This paper explores two Vietnamese teachers' accounts of their own teaching experiences of ... and a global language, largely thanks to its colonial history, and to .... when they discussed openly what they had written in their journal entries.
University classrooms in Vietnam: contesting the stereotypes Phan Le Ha
Eastern education may be perceived by Western-oriented educators as something quite di=erent from the latters’ ‘advanced’ and ‘developed’ way of educating. Cultural di=erence in pedagogical practice may be experienced by Western English language educators not as di=erence but as de>cit. Eastern teachers of EFL are sometimes judged to be using ‘backward’ teaching and learning methodologies compared with the ‘advanced’ and widely-used Western methods, such as ‘Communicative Language Teaching’ (CLT ). This paper explores two Vietnamese teachers’ accounts of their own teaching experiences of EFL in Vietnam. These teachers, at least, do not conform to the above cultural stereotype. Like e=ective English language educators in the West, these teachers use a variety of pedagogical approaches which take account of the cultural context of the classroom.
Introduction
English has today become a world language, an international language, and a global language, largely thanks to its colonial history, and to economic imperialism (Phillipson 1992, Pennycook 1994, 1998). The explosive growth of the use of English has been accompanied by the similarly rapid expansion of ELT . But problematically, while a huge number of non-native teachers of English are devoted to the promotion of the language, their teaching may be judged according to cultural stereotypes that have served colonial and imperial interests. In a similar way, Western teaching methods may be seen as more modern, and superior to ‘traditional’ ones. The division between Western and Eastern education is sometimes employed to rationalize the judgement. However, this division often leads to judging the latter as de>cient and imposing, didactic and backward, following an ‘empty vessel’ teaching method. Taking examples from two Vietnamese teachers of English, this study will contest this stereotype.
English Language Teaching (ELT ) and constructs of colonialism
Pennycook (1998) shows that the status of both English and ELT is bound up with the images of the Self (native English speakers—the colonizer) and the Other (the colonized) which have been created and nurtured through the spread of English and the expansion of ELT worldwide. These images are cultural products of colonialism. They have been constructed through English and ELT , and have shaped the language and associated pedagogy. He also indicates that the way the
50
ELT Journal Volume 58/1 January 2004 © Oxford University Press
articles
welcome
images of the Self and the Other were constructed is closely connected to colonial practices, and it is colonialism that positioned the superior Self over the inferior Other. This has resulted in assumptions about the way the Other teaches and learns English.
Images of the Other (student and teacher) created by the Self The Other student
Pennycook (1994) provides a comprehensive picture of how native English-speaking academics perceive learning strategies used by some Oriental students. For example, a Chinese student’s resistance to ‘informal class discussion’ (p. 160) is interpreted as indicating ‘backwardness’ and ‘closed minds’ (p. 161); their acts of respect are decoded as a lack of ‘independent thinking’ (ibid.) and freedom of speech. Pennycook (1998) demonstrates that the West’s perceptions of the Other (the SOL in TESOL ) are not only taken for granted, but >xed as well. He lists a number of commonly-held beliefs about the Other: Chinese students are consistently seen as ‘passive, rote learners, whose logic follows a strange spiral pattern’, and who are products of a ‘static, unchanging, traditional’ society (p. 162); Malay people are described as being ‘good imitators, lacking originality in thought and culture’ (Alatis 1977: 115, cited in Pennycook 1998: 167); Arab peoples are viewed as being ‘a limited, narrow-minded people, whose inert intellects lay fallow in incurious resignation’ (Porter 1994: 155, cited in ibid.: 167). Ballard and Clanchy (1997) mentioned a number of stereotypes that Australian academics often have towards Asian students. For example: ‘. . . all their essays tend to be just summaries, repetitions . . . No real understanding. No analysis at all. No evaluation’ (p. 2). Another example: ‘I’ve got one international PhD student from China . . . But there’s no sign of intellectual independence’ (p. 2). Those academics imply a superior–inferior relationship between their way and the Asian way. Chalmers and Volet (1997) criticize some authors for stereotyping students from South-East Asia as ‘rote learners’ and ‘passive learners’ who adopt a ‘surface approach to learning’ (p. 88, 90). Being seen as ‘passive learners’, Asian students are commonly perceived as those who ‘really want to listen and obey’, a characteristic which Littlewood (2000) has questioned. More seriously, Asian students are thought not to have developed ‘the intellectual skills of comparing, evaluating di=erent points of view, arguing and presenting one’s point of view’ (Samuelowicz 1987: 124), which suggests they lack the skills for analysis and critical thinking.
