RESEARCH METHODS IN EDUCATION PG (11389)

Student ID: U3241833

Assessment item: Critical review of literature

Word count: 1200

World Englishes and Oral Communication

in English Language Teaching in Vietnam

Together with the phenomenon of globalization with the United States at one of the

leading positions, English has gained unprecedented popularity as it is the chosen language

for communication in business, education, media, and cultural exchange (Bohara, 2018). This

has led to English being spoken and mixed with elements of other languages worldwide,

creating different variations of the language. The emergence of such variations, known as

“World Englishes” (WE), has brought up important conversations about changes to be made

in English Language Teaching (ELT). This critical review discusses the key ideas of three

articles by Rajagopalan (2004), Mukminatien (2012), and Bhowmik (2015) regarding the

consideration of WE in teaching oral communication in ELT and reflects those ideas on the

context of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to students in Vietnam.

The first problem discussed in the articles is ownership of English. As mentioned,

English speakers now reside in most regions of the world and are from a myriad of cultures,

with at least twice as many non-native speakers (NNS) as native speakers (NS) (Crystal,

2003; Kirkpatrick, 2010; Schneider and Meierkord, 2021). This results in the rightful claim of

Rajagopalan (2004) that English is owned by not only NS but also whoever speaks the

language which both Mukminatien (2012) and Bhowmik (2015) cited in agreement, with

Bhowmik (2015) bold suggestion to even overlook the difference between NS and NNS,

considering them both under the umbrella term “English speakers”. Although the idea for a
more inclusive ownership of English is strongly favored by others like Kirkpatrick (2010) or

Meierkord and Schneider (2021), Bhowmik (2015) may reconsider not ignoring the

dissimilarity between NS and NNS such as those in Vietnam as it may mean neglecting the

diversity in learners’ culture and oral communication purposes regarding ELT.

The second matter relating to WE in ELT is what can be considered Standard English

(SE). Using Kachru (1985)’s classification of English into the Inner Circle (IC), the Outer

Circle and the Expanding Circle and the premise that English is predominantly used and co-

owned by NNS in the latter two circles for communication in non-native environments, the

authors defy the traditional view of the IC English variations as the yardstick for measuring

learners’ English proficiency. While all three articles provide evidence that learners are more

likely to understand and use English to communicate with NNS than NS, Mukminatien

(2012) offer the most relatable insights for the context of Vietnam with the examples of

Southeast Asian learners, Vietnamese included, whose language are not mutually intelligible

and who use English to communicate in a non-English speaking region. Following this, it is

appropriately suggested that a more suitable and inclusive SE be applied in ELT.

Which SE to be applied, on the other hand, is a conundrum that still attracts much

debate. The authors, led by Rajagopalan (2004), reach the consensus that the choice of

standard should be contextualized based on the objectives and outcomes stated by the

curricula/syllabi, which should head towards a more communicative and pragmatic approach

under the orientation of recent ELT research and development. On this basis, Mukminatien

(2012) further suggests the categorization of English learning purposes into using English as

a native language, a second language or a foreign language. Meanwhile, Bhowmik (2015)

proposes a more comprehensive approach – the humanistic approach which accounts for

NNS’ extreme difficulty in achieving native-like production. Vietnamese learners fall under

the third group in Mukminatien (2012)’s categories and share the same struggle with other
NNS, and therefore it is imperative that these be recognized as the primary outcome of ELT

curricula/syllabi in Vietnam. In addition, this also implies that the SE used in ELT in Vietnam

should be expanded outside of the Inner Circle variations in accordance with the outcomes of

the program.

The outcomes and objectives of the curricula/syllabi are realized in the content of the

ELT material in use. Rajagopalan (2004) criticizes the sole inclusion of native or native-like

English variations in ELT materials as disadvantageous for learners when dealing with WE in

real-world situations. This is supported by the other two authors who add that material, even

authentic ones, in IC variations is proven to fail to present the diverse social and cultural

dimensions of NNS communities, which adversely affects learners’ intercultural

communicative competence (CE). However, this heavy feature of only IC pronunciation and

sociocultural contexts is still the case for Vietnamese English textbooks (Dang and Seals,

2016). Consequently, there are recommendations for ELT material developers in Vietnam to

incorporate not only more diverse variations of English but also more culture elements from

the outer circle, the expanding circle and Vietnam’s own culture for a more global

understanding and acceptance of diversity among English speakers that can aid

communication competence (Mukminatien, 2012; Bhowmik, 2015).

