Chia sẻ kinh nghiệm trong giảng dạy và kiểm tra, đánh giá môn tiếng anh

SỞ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO VĨNH PHÚC

HỘI THẢO
Chia sẻ kinh nghiệm trong giảng dạy
và kiểm tra, đánh giá môn tiếng Anh
Seminar on good practices in English
language teaching and testing

Vĩnh Phúc, ngày 16 tháng 04 năm 2015

1


TEACHING WITH UNDERSTANDING
Lê Văn Canh
All dedicated teachers want to find out a model of the best practice. For so many years, teachers
have been advised to adopt a particular method of teaching, which is considered to be the best
practice at a particular time. Unfortunately, after leaving the teacher training workshop or teacher
training venue, teachers rarely use the method that is advised to them to teach their students in
their own classroom. Why?
From my professional experience as an English language teacher and researcher I have observed
that there were students who participated eagerly in any communicative activity, but showed
very little improvement on tests. There were also students who preferred teacher-fronted
instruction and participated reluctantly in any form of learner-centered activity, but who did
better on tests than their more enthusiastic classmates. Is this because of the problematic
relationship between the new methods of teaching we were trying out in our classes and the
progress our students made? While reading the literature on foreign language teaching and while
listening to presentations by teachers at international professional conferences, I came to realize
that teachers all over the world were haunted by this question, too. Teachers either debate
publicly or in private soul this question. It can feel as if we are caught in a perceptual cycle of
questioning the effectiveness of anything we try in our classrooms because we are all motivated

to look for the best practice that provides our students with the English language skills they need.
But, where does that practice come from? My purpose in this talk is to explain that the best
practice we are looking for comes from our teaching with understanding.
What is teaching with understanding?
Richards (1999) point out that there are concurrent models of effective teaching, each with
“specific assumptions about what the essential knowledge base, skills, and attitudes [for best
practice] are” (p. 34). He classifies these models into three categories. The first category is called
science-research which views best practice as being formed and validated by scientific research
and supported by experimentation and empirical investigation. Task-based language teaching
and learner-training are two examples of this view. The second category is called ‘theoryphilosophy conceptions which are not built “on empirical research, but on philosophical, political
and moral grounds” (tr. 38). One example of this is the Communicative Approach. The third
category is referred to as the art-craft view of best practice, according to which advocates a
bottom-up view of best practice. In other words, the best practice of teaching is developed by the
teachers themselves. According to Richards (1999), both the science-research conception and the
theory-philosophy conceptions of the best practice are prescriptive and decontextualized. He
emphasizes the value of the art-craft view, arguing that the best practice in language teaching
should be developed out of teachers’ understanding of their own teaching.

2


Because of the weaknesses of the concept of ‘teaching method’, there has been a movement
away from ‘methods’ and other ‘external’ or ‘top-down’ views of teaching toward an approach
that seeks to understand teaching in its own terms. David Nunan (1988) notes, “It has been
realized that there never was and probably never will be a method for all”. So, the current
concern among scholars and researchers in our field is how to help teachers to develop their own
approach to teaching their own students in their own schools. This is called ‘a teacher’s
approach’. According to Brown (2002), a teacher’s approach to “language teaching is the
theoretical rationale that underlies everything that happens in the classroom. It is the cumulative
body of knowledge and principles that enable teachers ….to diagnose the needs of the students,

to treat students with successful pedagogical techniques, and to assess the outcome of those
treatments” (p. 11). Several decades ago, Earl Stevick (1980) wrote about language learning
“Success depends less on linguistic analyses, materials and methods and more on what goes on
inside and between people in a language classroom’ (p. 4). Therefore, “attention now has shifted
to teaching and learning processes and the contributions of the individual teacher to language
teaching pedagogy” (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p. 5). Put another way, the best practice in
teaching English resides in what I call ‘Teaching with understanding’.
What is meant by ‘teaching with understanding’?
It is important to clarify and emphasize that I do not mean that teachers are teaching without
understanding. On the contrary, by ‘understanding’ I mean understanding our own teaching
with reference to our students’ learning. Such an understanding, I believe, is the prerequisite for
any effective change in teaching and learning. Such an understanding is needed both to develop
an appropriate, clear rationale for the change and its hoped-for outcomes, and to develop
appropriate processes to enable the aims of the change to be achieved. Such an understanding
plus the knowledge of the principles of language pedagogy will enable teachers to develop their
own principled pedagogy which can accommodate their learners’ learning needs, learning styles
preferences and expectations as well as other contextual variables. I believe that we cannot teach
our students better without understanding the way we teach because teaching is multifaceted and
contextually situated. In what follows I will clarify further what I mean by understanding our
teaching
Where does understanding of teaching come from?
‘Understanding’ of teaching is developed through the process of repeated reflection on our own
teaching by asking the following questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Who am I as a teacher?
Who are my students? How do they experience my teaching?
What do I know about my teaching context?
What do I know about the subject matter content that I teach?
Why do I teach the way that I do?
What are the consequences of my teaching practices for my students?
3


•
•
•

How do I make sense of theoretical knowledge?
Who is my professional community?
What sort of change do I see as fit for my own teaching?
(Johnson, 1999, p. 139)