The Other teacher
Likewise, the way the Other teacher is viewed is re?ected in a series of characteristics well matched with how the Self assumes the Other students to be. The Other teacher is often compared with the Self teacher in light of the communicative approach. In other words, the Other teacher’s teaching is commonly judged according to how much they conform with CLT . Thus, being a ‘learning facilitator’, a ‘friend’, or a ‘counselor’ is often contrasted with being a ‘knowledge transmitter’, and/or an ‘authoritarian teacher’. Below are some examples of stereotypical images of the Other teacher. The teacher is seen as a ‘fount of knowledge, which is delivered without any concession to students and which students must struggle to attain’ 51
University classrooms in Vietnam
articles
welcome
(Holliday 1994a: 59, cited in Liu 1998: 5). Thus, a teacher in Asia ‘is not seen as a facilitator’ as Liu (ibid.) observes. Ballard and Clanchy (1997: 17) also stress the ‘authority of the teacher in the Asian classroom’, whom they see as the authoritarian transmitter of knowledge. Furthermore, Campbell and Zhao (1993, cited in Liu 1998: 5) state speci>cally that ‘English teaching in Asia is still dominantly didactic, product-oriented, and teacher-centred.’ If Holliday (1994a, cited in Liu 1998), Kramsch and Sullivan (1996), and Ellis (1996) show their appreciation of Asian teachers’ e=ective teaching of English without applying Western teaching standards, there are authors who still hold negative and taken-for-granted views about ELT in Asia, believing it is in all cases worse than that in the West. Pennycook (1994: 159) demonstrates that the West assumes its ELT to be ‘developed, modern, e;cient and scienti>c’ in contrast with the ‘backward, traditional, ine;cient . . . [and] unscienti>c’ ELT in Asia. Phillipson (1992) also raises this problem when he teases out the issue of native versus non-native teachers of English. In his discussion, Phillipson strongly criticizes the tenet that native English-speaking teachers are better by concluding that teachers are made rather than born. To weaken the widely-held belief that Western teaching methodologies are universal, and can be applied to all settings, Phillipson (1992) and Pennycook (1994) raise concerns about the problems of ethics and inappropriateness of ELT pedagogy. The Western so-called ‘advanced methodologies’ have disadvantaged teachers and learners in many places by not acknowledging their sociocultural and sociopolitical circumstances (Ellis 1996, Liu 1998). The above notions of Asian students and teachers are not necessarily false, but they are inherently problematic and misleading. These notions do re?ect aspects of teaching English in Asia, but they only seem to touch upon the surface without understanding it su;ciently. There is much more going on under the surface in respect to terms such as ‘rote learning’, or being an ‘authoritarian’ teacher. Moreover, as Kramsch and Sullivan (1996: 201) observe, ‘appropriate communicative language teaching in Hanoi [Vietnam] . . . might use the same pedagogic nomenclature as in London, but look very di=erent in classroom practice.’ There are many ways to reach a target, but one cannot claim that one person’s way is better than the other’s, because each way has to conform with its culture and environment. Images of Western teachers associated with CLT , such as ‘facilitator’ or ‘counselor’, are not necessarily how Asian teachers view themselves, or if they do, their enactment of these roles may not be the same as it is in the West. Hence, the West should not assume that its teaching methodologies are the best, and more advanced. This paper argues that while some Vietnamese students and teachers of English as a foreign language may conform to a particular Western view of them, others make full use of their cultural resources to enrich their language competence. This way of doing things demonstrates a harmonious combination of global and local pedagogies. Di=erence should not and must not be interpreted as ‘de>cit’. 52
Phan Le Ha
articles
welcome
The study Aims
This study aimed to explore the teaching practices of two Vietnamese teachers in order to determine how they actually taught their students, and whether the way(s) they taught accurately re?ected the aforementioned perception of ‘backward’ and ‘didactic’ teaching. The study also aimed to >nd out how these teachers had helped students develop their ‘creativity’ and ‘independence’.
