The application of common european framework of reference (CEFR) to designing a syllabus of general english for the first year students at quang ninh university of industry

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGÔ HẢI YẾN

THE APPLICATION OF COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF
REFERENCE (CEFR) TO DESIGNING A SYLLABUS OF GENERAL
ENGLISH FOR THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT QUANG NINH
UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY
ỨNG DỤNG KHUNG THAM CHIẾU CHÂU ÂU (CEFR) THIẾT KẾ
CHƯƠNG TRÌNH CHI TIẾT TIẾNG ANH TỔNG QUÁT CHO SINH VIÊN
NĂM THỨ NHẤT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC CÔNG NGHIỆP QUẢNG NINH.

M.A . MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 60140111

HANOI – 2014


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

NGÔ HẢI YẾN

THE APPLICATION OF COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF
REFERENCE (CEFR) TO DESIGNING A SYLLABUS OF GENERAL

ENGLISH FOR THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT QUANG NINH
UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY
ỨNG DỤNG KHUNG THAM CHIẾU CHÂU ÂU (CEFR) THIẾT KẾ
CHƯƠNG TRÌNH CHI TIẾT TIẾNG ANH TỔNG QUÁT CHO SINH VIÊN
NĂM THỨ NHẤT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC CÔNG NGHIỆP QUẢNG NINH.

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Văn Canh

HANOI – 2014


DECLARATION

I certify my authority of the submitted studied entitled
THE APPLICATION OF COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF
REFERENCE (CEFR) TO DESIGNING A SYLLABUS OF GENERAL
ENGLISH FOR THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT QUANG NINH
UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY

In total fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts
September 2014

Ngô Hải Yến

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like, first of all, sincerely and wholeheartedly to thank my
supervisor, Dr Le Van Canh, my supervisor, for his valuable instructions and
comments, his considerate assistance and invaluable critical feedback.
My special thanks go to all my teachers of the Post-graduate course 21 at
Vietnam National University, University of Languages and International Studies for
their interesting and useful lectures.
I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to all my colleagues and the
first-year students at Quang Ninh University of Industry for their contribution to
the data collection and their constructive suggestions for this research.
Last but not least, I am grateful to my friends and my family who gave me
support and encouragement during the time of fulfilling this work.

ii


ABSTRACT
Very recently, the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam has issued
the Common Framework of Competencies in Foreign Languages on the basis of the
Common European Framework of References for Languages: Teaching, Learning
and Assessment, commonly called the CEFR. As the official institutionalization of
the Vietnamese Common Framework was preceded the policy of using the CEFR to
define the competencies in English, this thesis uses the term the CEFR.
The innovation is a very recent phenomenon, and because of this most of
educational institutions in the country do not have the English language syllabus for
the attainment of the goals defined by this innovation. This study is an attempt to
develop a syllabus towards this.
The thesis reports on the results of situation analysis and particularly the

students’ current level of English proficiency, which are then used as the source of
reference for the development of the English syllabus for the first year students at
Quang Ninh University of Industry. The goal of the syllabus is to identify
appropriate task types that are aimed at enabling the students to achieve the A2
level on the CEFR, or Level 2 on Vietnamese Framework.
As this is just a suggested syllabus, it has not been piloted yet. Therefore,
evaluation and modifications resulting from the piloting the syllabus is needed. The
study also makes recommendations regarding administration and pedagogy that are
needed to deliver the syllabus if it is approved by concerned people and authorities.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration………………………………………………………….………..
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………
Abstract………………………………………………………………………
Table of Contents………………………………………………...…………
List of abbreviations………………………………………………………...
PART A: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………
1. Rationale……………………………………………………………..
2. Aims and objectives of the study…………………………………….
3. Research questions…………………………………………………...
4. Scope of the study…………………………………………………..
5. Significance of the study…………………………………………....
6. Methods of the study…………………………………………………
7. Structure of the study………………………………………………
PART B: DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………….
1.1 Syllabus in language teaching…………………………………………

