Changes in English Teaching Methodology: An Autoethnography from

the Mekong Delta

Abstract
This autoethnographic study endeavors to recount and analyze my journey of
learning the English language, spanning from secondary school through higher
education, as well as my subsequent experience as an English instructor at various
foreign language centers in the Mekong Delta region. The autoethnography is
presented in a chronological framework, meticulously examining the impact of the
teaching environment and learning context on my own beliefs regarding language
acquisition and pedagogy. A teaching diary is employed as the primary narrative
medium to depict the evolution of teaching methodologies and the refinement of
teaching philosophy, derived from my dual roles as both a learner and a teacher. The
ultimate aspiration of this inquiry is to derive valuable pedagogical implications
capable of enhancing the quality of English language instruction and learning
outcomes.
Keywords: autoethnography, ELT methodology, professional development
Introduction
This autoethnography is written based on the following theories. In a post-method
era, teachers are encouraged to abandon established methods in their pedagogic decisions
and to exert their autonomy in seeking a context-sensitive local methodology (Bax, 2007;
Prabhu, 1990; Richards, 1990; Waters, 2007). Kumaravadivelu (2006) advocates for
teachers to liberate themselves from orthodox techniques and draw upon their lived
experiences in the field. By doing so, they can develop teaching strategies that are attuned
to local particularity, practicality, and possibility.
The historical background
English language education in Vietnam has been closely tied to political, economic,
and social shifts (Wright, 2002). Prolonged conflicts led to strained relations with the
outside world, resulting in the removal of languages associated with adversaries from the
school curriculum by 1975. During the war with America, English gained prominence in
the southern region, but after reunification, its significance declined sharply. The prevailing
Marxist-Leninist regime, supported by the Soviet Union, led to Russian becoming the
dominant foreign language in the post-war era, with approximately 70% of students
studying Russian, 20% studying English, and 10% learning French (Hoang, 2010). At the
tertiary level, the number of Russian majors surpassed all other foreign language
enrollments combined (Do, 2006; Le, 2007).
English's importance in Vietnam grew significantly after the launch of Doi Moi, the
1986 economic reform policy, which shifted the country towards economic liberalization
and foreign investment encouragement. This led to a surge in demand for English
proficiency. In the late 1990s, the Government made English a compulsory foreign

1
language in schools and tertiary institutions. By the turn of the millennium, 98% of school
students were learning English (X. V. Nguyen, 2002), and approximately 90% of tertiary
students, regardless of their major, chose to study English (Le, 2007). Private English
language centers thrived as people recognized their role in professional development and
social mobility. With the market-driven economy, English became crucial for educational,
professional, and commercial success, earning the title of "synonymous with economic
growth and prosperity" (Le, 2019), with a phenomenon known as "English language fever"
(Le, 2007).
From 1982 to 2002, the National Curricula for English in Vietnam introduced a
three-year compulsory upper-secondary curriculum and an optional seven-year curriculum
from the lower-secondary level (Hoang, 2010). Both curricula heavily emphasized
grammar, viewing it as a systematic set of rules to master for proficient language use.
However, the high-stakes national exams were solely based on the three-year curriculum,
which focused on discrete-point written assessments of grammar, vocabulary, and reading
comprehension, neglecting oral skills and communicative language use (Hoang, 2010).
Perceived inconsistencies and a lack of English competence prompted further
national curriculum reform in 2002. This led to the development and trial of a new English
curriculum with mandated textbooks. Six years later, the new curriculum was uniformly
implemented in all schools, making English compulsory at both lower and upper-
secondary levels. The reform aimed to make classrooms more communicative, moving
away from the traditional grammar-translation method (Le & Barnard, 2009). The
curriculum policy emphasized communicative skills as the goal of English teaching, with
linguistic knowledge serving as a means to achieve it (MOET, 2006). Despite promoting
English for communication, the curriculum did not prescribe specific pedagogic
approaches or methodologies to reach the goal. Nonetheless, the 2006 curriculum is
considered the initial step towards adopting a communicative approach in Vietnam. It
continues to be used in schools, alongside the new pilot curriculum under Project 2020,
which is now officially implemented nationwide.
Before and after the 2006 curriculum introduction, several studies raised concerns
about implementing a communicative approach in Vietnamese classrooms (Bock, 2000;
H. Nguyen & Nguyen, 2007; H. H. Pham, 2007; Warden & Lin, 2000). Tomlinson and
Dat's survey (2004) revealed that many teachers were reluctant to change their pedagogy
and doubted students' willingness to engage in communicative activities. Le and Barnard's
case study (2009) at one high school found that expected communicative lessons were not
implemented as outlined in the curriculum. Classroom practices remained "textbook-
based, test-oriented, and teacher-fronted," with the grammar-translation method and
presentation-practice-production (PPP) format still prevalent. Testing remained grammar-
focused, hindering oral proficiency and confidence (Le & Barnard, 2009).

