Tác động của văn hóa học tập ở việt nam đến thái độ của học sinh trung học phổ thông đối với các hoạt động học tiếng anh theo đường hướng giao tiếp

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to people who have, in various ways,
contributed to the completion of this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to give my
most sincere thanks to Dr. Le Van Canh, my supervisor, for not only his responses to any
of my questions but also for his encouragement at any time of my hardship.
I would like to thank Nguyen Viet Hung, my friend, a PhD student at the University,
for helping me much with advice and encouragement.
I am grateful to the students and teachers at my researched Upper-Secondary School
for their cooperation during my data collection period.
I owe a great debt to my wife, daughter and my families for the patience and
encouragement I have had from them.
I believe that with all contribution of the people mentioned, I have an improved final
thesis; however, there are unavoidably remaining weaknesses in this thesis, all of which
belong to my responsibility, and all of which I should learn from.
i
ABSTRACT
The present study explored the influence of Vietnamese learning culture on upper-
secondary school students’ attitudes towards communicative activities in English learning.
The survey study method was adopted, and the questionnaires were delivered to a
systematically selected sample of 166 students from one upper-secondary school in a
mountainous region in Vietnam. This aimed at collecting necessary data for answering
three research questions about the students’ belief about language learning, the influence of
this belief on the students’ opinion about the role of teacher and learner and on their
preferences for English learning activities both inside and outside the classroom.
The findings demonstrated influence of the Vietnamese culture of learning on the
students’ attitudes towards communicative English learning activities, some of which were
favourable for utilisation of communicative activities. These concern their openness in
communication, and a greater responsibility they took for their own learning. They also
indicated the students’ positive attitudes towards group work activities, which are typical
of CLT techniques. Besides, the study showed evidence of the students’ negative attitudes
towards communicative activities, which resulted from the incompatibleness of these

activities to the Vietnamese culture of learning. Basically, this incompatibility is related
with the students’ perceived drudgery nature of learning, the cultural strategies for
effective learning through memorisation and error avoidance, the necessity for maintaining
harmonious relationships, the students’ passive learning, and their respect for and unequal
relationship with the teacher.
Based on these findings, some suggestions were proposed concerning either
adaptation of the CLT approach and its spawn activities to the cultural context of the study,
or adjustment of the students’ Vietnamese learning culture, or both. All of this aims at
successful implementation of CLT at the researched school.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I
ABSTRACT II
TABLE OF CONTENT III
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES IV
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
PART C: CONCLUSION 39
REFERENCES 44
APPENDICES I

iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
FIGURE 1. CULTURE – ATTITUDE – BEHAVIOUR 10
FIGURE 2. RESPONDENTS’ GENDER 24
FIGURE 3. RESPONDENTS’ ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 24
Tables
TABLE 1. QUESTIONNAIRES DELIVERED AND COLLECTED 24
TABLE 2. STUDENTS’ CONCEPTIONS OF LEARNING 25

TABLE 3. STUDENTS’ BELIEF ABOUT THE ROLE OF TEACHER AND LEARNER 31
TABLE 4. STUDENTS’ PREFERENCE FOR ENGLISH LEARNING ACTIVITIES 34
TABLE 5. STUDENTS’ MOST FAVOURED, MOST DISFAVOURED AND HOME ACTIVITIES 36
iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of Study
Since the time of Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman philosopher, and later in the
Renaissance theories, until now all languages have been considered to be of equal status
(Pym, 2007). This is because “there is nothing intrinsically limiting, demanding, or
handicapping about any of them” (Crystal, 1987, p.6, cited by Kasaian and Subbakrishna,
2011, p.165). The English language is not an exception. Although English was said to be a
source of gratification to mankind because it was spoken in two of the greatest powers of
the world (Jesperson, 1905), that is, America and Britain, it has no intrinsic linguistic
supremacy over other languages in the world (Kasaian and Subbakrishna, 2011).
Nonetheless, “for good or ill, the dominance of English as the world’s preferred second or
foreign language has been increasing in recent years” (Canh, 2004). For this reason, “those
who are able to exploit it, whether to sell goods and services or to sell ideas, wield a very
considerable power”; furthermore, “if you want to resist the exploitive power of English,
you have to use English to do it” (Halliday, 2006, p.362, cited by Van, 2010, p.17).
Although the statement is ideological, it has some truth in it.
Since the utility of English has been perceived as a passport for many desired things
in life, English teaching has consequently been regarded to be able to serve individual,
national, and international needs (Canh, 2004), and “if people are deprived of the chance of
learning it, they are the ones who suffer” (Halliday, 2006, p.362, cited by Van, 2010, p.17).
During the course of teaching and learning English, numerous methods have come
and gone because there is no one-size-fits-all method that can meet the goals and
needs of all learners and programs. As a matter of rule, in the 1970s Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) emerged, in the West, and started being discussed as a
fashionable way of teaching languages, and by the turn of the new millennium, CLT had
become a real buzzword in language teaching methodology around the world (Dornyei,