Thus, in order to understand our own teaching, we need to explore it. According to Richards
(1994), this exploration,
… often starts with the instructors themselves and the actual teaching processes,
and seeks to gain a better understanding of these processes by exploring with
teachers what they do and why they do it. The result is the construction of an
‘internal’ or ‘bottom up” view of teaching. The approach is often teacher
initiated and directed because it involves instructors observing themselves,
collecting data about their own classrooms and their roles within them, and using
that data as a basis for self-evaluation, for change, and hence for professional
growth.” (p.ix)
The goal of exploration is to see teaching differently. Fanselow (1988) emphasizes that the goal
of development through exploration is to see teaching differently. To accomplish this we need to

be willing to explore by making small changes to our teaching. For example, if you usually teach
from the front of the classroom, what would happen if you taught from the back? If you always
stay in the classroom when students are reading, what would happen if you left the classroom?
Through exploring to see teaching differently by trying out new behaviors to see what happens
affords us chances to "construct, reconstruct, and revise our teaching" (Fanselow, 1988, p. 116).
When we try new things, we can compare them with what we usually do, and based on this
comparison we can see our teaching differently, including our beliefs about teaching and
learning. In order to see teaching differently, we need to go beyond trying to solve problems in
our teaching; we can do this by taking different avenues to awareness. Exploration of teaching
includes the use of avenues to awareness (Gebhard & Oprandy, 1999). The most traveled
avenue is that of problem solving. For example, when students stop doing homework, teachers
consider how to get them to do it again. If students don't understand the teacher's instructions,
that teacher works on ways to give instructions differently so they can understand. However, by
only focusing on trying to work out problems, we miss chances to see teaching outside of these
problems (Fanselow, 1987). Although problem solving makes sense and is certainly worth doing,
we can go beyond looking for solutions to problems by taking a variety of other avenues to
awareness. One of these avenues is to explore simply to see what happens. To do this, Fanselow
(1987) suggests we try the opposite to our usual classroom behavior. For example, if we are
aware that we say "very good" after most student responses, we can be silent, and then describe
what happened. If we usually have students sit in rows, we can have them form a semi-circle. If
we always teach from the front of the classroom, we can try teaching from the back. If students
read aloud in every class, we can ask them to read silently. The idea is to discover what we
normally do and to try the opposite to see what happens. Another avenue to awareness is
4


exploring to see what is. One way to do this is exploring what we actually do in our teaching as
opposed to what we think we are doing. For example, if a teacher thinks she has designed group
work activities that keep students talking in English and staying on task, she could tape record
students' group work interaction. This helps her to analyze the interaction to determine if

students are talking in English and staying on task. By doing so, “teachers remain lifelong
students of teaching …[and] are able to articulate why they teach the way they do” (Johnson,
1999, p. 139). Johnson also urges us to “focus less on what you are doing as teacher, and more
on what your students are experiencing in your classroom …determining what causes difficulties
for them, what challenges them …what they get out of participating in your instructional
activities” (1999, p. 140).
There are two strategies for teachers to explore their own practice for better understanding of
their teaching: Action Research (Burns 2010) and Exploratory Practice (Allwright & Hanks
2010). However, most of us have little time or energy to engage in action research and /or
exploratory practice. A heavy teaching load, a crowded curriculum, and the pressure of
standardized final exams leave many of us with limited time in a typical day to thoroughly
prepare our classes, let alone engaging in researching our own teaching. In addition, lack of
research skills and confidence discourages many of us. The problems are compounded if we
work in an environment where we are imposed by administrators the way we should teach and
where sharing insights with colleagues is not encouraged. Thus, we need to be motivated and
supported. We, teachers, need to have a strong desire to change their teaching on the basis of our
students’ feedback on which language teaching methods are most effective for them, what
motivates them to study English, which learning styles they use to process language input, and
the strategies they use in class and at home to promote their own learning. At the same time, we
also need to be supported by administrators and teacher evaluators who encourage, appreciate
and put pressure on teacher creative innovations in their teaching. There is ample empirical
evidence that where right pressure is accompanied with corresponding support, innovation will
occur, and the best practice will be developed by individual teachers, which helps learners learn
better .

References
Allwright, R. and Hanks, J. (2010). The developing language learner: An introduction to
exploratory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave- MacMillan.
Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the ‘post-method era: Toward better
diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.),

Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9-18).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5


Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New
York: Routledge.
Fanselow, J. F. (1987). Breaking rules: Generating and exploring alternatives in language
teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Fanselow, J. F. (1988). "Let's see": Contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL
Quarterly 22(1), 113-30.
Gebhard, J.G. & Oprandy, R. (1999). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring
beliefs and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle and
Heinle.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum: A study in second language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1994). Series editor’s preface. In J. C. Richards & C. Lockhart , Reflective
teaching in second language classroom. (p. ix). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1999). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & W. A. Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An
anthology of current practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways. Rowley: Newbury House.
__________________________________________________

MOTIVATING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN WRITING CLASSES:
A PERSONAL REFLECTION

6

Vũ Thu Hà, Trần Phú High School – Vĩnh Phúc
ABSTRACT
The purpose of my report is to reflect upon my effort to enhance my students’
engagement and motivation in writing classes. The subjects include 56 students from two classes
11M and 11I (school-year 2012-2013) at Tran Phu High School. To arouse students’ interest in
writing classes, I decided to make some changes to the routine of my writing lessons, starting
with (1) customizing some textbook writing tasks, (2) organizing group writing activities, (3)
encouraging peer feedback along with (4) allowing home revision before submission, and lastly
(5) keeping a class album of good writing pieces. They were implemented from the end of
August 2013 to December 2013, and during the implementation, I kept a teaching journal and
classroom observation sheets to take notes of the students’ performance and involvement. The
data from the two self-reflection instruments showed that the goal of enhancing students’
engagement and motivation in writing classes was, to a large extent, achieved although some
shortcomings regarding the conduction of each technique and the issue of modest improvement
of their accuracy still need further addressing.

