Language education policy enactment and individual agency
The cauldron of conflicts in policy positions in implementing the Common European Framework of Reference for languages in Vietnam
Nguyen Van Huy | The University of Queensland, Australia
M. Obaidul Hamid | The University of Queensland, Australia
Peter Renshaw | The University of Queensland, Australia
This article explores language planning and policy from the perspective of individual agency and its embodiments in the process of implementing an English language education policy ensemble at a public university in Vietnam. The policy exemplifies the influence of globalized standards on local language education systems. It aims to build a national framework in Vietnam based on a Western model known as the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) which is expected to serve as a platform for reforming curriculum design, course materials development, and testing and assessment. Drawn from a set of data obtained through in-depth interviews with university administrators, the findings highlight the conflicting policy positions taken up by teacher-cum-administrators engaged in the policy enactment process. The paper argues that a critical barrier to CEFR enactment lies in the constraints and demotivation within each participant, particularly of those involved at a higher level of decision-making process in the institution. It is important, therefore, to deal with these conflicts at the level of macro policy planning to neutralize the paradox of policy enactment at the local site.
Keywords: Vietnam, policy position, individual agency, language policy, CEFR
Published online: 12 May 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.40.1.04van
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.40.1.04van
References
Baldauf, R.B., Jr
(2012) Introduction – Language planning: where have we been? Where might we be going? Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 12(2), 233–248. 
Ball, S.J.J., Braun, A., & Maguire, M
(2012) How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M
(2006) How is agency possible? Towards an ecological understanding of agency-as-achievement. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/project%20sites/LearningLives/papers/working_papers/Working_paper_5_Exeter_Feb_06.pdf
Braun, A., Ball, S.J., & Maguire, M (2011) Policy enactments in schools introduction: towards a toolbox for theory and research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 581–583.
Campbell, E
(2012) Teacher agency in curriculum contexts. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 183–190. .
.Feryok, A
(2012) Activity theory and language teacher agency. The Modern Language Journal, 96(1), 95–107.
Gal’perin, P.I
(1992) The problem of activity in Soviet psychology. Journal of Russian and East European psychology, 30(4), 37–59.
Hamid, M.O., & Baldauf, R.B., Jr
(2014) Public-private domain distinction as an aspect of LPP frameworks: A case study of Bangladesh. Language Problems & Language Planning, 38(2), 912–210.
Honig, M.I
(2006) New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hu, G., & McKay, S.L
(2012) English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 345–362.
Johnstone, R
(Ed.) (2010) Learning through English: policies, challenges and prospects - Insights from East Asia. Malaysia: British Council.
Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K
(2002) Micropolitical literacy: reconstructing a neglected dimension in teacher development. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 755–767. .
.Louis, K.S
(1994) Beyond “managed change”: Rethinking how schools improve. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(1), 2–24.
Menken, K., & Garcia, O
(Eds.) (2010) Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Florence, KY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.
Ministry of Education and Training
(2008) De an day va hoc ngoai ngu trong he thong giao duc quoc dan giai doan 2008-2020 [Project guidelines for teaching and learning foreign languages in the national education system in the period from 2008 to 2020]. Hanoi: Retrieved from http://www.cfl.udn.vn/uploads/uploads/Vanban/pub_dir/3121_Deanngoaingu.pdf.
(2014) Thông tư ban hành khung năng lực ngoại ngữ 6 bậc dùng cho Việt Nam [Circular No. 01/2014/TT-BDGĐT to issue a six-level framework for foreign language proficiency in Vietnam]. Retrieved from http://vanban.moet.gov.vn/?page=6.10&view=5552&opt=brpage.
Pham, H.H
(2001) Teacher development: A real need for English departments in Vietnam. English Teaching Forum, 39(4). Retrieved from http://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/01-39-4-f.pdf.
(2006) Researching the research culture in English language education in Vietnam. TESL-EJ, 10(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej38/a10.pdf.
Ricento, T.K., & Hornberger, N.H
(1996) Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.
Shoba, J.A., & Chimbutane, F
(Eds.) (2013) Bilingual education and language policy in the Global South. New York: Routledge.
Singh, P., Thomas, S., & Harris, J
(2013) Recontextualising policy discourses: A Bernsteinian perspective on policy interpretation, translation, enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 28(4), 465–480.
Spolsky, B
(2009) Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, S
(Ed.) (2009) A dictionary of education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199212064.001.0001/acref-9780199212064.
Wee, L
(2003) Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(3), 211–224.
Zacharias, N.T
(2013) Navigating through the English-medium-of-instruction policy: Voices from the field. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 93–108.
Zhao, S
(2011) Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 905–923). London: Routledge.
Zhao, S., & Baldauf, R.B., Jr
(2012) Individual agency in language planning: Chinese script reform as a case study. Language Problems & Language Planning, 36(1), 1–24.
Cited by
Cited by 6 other publications
Hurdus, Jeremy & David Lasagabaster
2018. Mappings and policies-in-the-making: toward an ontogenetic understanding of language-in-education policy.
Language and Education 32:3 ► pp. 227 ff.
Karabassova, Laura
2021. English-medium education reform in Kazakhstan: comparative study of educational change across two contexts in one country.
Current Issues in Language Planning 22:5 ► pp. 553 ff.
Mohamed, Naashia
2021. The agentive role of preschool leaders in language policy enactment: case studies of acceptance and resistance.
Current Issues in Language Planning 22:1-2 ► pp. 225 ff.
Ngo, Xuan Minh
2021. Vietnam's trillion-dong attempt to reform English education.
English Today 37:2 ► pp. 115 ff.
Nguyen, Van Huy & M. Obaidul Hamid
2021. The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: insights from a sociogenetic analysis.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42:7 ► pp. 650 ff.
Wernicke, Meike
2018. Plurilingualism as agentive resource in L2 teacher identity.
System 79 ► pp. 91 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.