University Students’ Perceptions of Standard-Based English Language Learning Outcome
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 7, Issue 6, November 2019, Pages: 315-318
Received: Sep. 17, 2019; Accepted: Oct. 14, 2019; Published: Nov. 9, 2019
Views 45      Downloads 26
Author
Pham Thi Tuyet Nhung, Department of French, University of Foreign Languages, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
On the implementation level of the National Foreign Languages Project, the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has set new language learning outcomes for different educational levels from primary education to tertiary education based on different levels of proficiency of the Common European Framework for Reference of Languages by the Council of Europe (2001) (the CEFR). As a result of the adoption of the CEFR to set learning standards, university students who are majored in a foreign language must obtain evidence of their proficiency in that language at least at C1 level in their first foreign language and B1 level in a second foreign language as pre-requisite to be awarded university graduation degree. This paper reports a study on university French-majored students’ perceptions of the CEFR-A1, A2, and B1 standard-based English language learning outcomes and the problems they face while trying to achieve these learning outcomes. The findings have shown that the investigated students have limited understanding of the standards expected of them and tend to associate the required learning outcomes with the test results rather than the development of their own language skills. The study has also revealed common problems the students faced during the implementation of the the standard-based learning outcome policy.
Keywords
Standard-Based, Learning Outcome, CEFR, Perception
To cite this article
Pham Thi Tuyet Nhung, University Students’ Perceptions of Standard-Based English Language Learning Outcome, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 7, No. 6, 2019, pp. 315-318. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20190706.19
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 659-663.
[2]
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3]
Desveaux, S. (2013). Guided learning hours. https://support.cambridgeenglish.org/hc/en-gb/articles/202838506-Guided-learning hours. Retrieved on July 1st, 2015.
[4]
Forbes, H., Duke, M., & Prosser, M. (2001). Students' perceptions of learning outcomes from group-based, problem-based teaching and learning activities. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 6 (3), 205-217.
[5]
Gosling, D. (2009). Learning outcomes debate. Accessed June 11, 2013. http://www.davidgosling.net/userfiles/Learning%20Outcomes%20Debate(1).pdf.
[6]
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2008). Learning outcomes: A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 13 (1), 107–115.
[7]
MOET (2013a). MOET annual report. National Conference on Strategic Action Plan for the 2020 Project. Hanoi, October, 2013.
[8]
MOET (2013b). Dispatch No. 7475 Guidance on learning outcomes for university programs. Hanoi, April, 2013.
[9]
Nguyen, V. T. (2018). Project 2020 and professional development for high school EFL teachers in Vietnam. In K. Hashimoto & V. Nguyen (Eds.) Professional development of English language teachers in Asia (pp. 95-108). New York: Routledge.
[10]
Pham, T. H. N. (2013). Obstacles to primary school teachers’ implementation of methodological innovations to teach English to young learners. Hue University Journal of Science, 80 (2), 35-46.
[11]
Pham, T. H. N. (2017). Applying the CEFR to renew general English curriculum: Successes, remaining issues and lessons from Vietnam. In F. O’ Dwyer et al. (Eds.) Critical, constructive assessment of CEFR-informed language teaching in Japan and beyond (pp. 97-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12]
Pham, T. H. N. (2018). General English proficiency or English for teaching? The preferences of in-service teachers. RELC Journal, 49 (3), 339–352.
[13]
Trim, J. (Ed.) (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. User guide. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, available online: www.coe.int/lang-CEFR.
[14]
Walker, P. (2008). What do students think they (should) learn at college? Student perceptions of essential learning outcomes. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8 (1), 45-60.
[15]
Wright, S. (2002). Language education and foreign relations in Vietnam. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.) Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 225-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186