KEY WORDS: motivation, writing, personal reflection

INTRODUCTION
Students’ motivation in learning English
Almost every teacher and researcher is fully aware that motivation is indispensable in the success
of any learning process. According to Gardner (1985), to be motivated, the learner needs to have
something to look forward to, a purpose related to goal or objective. Crookes and Schmidt
(1991) identified motivation as learner’s orrientation with regard to the goal of learning a second
lanugage. As Dornyei (1989) stated, it influences the rate and success of L2 learning and it is the
driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process. It means with high
motivation or the interest in, the enthusiasm for learning the language, the students can overcome
challenges and difficulties during their learning process to improve their English. Motivation, as
defined by MacIntyre, McMaster and Baker (2001), is “an attribute of the individual describing

the psychological qualities uderlying behavior with respect to a particular task”. A more explicit
definition by Dornyei (2001) stated that the motivated individual expends effort, is persistent and
attentive to the task at hand, has goals, desires and aspirations, enjoys the activity, experiences
reinforcement from success and disappointment from failure, makes attributions concerning
success and/ or failure, is aroused, and makes use of strategies to aid in achieving goals.
Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that motivation ensures the success of L2 learning.
Regarding writing skills, Hamidun, Hashim and Othman asserted that high level of motivation
for writing is a driving force for them to write in a meaningful way. According to Bruning and
7


Horn (2000), there are some factors that affect students’ motivation to write, including
encouraging students’ positive beliefs about writing, fostering authentic goals and contexts for
writing and creating a positive classroom environment. Jones (1988) stated that it is a challenge
for the EFL writing teacher to interest and challenge enough with the course curriculum for them
to want to learn to write well.
My students’ lack of motivation in writing classes
Despite being well aware of the crucial role of writing in developing their English proficiency,
most of my students showed a lack of motivation for it. They performed passively and
unenthusiastically during class time, and their writing products revealed insufficient investment
in terms of both ideas and linguistic resources. Without any exaggeration, they were just a little
more than mechanic copies of the models given in the textbooks, which actually could hardly
communicate anything new or meaningful. They just made very minor changes of words or some
information. More terribly, some students even copied the writings from a reference book
without any changes. These facts were really sad and alarming to me, because I knew that they
were active students and they could have done much better.
After a number of personal talks with my students, I found out that the routine that I adopted in
my writing lessons was one of the main causes. The lengthy explanation of structures and lexical
items, inflexible use of writing tasks in the textbook, limited organization of cooperative writing
activities and the requirement of submitting the final product right after while-writing stage

altogether caused boredom and pressure for the students.
Some changes to enhance my students’ motivation in writing classes
Having addressed the major problems, I was determined to make some changes to my writing
lessons, starting with (1) customizing textbook writing tasks, (2) organizing group writing
activities, (3) encouraging peer feedback along with (4) allowing home revision before
submission, and lastly (5) keeping a class album of good writing pieces. These techniques are no
longer novel in ELT; in fact, they are what I learned from my teachers at university in their
writing classes. However, that was the first time my students had learned English writing in such
a way. This report reflected upon my efforts to enhance my students’ engagement and
motivation in writing classes through the use of the five techniques mentioned above.
METHOD
Method of collecting data
The study employed two qualitative methods of collecting data, including classroom observation
and teaching journal. Classroom observation was chosen because it was a good tool for me to
keep a record of what activities took place during classtime, what reactions students had to the
activities and how they took part in the activities. I utilized an observation scheme, but it was
8


only in a very simple form and for personal use. While the observation scheme was used during
classtime, teaching journal was chosen to be used after class. Teaching journal was where I
wrote down the descriptions of the activities that had been used in class and my notes on the
strong points and weak points.
Participants
The participants included two classes, 11I and 11M Tran Phu High School (School-year 20132014). Class 11I consisted of 31 students with 12 males and 19 females, and class 11M had 45
students with 2 males and 43 females. The two classes were chosen because they were the
classes to which the researcher was directly in charge of teaching English.
Procedure
The implementation of the techniques in each unit of semester 1 is demonstrated in the following
table:

Unit

Writing task

[1]

1

Writing about a friend

[3]

[4]

[5]

√

√

√

√

2

Writing a personal letter to describe a √
past experience

√

√

√

3

Writing an informal letter of invitation

√

√

√

4

Writing a formal letter expressing √
gratitude

√

√

√

6

Writing a letter of reply

√

√

√

√

7

Interpreting statistics on population √
from a chart

√

√

√

8

Describing a celebration’s activities

√

√

√

√

√

[2]