1.1.1 Syllabus and curriculum……………………………………………
1.1.2 Types of syllabus………………………………………………………
1.1.2.1Grammatical/ Structural Syllabus…………………………………….
1.1.2.2 Situational syllabus………………………………………………….
1.1.2.3 Notional-functional syllabus………………..………………………
1.1.2.4 Task-based syllabus…………………………..…………………….
1.1.2.5 Topical/ Content-based syllabus……………..…………………….
1.1.2.6 Lexical syllabus…………………………………..…………………
1.1.2.7 Competency-based syllabus…………………..……………………
1.1.2.8 Skill-based syllabus ……………………………..…………………
1.1.2.9 Text-based syllabus………………………………..………………
1.1.2.10 Integrated syllabus………………………………..………………
1.1.3 Approaches to syllabus design………………………………………
1.2 The Common European Framework of References…….……………
1.2.1 What is the Common European Framework? ......................................
1.2.2 Descriptors for Common Reference Levels………..……..…………..
1.2.3 The application of CEF in teaching English in the world and in
Vietnam
CHAPTER II: THE METHODOLOGY …………………………………
2.1 Situational analysis………………………………..…………………….
2.1.1 The University………………………………….………………………
iv

i
ii
iii
iv
vi
1
1

2
3
3
3
3
4
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
12
12
12
14
17
17
17

2.1.2 The teachers……………………………….....………………….………
2.1.3 The students……………………….…………..……………....………..
2.2 The students’ KET test……………………………………………….
2.2.1 Participants ……………………………………..…………...…..………...
2.2.2 Procedures………………………………………..………....…..………….
2.2.3 Major finding and discussion………………….…………...…………….
2.2.3.1 Research Results………………………………….……….....…………
2.2.3.2 Discussion………………………………………..………….....………..
CHAPTER III: SYLLABUS DESIGN …………………………………….
3.1 Selecting the most suitable approach to syllabus design and a type of
syllabus….........................................................................................................
3.2 Proposed objectives of the syllabus……………………………….......
3.3 The content of the syllabus…………………………………………….
3.3.1 The topics/ thematic content………………………………………...
3.3.2 Grammar and Vocabulary………………………………………….
3.3.3 The language functions in the syllabus…………………………......
3.3.3.1 Imparting and seeking factual Information………………………….
3.3.3.2 Socializing…………………………………………........…………..
3.3.3.3 Expressing and Finding out Moral Attitudes……………………....
3.3.3.4 Expressing and Finding out Intellectual Attitudes…………………..
3.3.3.5 Expressing and finding out Emotional Attitudes……………………
3.3.3.6 Getting things done…………………………………………………
3.3.4 The task types used in the syllabus …………………………………
3.3.5 The organization of the syllabus……………………………………
3.3.6 The Timing of the Syllabus………………………………………….
3.4 Teaching Method………………………………………………………
3.5 Assessment……………………………………………………………
3.6 Recommendations……………………………………………………..
3.6.1 Recommendations to university administrations …………………

3.6.2 Recommendations to the Teachers………………………………….
3.6.3 Recommendations to Students………………………………………
PART C: CONCLUSION…………………..………………………………
REFERENCES………………………………..……………………………
APPENDICES…………………………………….……………………….

v

17
18
19
19
19
21
21
21
24
24
25
29
29
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32

34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
40
I


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
QUI: Quang Ninh University of Industry
CEFR: Common European Framework of Reference.
KET: Key English Test
ALTE: Association of Language Testers in Europe
VNU-HCM: Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City
ULIS-VNU: University of Languages and International Studies-Vietnam National
University.
TBLT: Task-based Language Teaching
EFL: English as a Foreign Language.

vi


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Vietnam, like other developing nations, is aware of the importance and necessity of

foreign languages but has not been very successful in producing sufficient, fluent
foreign language speakers and proficient users of English. One of the main reasons
is the lack of appropriate teaching methods and learning environment. Moreover,
syllabus design and materials construction have always been a big problem to the
university administration boards and English teachers. This is the precise situation
at Quang Ninh University of Industry.
In recent years a series of conferences and seminars at various levels have been
organized with a view to work out solutions to foreign language education in
Vietnam. The most remarkable evidence of change is the issue of the Decision
1400-QD-TTg by the Prime Minister approving the Project of foreign language
teaching and learning in the national system for the 2008-2020 periods.The general
goal of the project is to renovate thoroughly teaching and learning of foreign
language within national education system, to implement a new program on
teaching and learning foreign language at every school levels and training degrees,
which aims to achieve by the year 2015 a progress on professional skills, language
competency for human resources, especially at some prioritized sectors; by the year
2020 most Vietnamese youth whoever graduate from vocational schools, colleges
and universities gain the capacity to use a foreign language independently.
Within the context of this Decision, The Ministry of Education and Training has
issued the Common Framework of Levels of Foreign Language Proficiency, based
on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, and Assessment (CEFR). This Framework includes 6 levels equivalent to
those of CEFR and the national foreign language education curriculum will be
designed accordingly. The introduction of English into the primary education
curriculum starting from grade 3 is the greatest change in the foreign language
1


