Non-English major undergraduates’ beliefs about English proficiency standardization

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES ********************* NGUYỄN DIỆU LINH NON-ENGLISH MAJOR UNDERGRADUATES’ BELIEFS ABOUT ENGLISH PROFICIENCY STANDARDIZATION (Niềm tin sinh viên khơng chun Tiếng Anh chuẩn hóa lực ngoại ngữ Tiếng Anh) M.A MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 HANOI – 2018 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES ********************* NGUYỄN DIỆU LINH NON-ENGLISH MAJOR UNDERGRADUATES’ BELIEFS ABOUT ENGLISH PROFICIENCY STANDARDIZATION (Niềm tin sinh viên khơng chun Tiếng Anh chuẩn hóa lực ngoại ngữ Tiếng Anh) M.A MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Lê Văn Canh HANOI – 2018 DECLARATION I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Non-English major undergraduates’ beliefs about English proficiency standardization” is entirely my own research work and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work Hanoi, 2018 Nguyễn Diệu Linh i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to Associate Professor Le Van Canh, my supervisor, for his valuable guidance, professional advice and constant encouragement he gave me throughout the whole process of my research He gave me many constructive suggestions and enthusiastic instructions whenever I encountered any difficult concepts or any challenges about my research Without his keen supports, this study could not have been fulfilled I am thankful for having him as my supervisor His academic expertise as well as his incredible critical thinking will certainly be a great source of inspiration for my future academic career I also wish to extend my sincere thanks to my colleagues at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education who were willing to give me generous assistance and to all 122 undergraduate students who participated in the survey for this research project Without their passionate participation and cooperation, the survey could not have been successfully conducted Finally, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my dearest parents, my wonderful partner, and my best friends Throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis, I sometimes felt disheartened and depressed, but their boundless love and continuous encouragement helped me quickly eliminate those negative emotions and motivated me to keep making progress This accomplishment would not have been possible without them ii ABSTRACT The recent foreign language education policy in Vietnam regarding English proficiency standardization has led to heated debates from all stakeholders about its effectiveness and appropriateness since its first launch in 2014 However, there has been lack of empirical research into beliefs and understandings of students, who are most affected by the policies, about the English standards for graduation The study was thus conducted in an attempt to bridge this gap in the literature The aim of the research was to examine undergraduates‟ understandings and judgements on the current education policies of standardization of English proficiency to university students in Vietnam A survey using questionnaires was carried out with the participation of 122 university undergraduates The data collected from the students‟ responses were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively Results from the questionnaire data revealed students‟ great confidence in their possibility of achieving the university outcome standards They were also found to possess sufficiently positive beliefs and strong approval to the required English proficiency level and the process of standardizing English proficiency in Vietnam However, English proficiency standardization is still problematic Besides various beneficial facets of the CEFR-V implementation, this study raised some critical problems and challenges that policymakers and language teachers need to face with and overcome to improve students‟ performances, and more importantly, to make the English proficiency policy more practical and suitable Through the findings, the indispensable role of teachers as an assistant, a companion of the students in their language learning journey was also highlighted Finally, some suggested solutions and implications were made to inform policymakers, educators and teachers of necessary changes to better the foreign language policy and maximize students‟ learning performances iii TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENT iv LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .1 1.1 Background to the study 1.2 Aims of the study 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Scope of the study .3 1.5 Significance of the study 1.6 Organization of the thesis CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Language proficiency .5 2.1.1 Definition of language proficiency .5 2.1.2 Types and levels of proficiency 2.2 Standards-based education and language proficiency standardization 2.2.1 Standards-based education 2.2.2 Language proficiency standardization .16 2.3 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 17 2.4 Beliefs .20 2.4.1 Definition 