√

√

** Note:
[1] Customizing textbook tasks

[2] Organizing group writing activities

[3] Encouraging peer feedback

[4] Allowing home revision before submission

[5] Keeping a class album of good writings

9


During class time, I observed the class and took notes on observation sheets. After each unit, I
commented on how effective each technique was and what should be done to enhance its
effectiveness. Improvements on the implementation of the techniques were made along the way.
The study was conducted to the two classes throughout semester 1 of school-year 2013-2014
from August 2013 to December 2013.
RESULTS
My classroom observation and teaching journal signified that the writing period enjoyed a hectic

atmosphere that it had never had before; the students showed better involvement in class
activities and higher responsibility for their own study as well as their classmates’. Writing has
gradually become less of a burden and more of an enjoyment to them. In general, the goal of
enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing classes was, to a large extent,
achieved although some shortcomings regarding the conduction of each technique and the issue
of modest improvement of their accuracy still need further addressing.
Reflection on technique 1 (Customizing textbook tasks)
The data from teaching journal showed that the customized tasks were more personal and more
meaningful to the students so they were more willing to write and take part in class activities.
The new tasks, which required different answers from those provided by reference books, forced
students to think and write by themselves. However, the shortcoming is that some tasks in the
textbook were too difficult to adapt to students’ preference and ability.
In Unit 1 English 11 (Standard), the writing task in the textbook asks students to write about a
friend, real or imaginary, following the given guildlines. Then I made some changes to the task
by requiring them to write about one of their classmates without revealing his/her name. The
detailed steps include having students picking a card with a classmate’s name inside, writing
about him/ her without telling his/her name, and then exchanging the writing with a parter who
would guess about the person described in the writing and give comments.
The journal revealed that when students saw the box with name cards inside, they looked very
happy and curious. Picking up a card with a name inside, they started their writing eagerly. They
asked me for help with new words/ expressions. They seemed to think a lot about how to
describe their friend precisely so that their partner could guess who he/ she was. They had never
showed such willingness to write before.
Reflection on technique 2 (Organizing group writing)
The strong points of technique 2 include the fact that group writing activities created an exciting
class atmosphere and good writing products and that group work often involved both cooperation
and competition so students took part in it more eagerly. However, the exciting atmosphere
seemed to be only superfical; most students didn’t contribute much.
10

Take writing part of unit 3 as example. In this part, I asked students to do two main tasks:
Task 1: Work in groups and make a plan for your group’s party at home and present your plan on
a poster. This task is a pre-writing task, done at home.
Task 2: Based on the information in your plan, groups write a letter to invite your classmate to
your party.
It is reflected that Task 1 – home task for group was very good. The students’ plans on posters
looked very informative and beautiful. This is one example from group “Moon and Souls” –
class 11M. They planned a party on the occasion of Mid-Autumn festival or another one from
another group about Tet Holiday. The students were proud of their group’s product and were
well activated for the while-writing task – writing an invitation letter.

Illustration 1: Groups’ posters of party plans
As opposed to the good things that group activities brought to pre-writing activity, group whilewriting activity didn’t help all students write. Very little writing took place. Students moved
around, talking and laughing happily, but in fact they learned very little.

11


In Unit 8, I asked students to work in groups about the writing tasks. This time the writing task
was also separated into two sub-tasks:
Task 1: Work in groups. Before class, decide a celebration (New Year, Tet Holiday, Halloween,
Mid-autumn festival, etc.) to collect information about.
Task 2: Work in groups. In class, based on the information collected write a paragraph about the
celebration on a poster.
Students appeared to be very effective in searching for the information. Most groups brought to
class a set of print-outs on the celebration they had chosen. In their print-outs, many paragraphs
were highlited in yellow or blue, and many new words were carefully cited with meaning and
word forms on the margins. This showed that they had read the materials before class and took
delight in learning about the celebration in English. In class, they were very eager in the writing

tasks. In each group, some were in charge of writing while the others decorating the poster.
However, as I saw it, the task seemed to be quite difficult for them. They discussed and then
argued a lot on what and how to write, although they mostly did it in Vietnamese. The materials
they had chosen seemed to contain many complex words so they had difficulty understanding
and choosing words. Then, some better students started to get stressed and some other weaker
students steadily gave up.
After using them for two units, I realized that while class writing activities helped to create an
exciting atmosphere and was somewhat successful in involving students in learning activities,
many factors should be considered in order to use them probably.
Reflection on technique 3 (Encouraging peer feedback)
Peer feedback was effective in getting students involved in the writing process, promoting
students’ confidence and responsibility and helping students learn from each other. However, it
was noted in my journal that if the students were not trained about how to give feedback, it could
have counter-productive effects on them.
After the first two units, it was shown that the students felt excited about checking their partner’s
writing as it was a new task to them, but they looked too serious and stressed when they read
their friend’s writing. They appeared to care too much about the grammar mistakes and did not
enjoy the writing. It was nearly the same senario for almost every pair that one student pointed
out the mistakes, and the other listened silently and unhappily. It seemed that they just focused
on grammar and cared little about the content.

12


Illustration 2: A peer-feedback pair (Class 11I)
The other thing was about the way they corrected their friends’ mistakes, which was quite
discouraging. As I found in the students’ first drafts, there were almost no comments on good
points. Only mistakes were highlighted. Many students often used large symbols to mark the
mistakes – big circles, long and thick underlines, crosses and even big question marks. These
things migh have made the students who had their writing checked feel that their writing was a

rubbish.