The acceptable SE also extends to that of the teachers’ language. Rajagopalan (2004)

and Bhowmik (2015) emphasized the distinction between having inner-circle pronunciation

and language and professional proficiency and disregard the view that the production of

native-like English is sufficient for one to become an English teacher. Instead, the teacher, as

the oral model performers and providers in the classroom (Mukminatien, 2012), should also

be properly trained to understand and appreciate WE and to exploit WE in ways that are

beneficial to serve the communicative purpose of the students. This applies to NS and NNS

teachers alike, especially in Vietnam’s context where co-taught classes between these two
types of teachers become increasingly popular. In fact, there is evidence that Vietnamese ELT

teachers lack understanding of the sociolinguistic complexity of English (Phan, 2019) and

how this understanding can aid the cooperation between NNS and NS teachers in more

effective teaching (Lim and Park, 2022).

The last but may be most pressing problem in integrating WE in ELT is in testing and

assessment (TA). There is very limited evidence that the English TA system in Vietnam, much

like others cited by Mukminatien (2012), have succeeded in developing assessing criteria for

oral performance that accommodate WE variations. Moreover, in Vietnam, standardized

English proficiency tests which leave out WE elements in their assessing criteria like those

listed by Bhowmik (2015) are also extreme popular, and hence NNS learners and particularly

test-takers here face the same burden of having to adhere to the assessing criteria with the

unobtainable standard of English to be considered expert users. As Bhowmik (2015) and

Rajagopalan (2004) precisely pointed out, this seems like a global issue in ELT as it concerns

the benefits of stakeholders and relates to more complicated topics such as language

imperialism and discrimination, and hence require a change in attitudes from the

administrative levels in both Vietnam’s education system and the testing institution.

This critical review discussed the accommodation of WE in teaching oral

communication in ELT suggested by three different authors regarding teaching EFL learners

in Vietnam. The authors advocate a shift away from Inner-circle English variations and

toward more integration of WE for CC in ELT. adjustment shall start with the acceptance of

WE in ELT from the grassroots of the educational system, the content of the material,

teachers’ delivery and the criteria for testing and assessment. These suggestions are

theoretically sounding and provide valuable insights and consideration for ELT in the

specified Vietnamese context.

 References

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015). World Englishes and English Language Teaching: a pragmatic and

humanistic approach. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 142–157.

https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a10

Bohara, L. B. (2018). Global language: status, scope and challenges. Journal of NELTA

Surkhet, 5, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.3126/jns.v5i0.19494

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Dang, T. C., & Seals, C. (2016). An evaluation of primary English textbooks in Vietnam: a

sociolinguistic perspective. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 93–113.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.309

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English

language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H. G. (Eds.). English in the

world (pp. 11-30). Cambridge University Press.

Kirkpatrick, A. (Ed.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of World Englishes [electronic

resource]. Routledge.

Lim, D., & Park, E. S. (2022). Facts and fictions of Native speakerism: Local EFL teachers’

experiences and viewpoints. English Teaching & Learning.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-022-00128-3

Mukminatien, N. (2012). Accommodating World Englishes in developing EFL learners’ oral

communication. TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on the Teaching and Learning of

English, 23(2), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v23i2/222-232

Phan, L. H. N. (2017). English as an International Language (EIL) in Vietnam: a study of

Vietnamese ELT teachers’ reflections. Monash University.

https://doi.org/10.4225/03/59068118611cc
Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The concept of “World English” and its implications for ELT. ELT

Journal, 58(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.111

Schneider, E. W., & Meierkord, C. (Eds.). (2021). World Englishes at the grassroots.

Edinburgh University Press.