2009). In this context, education administrators, English language educators and teachers
have navigated their attention toward CLT, as a response to its irresistible appeal.
Accordingly, CLT has widely been accepted as an effective way of teaching English as a
second and foreign language (ESL/EFL). This is because there is an unspoken assumption
that CLT is not only “modern”, but is in fact the only way to learn a language properly;
hence, a country without CLT is somehow backward; teachers who do not use CLT
1
approach in their teaching are backward; methodologies which are considered to be
traditional and the one based on route learning are said to be behind in comparison with
communicative approaches (Bax, 2003, p.281).
Vietnam is not an exception from the spread of CLT. Although CLT was introduced
into the country rather later than into other countries in the neighbourhood (Canh and
Barnard, 2009), it has been rhetorical in the whole school system of the country, especially
at the general education level. However, scholars and researchers have reported the
unsatisfactory implementation of this approach in Vietnam (Canh, 2004; Canh, 2011; Canh
and Barnard, 2009; Barnard and Viet, 2010; Nguyen and Franken, 2010; Thinh, 2006; Phu,
2008; Van, 2010; Son, 2011; Hung, 2011; Vietnamnet, 2012; Toan, 2013; Khang, 2014).
One of the reasons for the failure of CLT implementation in Vietnam is that the
approach is imposed without taking into consideration the students’ learning culture, which
influences students’ attitudes towards learning activities, learning behaviours, and learning
habits. However, this issue has often been ignored. I believe that for the success of
innovation, the first step to be taken should be the understanding of learners’ learning
culture so that teachers can decide what aspects of the intended innovation fit the students’
learning culture, and what aspects of the students’ learning culture should be changed to
accommodate the intended pedagogical innovation. This is the rationale for my study.
2. Research Aims and Questions
Being inspired by all the above mentioned rationales and my preliminary interest,
this survey study aims to explore the influence of Vietnamese learning culture on attitudes
of the upper-secondary school students in a mountainous area toward CLT. Information
gained from this study is aimed to help teachers to make their teaching more learner-

centred by modifying the principles of CLT to the students’ learning culture for better
educational results. With this aim in mind, the study was designed to seek answers to the
following research questions:
1. What is the students’ belief about language learning?
2. How do their beliefs about language learning affect their opinions of the teacher’s
role and student’s role in the English language classroom?
3. How do their beliefs about language learning affect their preferences for language
learning activities both inside and outside the classroom?
2
It is hoped that answers to the above questions can inform classroom teachers of how
to adapt CLT in their classrooms.
3. Methods of Study
In order to achieve the above-stated aims, this research adopts the survey study
framework with the use of a questionnaire as the key instrument for data collection. As the
purpose of this study is to gain insights into students’ attitudes to, and opinions of, learning
activities, the survey method is appropriate. However, the survey was conducted with a
small group of upper-secondary school students who were chosen purposefully in one
school in a mountainous region of Vietnam. Therefore, no generalization of the findings
was intended. Rather, the findings can be used to inform teachers of English in this and
other similar schools of how to adapt CLT more effectively.
4. Scope of Study
The study limits itself to the exploration and description how the students’ learning
culture influences their learning of English within the context of an upper-secondary
school in one northern mountainous province.
5. Significance of Study
This study hopes to be significant in pointing out some culturally inappropriate
aspects of the CLT approach to a group of school students in a mountainous area. This
understanding can lead to some suggestions for how to adapt CLT to the local learning
culture so as to raise the educational effectiveness.
6. Organisation of the Thesis

The thesis is composed of three parts: Introduction, Development and Conclusion.
Part A introduces the rationale, research aims and questions, method, scope and
significance of the study. Part B – the Development – includes a review of the related
literature (Chapter 1) and issues concerning the methodology, participants, instruments, the
procedure of data collection and analysis, findings and discussions of the findings (Chapter
2). Part C – the Conclusion – presents the concluding remarks drawn from this survey as
well as the recommendations for adapting CLT in the researched school and other similar
schools.
3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Introduction
First introduced in the 1970s by British applied linguists as a reaction away from
grammar-based language teaching approaches, CLT is a multi-perspectival approach that
builds on several disciplines that include, at least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy,
sociology, and educational research (Savignon, 1991, 2002; Hu, 2002; Dornyei, 2009;
Asassfeh et al., 2012). Beside this widely accepted view, there have been many attempts in
accounting for the formation of CLT; nevertheless, for personally logical reason, this paper
presents a combined view of these scholars and some others on the background of CLT.
1.2. Communicative Language Teaching: Principles and Characteristics
CLT is resulted from a shift in the way language is viewed. Accordingly, while
language is still considered as consisting of vocabulary, structures and rules with which,
through learning, learners can make grammatically correct sentences, it is not a static
system of interconnected units but social behaviour, which is used purposefully, and
always in context (Savignon, 1991, 2002). Its primary function is for interaction and
communication: people communicating with others to accomplish some course of action.
Therefore, language is said to be instrumental to communicative functions such as making,
expressing, exchanging and negotiating meaning (Ma, 2009; Hu, 2002). The assumption is
that there is always interdependence between form and meaning, or between structural and
functional aspects of language within a language (Hu, 2002). Thus, knowing a language

means not solely knowing how to construct sentences in isolation, but also knowing how to
combine sentences into texts and to put texts in discourse of the speech community in
order to fulfil some task and meet some need. CLT has made this one of its most
characteristic features when “it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural
aspects of language, combining these into a more fully communicative view” (Littlewood,
1981, p.1, cited by Dornyei, 2009). Moreover, it also puts more emphases on meaningful
use than on the form with the guiding principle that “accuracy and acquisition of the
formal features of the L2 [second language] are less a measure of successful language
learning than are fluency and an ability to get something across comprehensibly to a native
speaker” (Sanders, 1987, p.222, cited by Beale, 2002, p.19).
4
In order to communicate effectively in a language, people need to have the following
four aspects of abilities (Stern, 1983, cited by Ma, 2009):
• The intuitive mastery of the forms of language
• The intuitive mastery of the linguistic, cognitive, affective and social-cultural
meanings expressed by the language forms
• The capacity to use the language with maximum attention to communication and
minimum attention to form
• The creativity of language use
Hymes (1971 cited in Ma, 2009), while reacting to Chomsky’s conception of
competence and performance, is concerned more with language in the speech communities
and in its integration with communication and culture. To him, linguistic knowledge is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for successful communication. People also need to
understand about culture, through which they know how to interact in culturally acceptable
ways with others in different situations and relationships. He proposes an influential theory
of communicative competence.
Communicative competence is defined as “the ability to communicate in a personally
effective and socially appropriate manner” (Trenholm and Jensen, 1988, cited by Ma,
2009, p.41). Canale and Swain (1980) conceive it more broadly by relating it with the
concept of social behaviour: communicative competence is the ability to interpret and

