THE CEFR – C1 LEVEL AS STANDARD – BASED LEARNING OUTCOME: HUE UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND LEARNING STRATEGIES

Abstract

On the threshold of a new century, the Common Europe Framework of Reference (CEFR) has a remarkable effect on many English language educational systems around the world, and the system of English education in Vietnam is not an exception. In 2008, this project was officially applied as the national framework of reference for English language in Vietnam with the affirmation of Decision 1400/QĐ – TTG (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2008). Particularly, the CEFR has been employed effectively in Hue University of Foreign Language’s training scheme in recent years and the C1 level has been considered as a standard – based outcome for English major seniors. Therefore, the crucial purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of HUFL’ four-year students as well as their language learning strategies applied for attaining the CEFR – C1 level. Most importantly, the data yielded by this investigation provides convincing evidence of the relationship between the English major students’ learning strategies and their test results expressed through the expectation outcome. Through the results gathered from 200 seniors, several significant pedagogical implications can be put forward helping these students to have prerequisite orientations for obtaining the CEFR – C1 level certificate according to its true worth.

https://doi.org/10.26459/hujos-ssh.v123i9.2913

References

  1. Abraham, R., & Vann, R., 1987: Strategies of two learners: A case study. In A.L. Wenden& J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 85-102). New York: Prentice Hall.
  2. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Modern Languages Division/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Gardner, R. C. and MacIntyre, P. D. (1993), A Student's Contributions to Second-language Learning. Part II: Affective variables, Language Teaching, 26: 1-11.
  4. Green, J. & Oxford, R.L., 1995: A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
  5. North, B. 1996/2000: The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. PhD thesis, Thames Valley University. Reprinted 2000, New York, Peter Lang.
  6. Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R.L., 1993: A factor-analytic study of language learning strategy use: Interpretations from information processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language Journal,77 (1), 11-23.
  7. Piccardo, E. et al. (2012). Pathways through assessing, learning and teaching in the CEFR. Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Language.
  8. Pressley, M. & Associates, 1990: Cognitive Strategy Instruction that Really Improves Children's Academic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
  9. Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2008). “National Foreign Language 2020 Project.” Article 1.1, Decision 1400.
  10. Zimmerman, B.J. & Pons, M.M., 1986: Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23. 614-628.