2
 Challenges in English teaching included large class sizes, mixed proficiency levels,
unmotivated students, and a shortage of qualified teachers (Le, 2007; L. Nguyen, Hamid,
& Renshaw, 2016; H. H. Pham, 2007). English education quality varied across regions and
different populations, especially for ethnic minority students (London, 2011; Le, 2015; H.
Nguyen et al., 2018). Graduates lacked communicative English skills, rendering them
ineffective in real-life interactions (Le, 2007).
Globalization pressures compelled Vietnam to enhance English proficiency
nationwide for improved national competitiveness (Wedell, 2009). In response, the
Government launched Project 2020 to reform foreign language education.
Project 2020, initiated in 2008, involved a national plan for "Teaching and Learning
Foreign Language Education in the National Education System in the Period 2008-2020"
(Le, 2015; Bui & Nguyen, 2016). The project demonstrated the Government's commitment
to enhancing English proficiency in the national schooling system.
To establish language proficiency standards, Vietnam developed a six-level
Language Proficiency Framework, based on the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). This framework facilitated
the creation of language syllabi, textbooks, and proficiency measurement, aligning with
the CEFR's six levels, categorized into basic, intermediate, and advanced tiers.
Pedagogical changes in Vietnam
In Vietnam, there have been several changes in English teaching methods since the
country's economic reform (Doi Moi) in 1986. Firstly, there was a shift from Grammar-
Translation to Communicative Language Teaching. Before 1986, English language
teaching in Vietnam was largely based on the Grammar-Translation method, which focused
on translating literary texts and memorizing grammar rules. However, since the 1990s,
there has been a shift towards Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which
emphasizes the use of authentic communication and real-life situations. Before 1986, the
English curriculum emphasized that English teaching was supposed to enable students to
read simplified reading materials on general topics with the help of dictionaries. The
textbook published was based on the principles of Audiolingualism, with pattern drills
early on in the book gradually combined with and then superseded by reading texts to be
learned through Grammar and Translation. Most high school graduates were unable to use
even simple English to express themselves after many years of studying. The reasons were
believed to be the grammar-based Audiolingual method, rigid written examination
requirements, a shortage of qualified teachers, and extremely limited resources.
In 1986, due to the reform and economic development, a revised national English
curriculum was issued to address this unsatisfactory situation. The curriculum centered on
the use of language. Now, the new English curriculum in Vietnam has endorsed a more
communicative and humanistic view of language teaching, encouraging teachers to adopt

3
a task-based approach to organize their classroom teaching. The goal of teaching is set on
meaning and communicative effectiveness.
Secondly, there was an increased emphasis on speaking and listening skills. In the
past, English language teaching in Vietnam tended to focus more on reading and writing
skills. However, in recent years, there has been a greater emphasis on developing students'
speaking and listening skills, in line with the principles of CLT.
Thirdly, there was an integration of technology into English language teaching.
With the increasing availability of technology in Vietnam, there has been a growing trend
toward integrating technology into English language teaching, including the use of
multimedia materials, online resources, and learning management systems.
Fourthly, there has been a growing importance of English for international
integration. As Vietnam has become more integrated into the global economy, there has
been a growing recognition of the importance of English language proficiency for
international communication and business. This has led to an increased focus on
developing students' English language skills, both in schools and through private English
language courses. There was a shift from focusing on grammar and reading to
communicative competence namely listening and speaking.
However, this gradual communicative shift has not been implemented effectively.
Within Vietnam, the communicative methodology has been considered by some
Vietnamese scholars as incompatible with the Confucian educational tradition, a poor fit
for the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, and the official promotion of such
imported Western pedagogies is a sign of post-colonial pedagogical imposition. Given that
some Vietnamese EFL teachers do not believe in communicative language teaching, they
may teach communicatively in open classes observed by peer teachers or authorities but
teach in more traditional ways behind their classroom doors.
Previous studies
Le (2007) conducted a study to examine how appropriate and effective
communicative language teaching methodologies in contemporary Vietnam are. The result
shows that two essential factors support the use of communicative language teaching in
Vietnam. First, the government sees proficiency in communicative English as essential for
business and commercial contacts, as well as for access to information on technological
development. Second, teachers have a favorable view of this approach. However, the
sociocultural context of the country creates some challenges. The communicative
approach should, therefore, be “culturally attuned” to be effective in Vietnamese contexts
to help English teaching in Vietnam to respond better to the vision of national development.
Efforts to decide what is the right balance between traditional methods and modern
methods according to learners’ needs and learning environments and to facilitate learning