enact appropriate social behaviours which requires the active involvement of the learner in
the production of the target language. For this reason, communicative competence plays a
not only necessary but very important role in language proficiency. It is even identified as
“the most important linguistic ability”, which helps to “produce or understand utterances
which are not so much grammatical but, more important, appropriate to context in which
they are made” (Campbell and Wales, 1970, p.247, cited by Canale and Swain, 1980, p.4,
italics in original). Communicative competence consists of four components, including
grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic
competence (Ma, 2009; Canale and Swain, 1980; Latha and Rajan, 2012; Beale, 2002;
Richards, 2006).
The grammatical (or linguistic) component refers to the knowledge of lexis, syntax,
morphology, phonology and the like. It concerns the language users’ understanding about
5
how phonemes are combined into words, how words come together to form phrases,
clauses or sentences, and how sentences are sounded with stresses and with different
intonations. Briefly speaking, grammatical competence is the cognition of linguistic rules,
which enables people to create and understand grammatically correct sentences.
Sociolinguistic competence implies knowing what is expected socially and
culturally by members of the speech community. This element transcends its linguistic
counterpart because with knowledge of language alone, people cannot use language
appropriately, and therefore, effectively. They need to know about sociolinguistic rules,
which stipulate, for example, what to say to people of different statuses and different
relationships in different circumstances. This knowledge is also about how to response
nonverbally in particular ways basing on the purpose of the interaction. It enables people to
vary their use of language according to the setting and the participants.
Discourse competence is related to the logical meaning relationship between
sentences, that is to say, in a text or a discourse. It concerns the ways, for instance, how
sentences are grouped, with different discourse markers, and rules of cohesion and
coherence, in different discourse structures, in meaningful ways to serve language users’
purposes. These discourse principles are also important clues for processing different types

of texts, and perceiving and comprehending the meaning that the conversational partners
want to convey.
Strategic competence is the knowledge of communication strategies that people
employ in interaction. It is, for example, “the ability to know how to keep a conversation
going, how to terminate the conversation, and how to clear up communication breakdown
as well as comprehension problems” (Ma, 2009, p.41). Basically, when people use
communication strategies, they manipulate their language to meet their communicative
purpose. For this reason, it can be said that this kind of understanding is the compensation
for the limitation in or reinforcement of people’s understanding of linguistic,
sociolinguistic and discourse rules.
From the communicative competence perspective, learning a language is to facilitate
the integration of the four types of knowledge for learners (Canale and Swain, 1980;
Asassfeh et al., 2012; Richards, 2006; Savignon, 2002; Hu, 2002; Ma, 2009; Latha and
Rajan, 2012), as dissected above.
6
1.3. Learning Activities in Light of CLT
CLT emphasizes “activities that involve real communication promote learning”
(Richards and Rogers, 1986, p.72). It requires that the input language for teaching and
learning must be “realistic samples of discourse use surrounding native speaker and non-
native speaker accomplishments of targeted tasks” (Doughty and Long, 2003, p.61). On the
other hand, since the language classroom aims at preparing for learners’ survival in the real
world, the relationship between classroom activities and real life is essential; therefore,
learning and use of language must be contextualised and must utilise authentic materials,
situations, activities, and tasks (Richards, 2006; Hu, 2002), through active participation
into which, learners are better prepared to function in real-world communicative events.
Furthermore, the input language must also be rich, meaning that it is complex in terms of
not only language but also quality, quantity, variety, genuineness, and relevance.
In addition, since CLT activities are required to involve real communication, they
must promote cooperative and collaborative learning. As pointed out by Vygotsky (1978),
teacher’s assistance and social interactions play a crucial role helping learners reach a

potential that exceeds their current level of development; therefore, conversational
interaction must be used as a means of developing communicative competence, which
relies on learners’ own ability to interactively negotiate meaning with each other.
Norris et al. (1998, p.31) explain that:
the best way to learn and teach a language is through social interactions. [. . . they]
allow students to work toward a clear goal, share information and opinions, negotiate
meaning, get the interlocutor’s help in comprehending input, and receive feedback on
their language production. In the process, learners not only use their inter-language,
but also modify it, which in turn promotes acquisition.
Savignon (1991) shares this view and comments that communicative tasks determine
the opportunities for language use, for the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of
meaning.
1.4. Communicative Activities
By definition, communicative activities are those which focus on practice in using
language within a real communicative context, in which real information is exchanged, and
in which the language used is not totally predictable (Richards, 2006). They have some of
the following typical characteristics (Richards, 2006, p.23):
7
• They seek to develop students’ communicative competence through linking
grammatical development to the ability to communicate.
• They create the need for communication, interaction, and negotiation of meaning
through the use of activities such as problem solving, information sharing, and role
play.
• They provide opportunities for both inductive as well as deductive learning of
grammar.
• They make use of content that connects to students’ lives and interests.
• They allow students to personalise learning by applying what they have learned to
their own lives.
• Classroom materials typically make use of authentic texts to create interest and to
provide valid models of language.