The participants
I learnt English in Vietnam, and also taught English for several years at university there. Subsequently I spent one year working with seven Vietnamese teachers of English who had been sent to Australia under the Vietnamese government’s scholarship program, and were expected to return upon completion of their Masters courses. This study analyses the methods and approaches of two of these teachers, both female. They were selected not because they better represented or were unique ?agships for Vietnam, but because they were representatives of two parts of Vietnam, namely the Centre and the North, which are often believed to be more conservative and traditional. They had teaching experience ranging from three to 10 years. They also taught two di=erent subjects: one General English and the other Literature, where the focus on the use of English is greatly di=erent. Their classes in Vietnam consisted of 30–50 students. I gave the teachers the pseudonyms ‘Mai’ and ‘Lan’. Before coming to Australia, they had not been overseas for any formal training in TESOL .
Data collection
In-depth interviews with these teachers, followed by journal entries they wrote about speci>c questions raised after the interviews, were used to collect data. To minimize limitations of self-reports, these teachers were interviewed individually on two occasions, and together on another, when they discussed openly what they had written in their journal entries. The transcripts of their interviews were also sent back to them, so that they could think further, and correct anything they had previously said.
The general Vietnamese university classroom of English
Before going into detail, it is important to provide a general description of the Vietnamese classroom. From my experience, and from the research data, together with other studies conducted about ELT in Vietnam, such as those by Kramsch and Sullivan (1996), the Vietnamese classroom is often like a family, in which the sense of supportiveness, politeness, and warmth both inside and outside the classroom is obvious. Students and teachers tend to construct knowledge together, or students work together as a class while the teacher is the mentor. This is practised with regard to both knowledge and moral values. Additionally, because students come from di=erent parts of Vietnam, ranging from remote areas to villages to big cities, their English pro>ciencies vary hugely. Hence, teachers of English, no matter what methodology they use, have to consider all these features in order not to provide a disservice to their students.
53
University classrooms in Vietnam
articles
welcome
Discussion Mai and her teaching
As a teacher of General English, Mai taught >rst and second-year students, and so the focus on grammar was strong. It is sometimes suggested that Asian teachers depend heavily on a grammar-translation method that gives students almost no chance to speak. But reviewing how she taught, it is clear that on the one hand, Mai did introduce grammar rules and structures to her students with thorough explanations and repeated homework. On the other hand, she developed activities based on her students’ grammatical knowledge to help them develop both their linguistic and communicative competences. With >rst-year students who follow a subject called ‘English Grammar’, and whose language pro>ciencies range from elementary to upperintermediate or even to advanced, teachers normally have to spend the whole lesson revising, explaining, or teaching some grammatical structures to make sure that all the students can bene>t from the teaching. So did Mai. However, for second-year students, who do not have a subject called Grammar, Mai felt she had more ?exibility to design her own syllabus, and more freedom to create activities for her students. She gave examples of how she made her grammar lessons more diverse and communicative: [When teaching grammar,] I create many activities to get students involved. And these ‘communicative-oriented’ activities are designed in relation to a speci>c grammar structure. After these activities, students will have to sum up what has been studied, and based on these they will ask more questions to further their understanding. Other students can help answer, or I can help them if necessary. In general, the way I teach is very ?exible. So even though Mai focused on Grammar when teaching, the way she taught was not ‘boring’ (her own words), nor did it lack a communicative orientation. Importantly, she o=ered what her students needed, and was very con>dent that she always performed at the highest level. Mai expressed her perception of teaching, and what she thought was important when teaching languages. ‘I encourage my students to do things by themselves and ask questions instead of pouring knowledge into their minds’, she asserted. ‘I never impose my ideas on my students, I never force them to be for or against anything or never force those who are for something to be against it, or vice versa.’ She did not impose her ideas for the sake of having ‘a meaningful argument’ in her classes. Mai con>dently saw herself as a ‘very ?exible’ teacher who ‘created many activities for [students] to speak and let them speak more’. How Mai helped her students in class is an accurate re?ection of what she expressed as being her pedagogical role; encouraging students to ask questions helps them to become engaged in ‘re?ective thinking and critical thinking’.