4
and teaching should be encouraged among all stakeholders: administrators, syllabus
designers, teacher trainers, and teachers themselves.
Vu (2020) investigated English language curriculum reform at the national level: a
case of intentions and realities in Vietnam. She discusses the impact of globalization on
the English language and the efforts made by developing countries to enhance their English
language skills to improve their competitiveness in the global economy. Specifically, it
focuses on the reform of English language curricula in lower-secondary education (Years
6-9) in Vietnam, with a particular emphasis on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
The study utilizes a mixed methods research design, including a teacher survey, analysis
of official curriculum mandates and textbooks, interviews with teachers and school
principals, and classroom observations. The findings reveal a disconnect between the
intended goals of the reform, as outlined by the Ministry of Education and Training
(MOET), and the actual implementation in classrooms. Teachers expressed negative
attitudes toward the feasibility of the curriculum goals and demonstrated a fragmented
understanding of CLT principles. Classroom observations indicated that teaching was
predominantly teacher-centered, relied heavily on textbooks, and had minimal student-to-
student interaction, all of which contradicted the principles of CLT. To bridge this gap and
meet the communicative requirements of the country, the study suggests an approach to
teaching and learning that aligns with Vietnam's socio-political and cultural context. It
emphasizes the importance of investing in teacher professional development as a means to
improve English language instruction and meet the demands of globalization.
Khuong (2017) examined the effects of communicative English grammar teaching
on high school students’ communicative competence in Vietnam. Her research aimed to
apply the communicative approach in grammar teaching to improve students’
communicative competence and enhance their interest in grammar lessons. To obtain the
above targets, a conceptual framework for studying grammar was shaped with the view
that grammar should be studied in a context. The study employed a reflective approach as
the main research design and a quantitative approach as a supplementary method. A
teaching program with four trialed grammar lessons was implemented in a high school in
Vietnam and data were collected from two instruments of observation and questionnaire.
The findings showed that the student’s communicative competence and interest in the
grammar lessons were significantly enhanced. The research outcomes were then translated
into several recommendations to improve the quality of grammar teaching and learning at
high schools in Vietnam.
Even though such research exists, naturalistic studies that share the lived
experiences of English language teachers in their classrooms are yet scarce and
autobiographical accounts are non-existent. Throughout the autobiographer’s academic
life, the researcher has always been intrigued by delving into the shifts in teaching
methodology over time. The researcher’s impetus for conducting an autoethnography is to

5
find answers to a single question, that is, “What are the experiences of a researcher who is
a university lecturer in terms of how English teaching methodology has changed over
time?”
Research design
Autoethnography is a research method that involves the researcher's reflection on
their own experiences and observations within a particular cultural context. In ELT
research, autoethnography can be a useful tool for gaining insights into the experiences of
language learners and teachers, as well as for exploring the complexities of language
learning and teaching within specific cultural contexts.
One of the main benefits of using autoethnography in ELT research is that it allows
for a more nuanced and subjective understanding of the experiences of language learners
and teachers. By reflecting on their own experiences, researchers can gain insights into the
ways that language learning and teaching are shaped by individual factors such as identity,
culture, and context. This can help to generate new perspectives on language learning and
teaching that may not be captured by more traditional research methods.
Autoethnography is useful in ELT research because it can help to challenge
common beliefs and ideas about language learning and teaching. By reflecting on their
own experiences, researchers can bring attention to the complex and diverse nature of
language learning and teaching, and highlight the perspectives of people who may have
been overlooked or marginalized in the past. This can help to create a more inclusive and
equitable understanding of language learning and teaching.
Overall, autoethnography can be a powerful tool for ELT researchers looking to
gain a deeper understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of language learning
and teaching within specific cultural contexts.
This study presents an autoethnographic inquiry delving into my personal
experiences in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, specifically as a student, teacher, and
researcher involved in English teaching methodology. Autoethnography, a research method
that draws from the researcher's own experiences to analyze cultural beliefs, practices, and
encounters (Adams et al., 2014), is employed in this investigation.
Autoethnography has found increasing application in research within foreign
language education. For instance, Canagarajah's (2012) autoethnographic study examines
how a foreign language educator navigates diverse professional cultures to shape a
strategic professional identity. Numerous scholars utilize autoethnography as a tool to
investigate teacher identity transformation. Liu's (2014) autoethnography, for instance,
explores issues of identity as a foreign language learner in various stages of the learning
journey and across different social and cultural contexts. Similarly, Manara's (2017)
autoethnography explores phases of identity reconstruction as a language teaching
professional, particularly concerning 'native' and 'non-native' labels.