Examples of activities of this type are information-gap activities, jigsaw activities,
task-completion activities (puzzles, games, map-reading), information-gathering activities
(surveys, interviews, and searches), opinion-sharing activities, information-transfer
activities, reasoning-gap activities, role plays.
1.5. Role of Teacher and Learner in CLT
It is widely accepted that changes in teacher’s and learner’s role are one of the
biggest differences between traditional language teaching approaches and CLT, which
results from the type of classroom activities, i.e. communicative activities, proposed in
CLT, which are in turn led from the emphasis in CLT on the processes of communication,
rather than mastery of language forms. For this reason, CLT is conceived to derive from “a
set of principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the
kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and
learners in the classroom” (Richards, 2006, p.2, italics added). Jacobs and Farrell (2003),
cited by Richards (2006), see the shift toward CLT as marking a paradigm shift in our
thinking about teachers, learning, and teaching.
Accordingly, language education with CLT is no longer a “banking” system with
bank-account-learners into which regular deposits (knowledge and skills) are made to be
drawn later for specific purposes like examination (Choudhury, 2011), but “landscapes of
practices” (Wenger, 2010, p.3), in which learners have greater choice over their own
learning, both in terms of the content of learning as well as processes they might employ
(Richards, 2006). They can develop their own routes to language learning, progress at
8
different rates, and have different needs and motivations for language learning. They are
considered to be the centre of the learning process in which diversity among learners is
paid greater attention and viewed not as impediments to learning but as resources to be
recognized, catered to, and appreciated. Learning language with CLT, learners have to
participate in classroom activities which are based on a cooperative rather than
individualistic approach to learning. They have to become comfortable with listening to
their peers in group work or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a model.
They are expected to take on a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning

(Richards, 2006).
On the other hand, teachers in CLT classroom no longer play a dominant role in the
classroom; they are not authorities, like the Titans or Atlas of Greek mythology, who bear
the burden of the whole class and learners’ learning on their shoulders. They are no longer
viewed as the source of all knowledge (and the model or exemplar of morality as in the
case of Vietnam), who fill, through teaching-as-modelling-and-explanation, receptacle
learners with knowledge (and virtue). The role of teachers in the CLT classroom is that of
a facilitator, who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides
opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on language use
and language learning. Rather than being models for correct speech and writing and ones
with the primary responsibility of making students produce plenty of error-free sentences,
teachers have to develop a different view of learners’ errors and of their own role in
facilitating language learning (Richards, 2006). Besides, teachers can also play the role of
an independent participant within the learning-teaching group, a researcher and learner, or
that of an analyst, a counsellor, and a group process manager (Richards and Rodgers,
1987).
For this reason, CLT has been considered to be a learner-centred approach to
language teaching; it takes into account learners’ backgrounds, language needs, and goals
and allows learners some creativity and role in instructional decisions (Canale and Swain,
1980; Beale, 2002).
1.6. Culture, Attitude and Behaviour
It is undeniable that culture is an omnipresent entity (Kramsch, 1993, cited by Jabeen
and Shah, 2011), which pervades and influences all fields of life. It influences people’s
behaviours by “establish[ing] for each person a context of cognitive and affective
9
behaviour, a template for personal and social existence” (Brown, 2007, p.189). On the
other hand, attitude and culture are considered as mutually dependant terms, and whenever
culture is reckoned, the concept of attitude is also in one way or another brought up
(Jabeen and Shah, 2011). In Ajzen’s and Fishbein’s (1973) view, attitude and overt
behaviour are closely related. Olson and Zanna (1993, p.125), cited by Bakker (1996,

p.34), remark that values, as constituent of culture, can be seen as determinants for
attitudes and behavioural intentions and can be used to predict attitudes towards specific
subjects. Although this study does not delve into exploring the connection between culture,
attitude and behaviours, this section reviews the related literature to make explicit, to some
extent, this relationship as well as to give a theoretical evidence for the cruciality of taking
into consideration culture/learning culture in adoption of CLT.
Culture plays a very important role in constituting a person’s attitude toward an
object, an act/behaviour or another person, which in turn influence, to a large extent,
his/her behavioural intentions and subsequently overt behaviours. This can be summarised
figuratively as follows:
Figure 1. Culture – Attitude – Behaviour
(Adapted from Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975, and Bakker, 1996)
As can be seen in figure 1, overt behaviours not only are influenced (the solid
arrows) by cultures through the two paths of attitude and subjective norm but also give
feedback (the dashed arrow) to the actor’s cultural values and normative beliefs. This may
inspire some implications for implementation of CLT at the researched school, which will
be discussed later Part 3.
Bearing a similar view to Ajzen’s and Fishbein’s but specific to the field of second
and foreign language learning, Spolsky (1989, p.131) proposes that social factors, which
include culture, influence second language learning in two indirect but essential ways
10
Culturally
determined
values
Attitude
Subjective
norm
Behavioural
intentions
Normative