20 2.4.2 Significance of learners’ beliefs in language learning 22 2.5 Context of the study 25 2.5.1 English language teaching and learning in Vietnam .25 2.5.2 The National Foreign Language 2020 Project (Project 2020) 27 2.5.3 CEFR-V standards/ Vietnam national standards on foreign language proficiency framework 28 2.5.4 Mandated outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 30 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 32 3.1 Research site 32 3.2 Participants 34 3.2.1 Sampling 34 3.2.2 Background information of the questionnaire participants .35 3.3 Data collection instruments 37 iv 3.4 Data collection procedures .39 3.5 Data analysis 40 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 42 4.1 Undergraduate students‟ beliefs about English proficiency standardization 42 4.1.1 Students’ explanations for agreeing with the English proficiency standardization 43 4.1.2 Students’ explanations for disagreeing with the English proficiency standardization 46 4.2 Undergraduate students‟ understandings about the CEFR-V 49 4.2.1 Students’ self-evaluation of their understandings toward the CEFR-V 49 4.2.2 Students’ understandings about the purposes of the CEFR-V 50 4.2.3 Students’ usage of the CEFR-V 51 4.2.4 Students’ recognition of level three (B1) in the CEFR-V 55 4.3 Undergraduate students‟ beliefs about the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 57 4.3.1 Undergraduate students’ level of approval of the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 58 4.3.2 Undergraduate students’ beliefs about the achievement of the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 60 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 69 5.1 Conclusion 69 5.2 Implications 70 5.3 Limitations of the study 72 5.4 Further research suggestions 73 REFERENCES 74 APPENDIXES I APPENDIX 1: CEFR – Global scale I APPENDIX 2: Student questionnaire III v LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: The levels of the CEFR-V 29 Table 4.1: Students‟ self-evaluation of their understandings to the CEFR-V 50 Table 4.2: Students‟ understandings about the purposes of the CEFR-V .51 Table 4.3: Students‟ usage of the CEFR-V .51 Table 4.4: Results of students‟ level of approval of the outcome standard to CEFRV for tertiary level 59 Table 4.5: Students‟ beliefs about the achievement of the outcome standard to CEFR-V for tertiary level 62 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: SBE framework - external accountability 13 Figure 3.1: Result of sample size calculator .35 Figure 3.2: Participants‟ gender 36 Figure 3.3: Participants‟ purposes of using English after graduation .37 Figure 4.1: Students‟ beliefs about language proficiency standardization .42 Figure 4.2: Students‟ main explanations for agreeing with the foreign language standardization 43 Figure 4.3: Students‟ reasons for using the CEFR-V 52 Figure 4.4: Students‟ reasons for not using the CEFR-V 54 Figure 4.5: Students‟ recognition of B1 level to the CEFR-V 56 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS HNUE Hanoi National University of Education SBE Standards-based Education CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CEFR-V Vietnam national standards on foreign language proficiency framework MOET Ministry of Education and Training IELTS the International English Testing System viii REFERENCES Abdi, H., & Asadi, B (2015, April) A Synopsis of Researches on Teachers' and Students' Beliefs about Language Learning International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 3(4), 104-114 Alderson, J C (2007) The CEFR and the Need for More Research The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 659-663 Al-Shammakhi, F., & Al-Humaidi S (2015) Challenges Facing EFL Teachers in Mixed Ability Classes and Strategies Used to Overcome Them World Journal of English Language, 5(3), 33-45 Al-Zu‟be, A F M (2013) The difference between the Learner-centred approach and the Teacher-centred approach in Teaching English as a Foreign Language Anstey, M (1988) Helping children learn how to learn Australian Journal of Reading 11(2), 269-277 Arnold, J (1999) Affect in language learning Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bachman, L F., &Palmer, A S (1996) Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests Oxford: Oxford University Press Banya, K., & and Chen, M (1997) Beliefs about foreign language learning: Astudy of beliefs of teachers’ and students’ cross cultural settings Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Speakers of Other Languages, Florida Barman, B (2013) Shifting Education from Teacher-centered to Learnercentered paradigm Paper presented at International Conference on Tertiary Education at Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh 10 Barr, R B., & Tagg, J (1995) From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for undergraduate education Change Magazine, 27(6), 12-25 74 11 Bernat, E (2006) Assessing EAP learners‟ beliefs about language learning in the Australian context Asian EFL journal, 8(2), 202-227 12 Block, D., & D Cameron (2002) Globalization and Language Teaching (eds.) London: Routledge 13 Bloom, B