6
 In this autoethnographic exploration, the focus shifts from an identity issue to a
pedagogical concern. Acknowledging the political and hierarchical nature of the traditional
concept of teaching methodology, the aim is to deconstruct it as a top-down prescriptive
method within the educational discourse. Drawing inspiration from Snyder et al.'s (1992)
enactment approach to curriculum, teaching methodology is approached as a lived
experience, not confined to what should happen but rooted in what occurs in the classroom.
Instrument and procedure
The researcher kept a teaching diary throughout the time he taught classes at the
Center for foreign languages. According to Fox et al. (2007, p.148), a research diary “is a
comprehensive record of the research process and contains a reflection on that process.”
The autoethnography was written based on my notes of my feelings and opinions about
classroom teaching as the data in this research.
To guarantee reliability and validity, the researcher shared his journal entries and
their analyses with a colleague who had also been teaching at the Center for foreign
languages and a classmate who worked closely with the researcher at the university. With
the written feedback via email, the researcher finalized his analyses and shaped the paper
accordingly while ensuring that his findings are based directly on his teaching experiences.
Different from an ethnographer who typically relies on fieldwork as a major source
of data, an auto ethnographer retrospectively and selectively writes about personal lived
experiences to illustrate facets of cultural experience (Ellis et al., 2014). Thus in this
autoethnography, my own lived experiences are the data, and writing itself is the meaning-
making process of data analysis (Van Manen, 1990). To obtain in-depth insights, I limit
my recollections strictly within the boundary of the issue of language teaching
methodology. Secondly, I ensure that the data collection process is a focused dialogue
between my own lived experiences and the existing literature. Lastly, stories are always
told in contexts through thick descriptions of their historical, societal, and policy settings
in Vietnam. Not much external data is used in this study, except for the student feedback
on my teaching during my teaching time. Two colleagues (who are now working as English
teachers) are invited to read and share their impressions of my teaching 13 years ago.
Learning English at secondary school
I was born in a small village in the Southwest of the Mekong Delta after the reform
period in 1986. I went to elementary school in my village every day on foot. The English
curriculum of Vietnam at that time suggested that schools could start English education
from Grade 6. Most students at my age started learning English in Grade 6. Luckily, I had
an older sister. She started learning English earlier than me. Every day when she came back
home from school, I asked her what English lesson she studied that day. Then, she kindly
opened her book and taught me how to pronounce some words and their meaning.
Although we mispronounced many words, we still practiced every conversation in the

7
book eagerly and happily. Many people who went past our house looked at us and smiled
curiously. Watching many students learning English now, I realize that the process for me
to learn it was very different. Students now usually learn listening and speaking first, and
then they learned the literary skills of reading and writing. For me, I only learned grammar,
reading, and writing. In terms of speaking skills, I only repeated the dialogues in the
textbooks. We rarely had group discussions or role plays as students do nowadays.
But whether our speech was accurate enough to be comprehensible, we never knew,
as we never had the opportunity to engage in a real conversation in English. Our teachers
spent most of the time explaining English vocabulary and grammar in Vietnamese, and
they would ask us to read after them.
Many students were cynical about learning English, as in a remote rural area we did
not get to see any foreigners and we did not perceive any real need for English in our lives.
I remembered there was a policy that I considered discouraging English learning among
students. Students could choose another subject to replace English in the secondary
graduation exam. I remembered all students in my elementary school chose subjects like
chemistry, biology, and history to avoid taking English exams before entering high school.
I was the only student who chose to take English for the high school entrance exam. The
head teacher of English had to organize a reviewing class for me only. The school had to
set up a separate room for me to sit the exam. I succeeded in passing the exam, and I took
pride in my school, my teachers, and my efforts. I recognized it was important to learn and
master a foreign language.
Learning English in high school
In response to the globalization trend, English has become a compulsory subject at
all Vietnamese high schools to provide students with a new tool of communication in the
borderless world where it has become an international language. It is essential for learners
to equally develop four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing to become
competent English users. However, in reality, Vietnamese students struggled to use this
language for oral communication although they have years of schooling with English as a
mandatory component.
One of the detected problems with the teaching of English at high schools is the
grammar-dominated exams and, consequently, the teachers’ overuse of grammar-
translation methods. Specifically, the teaching and learning went in the following
sequence. First, the teacher presented grammar rules of the target structure and examples
and then read the usage of the rules. The students passively listened to their teacher’s
explanation and then wrote down the rules and usage of the grammatical item. The next
stage was mechanical drills with decontextualized sentences. Communicative activities
such as role-plays, problem-solving tasks, or information gap activities were exotic to
students in most grammar sessions. To prepare for the written English test for the university
entrance exam, we did countless simulation test papers. Speaking and listening were not