Lan and her teaching
As a Literature lecturer, Lan clearly asserted that she liked to be her students’ friend, ‘a facilitator, a companion, but not a controller’. She stated that English Literature was not just English. However, she also expressed the idea that students did need a good command of the language to study the subject well. Obviously, her subject requires a lot of
54
Phan Le Ha
articles
welcome
writing, and writing cannot be perfected without a good knowledge of grammar. Lan emphasized the importance of equipping students with grammatical knowledge prior to and through her Literature teaching, although teaching Grammar was not her focus. Seeing Literature as having much to do with personal attachment, Lan always reminded her students that not everything she said was correct. ‘I want them to express what they think and feel rather than me standing in the lecturing area imposing on them.’ This is a sign of encouraging students to explore and develop their own voice, particularly in Literature, a world of the soul, the heart, and inner thinking. Lan saw her ‘students’ satisfaction’ as being ‘very important’. She often gave priority to her students’ eagerness to explore knowledge. This challenges the West’s perception of the Other teacher who likes to impose ideas on students. Lan had high self-esteem: ‘I’m very con>dent with my way of teaching, and my students really like it.’
A teacher of English vs. a Vietnamese teacher
As Ellis (1996: 215) suggests, in ESL contexts, teachers ‘act more as a facilitator’. But this does not mean EFL teachers do not see themselves as facilitators. How these two Vietnamese teachers perform the part of ‘teacher as facilitator’ is not necessarily the same as the way their Western counterparts do. When asserting themselves as ‘facilitators’, both Mai and Lan located themselves within two identity umbrellas: a teacher of English and a Vietnamese teacher. They ‘facilitate’ in harmony with their cultural expectations. As good teachers of English, they want to encourage students to have free and stimulating discussions, or to take part in many language activities to learn English better. But as good Vietnamese teachers, they also need to perform their duty as ‘behaviour educators’ or ‘moral guides’. Put di=erently, they will tend to instigate forms of cultural performance, such as politeness, which is not the same as what the West expects. When my students don’t behave properly, I’ll tell them what proper behaviour is. . . . Ah, I remember one class they often had private talk. I was quite easy when they had group work, ‘no problem’, but when someone in the class spoke, others should listen. Yeah, these students, they didn’t listen, and in such a situation, I normally interfere. I told them gently that when someone spoke, you should listen to him or her and you should show that you knew how to listen. I used English to tell them that ‘if you want to be a good speaker, be a good listener >rst’. Normally I only educate my students when they don’t behave properly. If not, I won’t say anything because they’re all grown-ups. I mean I don’t give them moral lessons but I do tell them how to behave when an incident occurs as I’ve just mentioned . . . When they behave badly I’m willing to tell them that they’re wrong and they should do this or that. For example, they should know how to listen to other people because listening is a way of support. (Mai) In doing this, Mai did not ‘lead’ her students, or impose her ideas on those whom she saw as ‘grown-ups’, but she still ful>lled the responsibility of a teacher who is socially expected to educate students. More than that, Mai was a ‘facilitator’ in a more extensive way, not just 55
University classrooms in Vietnam
articles
welcome