S (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals New York: Longmans, Green 14 Bộ Giáo dục Đào tạo (2012) Kế hoạch triển khai Đề án ngoại ngữ 2020 sở giáo dục đại học giai đoạn 2012-2020 Số 808/KH-BGDĐT 15 Bộ Giáo dục Đào tạo (2014) Thông tư ban hành khung lực ngoại ngữ bậc dung cho Việt Nam Số 01/2014/TT-BGDĐT 16 Briere, E J (1972) Are we really measuring proficiency with our foreign language tests? In H B Allen, & R.N Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second languages: A book of readings (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company 17 Brown, H D (2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.) London: Longman 18 Brown, J D (2001) Using surveys in language programs Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 19 Brumfit, C (1984) Communicative methodology in language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 20 Cabaroglu, N., & Roberts, J (2000) Development in student teachers‟ preexisting beliefs during a 1-year PGCE program System, 28, 387-402 21.Canale, M., & Swain M (1981) A theoretical framework for communicative competence In A S Palmer, P Groot, and G Trosper (eds.), The Construct Validation of Tests of Communicative Competence, Washington, DC: TESOL 22 Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S (2002) Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331 75 23 Carter, R., & Nunan, D (2001) The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (4th ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206.013 24 Clark, J (1975) Theoretical and technical considerations in oral proficiency testing In S Jones, & B Spolsky (Eds.), Language testing proficiency, 1024 Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics 25 Council of Europe 2001 A Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press 26 Cummins, J (1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–9 27 Dornyei, A (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 28 Fulcher, G (2004) Deluded by artifices? The common European framework and harmonization Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 253-266 29 Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P D (2013) Capitalizing on Language Learners’ Individuality: From Premise to Practice Multilingual Matters 30 Hanushek, E A., & Raymond, M.F (2005) Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327 31 Harsh, C (2017) Proficiency ELT Journal, 17(2), 250-252 Oxford University Press 32 Horwitz, E K (1985) Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333-400 33 Horwitz, E K (1987) Surveying student beliefs about language learning, In A Wenden & J Rubin, Learner strategies in language learning 76 34 Horwitz, E K (1988) The beliefs about langauge learning of beginning university foreign language students Modern Language journal, 72(3), 283294 35 Horwitz, E K (1999) Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners‟ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies System, 27(4), 557-576 36 Horwitz, E K., Horwitz, M B., & Cope, J (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132 37 Huges, J., Stephenson, H., & Dummett, P (2015), Life Pre-Intermediate Singapore: National Geographic Learning 38 Hulstijn, J H (2007) The Shaky Ground Beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Language Proficiency The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 663-667 39 Huong, T N N., & Hiep, P H (2010) Vietnamese teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions of Global English Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 48-61 40 Introductory Guide to the CEFR for English Language Teacher (2013) Cambridge University Press 41 Johnson, A (2009) The rise of English: the language of globalization in China and the European Union Macalester International, 22(1), 131-168 42 Little, D (2005) The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process Language Testing, 22, 321-336 43 Little, D (2007) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-655 44 Little, D., & Lazenby Simpson, B (2004) Using the CEFR to develop an ESL curriculum for newcomer pupils in Irish primary schools In K Morrow (Ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework (pp.91-108) Oxford: Oxford University Press 77 45 Little, D., Lazenby Simpson, B., & O‟connor, F (2002) Meeting the English language needs of refugees in Ireland In J C Alderson (Ed.), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Case studies (pp.53-67) France: Council of Europe 46 Malan, S (2000) The „new paradigm‟ of outcomes-based education in perspective Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28 ISSN 0378-5254 47 Mantle-Bromley, C (1995) Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 372-386 48 McKay, S L (2002) Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking goals and approaches Oxford: Oxford University Press 49 McNamara, T (2006) Proofs of identity: Some social and political functions of language tests Paper presented at Lancaster University, England 50 Moreno, S (2015) Differentiated Instruction: Strategies for English Language Learners Listening Comprehension Development (Master‟s Thesis, Bridgewater State