8
taught, as they were not tested. My recollected lived experiences with English teaching
methodology in Vietnamese high schools have revealed a persistent gap between the
methodology planned in the official curriculum and the methodology lived in the
classroom.
In recent years, the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training has conducted
a plethora of reforms in the educational system. The English grammar in Vietnamese high
school textbooks is allocated to a separate section of teaching explicitly, yet the grammar
points are still decontextualized.
Learning English at university
I applied to study English Studies at university and was admitted into a university
that specialized in foreign languages (2005–2009). I was glad that I could study English as
a popular major. But as soon as I entered university, I was shocked. I thought that English
would be taught the same way as in high schools, and I did not anticipate that we were
expected to speak and understand it when it was spoken to us. I can recall the painful first
class I had at university when the teacher played an English story three times on a cassette
tape and asked us to write down whatever we could hear and understand. All I could take
down were the pronouns at the beginning of sentences, ‘I’ and ‘you”. I had almost zero
competence in listening. The curriculum in the first two years was mainly skills-based
courses in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The teachers conducted their classes
all in English, even though some of us were not able to understand fully. They created
many different activities and tasks to engage us in using the language for meaningful
communication. It was a struggle for me to catch up on my communicative skills in
listening and speaking.
I feared, with my poor English, that I would not be able to keep up with my
classmates. But I knew I must try my best and dare to lose face and step out of my comfort
zone. After two years of hard work practicing pronunciation every day, I felt more
comfortable speaking English. There were more content-based courses in the third and
fourth-year curricula. I enjoyed learning courses like Linguistics, English Literature, and
Educational Teaching Methodology in English.
In the third year, I took part in the English Speaking Club run by the youth union
and volunteers from the School of Education. I volunteered as their translator for a
researcher from Mexico. She came to my university to study rural development and
poverty alleviation. I enjoyed going to provinces to interview local people. Then, I helped
her translate reports from the government of each province in the Mekong Delta. Thanks
to this, my English improved gradually.
While the traditional teaching method in elementary school hindered my speaking
and listening competence, the more communitive approach to language teaching at my
university has contributed to the development of my communicative skills and turned me

9
into a hearing and speaking person in English and it is a strong advocate of the
communicative methodology. I also benefited from the content-based courses in
specialized courses in linguistics. The most beneficial to me was the real communicative
opportunities in English I obtained at university, in which I was challenged to express
complex ideas in English. I started working as an MC for some programs in English or for
workshops related to English teaching methods hosted by educational groups or
companies.
Few years of teaching
Since 2009, the year I graduated from university, there was a policy that every
student had to take general English for 3 semesters or submitted an English certificate level
A to graduate from university. Therefore, the demand for English teachers also increased.
As soon as the Center for foreign languages recruited new teachers, I applied for a position
there. After the board of recruitment checked all of my degrees and certificates and
confirmed that they meet the requirements, I was invited to take a lesson demonstration.
The purpose of the lesson demonstration is to examine my teaching method and classroom
management skill. Luckily, I passed and was recruited as a part-time teacher in the Center
for foreign languages of a university.
In a typical class, most teachers first read and explained the new vocabulary used
in a text, mostly in Vietnamese, giving examples in English sentences to show how they
are used from time to time. Then the teachers would translate the reading text into
Vietnamese sentence by sentence and explain the grammatical points in each sentence.
There were also exercises after each reading text to practice key grammatical items covered
in the unit. It was not so different from English classes in my secondary and high school.
In contrast, I tried to incorporate the target-language-only style of teaching I
experienced at university. I explained the vocabulary in English. I would paraphrase the
text instead of translating it. Influenced by the content-based approach I was exposed to at
university, I tried to develop questions and engage students in discussing the content
covered in the reading text. My teaching style followed Krashen’s (1985) idea that learners’
exposure to rich comprehensible target language input is the key to naturalistic acquisition
when students are actively engaged in perceiving and processing information in the target
language.
I was convinced that the teachers’ communicative competence in English was one
crucial factor for their success as EFL teachers. I tried to take every opportunity to improve
my competence in English. I chose to only watch English TV and movies. I chose to only
get my news in English. I also tried to spend time with native English-speaking colleagues
who were teaching English majors at my university.
Learning as a Master’s student