education in Vietnam. The new curriculum defines that students at the completion
of Primary education should reach Level 1(A1 of CEFR), at the completion of

Lower secondary education Level 2 (A2 CEFR) and General school leavers should
reach Level 3 (B1 CEFR). For tertiary education, graduates from vocational
colleges should reach level 2 and university graduates level 3, and graduates from
language colleges should reach from level 4 to 5, with the second foreign language
as a compulsory subject.
While the CEFR and the Common Framework of Levels of Foreign Language
Proficiency has been institutionalized, the QUI has not the appropriate syllabus,
which is developed in the light of the new framework. Zarale (2005) studied the
implementation of the CEFR in Colombia and recommended that” the need for the
construction of standards regarding foreign language education based on our
contextual features, not leaving aside the issue of being global competent”.This
gives me a tremendous impetus to implement the study “The Application of
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) to designing a syllabus of
General English for the first-year students at Quang Ninh University of
Industry.”
However, because of time constraints, the syllabus proposed here is just for first
–year students. Although it is targeted at A2 level, the experience in developing and
implementing this syllabus will be useful for developing the syllabus for the
second-year students which is targeted at B1 level.
2. Aims and objectives of the study
The aim of the study is to develop an English language syllabus for the first-year
students at Quang Ninh University of Industry with reference to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), on which the Vietnam
Common Framework of Competencies in Foreign Language is based, taking into
consideration of the target learners’ needs and other contextual variables. In order to
achieve this aim, the following objectives are defined:

2

 To define the needs of the first-year students at QUI reflected in their level of
proficiency as measured by means of a standardised test.
 To define the learning outcomes of the syllabus.
 To develope the task types that may be suitable for the first-year students at
QUI.
3. Research questions
To achieve the aforementioned aims and objectives, the following research
questions are set out to be answered:
 What level of English proficiency on the CEFR are the first-year students in
QUI?
 What are the learning outcomes of the syllabus?
 What inputs and task types should be included in the syllabus to achieve the
defined learning outcomes given the situation in QUI?
4. The scope of the study
The study focuses on the designing a syllabus of General English for the first-year
students at Quang Ninh University of Industry, basing on the criteria of level A1,
A2 of CEFR. The study of syllabus design of other level would be beyond the
scope.
5. Significance of the study
This study may be of some help to the teachers and students in QUI. It implements
the reform of syllabus design and material construction according to the
benchmarks of CEFR. In addition, the study contributes greatly to the programme
of teaching and training English with a view to meet the English requirements
denoted in National Plan “Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the
National Formal Educational System in the period of 2008-2020.”
6. Methods of the study

3

As the aim of this research is to develop a CEFR-based syllabus that is appropriate
to the context of teaching and learning at QUI, a quantitative method was adopted to
analyze the contextual factors such as the university, the teachers and the students.
One of the requirements for syllabus design is the analysis of the the students’
learning needs. In order to gain understanding of the students’ needs, a test was
used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the students regarding the four
macro skills: Listening, Reading, Speaking and Writing. The test result then was
interpreted to identify the students’ entrance level of proficiency so that decision on
content to be incorporated in the syllabus was made.
This is a survey research which is intended to define the gap between the students’
emtrance level and the target level in an attempt to design a syllabus for this
students group. The goal of the syllabus is to enable the students to achieve the
required proficiency level (A2), which is compatible to what is defined in KET.
KET is taken in this case as the measurement of the students’ required proficiency
level because at this time when this study was conducted, no sample A2 test for
Vietnamese students was institutionalized.
7. Structure of the thesis
The thesis consists of three main parts:
Part A: Introduction presents the rationale, aims and objectives, research questions,
scope, significance, methods and structure of the study.
Part B: Development, which is the core of the thesis, consists of three chapters
Chapter I reviews the literature regarding syllabus design and The Common
European Framework of References
Chapter II gives a detailed description of the study including situational analysis,
the students’ KET test which deal with the participants, procedures as well as the
findings, discussion of the study.

