti>c’ in contrast with the ‘backward,
traditional, ine;cient . . . [and] unscienti>c’ ELT in Asia. Phillipson
(1992) also raises this problem when he teases out the issue of native
versus non-native teachers of English. In his discussion, Phillipson
strongly criticizes the tenet that native English-speaking teachers are
better by concluding that teachers are made rather than born. To weaken
the widely-held belief that Western teaching methodologies are universal,
and can be applied to all settings, Phillipson (1992) and Pennycook
(1994) raise concerns about the problems of ethics and
inappropriateness of ELT pedagogy. The Western so-called ‘advanced
methodologies’ have disadvantaged teachers and learners in many places
by not acknowledging their sociocultural and sociopolitical
circumstances (Ellis 1996, Liu 1998).
The above notions of Asian students and teachers are not necessarily
false, but they are inherently problematic and misleading. These notions
do re?ect aspects of teaching English in Asia, but they only seem to touch
upon the surface without understanding it su;ciently. There is much
more going on under the surface in respect to terms such as ‘rote
learning’, or being an ‘authoritarian’ teacher. Moreover, as Kramsch and
Sullivan (1996: 201) observe, ‘appropriate communicative language
teaching in Hanoi [Vietnam] . . . might use the same pedagogic
nomenclature as in London, but look very di=erent in classroom
practice.’ There are many ways to reach a target, but one cannot claim
that one person’s way is better than the other’s, because each way has to
conform with its culture and environment. Images of Western teachers
associated with CLT , such as ‘facilitator’ or ‘counselor’, are not necessarily
how Asian teachers view themselves, or if they do, their enactment of
these roles may not be the same as it is in the West. Hence, the West
should not assume that its teaching methodologies are the best, and
more advanced.
This paper argues that while some Vietnamese students and teachers of
English as a foreign language may conform to a particular Western view
of them, others make full use of their cultural resources to enrich their
language competence. This way of doing things demonstrates a
harmonious combination of global and local pedagogies. Di=erence
should not and must not be interpreted as ‘de>cit’.
52 Phan Le Ha
articles welcome
The study This study aimed to explore the teaching practices of two Vietnamese
Aims teachers in order to determine how they actually taught their students,
and whether the way(s) they taught accurately re?ected the
aforementioned perception of ‘backward’ and ‘didactic’ teaching. The
study also aimed to >nd out how these teachers had helped students
develop their ‘creativity’ and ‘independence’.
The participants I learnt English in Vietnam, and also taught English for several years at
university there. Subsequently I spent one year working with seven
Vietnamese teachers of English who had been sent to Australia under the
Vietnamese government’s scholarship program, and were expected to
return upon completion of their Masters courses. This study analyses the
methods and approaches of two of these teachers, both female. They
were selected not because they better represented or were unique
?agships for Vietnam, but because they were representatives of two parts
of Vietnam, namely the Centre and the North, which are often believed to
be more conservative and traditional. They had teaching experience
ranging from three to 10 years. They also taught two di=erent subjects:
one General English and the other Literature, where the focus on the use
of English is greatly di=erent. Their classes in Vietnam consisted of
30–50 students.
I gave the teachers the pseudonyms ‘Mai’ and ‘Lan’. Before coming to
Australia, they had not been overseas for any formal training in TESOL .
Data collection In-depth interviews with these teachers, followed by journal entries they
wrote about speci>c questions raised after the interviews, were used to
collect data. To minimize limitations of self-reports, these teachers were
interviewed individually on two occasions, and together on another,
when they discussed openly what they had written in their journal
entries. The transcripts of their interviews were also sent back to them,
so that they could think further, and correct anything they had previously
said.
The general Before going into detail, it is important to provide a general description
Vietnamese of the Vietnamese classroom. From my experience, and from the
university classroom research data, together with other studies conducted about ELT in
of English Vietnam, such as those by Kramsch and Sullivan (1996), the Vietnamese
classroom is often like a family, in which the sense of supportiveness,
politeness, and warmth both inside and outside the classroom is obvious.
Students and teachers tend to construct knowledge together, or students
work together as a class while the teacher is the mentor. This is practised
with regard to both knowledge and moral values. Additionally, because
students come from di=erent parts of Vietnam, ranging from remote
areas to villages to big cities, their English pro>ciencies vary hugely.