10
 After four years of teaching and working (2010–2014), I was released from my
teaching to do a Master’s degree. I took this as my professional development opportunity
as a teacher. I took an interest in Halliday’s (1975) functional view of language. I read
Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypotheses and Swain’s (1993) Output Hypothesis. I read different
English teaching methodologies. With increased methodological awareness, I attributed
my failure in acquiring communicative competence in English in secondary and high
schools to the non-communicative methodology used by teachers. I was convinced that
communicative methodologies should be promoted and teachers of English should be
trained in them to improve the quality of English education in Vietnam.
When I studied Master, I conducted a study to investigate EFL teachers’ perceptions
of accommodating students’ learning styles. I had the opportunity to observe EFL teachers’
use of teaching methods to match students’ learning styles in general English classes at a
Center for Foreign Languages. The observation result revealed that teachers have been
using a variety of teaching methods from traditional Grammar Translation methods to
modern ones such as task-based teaching. The majority of teachers followed a
communicative approach to teaching. I also recognized that older teachers tended to use
traditional teaching methods while younger teachers were inclined to use task-based or
communicative teaching methods. In particular, older teachers would explain all
grammatical rules in Vietnamese, asked students to do exercises, and went to the board to
write their answers. Then, the teachers corrected students' mistakes. There are very few
communicative activities for students to interact. In younger teachers’ classes, students are
divided into groups. These teachers assigned some kinds of tasks for students to do. These
activities increase contact and communication among students. Moreover, following the
task-based teaching method, students had the chance to look for and use vocabulary that
are necessary for their discussion. By doing this, students could remember vocabulary
better because these are the vocabulary they need and use.
After I obtained my Master’s, I worked as an academic staff and a lecturer for a
center for foreign languages at a university. I tried to use what I had learned from the
Master’s program. I followed the communicative teaching approach in all classes that I
taught. I usually switched between PPP (Presentation – Practice – Production) and task-
based language teaching. The feedback from students showed a positive signal and the
effectiveness of the communicative teaching approach.
I also conducted a seminar on teaching methodology as part of a short seminar at
my foreign language center. During the seminar, teachers reported that they were familiar
with communicative teaching, but felt that it was not applicable in their classrooms. I was
surprised and asked myself a lot of questions whether it’s because they are lazy or they are
not competent enough. How could I help them teach more effectively and
communicatively? I took these questions with me when I entered a Ph.D. program at my
university in 2022.

11
Learning as a Ph.D. researcher
I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. program at a university in the Mekong Delta. I have
studied for three semesters. My idea for my Ph.D. research is to compare teachers' use of
various teaching methods for professional development through real teaching and
cooperation. The way I intend to conduct is lesson study. In particular, in this study, I
would like to see teachers' implementation of various teaching methodologies to develop
professionalism. Moreover, this study also aims to compare teachers’ identity
transformation before and after participating in the quasi-experiment. In addition, the study
will find out which teaching methods are used the most and which ones are used the least
by teachers. Furthermore, teachers in the study will report the shift in their selection of
teaching methods during their teaching careers through interviews and self-reflection.
While studying Ph.D. with my classmates who are lecturers, I had a chance to
discuss with them the best teaching methods that they use for teaching students at their
university. The result showed a diversity of teaching methods incorporated into teaching
pedagogical strategy. The majority of them use PPP (presentation, practice, production)
communicative language teaching approach, or task-based teaching approach. Some still
use grammar-translation methods to teach grammar. According to these teachers,
depending on the objectives and the classroom context, teachers had to combine many
teaching methods to suit the learner’s needs. For example, in some classes, lecturers
couldn’t get students involved in task-based activities because of students’ low English
competence and the influence of Confucianism culture, or lecturers’ incapability of getting
students involved in task-based activities. Although there are prominent advantages of
task-based language teaching, it’s sometimes ineffective or impossible to apply a task-
based approach to teaching. In conclusion, there is no best teaching method. Teachers have
to accommodate instructional strategies to meet students’ needs.
Besides, I am delving into new teaching methods that are trendy and appropriate for
the 4.0 era. The first method is project-based learning. This approach emphasizes hands-
on, experiential learning through the completion of projects. Students work on a project
that requires them to apply the knowledge they have learned in a meaningful way. The
second way is flipped classroom. In this approach, students watch lectures or complete
readings at home, and class time is used for discussion, group work, and other activities
that apply the concepts they learned. Thirdly, blended learning is an approach that
combines traditional classroom instruction with online learning. Students use online
resources to supplement their learning, and teachers can use technology to personalize
instruction and provide immediate feedback. Another method is inquiry-based learning.
This approach encourages students to ask questions and seek answers through their
investigations. Teachers act as facilitators, guiding students through the process of research
and discovery. The last teaching method I want to study is differentiated instruction. This
approach is based on the idea that all students learn differently, so teachers must provide