con>ning herself to the teaching of English, but through it also playing her ‘moral guide’ role. Seeing herself as a friend of her students, Lan did not forget her role as a moral guide in the classroom either. She did not tell her students explicitly how to behave, but she sent that message to her students through the works she introduced to them: We always select what we teach. We tend to select works that have moral or ethical lessons to teach students. In my subject, after each lesson, I often draw some values or my students and I always draw good things from every work we study. Sometimes we also choose works full of negative images but the purpose of it is to highlight works with positive moral lessons. I mean we introduce both ‘bad’ and ‘good’ characters to our students but through the introduction of ‘bad’ characters, we direct our students to ‘good’ behaviours in life. I think it’s good to do so. Lan was aware of her role as an ‘educator’, who is not merely teaching knowledge, but also implicitly educating students through her teaching. This practice is in con?ict with what Ballard and Clanchy (1997) report as being valued by the West about its teachers, who are not expected to give explicit moral input. The concept of being a teacher varies from one culture to another. What one culture values may not be valued by others.
Contesting the stereotype
Mai and Lan’s perceptions of themselves as teachers contest the stereotypes of authoritarian and imposing Vietnamese teachers. Emerging as facilitators, friends, instructors, and teachers, Mai and Lan succeed in teaching knowledge to their students and enabling students to extend and explore this knowledge. In addition, their perceptions of their roles as ‘moral guides’, whether implicitly or explicitly stated, strengthen what Medgyes (1994) sees as ‘the qualities of non-native professionals that are perhaps better than those of NS s [English native speaking teachers], such as being a good model for the learners’ (cited in BruttGricit rather than di=erence. It is now clear that Mai and Lan were aware of such views held by the West about Eastern teachers of EFL . They strongly resisted these views by partly using verbs, nouns, and expressions, which are often employed to describe Eastern teachers, such as ‘impose’, ‘pour knowledge’, ‘force’, ‘controller’. Also, Mai and Lan’s use of ‘I-statements’ (Gee 1999) assertively implies that the way they taught was not as ‘inferior’ as the West perceives. Importantly, their awareness of such views has indicated that the notion of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ has been so obvious and powerful in ELT practices that it is hard to eliminate. Thus far it is clear that Mai and Lan’s perceptions of themselves as teachers, and their images of their students, suggest that the views held by the West are misconceptions. Qualities of teaching and learning preferred in the West may exist in the East, but be practised in di=erent
56
Phan Le Ha
articles
welcome
ways. This can make the West think of the East as having no such Western qualities. More importantly, as both an ‘expert knower of the language’ and a ‘moral guide’ (Kramsch and Sullivan 1996: 206), these Vietnamese teachers have succeeded in providing their students with the knowledge they want, without alienating them from their familiar home culture. They have taken into consideration both the culture of the target language and the culture of the students.
Conclusion
The study helps challenge stereotypes in education, particularly important given the ever-growing impact of globalization and international education. The practices of teachers vary from one culture to another. What one culture values should not result in devaluing other cultural practices, which may present similar qualities in di=erent ways. How these Vietnamese teachers perform their ‘moral guide’ roles needs to be acknowledged and respected as an appropriate approach to language teaching in this context. Additionally, these teachers have satis>ed both their global needs, as teachers of English, who succeed in getting their students involved in English communicative activities, and their local needs, as good Vietnamese teachers who take into account socially-expected factors, such as the situated notions of ‘politeness’, and the need for students to master English grammatical rules. Revised version received September 2002
References Ballard, B. and J. Clanchy. 1997. Teaching international students: a brief guide for lecturers and supervisors. Australia: IDP Education Australia. Brutt-Gri