University) 51 Mori, Y (1999) Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49(3), 377-415 52 Nguyen, D A (2016) The Challenges of Implementing the National Proficiency Standards with Ethnic Minority Students: An exploratory study at Tay Bac University (M.A Thesis) 53 Oller, J (1979) Language Tests at School: A Pragmatic Approach London: Longman 54 Oxford, R (1990) Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of styles In S S Magnan (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp.35-55) Middlebury, VR: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages 78 55 Pajares, M F (1992) Teachers‟ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332 56 Palmer, A S., & Bachman, L F (1981) Basic concerns in test validation In J.C Alderson and A Hughes (eds.), ELT Documents 111-Issues in Language Testing London: British Council 57 Puchata, H (1999) Beyond materials, techniques and linguistic analysis; The role of motivation, beliefs and identity Plenary session at the 33rd International IATEFL Annual conference, Edinburg, 64-72 58 Puchta, H (1999) Creating a learning culture to which students want to belong: The application of Neuro-Linguistic Programming to language teaching.j Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning, (pp 246-259) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 59 Raymond, M.E., & Hanushek, E.A (2003) High-stakes research Education Next, 3(3), 48-55; Braun, H (2004) Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1) Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n1/ 60 Richards, J C (1978) Models of language use and language learning Rowley, Mass: Newbury House 61 Richards, J C., Platt, J., & Platt H (1992) Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd Ed.) London: Longman 62 Richardson, V (1996) The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach In J.Sikula, T.J.Buttery, & Guyton, E (Eds), Handbook of research in teacher education, second Edition (pp.102-119) 63 Soto, L D (2007) The Praeger Handbook of Latino Education in the U.S.Volume London: Greenwood Publishing Group 64 Spady, W G (1994) Outcome-based education: Critical Issues and Answers American Association of School Administrators 65 Statista (2017, July) The most spoken languages worldwide (speakers and native speaker in millions) In Statista – The Statistics Portal Retrieved from 79 https://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languagesworldwide/ 66 Stern, H H (1991) Fundamental concepts of language teaching Hong Kong: Oxford University Press 67 Stevick, E W (1980) Teaching languages: A way and ways Rowley, MA: Newbury House 68 Tomlinson, C A (2001) How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-ability classrooms Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 69 Tran, P (2017) English language as a boom in Vietnam – From colonized to Domesticated Retrieved 10, July from https://thewarwickeltezine.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/tran/ 70 Trường Đại học Sư phạm Hà Nội (2016) Quy định chuẩn Tiếng Anh miễn học, miễn thi ngoại ngữ Số 385/ĐHSPHN-ĐT 71 Victori, M., & Lockhart, W (1995) Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning System, 23, 223-234 72 Vietnam, government offices (2008) Decision No.1400/QD-TTg Retrieved 10 December 2017 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/archive/Quyetdinh/1400QD-TTg-vb83815t17.aspx 73 Vossoughi, H., & Javaherian, J (2000) An encyclopedic dictionary of teaching English as a foreign language Tehran: Rahnama Publication 74 Wenden, A L (1987) How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners In A Wenden & J Rubin (Eds), Learner strategies in language learning (pp.103-118) London, UK: Prentice-Hall International 75 Willis, S., &Kissane, B (1995) Outcome-based education: A review of the literature Murdoch: Education Department of Western Australia 80 APPENDIXES APPENDIX 1: CEFR – GLOBAL SCALE Proficient C2 User Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations Can understand a wide range of demanding, C1 longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes Can produce clear, wellstructured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices Independent User B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options I Bl Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans Basic A2 User Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment) Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help II APPENDIX 2: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN Để thu thập liệu làm sở cho việc đánh giá chuẩn đầu theo khung lực ngoại ngữ Việt Nam nâng cao chất lượng dạy học Tiếng Anh trường Đại học Sư phạm Hà Nội cho sinh viên khơng chun, Em vui lịng hoàn thành nội dung phiếu khảo sát cách khách quan, thành thật chi tiết Mọi thông tin mà Em cung cấp giữ bí mật sử dụng theo tiêu chí đạo đức nghề nghiệp nghiên cứu  Phần I: Thông tin cá nhân Họ tên: ……………………… Số điện thoại:……………………… Giới tính: ………………………… Khoa: …………………………… Em sử dụng tiếng Anh vào mục đích sau tốt nghiệp đại học? (Có thể chọn nhiều mục)  A Học tập, nghiên cứu  B Công việc  C Đi du lịch  D Giao tiếp  E Khác …………………………………………………………………………  Phần II: Câu hỏi khảo sát Em biết Khung lực ngoại ngữ Việt Nam?  