beliefs
Overt
behaviours
(Appendix 1). Firstly, they play a major role in developing in the learner the set of attitudes
towards the language being learned, its speakers and the language learning situation (in
the case of this study, communicative activities) that are hypothesised to directly influence
motivation. Secondly, they determine the social provision of language learning situations
and opportunity of various kinds.
So far, what has been aroused is that learners’ attitudes toward communicative
activities in English learning are very much likely to be affected by Vietnamese culture of
learning. This influence in turn may lead to learners’ English learning behaviours and
result in learning effectiveness. For this reason, research into this issue can hopefully, in
the one hand, give an account for the current situation of CLT deployment and, to some
extent, raise some awareness of this issue at the researched site, on the other hand.
1.7. Vietnamese Learning Culture
Being one form of culture, culture of learning is understood as “taken for granted
frameworks of expectations, attitudes, values and beliefs about what constitutes good
learning, about how to teach or learn, whether and how to ask questions, what textbooks
are for, and how language teaching relates to broader issues of the nature and purpose of
education” (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996, p.169). The concept of culture of learning implies that
learning is cultural, and learning or, more broadly, education is deeply rooted in the history
and culture of the community or society in which it is located (Cortazzi and Jin, 1996,
2013). Learning culture is not a matter of different ways of learning but beyond content or
syllabus differences; it includes deeper presuppositions and values, for example, about the
nature of school subjects or the roles of students and teachers in interaction (Cotazzi and
Jin, 2013).
An important aspect in Vietnamese culture of learning is the concept of face; which
is considered to be powerful due to the collectivist nature of the society (Cortazzi and Jin,
1996). This is much reflected in learners’ behaviours in classroom. They would not
interrupt the lesson by questioning because by questioning teachers, it is thought that they

are questioning the teacher’s authority and challenging his/her knowledge. This is
categorised as showing disrespect to the teacher because if learners pose a question that
teacher cannot answer, the teacher (and the learner questioning) will lose face. Therefore,
if learners have some issue needing explicating, they will simply wait thinking that the
teacher will probably mention it later. In case it is not mentioned, it is because the issue is
11
not worth mentioning, and leaners will probably ask questions to the teacher individually
after the class time. Learners’ respect to teachers can also be seen in other ways learners
behave in classroom. They would all stand up to greet the teacher at the beginning of the
lesson and would remain standing until being allowed to sit. When they want to go out,
they are expected to ask the teacher for permission to do so. This is similar to the case
when they have something to say: they have to raise their hand and wait for the teacher’s
allowing them to speak.
1.8. Beliefs of Learning in Vietnamese Culture
It can be said that learning in Vietnam is influenced, firstly, by face-saving and
harmony-maintaining culture. This features the collectivist nature of Vietnamese culture.
In Vietnam, each member of the community sees themselves as belonging to an in-group;
they do not want to stand out from this collective and do not want to be seen as the “nail
that sticks up” (Anderson, 1993, cited by Littlewood, 2000). For this reason, they are
reluctant to participate in discussions, in which people have to challenge each other’s ideas
to reach agreement on certain issues. By doing so, they can avoid the risk of their ideas
being vetoed by other members or their vetoing others’ ideas, through which they can save
face for not only themselves but also for others, and maintain a harmonious relationship
with and among members (Littrell, 2005; Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996; Qiao and Tan, n.d.;
Littlewood, 2000; Phuong-Mai et al., 2006; Trang and Baldauf, 2007; McCornac & Chi,
2005; Lee, n.d.; Lewis and McCook, 2002; Huong, 2008). Since losing face inflicts
extremely serious personal damage, and one should try to avoid it at any price (Hofstede
and Hofstede, 2005, cited by Phuong-Mai et al., 2006), there is an intense fear of making
mistakes among Vietnamese people; these are reflected in common proverbs that serve as
maxims for interpersonal communication. Examples include “twisting your tongue seven

times before speaking out your thought” (Uốn lưỡi bảy lần trước khi nói), or “words cost
no money, so people should speak beautifully to please others” (Lời nói chẳng mất tiền
mua, lựa lời mà nói cho vừa lòng nhau). On this respect, Huong (2008) refers to Duong,
Diller and Sutherland’s (1975, p.126) comment that:
According to Vietnamese custom, one should remain modest and humble, showing the
extent of knowledge or skills only when asked. In Vietnam, there is the motto of
saying less than what one actually knows, often and admirable characteristic. Modesty
and humility for Vietnamese are very important social graces, and deeply ingrained
into their identity.
12
This norm spontaneously affects the way learners behave in classroom; they dare not
volunteer personal ideas, either for fear of being considered silly or for fear of making
others feel humiliated (Phuong-Mai et al., 2006). A learner may even think that he/she
loses face only due to he/she did not speak or state an issue clearly and thus was laughed at
by his/her classmate. According to Huong (2008), there is a widely accepted view in
Vietnam that a learner should speak little but correctly rather than verbalise a lot but
wrongly. This view is also recognised by Lewis & McCook (2002, p.147), in their
accounting for Asian learners’ learning style; they state that verbal perfection has been
traditionally valued across many Asian cultures, which contributes to learners’ quietness in
class and their seldom voluntarily expressing ideas or contributing to the lesson. In her
study, Phuong-Mai et al. (2006) also draw a similar conclusion that learners from
Confucian heritage cultures (CHC) are usually quiet, shy, reticent and lacking initiative;
they dislike public touching and overt displays of opinions or emotions, do not talk in
class, but instead expect the teacher to teach them everything they are expected to know.
They have little desire to discover for themselves, wish to be spoon-fed, and, therefore,
teacher-dominated classrooms are common.
Another Confucian belief in education is the “learn-to-use” philosophy. Accordingly,
learning is considered to be an accumulating process of knowledge rather than a practical
process of constructing and using knowledge for immediate use (“learn-by-using”
philosophy) (Phu, 2008; Cortazzi and Jin, 1996; Littrell, 2005; An, 2002; Biggs, 1998;