Hence, teachers of English, no matter what methodology they use, have
to consider all these features in order not to provide a disservice to their
students.
articles welcome
Discussion As a teacher of General English, Mai taught >rst and second-year
Mai and her students, and so the focus on grammar was strong. It is sometimes
teaching suggested that Asian teachers depend heavily on a grammar-translation
method that gives students almost no chance to speak. But reviewing
how she taught, it is clear that on the one hand, Mai did introduce
grammar rules and structures to her students with thorough
explanations and repeated homework. On the other hand, she developed
activities based on her students’ grammatical knowledge to help them
develop both their linguistic and communicative competences.
With >rst-year students who follow a subject called ‘English Grammar’,
and whose language pro>ciencies range from elementary to upper-
intermediate or even to advanced, teachers normally have to spend the
whole lesson revising, explaining, or teaching some grammatical
structures to make sure that all the students can bene>t from the
teaching. So did Mai. However, for second-year students, who do not
have a subject called Grammar, Mai felt she had more ?exibility to design
her own syllabus, and more freedom to create activities for her students.
She gave examples of how she made her grammar lessons more diverse
and communicative:
[When teaching grammar,] I create many activities to get students
involved. And these ‘communicative-oriented’ activities are designed
in relation to a speci>c grammar structure. After these activities,
students will have to sum up what has been studied, and based on
these they will ask more questions to further their understanding.
Other students can help answer, or I can help them if necessary. In
general, the way I teach is very ?exible.
So even though Mai focused on Grammar when teaching, the way she
taught was not ‘boring’ (her own words), nor did it lack a communicative
orientation. Importantly, she o=ered what her students needed, and was
very con>dent that she always performed at the highest level.
Mai expressed her perception of teaching, and what she thought was
important when teaching languages. ‘I encourage my students to do
things by themselves and ask questions instead of pouring knowledge
into their minds’, she asserted. ‘I never impose my ideas on my students,
I never force them to be for or against anything or never force those who
are for something to be against it, or vice versa.’ She did not impose her
ideas for the sake of having ‘a meaningful argument’ in her classes. Mai
con>dently saw herself as a ‘very ?exible’ teacher who ‘created many
activities for [students] to speak and let them speak more’. How Mai
helped her students in class is an accurate re?ection of what she
expressed as being her pedagogical role; encouraging students to ask
questions helps them to become engaged in ‘re?ective thinking and
critical thinking’.
Lan and her As a Literature lecturer, Lan clearly asserted that she liked to be her
teaching students’ friend, ‘a facilitator, a companion, but not a controller’. She
stated that English Literature was not just English. However, she also
expressed the idea that students did need a good command of the
language to study the subject well. Obviously, her subject requires a lot of
54 Phan Le Ha
articles welcome
writing, and writing cannot be perfected without a good knowledge of
grammar. Lan emphasized the importance of equipping students with
grammatical knowledge prior to and through her Literature teaching,
although teaching Grammar was not her focus.
Seeing Literature as having much to do with personal attachment, Lan
always reminded her students that not everything she said was correct. ‘I
want them to express what they think and feel rather than me standing in
the lecturing area imposing on them.’ This is a sign of encouraging
students to explore and develop their own voice, particularly in
Literature, a world of the soul, the heart, and inner thinking. Lan saw her
‘students’ satisfaction’ as being ‘very important’. She often gave priority
to her students’ eagerness to explore knowledge. This challenges the
West’s perception of the Other teacher who likes to impose ideas on
students. Lan had high self-esteem: ‘I’m very con>dent with my way of
teaching, and my students really like it.’
A teacher of English As Ellis (1996: 215) suggests, in ESL contexts, teachers ‘act more as a
vs. a Vietnamese facilitator’. But this does not mean EFL teachers do not see themselves as
teacher facilitators. How these two Vietnamese teachers perform the part of
‘teacher as facilitator’ is not necessarily the same as the way their Western
counterparts do. When asserting themselves as ‘facilitators’, both Mai
and Lan located themselves within two identity umbrellas: a teacher of
English and a Vietnamese teacher. They ‘facilitate’ in harmony with their
cultural expectations. As good teachers of English, they want to
encourage students to have free and stimulating discussions, or to take
part in many language activities to learn English better. But as good
Vietnamese teachers, they also need to perform their duty as ‘behaviour
educators’ or ‘moral guides’. Put di=erently, they will tend to instigate
forms of cultural performance, such as politeness, which is not the same
as what the West expects.