4

Chapter III proposes a syllabus for the first-year non-English major students at
QUI basing on the finding of the study.
Part C: Conclusion includes a summary of the study, limitations and suggestions
for further research.

5


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Syllabus in language teaching
1.1.1 Syllabus and curriculum
First it would be appropriate to begin with terminological comments and clarify the
definitions of the terms ‘syllabus’ and ‘curriculum’ since there are several
conflicting views on what it is that distinguishes syllabus design from development
(Nunan, 1993: 5). Regarding this difference, Nunan argues that it is possible to
distinguish a broad and a narrow approach to syllabus design. According to Candlin
(1984: 31) curriculum is concerned with making general statements about language
learning, learning purpose, experience, evaluation, and the role and relationships of
teachers and learners. Syllabi, on the other hand, are more localized and are based
on accounts and records of what actually happens at the classroom level as teachers
and learners apply a given curriculum to their own situation (narrower definition).
Nunan (1993:8) also agrees with Candlin and proposes that:
‘Curriculum’ is concerned with planning, implementation, evaluation, management,
and administration of education programs. ‘Syllabus’, on the other hand, focuses
more narrowly on the selection and grading of content (Nunan, 1993:8). Syllabus is
based on accounts and records of what take place at the classroom level as teachers
and learners apply a given curriculum.
The following these are the definitions of syllabus:
A syllabus is a statement of the subject matter, topics or areas to be covered by the

course leading to the particular examination (Stern, p5)
A syllabus not only defines what the ends of education through a particular subject
ought to be, but it also provides a framework within which the actual process of
learning must take place. (Widdowson, p23)

6


A syllabus is most typically a plan of what is to be achieved through our teaching
and our students’ learning. (Breen, p47)
1.1.2 Types of syllabus
A language teaching syllabus is the linguistic and subject matter that makes up the
teaching. It is agreed that the choice of an appropriate syllabus is a major decision
in language teaching and it should be considered and made as carefully, consciously
as possible. In fact, there exist many approaches to syllabus types by different
authors. In this study, the detailed classification by Richards is (2001) is chosen. He
classifies syllabuses into 10 types, namely grammatical or structural syllabus, l
exical syllabus, Situational syllabus, Notional-functional syllabus: Topical/ Contentbased syllabus, competency-based syllabus, skill-based syllabus, task-based
syllabus, text-based syllabus and intergrated syllabus. Following is the concise
description of each skill type.
1.1.2.1 Grammatical/ Structural Syllabus
A structural syllabus is a kind of syllabus in which the content of language teaching
is a collection of the forms and structures, usually grammatical elements such as
verbs, nouns, past tense and so on. The main advantage of this syllabus is that it is
based on the principle of working from the familiar to the unfamiliar and using the
familiar to teach the unfamiliar.
A fundamental criticism is that the grammatical syllabus focuses on only one aspect
of language, namely grammar, whereas in truth there exist many more aspects of
language. Moreover, recent research suggests there is a disagreement between the
grammar of the spoken and of the written language; raising complications for the

grading of content in grammar based syllabuses. It can mislead learners into
thinking they are learning a language when, in fact, they are learning facts or
information about a language. Lastly, the role of the student is passive because the
teacher dominates the class.

7


1.1.2.2 Situational syllabus
In situational syllabuses, the content of language teaching is the collection of real or
imaginary situations in which language occurs or issued. These syllabuses tend to
consist of unit indicating specific situations, such as ‘At the station’, ‘At the checkin’, etc. This sort of syllabus aims at ‘real language’, which leads more directly to
the learner’s ability to communicate in specific settings.
It may motivate learners to see that they are learning to meet their most
everyday communication needs. However, the potential disadvantage of the
situational syllabus is that functions and notions may be learned in the context of
only one situation, whereas they may be expressed in a variety of situations. Also,
although some situations have a predictable script, unforeseen things can happen in
any situation, requiring a change of script or topic.
1.1.2.3 Notional-functional syllabus:
A functional-notional syllabus is based on learning to recognize and express the
communicative functions of language (informing, agreeing, apologizing, requesting,
etc.) and the notions that language is used to express (size, age, colour, comparison,
time, and so on). Unlike the grammatical one, this type of syllabus produces a
communicative competence without losing sight of grammatical factors. However,
it is confined to short utterances or exchanges involving the functions in questions
and the complexity of grading content input is another problem.
1.1.2.4 Task-based syllabus
The task-based content is a series of complex and purposeful tasks that the students
want or need to perform with the language they are learning. (Tickoo, 1988: 175)