Huong, 2008; Lee, n.d.). For this reason, the focus of teaching is not on how teachers and
students can create, construct, and apply knowledge in an experiential approach, but on
how extant authoritative knowledge can be transmitted and internalised in a most effective
and efficient way. This conception can also be explained with the respect that people have
for knowledge as well as knowledgeable men. Therefore, the importance is attached to
knowledge and memory over creativity as the dominant method of acquiring knowledge
(Lee, n.d.; Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996). This way of learning has been reckoned as
“passive learning”, “rote learning”, “silent learning” or “memorisation”, through which
knowledge is “poured” into the students’ heads without them having any real opportunity
to exercise. However, an interesting feature of Vietnamese learners is that though they are
thought of learning by rote or memorisation, they are only silent and inactive in the
surface. The survey conducted by Duong Thi Hoang Oanh and Nguyen Thi Hien (2006)
13
showed that both teachers and students at the tertiary level emphasised memorization as an
important strategy for learning grammar and vocabulary.
Vietnamese learners prefer learning through exemplars or models. This leads to the
importance of the textbook and, especially, the teacher as the model of not only knowledge
but also morality, who learners have to strive to become alike. Therefore, Phuoc (1975),
cited by An (2002), comments that the Confucian teaching model is “teacher-centred,
closed, suspicious of creativity, and predicated on an unquestioning obedience from the
students”.
Besides, the notion that learning is a process of accumulating knowledge
spontaneously leads to the belief that learning is a hard and serious undertaking, which
requires a full commitment and painstaking efforts (Phu, 2008; Ha, 2013). Learning is a
life-long job; it involves learners’ perseverance and patience “to grind an iron bar into a
needle” (Hu, 2002) and not concerning to or associated with light-heartedness (Phu, 2008).
For this reason, Vietnamese learners are expected to be hard-working and willing to
participate in activities; however, with all the conceptions of learning, as explicated above,
they tend to be silent and shy in class (Huyen and Ha, 2013).
To sum up, as culture affects cognitive structures and the structure of personality

(Lambert, 1973, p.3), it follows that culture affects the way people learn. At a glance, the
learning philosophy of CLT and that in Vietnamese culture are under different poles
(Hsiao, 2010). This entails that the meeting of these, manifested in the implementation of
CLT in Vietnamese context, to Vietnamese learners, may cause either convergence or
divergence. Another point to note is the dynamic nature of culture. Culture is always
changing, and with recent rapid development of Vietnam through modernization and
industrialization, Vietnamese cultural values are subject to change, and changing. This may
result in changes in Vietnamese philosophy of learning, and subsequently in the way
Vietnamese people learn, as well as learners’ attitude towards CLT.
1.9. Learning Culture and CLT
Since its birth, CLT has spread out of its birthplace. It has been widely implemented
in many countries of dissimilar cultural values, beliefs and norms; however, its
effectiveness in these contexts has been widely suspected. The notion that CLT is a
Western rooted language teaching approach, which needs to be both culturally attuned and
culturally accepted in contexts other than the West (Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996; Bax,
14
2003; Ellis, 1996; McKay, 2003; Barnard and Viet, 2010; Hu, 2002; Lewis and McCook,
2002; Stroupe, 2012; Hsiao, 2010; McClintock, 2011; Mahmoodzadeh, 2011; Khoi and
Iwashita, 2012; An, 2002) has been consuming paper and ink of a lot of scholars.
Kramsch and Sullivan (1996, p.199) state a general rule that “what is appropriate in
an international context may not be appropriate in a local context” and in mentioning CLT,
they are concerned that “the notion of appropriate pedagogy should be a pedagogy of both
global appropriacy and local appropriation.” Therefore, they follow on Berman’s (1994)
view that educators and teachers need to think globally, but act locally. Bax (2003)
classifies approaches to language teaching into two groups, i.e., methodologically-driven
and language-driven, and argues that there should be a context-driven approach which can
suit learners of different cultures and in different conditions. On this line, he stresses that
the learning context, including learner variables, is the key factor in successful language
learning, and methodology, such as CLT should only be placed in second place. In
assessing the appropriateness of CLT in Asia, Ellis (1996) maintains that a number of

aspects of Canale and Swain’s model are unsuitable for Asian learners and teachers. She
exemplifies that the focus of CLT on meaning rather than form ignores the observance of
rituals in the “collectivist societies” of Asia and the reverential attitude towards the
mastery of individual linguistic forms. McKay (2003) discovers that in many countries,
such as Chile, China, Japan, and Korea, the appropriateness of CLT in light of the local
context and learners’ needs has been challenged. On this basis, they recommend that when
selecting a methodology for a particular context, it is vital that teachers consider the local
needs of the students rather than assume that a method that is effective in one context is
effective in all contexts. Barnard and Viet (2010) review a large amount of literature which
shows that in many Asian contexts, including Hong Kong, China, Korea, Japan, and
Thailand, there has been a great mismatch between the tenets of CLT as well as Task-
Based Language Teaching and local cultures of learning.
Taking a step closer to the issue, Hu (2002) analyses that CLT takes the drudgery out
of the learning process and injects elements of entertainment, such as various language
games, with a view to making learning become a light-hearted, pleasant experience in
learning. However, it is inappropriate for CHC learning context in terms of teacher-learner
relationship, learning methods and learning content. It is because CLT aims to create an
egalitarian communicative learning environment and practices in which the relationship
15
between teacher and learner is not the one of hierarchy but equality, and learning is not
concerned with hardness and serious-undertaking but with light-heartedness. Besides, CLT
downplays the importance of memorisation as the philosophy of CHC learning, stress
verbal interaction (often at the expense of inner activity), and encourage speculation (e.g.
guesswork) and tolerance for ambiguity. Hu (2010) also agrees that one of the main
obstacles of CLT implementation in China is the teachers’ authority and students’ passive
role. The passivity is generalised to learners of other Asian countries and is said to be a
cultural barrier to successful CLT (Lewis and McCook, 2002; Stroupe, 2012). In their
studies, Hsiao (2010) and McClintock (2011) clarifies some contradictions between CLT
approach and Confucian views of learning. These include the centredness of learning,
respect and reverence for teachers and education, nature of learning activities, teachers’