Illustration 3: A writing with peer feedback (Unit 3)
Therefore, I decided that students need to be instructed how to give positive feedback. I gave
them a small note, which stressed four important things to remember when students checked
each other’s writing:
(1) Enjoy the content first and comment on good points first;

13


(2) Treat your friend’s writing with care and respect;
(3) Use small mistake-highlighting symbols;
(4) Be positive and encouraging. This actually helped a lot.
After unit 8, peer feedback was a habit to the students. They seemed to be more “pro” in giving
comments. They started with complimenting on good points then turned to pointing out things to
improve. They learned from each other and helped each other improve their writing. Both
students in a pair looked happy as there was a sense of sharing and cooperation among them.
Reflection on technique 4 (Allowing home revision)
Home revision gave students a chance to edit and improve their writings before handing them in
to the teacher, so they felt more secure and confident about their writing. Students made more
effort on their writings. Home revision also meant higher marks, which in turn provided another
reason for students to try.
[…] Ss were more secure when they were given the chance to revise their writing at home after
peer feedback, and they seemed to have more motivation to refine their writing. Higher levels of
confidence and security in writing classes encouraged Ss to take part in the lesson more actively
and invest in their writings more.
[…] When I asked Ss to submit both their first draft and final draft, I also saw the improvement
in their writing. That also meant higher marks, and higher marks provided another motive for Ss
to try to write …

Reflection on technique 5 (Keeping a class album)
A class album was like a target for students to reach, so many of the students tried harder in
order to be selected for the album. Ss invested more in their writings: content, structures and
appearance. In the first three units, the album only focused on the best writings, so it failed to
attract the attention of most of the class.
[…] After 3 units in both classes, only 3 or 4 Ss, who were very good at writing, had their
writings selected for the album. The other students seemed unable to compete with them for a
place in the album if the highest marks were the only consideration. Thus, most of the Ss in the
classes did not care much about the album.

With a view to attracting more students, I decided that more considerations for selected writings
be enlisted. Then I introduced two other considerations including the writings with the most
14


interesting content and the writings with the most impressive look in addition to the writings
with the highest marks.
The modification brought positive changes to the students’ attitudes towards the album. The
number of students who had their writing selected increased. The album no longer included
names of good students; weaker students also took part in. In general, if the album covers a good
range of considerations, it will be a very good means of encouraging students to write.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Major findings
All five ways adopted were, to a large extent, effective in enhancing students’ motivation in
writing classes in that they increased students’ self-confidence and sense of security during class
time, provided meaningful tasks that created a real purpose for students to write, created an
exciting, relaxing class atmosphere, which was both cooperative and competitive at the same
time, and drew a target for students to reach.
Recommendations

After implementing the five techniques in my writing classes, I found that the techniques
themselves are helpful in motivating students to learn, but the ways we conduct the techniques
can help magnify their effects or cause counter-productive effects on students. It is important that
each teacher apply innovative techniques in their class so as to faciliate their students’ learning
and get useful experience for themselves.
Personally, I got some lessons from my application of the five techniques, which can be very
useful for other teachers who are also concerned with using them in their classes. First, regarding
group writing activities, they are probably better for pre-writing stage than the while-writing
stage. If group writing is still desired, portfolio or project work might be a better choice as they
give students more time and have more structured and reliable assessment rubrics of students’
performance and their contribution in group. Second, as for peer feedback, if it is to be used,
some training to students beforehand is necessary so that they will adopt a more positive attitude
towards proofreading and correcting mistakes. Teachers should not assume that students already
know what to do with their friend’s writing; some modelling will definitely help them a lot. With
appropriate instructions, students’ skills and right attitudes towards peer feedback will gradually
build up. Last but not least, a class album will likely attract more students and act as a target for
students to make an effort in their writing if the selection does not focus too much on perfect
grammar and enlists more considerations.

REFERENCES

15


Bruning, R. and Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35,
25-37.
Crookes, G. and Schmidt, R.W. (1991). Motivation: Re-opening the research agenda. Language
Learning, 41, 469-512.
Jones, N.B. (1998). Comments on Tony Silva’s “On the ethical treatment of ESL writers”: a
defense of using themes and topics to teach ESL/ EFL writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2). 338342.

Nazifah Hamidun, Shafiq Hizwari Md Hashim, and Nur Farhinaa Othman (2012). Enhancing
Students’ Motivation by Providing Feedback on Writing: The Case of International Students
from Thailand. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 2, No. 6, November
2012.
P.D. MacIntyre, K. MacMaster and S.C. Baker, “The convergence of multiple models of
motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich, Kuhl, and McCroskey,” In Z.
Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report
#23, pp. 461-492). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center, 2001.
R.C. Gardner, Social Psychology in Second Language Learning, Edward Arnold Ltd, London,
Great Britain, 1985.
Z. Dornyei, “New themes and approaches in second language motivation research,” Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 23-59,2001.
Zolt´n Dörnyei (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching,
31, pp 117135. doi:10.1017/S026144480001315X

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Vu Thu Ha is a teacher of English at Tran Phu High School, Vinh Phuc Province. She graduated
from University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), Vietnam National University
(VNU), Hanoi, in 2009. She worked for Faculty of English at ULIS from 2009 to 2011 and she
got a Master’s degree in English Linguistics in 2013. She has been teaching high school students
for 4 years now.