When my students don’t behave properly, I’ll tell them what proper
behaviour is. . . . Ah, I remember one class they often had private talk. I
was quite easy when they had group work, ‘no problem’, but when
someone in the class spoke, others should listen. Yeah, these students,
they didn’t listen, and in such a situation, I normally interfere. I told
them gently that when someone spoke, you should listen to him or her
and you should show that you knew how to listen. I used English to tell
them that ‘if you want to be a good speaker, be a good listener >rst’.
Normally I only educate my students when they don’t behave properly.
If not, I won’t say anything because they’re all grown-ups. I mean I
don’t give them moral lessons but I do tell them how to behave when
an incident occurs as I’ve just mentioned . . . When they behave badly
I’m willing to tell them that they’re wrong and they should do this or
that. For example, they should know how to listen to other people
because listening is a way of support. (Mai)
In doing this, Mai did not ‘lead’ her students, or impose her ideas on
those whom she saw as ‘grown-ups’, but she still ful>lled the
responsibility of a teacher who is socially expected to educate students.
More than that, Mai was a ‘facilitator’ in a more extensive way, not just
articles welcome
con>ning herself to the teaching of English, but through it also playing
her ‘moral guide’ role.
Seeing herself as a friend of her students, Lan did not forget her role as a
moral guide in the classroom either. She did not tell her students
explicitly how to behave, but she sent that message to her students
through the works she introduced to them:
We always select what we teach. We tend to select works that have
moral or ethical lessons to teach students. In my subject, after each
lesson, I often draw some values or my students and I always draw
good things from every work we study. Sometimes we also choose
works full of negative images but the purpose of it is to highlight
works with positive moral lessons. I mean we introduce both ‘bad’ and
‘good’ characters to our students but through the introduction of ‘bad’
characters, we direct our students to ‘good’ behaviours in life. I think
it’s good to do so.
Lan was aware of her role as an ‘educator’, who is not merely teaching
knowledge, but also implicitly educating students through her teaching.
This practice is in con?ict with what Ballard and Clanchy (1997) report as
being valued by the West about its teachers, who are not expected to give
explicit moral input. The concept of being a teacher varies from one
culture to another. What one culture values may not be valued by others.
Contesting the Mai and Lan’s perceptions of themselves as teachers contest the
stereotype stereotypes of authoritarian and imposing Vietnamese teachers.
Emerging as facilitators, friends, instructors, and teachers, Mai and Lan
succeed in teaching knowledge to their students and enabling students to
extend and explore this knowledge. In addition, their perceptions of their
roles as ‘moral guides’, whether implicitly or explicitly stated, strengthen
what Medgyes (1994) sees as ‘the qualities of non-native professionals
that are perhaps better than those of NS s [English native speaking
teachers], such as being a good model for the learners’ (cited in Brutt-
Gri<er and Samimy 1999: 423). Being a ‘moral guide’ is a cultural
model (Kramsch and Sullivan 1996) of Vietnamese teachers. However,
this cultural model is often misunderstood by the West as being
‘imposing’ and ‘authoritarian’, or as de>cit rather than di=erence.
It is now clear that Mai and Lan were aware of such views held by the
West about Eastern teachers of EFL . They strongly resisted these views by
partly using verbs, nouns, and expressions, which are often employed to
describe Eastern teachers, such as ‘impose’, ‘pour knowledge’, ‘force’,
‘controller’. Also, Mai and Lan’s use of ‘I-statements’ (Gee 1999)
assertively implies that the way they taught was not as ‘inferior’ as the
West perceives. Importantly, their awareness of such views has indicated
that the notion of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ has been so obvious and powerful in
ELT practices that it is hard to eliminate.
Thus far it is clear that Mai and Lan’s perceptions of themselves as
teachers, and their images of their students, suggest that the views held
by the West are misconceptions. Qualities of teaching and learning
preferred in the West may exist in the East, but be practised in di=erent
56 Phan Le Ha
articles welcome
ways. This can make the West think of the East as having no such
Western qualities. More importantly, as both an ‘expert knower of the
language’ and a ‘moral guide’ (Kramsch and Sullivan 1996: 206), these
Vietnamese teachers have succeeded in providing their students with the
knowledge they want, without alienating them from their familiar home
culture. They have taken into consideration both the culture of the target
language and the culture of the students.
articles welcome