Examples include: applying for a job, talking with a social worker, getting housing
information over the telephone, drawing a map based on oral instructions,
completing a form, a role play in which students practise a job interview, etc.
This type of syllabus is relevant to real world language needs of students.
However, task- based design is considered demanding, time and effort consuming

8


as according to Shavelson & Stern (1981) in designing this syllabusmany things
should be taken into account such as subject matter, materials, activities, goal,
needs, interests and ability of learners.
1.1.2.5 Topical/ Content-based syllabus
Content-based syllabus is the teaching of content or information in the language
being learned with little or no direct or explicit effort to teach the language itself
separately from the content being taught. This syllabus is given a logic and
coherence which might be missing from analytic syllabuses which are little more
than a random collection of tasks. Teachers may also get too concerned with content
area teaching and neglect teaching related language skills.
1.1.2.6 Lexical syllabus
This type of syllabus identifies a target vocabulary which should be taught to
learners based on their levels. The range of vocavulary is normally from 500, 1000,
1500 to 2000 depending on students’ competence.” Typical targets of a general
English course are: Elementary level: 1000 words; Intermidiate level: an addiional
2000 words; Upper Intermediate level: an addiional 2000 words; Advanced level:
an additional 2000 + words” (Hindmarsh, 1980; Nation 1990 cited by Richards,
2001:154). As a matter of fact, vocabulary is often presented in any language
content.
1.1.2.7 Competency-based syllabus
Competency-based syllabus bases on a specification of learners’ competences or

proficiencies which they are expected to master in connection to particular
situations and activities. In this case, the term “competence” refers to necessary
skills, knowledge and attitude for successful performance of specific tasks or
activities. Richards (2001: 159) also states that this type of syllabus is “widely used
in social survival and work- oriented language programs.”
1.1.2.8 Skill-based syllabus

9


The term “skill” in language teaching is used as a specific way of using language
that combines structural and functional ability but exists independently of specific
settings or situations. The skill-based syllabus provides opportunities for learners to
develop skills and strategies. In skills-based syllabi, one sees an emphasis on one or
more of the four traditional language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking.
The actual content of the course, however, migh be language form or function. For
example, one marco-skill, reading, can be subdivided into smaller micro- skills like
skimming, scanning, or summarizing, etc.
1.1.2.9 Text-based syllabuses
This kind of syllabus is like an intergrated syllabus which is a combination of
elements of different types. It teaches explicitly about the structures and
grammatical features of spoken and written texts. It provides students with guided
practice as they develop language skills for meaningful communication through
texts. However, it also has some advantages. It mainly concentrates on certain skills
rather than a more general language competency. In addition, it appears to be
impractical in some situations.
1.1.2.10 Intergrated syllabus
An intergrated syllabus is sometimes under the name of “mixed/ layered syllabus”
by Brown (1995) or “multi-dimentional syllabus” by Wilkins (1981a: 88, cited by
Read, 1984). The intergrated syllabus is initiated from the idea of combining

different language types which are listed above. There exist many different syllabus
strands in English courses, for example, grammar linked to topics and functions or
skills linked to topics and texts, etc (Richards, 2001: 164).
1.1.3 Approaches to curriculum, syllabus design
The development and implementation of language teaching programs can be
approached in several different ways, each of which has different implications for
curriculum design.

10


Much debate and discussion about effective approaches to language teaching can be
better understood by recognizing how differences in the starting points of
curriculum development have different implications and applications in language
teaching. This leads to the distinc
distinction
tion between forward design, central
cent design, and
backward design (Richards
ichards, 2010).
In language teaching, content or input refers to the linguistic content of a course. It
seems logical
cal to assume that before we start a language, we need to decide what
linguistic
istic content to teach. Process refers to how teaching is carried out and
constitutes the domain of methodology in language teaching. Methodology
encompasses the types of learning activities, procedures and techniques that are
employed by teachers when they
they teach. Output refers to learning outcomes, that is,
what learners are able to do as the result of a period of instruction.