16


MEASURING SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ENLGISH PROFICIENCY
WITH INTERNATIONAL TESTS
Nguyen Kieu Oanh, M.A., Academic Officer, IIG Vietnam, Hanoi
Do Thi Xuan Hoa, M.A., Academic Officer, IIG Vietnam, Hanoi

Nguyen Phuong Suu, M.A., Senior Academic Advisor, IIG Vietnam

Abstract

English has become a key to the first door for Vietnam’s integration with the world. A lot of efforts have
been taken to enhance the quality of learning and teaching the language. However, the levels of
proficiency of the Vietnamese users of English as a foreign language remain unsatisfactory in comparison
with their Asian and ASEAN peers. Assessment has been identified as a tool thanks to its positive
backwash effects on the process of teaching and learning. Apart from internal measurements, external
measurements will serve as a counterweight or a good ‘mirror’ upon which the quality of teaching and
learning is reliably reflected. Information provided by these external measurements will be beneficial to
learners, parents, educators and managements. The report will cover basic details of the TOEFL tests
and supporting means and learning materials.
____________________________________
Effective communication in the 21st century
The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has released the 6-level national framework of
foreign language proficiency, which is based on the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR). The Ministry has also published a framework of levels of language proficiency for
school students from primary to high school level[ i]. Another important release is the 3-level format[ ii] for
a test of English proficiency for the general users. Most recently, the Prime Minister has endorsed a
decision to promote and encouraged the teaching and learning of mathematics and sciences in English.
This underlines the importance of mastering the language as a dire need.
A lot of efforts have been made to enhance the quality of learning and teaching the language.
However, the levels of proficiency of the Vietnamese users of English as a foreign language remain low in
comparison with their other Asian and ASEAN peers. This situation remains a major concern for both
educators and managements.
Internationally, English has become a lingua franca in various fields. Reasserting the importance
of effective communication in the 21st century, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, late Minister Mentor and Senior
Advisor to the Government of Singapore at the launch of the English Language Institute of Singapore
(ELIS) said: “Communication skills are one of the most important competencies needed in the 21st

century workforce. If one is to succeed, he or she will need a mastery of English because it is the
language of business, science, diplomacy and academia.”[ iii]

17


The Singaporean statesman further advised: “To maintain the high standards of English
competency in Singapore, we need to ensure that from the time a child steps into kindergarten, he is
exposed to good English. Our schools must provide a rich language environment. There must be a strong
reading culture where children can access and enjoy good books. There must be a culture of oracy.
Opportunities must be given to students to speak in English. Students must present information and
ideas, to clarify and to debate robustly with each other in English.” (Ibid)
English as a lingua franca has developed beyond national borders. According to research results,
scientific studies published in English have rapidly increased in number, from 84.5% in 1980 to 95.9% in
2000 [iv]. The tendency has inspired and called for the teaching of the language to increase proportionally
in a globalized world. Likewise, UNESCO statistics of 2007 [v] showed that 45.24% of scholarly journals
are in English, 11.1% in German, 6.51% in Chinese, 4.94% in French, 3.46% in Japanese, and 1.30% in
Russian, adding greater emphasis to the trend. The survey showed a similar tendency with the media.
Learning a new language
Research studies[vi] have found out that children exposed to more than one language before the
age of puberty seem to acquire all the languages equally well(Fromkin et al: 369). Research findings
have confirmed that if one starts learning a new language early in life, it will be easier for him or her to
master it. Therefore, it is advisable to start a new language as early as possible, since early imprints live
long, hold fast, and may affect a whole process.
In response to dire needs of integration, the teaching of English in Vietnam has gathered
momentum. However, its development has not met the requirements.[ vii] Problems have been identified
with methods of teaching-learning and an absence of a valid and consistent assessment. This report does
not seek to recap the situation of teaching and learning of English in Vietnam, which has been extensively
discussed elsewhere.
Backwash effect of testing and assessment

One cannot know how one looks without a mirror. By analogy, one can hardly know how one has
progressed in study without a tool to measure the progress and achievement. In the process of
education, testing and assessment has been identified as an effective tool to give feedback information
on the teaching-learning activity and curriculum and syllabus. The feedback information will help
educators, learners, and managements to fine-tune or readjust curricula, syllabi or methods of learningteaching, and so on.
Main Types of Tests and their uses
Educational assessment is usually classified into two categories:

18


a) Achievement test, which is a type of test that is based on syllabus or course content, which is
often used to assess students’ progress and achievement at certain point or at the end of a
course. Secondary education graduation is an example of an achievement test.
b) Proficiency test, which is independent of any syllabi or textbooks. It does not include what the
testees have learned but requires them to fulfill certain tasks or meet certain job-based
requirements (e.g. it may be used for exemption from certain exams, college admission,
recruitment, etc.). TOEFL, IELTS, SAT, etc. are a few examples.
International measurement tools
Although the US educational system does not have a “national” curriculum, it has a large number
of educational assessment organizations across the country. U.S. educators have developed an extensive
body of theory and an array of evaluation and assessment methods and techniques to assist in the
identification of student learning styles and needs, the diagnosis of learning disabilities and related
developmental issues, the classification of interests and abilities, the assessment of instructional and
program quality and effectiveness, and the measurement of student learning and achievement. Detailed
and continuous evaluation and assessment is part of every educational program and is important in a
system that does not rely on framework laws or uniform national examinations as templates to determine
academic program content or student tracking and achievement.[ viii]
This report will focus on external measurement tools that are expected to enhance the quality of
teaching and learning of the language: the TOEFL family and learning supporting tools developed by one

of these testing bodies: the Educational Testing Service (ETS).
These are proficiency tests that are independent of any specific curricula or syllabi. Apart from
the

most

basic

emphases

presented

below,

readers

are

advised

to

logon

to

or directly to for further information on and
deeper insight into the tests and their specifications.