12
instruction that meets the individual needs of each student. Teachers may use a variety of
instructional strategies and materials to accommodate different learning styles and
abilities. In brief, many teaching methods are used today. The most effective approach
depends on the subject matter, the student's needs and abilities, and the goals of the
instruction. Through my lived experiences and observation, English teaching methodology
has changed to meet the needs of learners and social requirements.
Discussion
Since the economic reform in 1986, Vietnam's English teaching methods have
shifted from the traditional Grammar-Translation approach to the Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) method. The curriculum now emphasizes authentic
communication, real-life situations, task-based learning, and integration of technology.
Several studies have examined English language teaching in Vietnam. They highlight the
need for culturally attuned communicative approaches, effective curriculum
implementation, investment in teacher professional development, and context-sensitive
methodologies to enhance language teaching and learning.
English teaching methods changed gradually reflected by my experience of learning
English from elementary to higher education. It has changed from a curriculum focused on
grammar, reading, and writing, with little emphasis on speaking and listening skills to a
communicative approach. Opportunities for real communication in English, content-based
courses, and English-related activities helped improve the author's language proficiency.
During teaching time, I adopted a target-language-only approach, engaging students in
discussions and avoiding translation. Emphasizing communicative competence, I
improved my English proficiency through immersion and interaction with native English
speakers.
While pursuing a Master's degree, I observed varying teaching methods among
teachers, with some favoring traditional approaches and others adopting communicative
ones. Currently, I am pursuing a Ph.D., aiming to research teachers' use of different
teaching methods for professional development, focusing on communicative language
teaching and task-based approaches. I acknowledge the need for adapting instructional
strategies to meet student's individual needs and learning goals in the 4.0 era.
Pedagogical implications
Based on personal experiences and analysis of well-grounded theories, I propose
some pedagogical implications for English language teaching in Vietnam as follows.
Firstly, we need to emphasize Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Given
the shift towards CLT in Vietnam's English language education, teachers should prioritize
activities that promote authentic communication and real-life language use. Encourage
students to engage in speaking and listening exercises to develop their oral communication
skills.

13
 Secondly, teachers need to integrate technology. As technology has become
prevalent in language teaching, educators should incorporate digital tools and resources to
enhance language learning. Interactive language apps, multimedia content, and online
language exchanges can provide valuable opportunities for students to practice English in
diverse contexts.
Thirdly, it’s necessary to develop Context-Sensitive Approaches. Teachers need to
recognize the significance of the socio-cultural context in language teaching. Teachers
should design lessons that align with students' cultural backgrounds and incorporate topics
relevant to their lives, fostering a meaningful and engaging learning experience.
Fourthly, teachers should focus on Task-Based Learning. They ought to implement
task-based language teaching approaches, where students complete meaningful tasks using
English. This method helps learners develop language skills while achieving specific goals,
increasing their motivation and interest in learning.
Fifthly, teachers have to encourage English language exposure. They can encourage
students to immerse themselves in the English language beyond the classroom. Encourage
reading English books, watching English films, listening to English music, and engaging
with native speakers, both online and in-person, to improve language proficiency. They
had better shift the focus from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered learning.
Allow students to take an active role in their language learning process, promoting
autonomy and self-directed learning.
Finally, it is vital to explore innovative teaching methods by investigating and
implementing innovative teaching methods such as project-based learning, flipped
classrooms, blended learning, inquiry-based learning, and differentiated instruction. These
approaches can cater to students' diverse learning needs and preferences.
By considering these pedagogical implications, English language teachers can
create a more dynamic, effective, and contextually appropriate learning environment,
enabling students in Vietnam to develop strong language skills and thrive in an increasingly
globalized world.