The Foward design starts from identification of content or input before the process
or methodology is decided. Both the input and the process should be aimed at the
intended outputs or outcomes (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. The Forward Design Process
The Central design
ign means starting with process and deriving input and output from
classroom methodology.

Figure 2.
2 The Central Design Process

11


Finally, the backward design as the name implies, starts from output and then deals
with issues relating to process and input.In
input. other words, backward design starts
from a specification of learning outcomes and decisions on methodology and
syllabus are developed from th
the learning
ing outcomes. The Common European
E
Framework of Reference is a recent example of backward design. (Richards
ichards, 2010).

Figure 3.
3 The Backward Design Process
1.2
.2 The Common European Framework of References

1.2.1
.2.1 What is the Common European Framework of References?
?
The Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment, abbreviated as CEFR or CEF, is a guideline used to describe
achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe and, increasingly, in
other countries.
The Common European Framework provides a common basis for the elaboration
el
of
language syllabi,, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across
Europe. It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn
to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills
they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively. The description also covers
the cultural context in which language is set. The Framework also defines levels of
proficiency which
ich allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning
and on a life-long basis.
1.2.2 Descriptors
escriptors for Common Reference Levels

12


One of the aims of the Framework is to help partners to describe the levels of
proficiency required by existing standards, tests and examinations in order to
facilitate comparisons between different systems of qualifications. The CEFR
describes language ability on a scale of levels from A1 for beginners up to C2 for
those who have mastered a language. This makes it easy for anyone involved in
language teaching and testing (learners, teachers, teacher trainers, etc.) to see the

level of different qualifications. It also means that employers and educational
institutions can easily compare qualifications and see how they relate to exams they
already know in their own country.
When one looks at these six levels, however, one sees that they are respectively
higher and lower interpretations of the classic division into basic, intermediate and
advanced. Also, some of the names given to Council of Europe specifications for
levels have proved resistant to translation (e.g. Waystage, Vantage). The scheme
therefore proposed adopts a ‘hypertext’ branching principle, starting from an initial
division into three broad levels – A, B and C:

C2: Mastery: The capacity to deal with material which is academic or cognitively
demanding and to use language to good effect at a level of performance which may
in certain respects be more advanced than that of an average native speaker.
C1:Effective Operational Proficiency: The ability to communicate with the
emphasis on how well it is done, in terms of appropriacy, sensitivity and the
capacity to deal with unfamiliar topics.

13


B2: Vantage: The capacity to achieve most goals and express oneself on a range of
topics.
B1: Threshold: The ability to express oneself in a limited way in familiar situations
and to deal in a general way with nonroutine information.
A2: Waystage: Ability to deal with simple, straightforward information and begin to
express oneself in familiar contexts.
A1: A basic ability to communicate and exchange information in a simple way.
1.2.3 The Application of CEF in teaching English in the world and in Vietnam
The introduction of official CEF version in 2001 has been warmly welcomed in
Europe.

First of all, CEF with its sufficient and detailed frame made Europe-wide schools
and universities reform training programs, from determining objectives, designing
curriculum, selecting and writing course books and designing testing procedure. For
example, CEF was used to promote the autonomy in English language learning
Finnish pupils through self assess the achievement of training objectives. (Council
of Europe 2002, “How to Promote Learning to Learn in First Languages Classes
in Finland”- Chapter 4, page 40-52).
Another relevant study is developing English training programs to meet the needs of
refugees in Ireland based on the standard benchmarks of CEF.(Council of Europe
2002, “Meeting the English Language Needs of Refugees in Ireland”-chapter 5,
pages 53-67). And the curriculum of teaching English as a foreign language in the
state Baden Wurttemberg (Germany) in 2004 can be cited as an example.(Rodgers,
“Curriculum reform and development in Baden-Wurttemberg with particular
reference to teaching English as a foreign language”).
There are few examples of curricula that have been (re)constructed from the bottom
up using the descriptive apparatus of the CEFR to specify learning targets at
different levels of proficiency. Two instances that have been documented are the