Figure 1: The TOEFL Family of Assessments

19


The TOEFL Primary
In Vietnam, the TOEFL Primary program offers two tests to measure a range of skills:


the paper-delivered Reading and Listening test — Step 1



the paper-delivered Reading and Listening test — Step 2

Each test provides reliable scores, and scores from all tests are mapped to Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels.

TOEFL Primary Reading scores are also matched to Lexile

measures, making it easier to find books and articles that best match students' English reading levels.

TOEFL Primary Reading and Listening tests assess students' knowledge, skills and abilities to
fulfill core communication goals in English. They are offered at two levels of proficiency, Step 1 and Step
2, so that you can select an assessment that more closely matches the skills your students have acquired.
Step 1
The Reading and Listening test — Step 1 is intended for students in the earlier stages of English
learning and covers familiar contexts (school, home, playground); basic formulaic expressions; basic
vocabulary and phrases related to common objects and people; short and simple requests and directions;
short and simple text relevant to everyday experiences.
Number of

Questions

Number of
Examples

Total Number of
Questions

Reading

36

3

39

30 minutes

Listening

36

5

41

30 minutes

Section

Time

Step 2
The Reading and Listening test — Step 2 is intended for students who have acquired some
communicative English skills and covers basic expressions, requests, phrases and directions; simple short
stories and conversations on topics beyond everyday experiences; unfamiliar words given sufficient
amount of contextual clues; simple content-based texts
Section

Number of Questions

Number of
Examples

Total Number of
Questions

Time

Reading

36

1

37

30 minutes

Listening

36

3

39

30 minutes

Administration of TOEFL Primary in Vietnam
The TOEFL Primary test has been administered in Vietnam since 2013. Students are advised to
take the Challenge TOEFL Primary as a screening procedure to familiarize themselves with the test, and
make sure that they are ready and competent enough to take the official test. Recent statistics have

20


shown that 25,200 students from 880 primary schools from 12 cities and provinces throughout the
country have taken the test.

TOEFL Junior tests


In Vietnam, the TOEFL Junior test is available in paper-based mode. The test measures Reading

Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, and Language Form and Meaning.

Sections

Number of Items

Scale Scores

Testing Time

Listening Comprehension

42

200–300

40 min

Language Form and Meaning

42

200–300

25 min

Reading Comprehension

42

200–300

50 min

126

600–900

1 hr 55 min

Total
Administration of TOEFL Junior in Vietnam

TOEFL Junior has been administered in Vietnam for students of middle schools since 2012.
Recent statistics have shown that 61,836 students from 1,171 middle schools from 14 cities and
provinces throughout the country have taken the test.
With a section of explicitly testing language form and meaning, TOEFL Junior serves as a bridge
helping students to familiarize themselves with the higher levels of the TOEFL system.

TOEFL iBT
The TOEFL iBT test is an internet-based test that measures test takers’ ability in using and
understanding academic English at university level.
Sections

Number of items

Scale scores

Testing time

Reading comprehension

36-56

0-30

60-90 minutes

Listening comprehension

34-51

0-30

60-90 minutes

BREAK- 10 minutes
Speaking

6

0-30

20 minutes

Writing

2

0-30

50 minutes

0-120

200-250 minutes

TOTAL
Administration of TOEFL iBT in Vietnam

21


More than 9,000 tertiary institutions in 130 countries in the world accept the TOEFL iBT test
score. It is, therefore, essential that students planning to study abroad, especially in North America, take
the TOEFL iBT to realize their plan.
Test takers can register online at or can visit IIG Vietnam to make their
registration.

TOEFL ITP (Institutional Testing Program)
The TOEFL ITP tests, a reliable assessment of academic English, are paper-based and use 100
percent academic content to evaluate the English-language proficiency of nonnative English speakers,
giving you confidence about your students' ability in a real-world academic setting. All questions are
multiple choice and students answer questions by filling in an answer sheet. The tests evaluate skills in
three areas:


Listening Comprehension measures the ability to understand spoken English as it is used
in colleges and universities



Structure and Written Expression measures recognition of selected structural and
grammatical points in standard written English



Reading Comprehension measures the ability to read and understand academic reading
material in English

Section

Number of Questions

Admin. Time

Score Scale

Listening Comprehension

50

35 minutes

31–68

Structure and Written Expression

40

25 minutes

31–68

Reading Comprehension

50

55 minutes

31–67

140

115 minutes

310–677

TOTAL
Administration of TOEFL ITP in Vietnam

As has been with other members of the TOEFL system, TOEFL ITP has been used by a big
number of tertiary institutions as a requirement for admission to post-graduate courses. Most recently,
MOET has announced an exemption of high school graduation test for students who own valid TOEFL ITP
with 450/677 points.

Supporting tools

22


To accompany the tests, there are a large number of supporting tools, ranging from traditional to
online formats to accommodate digital-era learning demands.