authority, and learners’ autonomy in learning.
Getting closer to the context of the current study, although it is reported that
“Vietnamese teachers of English, by and large, have positive attitudes towards the CA
[CLT]” (Canh, 1999), implementation of CLT in Vietnam has not satisfied teachers,
learners and parents, and educational managers. The underlying reason of this, besides
ones concerning to teachers’ and learners’ English proficiency, inefficiency of teaching
facility, big-class size, is cultural. Ellis (1994), cited by Khoi and Iwashita (2012), discerns
that CLT in its original form is not suited to the Vietnamese context and should not be
adopted but rather culturally adapted and culturally redefined. Barnard and Viet (2010)
echo this view and assert that cultural values of Vietnam should be closely and carefully
considered in applying CLT or any other modern teaching methods. It is, for example,
explained that because CLT is socially constructed with Western values such as
individualism, whereas collectivism is greatly valued in Vietnamese society
(Mahmoodzadeh, 2011). For this reason, it is concerned that how Vietnamese teachers
cope with conflicts between Western values embedded in CLT and traditional Vietnamese
values (Khoi and Iwashita, 2012). Since teachers’ traditional roles as mentors and
imparters of knowledge in the classroom lie at the heart of the pedagogical practices in
Vietnam (Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996), CLT is believed to be unsuitable in Vietnamese
context by downgrading teachers’ authority in the classroom to facilitators (An, 2002).
This would be uneasy for not only teachers but also learners to accept. Therefore, in trying
to implement CLT, the Vietnamese teachers struggle with conflicts between their two
identities. As teachers of English, they need to be a facilitator rather than a controller. At
16
the same time, in order to be good Vietnamese teachers, they need to perform their
traditional duty as behavioural educators or moral guides (Khoi and Iwashita, 2012). In
addition, CLT is unfamiliar to Vietnamese learners in the sense that too much noise is
made during learning activities while it is perceived that the school should be a place
where students keep silent while listening to teachers and copying from the board (An,
2002). In terms of group learning, Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) observe that “the
associations students form are more akin to Western notions of ‘family’ than ‘classmate’”,

which they maintain close relationship throughout their lives, forming ties that encompass
financial, familial, and social obligations. In this respect, whole class activities would be
preferred, and it would be divisive and detrimental to learning to divide the class into
subgroups.
So far, this current chapter has presented a review of the extant literature on CLT,
culture, the connection between culture, attitude and behaviour. It has also referred to a
brief about Vietnamese culture of learning as well as implementation of CLT under the
influence of learning culture. This is hoped to be a theoretical basis for the empirical
research into the claimed field.
17
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
2.1. The Research Site
The study reported in this thesis was conducted in a state upper-secondary school in
Cao Bang province. Economically, the area where the school is located is underdeveloped,
with 93.7 per cent of the population being ethnic minorities (2009). Admission is usually
based on the results from entrance exams organised by the Provincial Department of
Education and Training. The English proficiency of students as indicated from the result of
the entry examination is low, which may be due to the language learning education
condition which is characterized as low input and poorly-resourced.
At the time when this study was conducted, the school had the total number of
students of 700 accommodated in 20 classes (7 grades 10, 6 grades11 and 7 grades 12).
The average number of students in each class is 35. There were six teachers of English.
The textbook used in the school was mandated by the Ministry of Education and Training
(MOET), which are based on the Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach (Canh
& Barnard, 2009; Van, 2010; Hung, 2011), offspring recent development of the CLT
approach. The time allocated for formal English teaching and learning at the school is, as
nationally, 3 periods (45 minutes each) per week.
2.2. Methodology
Collis and Hussey (2009) explain that there is a link between the research paradigm
and the method. They suggest that a researcher needs to take into account the

appropriateness between the method chosen and the problem stated, the researcher’s
personal experience and skills, which may be assisted by the best choice of method, and
the audience to whom the findings from the research will be addressed.
Since the purpose of this research is to explore the influence of students’ learning
culture on their learning English in the classroom, it is descriptive by nature. Therefore, the
study adopted survey method. The survey method was considered to be highly appropriate
and was chosen for the current research in terms of the paradigm adopted, the aims of the
study, the number of participants (discussed later), the role of the context, and the limited
experience and skills of the researcher.
As defined by Mathiyazhagan, and Nandan (2010, p.35), a survey study is “a method
of descriptive research used for collecting primary data based on verbal or written
communication with a representative sample of individuals or respondents from the target
18
population”. It is a type of research which, typically in the form of questionnaire, focuses
on people, the vital facts of people, and their beliefs, opinions, attitudes, motivations and
behaviour (Mackey and Gass, 2005; Brown, 1991). For this reason, it has been considered
as one of the most common methods used in second language research and English
language teaching in particular.
As a research design, the survey study has been accepted with many of its
advantages. These include amount of information probed, short time of data collection,
cost-saving, possibility for accessing to a wide range of participants, accuracy of data in
case of probability sampling, and the precision and clarity of data (McDonough and
McDonough, 1997; Brown, 1991). Although problems of the survey study framework are
usually concerned with low response rate, Brown (1991) maintains that if carefully
controlled, this method can aid in discerning patterns in large amounts of information. By
adopting the survey study framework and with careful selection of participants, as
elaborated below, it is hoped that the data collected would be reliable and could yield
valuable findings.
2.3. Participants and the Ethical Issue
The study utilised the systematic sampling frame; accordingly, the full list of all