14


Swiss IEF Project and the curriculum for English as a second language that has
been developed for use in Irish primary schools.
The Swiss IEF was carried out by the Centre for Language Teaching and Research
of the University of Fribourg on behalf of the German-speaking Swiss cantons. Its
purpose was to promote the quality and effectiveness of school-based foreign
language teaching and learning by improving the quality, coherence and
transparency of assessment; it also contributed goal-setting and self-assessment
checklists to the Swiss European Language Portfolio for lower secondary learners.
Taking the CEFR as its basis, the project developed age-appropriate descriptors for

sub-divisions of the first three common reference levels: A1.1 and A1.2, A2.1 and
A2.2, B1.1 and B1.2.
ESL curricula for non-English-speaking pupils/students in Irish primary/postprimary schools Integrated Ireland Language and Training has developed English
Language Proficiency Benchmarks for learners of English as a second language in
primary and post-primary (secondary) schools. Both sets of benchmarks (Integrate
Ireland Language and Training 2003 a,b) are based on the first three common
reference levels (A1–B1) and offer a scaled curriculum designed to bring nonEnglish-speaking learners to the point where they can access English-medium
education without intensive English language support. The benchmarks were
developed by bringing the self-assessment grid and illustrative scales of the CEFR
into interaction with the official curricula and the results of classroom observation.
Both documents begin with ‘global benchmarks’, which are effectively ageappropriate and domain-specific versions of the self-assessment grid. These are
followed by a number of grids that refer respectively to recurrent themes in the
primary curriculum and the main subject areas of the post-primary curriculum.
The two sets of benchmarks have provided an effective and robust basis for
teaching English as a second language in Irish schools. In developing them, every
effort was made to find secure anchors in the CEF scales. However, it has not been

15


possible to validate the descriptors empirically, so the relation of the benchmarks to
the CEFR’s common reference levels remains a matter of faith. This will be true of
any other adaptation of the CEFR descriptors that is not supported by empirical
validation.
In Vietnam, CEF has been chosen to be one of the research concerns in the project
“Improving of English language training programs in VNU-HCM” with the use
of EICAS 1 (a product of the project of VNU-HCM in collaboration with British
Council and Cambridge ESOL) to assess the output level of students in VNU-HCM.
“Foreign languages standards based on Common European Framework
Reference at ULIS-VNU in 2009” and “The project of standardizing foreign

language ability of teaching staff and students of Thai Nguyen University period
2013-2015 and 2016-2020 ” are studies implemented at big, central universities.
At present, there are a few studies on applying CEFR to designing curriculum,
syllabuses or constructing materials, coursebooks at provincial universities in
Vietnam whereas we are implementing National Plan in the period of 2008 -2012.

16


CHAPTER II: THE METHODOLOGY
2.1 Situational analysis
2.1.1 The University
QUI was founded in 1967 as an expansion of Mining Technical College. The
university has the mandate to train coal mining engineers, accountants, electrical
engineers…for coal companies, factories from within and outside Quang Ninh.
English is one of the subjects in the university curriculum. The English language
programme is composed of two components: The English for General Purposes
(EGP) component and the English for Specific Purposes one (ESP).The former
component is provided in the first two semesters (30 weeks) with an intensity of
five classrooms hours per week. The coursebook used for the first semester is
Lifelines Elementary by Tom Hutchinson and in the second term, Lifelines PreIntermediate is employed. The EGP syllabus was developed 7 years ago before the
CEFR was adapted in Vietnam. The ESP component is offered for the last- year
students who have accumulated specialized knowledge in Vietnamese.
According to the new regulations by the Ministry of Education and Training,
students graduating from universities are acquired to achieve level 3 or level B1 on
the Proficiency Scale, which is an adapted version of the CEFR. Towards this goal,
the University has decided that after completing the first year, all students should
achieve the level 2 on the Proficiency Scale, or A2 level on the CEFR.
2.1.2 The teachers
The teaching staff of the English section consists of 12 teachers whose ages range

from 25 to 45. Among them, 5 teachers have Master degree, 3 teachers are studying
for the M.A degree at ULIS, VNU. The others have Bachelor degree in English. In
the testing of English language proficiency for English teachers in the North of
Vietnam, 11 English teachers gained level B2 and 1 teacher gained level C1. All of

17