Lexile Measures

The Lexile framework for reading is a unique resource for accurately matching readers’ reading
ability and interests with texts. The Lexile Framework evaluates reading ability based on actual
assessments rather than generalized age or grade levels.
The true power of the Lexile Framework is its ability to measure both reading ability and text
complexity on the same developmental scale while other reading level formulas just measure text.
The Lexile Framework is based on research of more than 20 years. ETS, creator of the
TOEFL Junior and TOEFL Primary test, has joined with MetaMetrics, creator of the Lexile Framework for
Reading, to link reading section scores from the exam with Lexile measures. To assist young students
studying English, each TOEFL Junior and TOEFL Primary score report will come with the student's reading
section

score

matched

with

a

Lexile

measure

and

a

link

to

the

new

multi-language

website www.lexile.com/toeflprimary and www.lexile.com/toefljunior. Students and parents can use this
website to access more on Lexile measures and search for books and build custom reading lists based on
the student’s ability and interests.

English Learning Center (ELC)
TOEFL Primary and TOEFL Junior ELC are interactive online learning activities designed to help
students reach their full potential in English-language proficiency.
Featuring eight theme-based units with 20 total hours of learning material, ELC covers learning
objectives common to a range of curricula worldwide. Many of the activities are iPad compatible.
The TOEFL Primary and TOEFL Junior English Learning Center is appropriate for a range of
proficiency levels. Guided by teachers, each student moves at his or her own pace through the online
exercises and recorded practice. Automated feedback on Listening and Reading activities indicate areas
of strength and areas for improvement. Teachers monitor student progress and relay their feedback to
students’ Speaking items and practice questions through the Teacher Management System (TMS).
The TMS provides teachers with the tools they need to accelerate student progress. The system
features an easy to use communication center for students to receive teacher feedback. Using the
system, teachers can:

•

Generate reports

•

View summary data on class completion

23


•

Examine specific data on individual student completion

•

Shape student content

•

Determine and assign appropriate exercises based on student proficiency

•

Provide access to TOEFL Junior practice tests

•

Evaluate students’ speaking and writing responses

•

Review student activities

•

Read/listen to student responses

•

Access ETS scoring rubrics

•

View examples of student responses at different levels

•

Provide personalised feedback on speaking and writing practice using available rubrics

•

Provide written comments through email

English Discoveries Online (EDO)
Nominated by ETS as the most comprehensive learning program that realizes blended learning,
EDO is gaining popularity among English language teachers and learners worldwide. Thanks to its 10
courses (Beginning to Advanced) and high-quality educational content, EDO affords the best
opportunities for students of all levels to practice and improve their language competencies, i.e.
Listening, Reading, Writing, Speaking, Vocabulary and Grammar. Students also substantially benefit from
interactive and authentic learning materials including real-life videos, topical articles, radio podcasts and
role-play to sharpen their communicative competence.
What makes EDO stand out is the fact that it creates a social, cross-cultural online platform for
students to share their learning experiences with fellow learners all over the world.

Sanako Pronounce
Pronunciation has long been regarded as one of the most challenging skills to acquire among
English language learners, especially among Vietnamese speakers where traditional classrooms are
notoriously overcrowded. The answer to more intelligible pronunciation, even near-native, can be found
in Sanako Pronounce. Using the latest technology of turning text to speech, Sanako Pronounce ensures
individualized learning and infinite learning materials. Authentic speech models, flexible word and
sentence pronunciation, high-quality recording, instant score and detailed feedback are among the
striking features that constitute a powerful learning tool for students to practice and heighten accuracy in
their pronunciation.
Writing Practice Program (WPP) and Criterion

24


The most cited part of a language teacher’s workload would be marking students’ papers. This
observation would probably stand in most English language teachers’ favour in Vietnam where the
average number of students per class is 26 at primary level and 45 at high school level 1.
Reducing teachers’ workload in marking papers and enhancing the quality teaching writing skill is
becoming more and more urgent than ever when the National Examination is coming and writing is now
an official component of the test. What is the solution to the problem?
Among the answers stand two online writing practice programs namely Writing Practice Program
() and Criterion (). These two online practice programs offers
a 24/7 platform for teachers and students from primary to tertiary levels to learn about and practice
academic writing skill. With their interactive and vivid lessons on different aspects of the writing process,
WPP and Criterion are reliable resources for both teachers and students. Teachers, in particular, benefit
from the primary function of automated scoring which significantly reduces their workload. Similarly,
students can practice autonomy in learning while working in groups and monitoring their own studies and
progress.
Besides the above-mentioned similarities, WPP and Criterion markedly differ from each other.

While WPP entirely focuses on developing the writing skill for students from primary to high school levels,
Criterion expands their target user range to high school graduates, tertiary level students, and
prospective candidates of such standardized tests as GRE, SAT and TOEFL. It is prerequisite for schools
to become a member of the ERB 2’s school network in order to benefit from shared resources and reduced
prices. Criterion, on the other hand, offers individual packages of teacher and student accounts without
any request for commitment.

Sanako Study 1200
Together with utilizing online programs in blended learning, transforming brick-and-mortar
language classrooms is a task to fulfill. An improved version of traditional physical classrooms is a
language lab. Sanako Study 1200 is a typical example of aninteractive and effective language lab
software that can profoundly change the way English is taught and acquired. Stimulating students to
learn languages by performing activities, increasing students’ time on task and speaking time, catering
for individual students to meet their level and needs, creating additional materials to fit course objective
are all feasible with Sanako Study 1200.
Full awareness of the importance of the English language and the learning needs of the language
learners in the process of global integration would be an impetus to enhancing the teaching and learning
of the language. The combination of internal and external educational measuring tools would provide
1
2

Circular # 42/2012/TT-BGDDT. MOET. On Criteria to assess quality of education institutions.
Educational Records Bureau(ERB) develops WPP

25