Khơng biết  Biết sơ sơ Có hiểu biết Rất hiểu biết Theo hiểu biết em, mục đích Khung lực ngoại ngữ Việt Nam là… (Có thể chọn nhiều mục)  A Thống yêu cầu lực ngoại ngữ giảng dạy hệ thống giáo dục quốc dân  B Bảo đảm liên thông đào tạo ngoại ngữ cấp học trình độ đào tạo  C Làm để xây dựng chương trình dạy học ngoại ngữ  D Làm để biên soạn, lựa chọn giáo trình, sách giáo khoa, tài liệu dạy học ngoại ngữ  E Làm để xây dựng tiêu chí kiểm tra, thi đánh giá lực ngoại ngữ III  F Làm cho giáo viên lựa chọn triển khai nội dung, cách thức giảng dạy, kiểm tra đánh giá người học ngoại ngữ  G Giúp người học hiểu nội dung, yêu cầu trình độ lực ngoại ngữ  H Giúp người học tự đánh giá trình độ lực ngoại ngữ  I Tạo điều kiện cho việc hợp tác, trao đổi giáo dục với quốc gia khác Em sử dụng Khung lực ngoại ngữ Việt Nam trình học tiếng Anh chưa? Vì sao?  A Đã Dùng để………………………………………………………………  B Chưa Bởi vì……………………………………………………………… Mơ tả tổng quát BẬC NÀO Khung lực ngoại ngữ Việt Nam? “Có thể hiểu ý đoạn văn hay phát biểu chuẩn mực, rõ ràng chủ đề quen thuộc cơng việc, trường học, giải trí, v.v Có thể xử lý hầu hết tình xảy đến khu vực có sử dụng ngơn ngữ Có thể viết đoạn văn đơn giản liên quan đến chủ đề quen thuộc cá nhân quan tâm Có thể mơ tả kinh nghiệm, kiện, giấc mơ, hy vọng, hồi bão trình bày ngắn gọn lý do, giải thích ý kiến kế hoạch mình.”  Bậc …………………………  Em khơng biết 10 Em có đồng ý với ý kiến: “Mọi sinh viên đại học, chuyên ngành phải đạt trình độ chung theo quy định quốc gia khả sử dụng ngoại ngữ để cơng nhận tốt nghiệp”  A Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý  B Khơng đồng ý  C Đồng ý  D Hoàn toàn đồng ý Lý do: ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… IV 11 Em có ĐỒNG Ý với yêu cầu khả sử dụng tiếng Anh để đủ điện kiện tốt nghiệp đại học khơng? * Mức độ đồng ý: 1= Hồn tồn khơng đồng ý 3= Đồng ý 2= Khơng đồng ý 4= Hoàn toàn đồng ý Yêu cầu: Sau tốt nghiệp đại học, sinh viên… Kỹ nghe: a Có thể hiểu ý nói vấn đề quen thuộc thường gặp trường lớp, giải trí cơng việc sử dụng ngơn ngữ chuẩn mực, rõ ràng Mức độ đồng ý                 e Có thể đưa lý giải thích ngắn gọn quan điểm, kế hoạch     f Có thể kể lại câu chuyện đơn giản sách phim bày tỏ suy nghĩ                 b Có thể hiểu ý chương trình phát hay truyền hình vấn đề thời chủ đề tơi quan tâm nói tương đối chậm rõ ràng Kỹ nói: c Có thể giao tiếp khơng cần chuẩn bị chủ đề quen thuộc ngày liên quan đến sở thích cá nhân, sống thời ngày (ví dụ: gia đình, sở thích, cơng việc, du lịch kiện diễn ra) d Có thể kết nối đơn giản nhóm từ để thuật lại câu chuyện, kiện, mơ ước hy vọng Kỹ đọc: g Có thể đọc hiểu ý văn chứa đựng thơng tin rõ ràng chủ đề liên quan đến chuyên ngành lĩnh vực u thích, quan tâm h Có thể hiểu kiện, cảm xúc, mong ước qua thư trao đổi cá nhân Kỹ viết: k Có thể viết đơn giản, có bố cục liên kết chủ đề quen thuộc quan tâm V l Có thể viết thư mơ tả trải nghiệm cảm nhận thân     12 Theo em, em đạt yêu cầu lực tiếng Anh trước tốt nghiệp mức độ nào? Tại em nghĩ vậy? Kỹ nghe a Có thể hiểu ý nói vấn đề quen thuộc thường gặp trường lớp, giải trí công việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ chuẩn mực, rõ ràng A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… b Có thể hiểu ý chương trình phát hay truyền hình vấn đề thời chủ đề tơi quan tâm nói tương đối chậm rõ ràng Kỹ nói A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: …………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… c Có thể giao tiếp không cần chuẩn bị chủ đề quen thuộc ngày liên quan đến sở thích cá nhân, sống thời ngày (ví dụ: gia đình, sở thích, cơng việc, du lịch kiện diễn ra) A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: …………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… .……… d Có thể kết nối đơn giản nhóm từ để thuật lại câu chuyện, kiện, mơ ước hy vọng A Không thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: …………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… .… e Có thể đưa lý giải thích ngắn gọn quan điểm, kế hoạch tơi A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: ……………………………………………………………………… II Kỹ viết Kỹ đọc ……………………………………………… .……… f Có thể kể lại câu chuyện đơn giản sách phim bày tỏ suy nghĩ A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: …………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… .…… g Có thể đọc hiểu ý văn chứa đựng thông tin rõ ràng chủ đề liên quan đến chuyên ngành lĩnh vực yêu thích, quan tâm A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… .……… h Có thể hiểu kiện, cảm xúc, mong ước qua thư trao đổi cá nhân A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… .……… k Có thể viết đơn giản, có bố cục liên kết chủ đề quen thuộc quan tâm A Khơng thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… .……… l Có thể viết thư mơ tả trải nghiệm cảm nhận thân A Không thể đạt C Có thể đạt B Khó đạt D Chắc chắn đạt Lý do: ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… .……… 13 Em có góp ý quy định chuẩn đầu khả sử dụng tiếng Anh sinh viên đại học? …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… III Kết thúc phiếu khảo sát Cảm ơn Em tham gia! IV