14
 References
Adams, E., Jones, T., & Ellis, C. (2014). Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative
Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal
57(3), 278–87.
Bock, G. (2000). Difficulties in implementing communicative theory in Vietnam.
Teacher’s Edition, 2, 24-28.
Bui, T. T. N., & Nguyen, H. (2016). Standardizing English for educational and socio-
economic betterment – A critical analysis of English language policy reforms in
Vietnam. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in Asia (pp.
363-388). Boston, MA: Springer.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: an
autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly 46, 258–79.
Do, H. T. (2006). The role of English in Vietnam’s foreign language policy: A brief history.
Paper presented at the 19th Annual EA Education Conference.
Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography.
Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press.
Hamid, M. O. (2010). Globalization, English for everyone and English teacher capacity:
Language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current issues in language
planning, 11(4), 289-310.
Hoang, V. V. (2010). The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in Vietnam.
Ritsumeikan Studies in Language and Culture, 22(1), 7-18.
Khuong, T. H. C. (2017). Communicative English grammar teaching to high school
learners in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, 7(1), 3-
20. https://journalofscience.ou.edu.vn/index.php/soci-en/article/view/289
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to
Postmethod. Mahwah, NJ, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Le, V. C. (2007). A historical review of English language education in Vietnam (book
chapter). In Choi, Y. H., & Spolsky, B (eds.), English education in Asia: History
and policies (167-180). Seoul, South Korea: Asia TEFL.
Le, V. C., & Barnard, R. (2009). Curricular innovation behind closed classroom doors: A
Vietnamese case study. Prospect, 24(2), 20-33.
Le, V. C. (2019). English language teaching in Vietnam: Aspirations, realities, and
challenges. In H. T. M. Nguyen, T. T. M. Nguyen, & R. Barnard (Eds.), Building
teacher capacity in English language teaching in Vietnam: Research, policy, and
practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

15
Liu, W. (2014). Living with a foreign tongue: An autobiographical narrative inquiry into
identity in a foreign language. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 60(2), 264–
78.
London, J. D. (2011). Education in Vietnam. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies.
Manara, C. (2017). ‘What should I call myself? Does it matter?’ Questioning the ‘labeling’
practice in the ELT profession. In Yazan B, Rudolph N (eds) Criticality, Teacher
Identity, and Inequity in English Language Teaching: Issues and Implications.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 125–40.
MOET. (2006). Chuong trinh giao duc pho thong: Mon Tieng Anh [English curriculum for
the secondary school]. Hanoi, Vietnam
MOET. (2018a). The decision of the change of the project name. Hanoi, Vietnam
MOET. (2018b). Implementing the project “Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in
the National Education System" in the period 2017-2025. Hanoi, Vietnam
Nguyen, H., & Nguyen, Q. (2007). Teaching English in primary schools in Vietnam: An
Overview. Current issues in language planning, 8(2), 162-173.
Nguyen, H., Nguyen, H. T., Nguyen, H. V., & Nguyen, T. T. T. (2018). Local challenges to
global needs in English language education in Vietnam: The perspective of language
policy and planning. In C. C. S. Kheng (Ed.), Un(intended) language planning in a
globalising world: Multiple levels of players at work. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter
Open.
Nguyen, X. V. (2002). English language teaching in Vietnam today: Policy, practice, and
constraints. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East
Asia today: Changing policies and practices (pp. 455-474). Singapore: Eastern
Universities Press.
Pham, H. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT
Journal, 61(3), 193-201.
Prubhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method – why?. TESOL Quarterly 24(2), 161–72.
Richards, J. C. (1990). Beyond methods. In Richards, J. C (ed.), The Language Teaching
Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5–11.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In Jackson PW
(ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan, 402–35.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action
Sensitive Pedagogy. London: The Althouse Press.
Vu, T. T. (2020). English language curriculum reform at the national level: A case of
intentions and realities in Vietnam [Doctoral thesis, The University of Adelaide].

16
 https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/129584/1/VU2020_P
hD.pdf
Warden, C. A., & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL
setting. Foreign language annals, 33(5), 535-545.
Waters, A. (2007). ELT and ‘the spirit of the times’. ELT Journal 61(4), 353–9.
Wedell, M. (2009). Planning for educational change: Putting people and their contexts
first. London, England: Continuum International Publishing Group.
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 Associates.

17