students of the school was established, which included students’ full name and their class.
In order to do this, the student name lists of all the classes were collected in the form of
computer files (Microsoft Excel). These separated lists were then combined into one list,
which was again sorted alphabetically according to the students’ names. After that, 150
students were randomly chosen out of the total student body of the school (N=700).
Randomization was achieved by choosing one in the list out of every four students. Then
the chosen students were sorted out according to their grade. The final list of participants
was composed of 50 grade 10 students, 63 grade 11 students, and 62 grade 12 students.
As a critically important issue, the research ethics was assured by observing the
principles of confidentiality and anonymity. No real name of the students was used in this
thesis.
2.4. Instrument
2.4.1. Rationale for choosing the questionnaire and question type
As stated previously, this study is an exploratory inquiry using the survey method.
Therefore, the self-reported questionnaire was used as the key instrument of data
19
collection. Questionnaires are considered to be very popular among educational
researchers in general and ELT research in particular, especially in the survey context
(McDonough and McDonough, 1997). It is more economical and practical than the
interview (Mackey and Gass, 2005; Selinger and Shohamy, 1989; Bryman, 2004). It can
elicit comparable information from a number of respondents, and in conducting a study
with the questionnaire the researcher has a greater degree of flexibility in the gathering
process (Mackey and Gass, 2005). It is also said to afford a good deal of precision and
clarity (McDonough and McDonough, 1997). In terms of the quality of the data collected,
since questionnaires are given to all subjects of the research at the same time the data is
usually more accurate, more uniform and standard. Furthermore, when anonymity is
assured, subjects tend to share information of a sensitive nature more easily (Selinger and
Shohamy, 1989); thus, the information collected tends to be more truthful. In addition, the
questionnaire is highly appropriate for descriptive and explanatory studies which
investigate attitudes, opinions of people and cause-effect relationships between variables

(Saunders et al., 2009). Furthermore, although questionnaires usually generate only one
chance for collecting data and induce a low level of co-operation from participants, and
therefore lower response rates (Bryman, 2004), if worded correctly, they normally require
less skill and sensitivity to administer than semi-structured or in-depth interviews
(Saunders et al., 2009).
In addition, since question types usually affect people’s consideration of the answers
(Bryman, 2004), and influence their co-operation and response rate, special attention was
paid to choosing the appropriate type of question. In this sense, structured questionnaires
are considered to be more efficient than open ones (Selinger and Shohamy, 1989), and
closed-item questions have greater uniformity of measurement, therefore, can yield greater
level of reliability. Additionally, questions of this type are also easy for data quantifying
and analysing process (Oppenheim, 1992; Mackey and Gass, 2005). As the most important
criterion is the measurability and the ability of the question type to probe necessary
information, the 5-point Likert scale was employed for almost all the questionnaire items.
In addition to the Likert-type items, there were three open-ended items. These open-ended
items were to give the participants more freedom to express their opinions on the issues
under investigation (see Appendix 3 for the complete questionnaire).
20
2.4.2. Validity and reliability
The value of research is made up of the credibility of the findings, which is again
created from the validity and reliability of the data collection instrument and the
information collected. Therefore, in the current study, much effort was given to designing
the questionnaire and data collection and analysis processes.
In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the research findings, prior to
designing the questionnaire, the literature relating to the research issue was thoroughly
studied to work out the variables and the relationship between these variables which need
to be measured. These then became the basis for determining the number and content of
questions. Another factor that can affect the validity and reliability of the study is the
structure and design of the questionnaire. Accordingly, it is essential that the questionnaire
be structured and designed in a way that it “must be understood by the respondent in the

way intended by the researcher”, and “the answer given by the respondent must be
understood by the researcher in the way intended by the respondent” (Saunders et al.,
2009, p.371). For this reason, the aims of the research and the content of the questions
together with the instructions on how to answer the questions were made clear to the
respondents. Accordingly, general information about the aims of the research and a simple
and lucid instruction about how to complete the questionnaire were clearly explained to the
students prior to the questionnaire delivery. This was intended to contribute to the
respondents’ basic understanding about what they were expected to do and to minimise the
possibility that the participants would not answer the questions or their answers would not
be reliable (McDonough and McDonough, 1997).
On the other hand, special attention was paid to the wording of the questions by
using clear and simple language with familiar terms and avoiding jargons or words which
do not have an everyday usage. Leading questions, double-barrelled questions and double
negative ones were all avoided, since they can cause misunderstanding and confusion to
both the respondents and researcher. Furthermore, the questions were kept short to make
them clear and unambiguous. However, some longer questions were included to clarify the
terms unfamiliar to the respondents. All of this aimed at making all the questions good
ones which are relatively easy to answer, easy to record and evaluate, user-friendly and
unambiguous (McDonough and McDonough, 1997). In addition, the order and
arrangement of the questions was carefully considered. All the questions were grouped into
21