Keywords

1 Introduction

Employability can be narrowly understood as knowledge and skills that make students attractive to potential employers or the labour market (Bridgstock, 2009; Cole & Tibby, 2013; Small et al., 2018). It is, however, argued that since the labour markets are changing in response to globalisation, technology, and mobility, employability should be redefined. The emphasis on just skills development to enhance graduate employability has been criticised as too narrow and insufficient to prepare students for their working life with unpredictable economic developments (Bates et al., 2019; Jackson, 2016; Tomlinson & Tran, 2020).

The current higher education agenda tends to focus just on developing students’ human capitals (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) whilst other competencies to prepare students for the globalised knowledge economy and abilities to grow under constant changes are ignored (Pham, 2021; Tomlinson & Tran, 2020). A more holistic approach to employability recognises not only labour market’s demands but also personal characteristics, disciplinary differences (Barrie, 2006), work context (Rychen & Salganik, 2005), and the ability to continuously recognise employment and training-related opportunities (Bridgstock, 2009). This approach emphasises the importance of developing the individual’s capacity to manage their own career (Bridgstock, 2009) and the role of self-awareness, confidence, and adaptability (Clarke, 2017; Jackson, 2016; Tomlinson, 2017; Tomlinson & Tran, 2020). Universities have started to adopt different strategies to improve students’ employability in response to this holistic approach: embedding transferable skills within curricula (e.g., communication skills, teamwork, complex problem-solving), incorporating opportunities for work experience (e.g., internships, placements, international study tours, or exchanges) (Clarke, 2017), providing extra-curricular activities for students (Barrie et al., 2009; Tran, 2017b) or creating an online community for students to engage in authentic communication and intercultural exchanges (Mai et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020).

In non-English speaking countries, there is a large volume of research describing perceptions of students, university administrators, and employers towards students’ employability (Al-Mahrooqi & Denman, 2018; Hamid, 2015; Zainuddin et al., 2019). However, research on how English programs are being restructured to boost students’ employability, using the broader framework of employability is still limited. This chapter aims to fill this gap by using the holistic approaches to employability to examine the effectiveness of a General English training program at a university in Vietnam. It is also one of the very few studies addressing the effectiveness of a General English program in a non-English speaking country with regard to employability. The study, therefore, will provide insights on the current practice of General English language education in response to its effectiveness on students’ employability and suggest lessons learned for similar English programs.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Employability and Its Dimensions

Drawing on the broader and holistic approach to employability (Bridgstock, 2009; Clarke, 2017; Fugate et al., 2004; Pham et al., 2019; Tomlinson, 2017; Tomlinson & Tran, 2020), this study uses an employability framework that incorporates five key dimensions—human capital, social capital, cultural capital, career and identity capital, and psychological capital. Tomlinson (2017) framework was used because of two reasons: first, the framework covers employability attributes that are overlooked in the current higher education agenda as aforementioned, and second, the framework has been conceptualised and validated through recent research related to higher education employability (Pham, 2021; Tomlinson & Tran, 2020).

Human capital refers to the knowledge and skills that enable students to enter the labour market (Tomlinson, 2017). According to Tomlinson and Tran (2020), human capital constitutes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students can add to their employment profile. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes refer to the extent to which the students can specify and apply technical abilities directly in their workplace (Tomlinson & Tran, 2020).

Social capital refers to students’ social relationships and networks with others such as family, peers, higher education institutions, and social organisations that can bring them closer to the labour market. Students’ social capital can be extended via internships or other forms of employment, bridging between formal education and their future employment (Tomlinson, 2017). It is believed that social capital enables human capital to be mobilised within a wider social context (Tomlinson & Tran, 2020).

Cultural capital is the formation of cultural knowledge, dispositions, and behaviours in particular social settings and workplaces that graduates will enter. Globalisation and internationalisation have made cultural knowledge and intercultural competence essential in the workplace (Jones, 2013). This capital is also illustrated as a “personality package” that includes accent, body language, and humour (Pham et al., 2019).

Identity/Career capital is the level of personal investment a graduate makes towards the development of their future career. Fugate et al. (2004) stated career capital enables graduates to identify and realise career opportunities. Trede et al. (2012) believed career identity enhances graduates’ capacity to be proactive in their desired career outcomes.

Psychological capital refers to the changing of personal knowledge, skills, attitudes to meet the demands of the situation (Clarke, 2017). Some examples of this capital are self-confidence, resilience, adaptability, or flexibility (Tomlinson, 2017), optimism to challenges, propensity to learn, openness to changes and new experiences, and self-efficacy (Fugate et al., 2004).

It is noted that these five mentioned dimensions share features that are inter-related and equally important in enriching students’ experiences and empowering them to seek entry to the labour market and sustain their career development. Whilst human and identity capitals provide graduates with knowledge and skills to enter the employment market successfully, social, cultural, and psychological capitals help them adjust and navigate their pathways in career development under constant changes (Tomlinson & Tran, 2020). In this respect, these dimensions are highly interconnected in supporting graduates’ employment opportunities and career sustainability (Pham, 2021).

2.2 Teaching and Learning English in Universities for Employability: Asian and Vietnamese Context

It has been demonstrated that competent English language proficiency is highly correlated to economic opportunities, especially in Asian contexts (Hamid, 2015; Tsui, 2021). English education is believed to help students develop soft skills and intercultural competence to work in an increasingly competitive global economy (Dudzik & Nguyen, 2015; Fang & Baker, 2018; Tsui, 2021). Whilst there is a positive link between English education and economic benefits, studies have emphasised the fragile role of English education in strengthening the employability capacities of students (Bui et al., 2017; Erling, 2014). For instance, Belwal et al. (2017) found that educational institutions in Oman were mainly restricted to the basic generic language skills as graduate attributes. The way English was taught in Oman did not develop students’ overall proficiency and communicative competence. The lack of English proficiency and communicative competence was reported as major causes of unemployment amongst Omani graduates (Al-Mahrooqi & Denman, 2018). In a Malaysian context, Zainuddin et al. (2019) found that many essential skills for employability (such as the ability to communicate in other languages, confidence, and a good attitude), which were acknowledged by employers, were not perceived as very important by the students. In Thailand, researchers also found the English curriculum in Thai universities was not successful in helping students to communicate English and succeed in the workplace (Chuanpongpanich, 2021; Wiriyachitra, 2001). It is also suggested that modern teaching techniques such as task-based learning, project-based learning, flipped-classrooms, etc., should be included in the English programs for Thai students to improve the student's self-learning skill, self-responsibility, and adaptation (Baker, 2012).

In Vietnam, English has become central in the national language policy (Vu, 2019). In parallel with the overall changes in education, English language policies have undergone significant shifts with the implementation of the National Foreign Language Project (NFL) (Decision 1400/QĐ-TTg, 2008). The general aim of this project was to ensure that the majority of young Vietnamese graduating from the secondary, college, and university levels would be able to use English fluently and confidently in their study and work (Nguyen, 2008, p. 1). The NFL project has radically impacted language education in Vietnam with regard to improving teachers’ proficiency and pedagogy (Le et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2015) through incorporating curriculum modification with adapted language outcomes for all levels or through developing professional development initiatives for the teachers. However, the NFL has been subjected to a lot of concerns about its ambitious goals due to local constraints (lack of resources for classroom innovations, exam-oriented-driven language education, or centralisation of educational management) (Vu & Ha, 2021). The project, therefore, has been extended to 2025.

English programs in Vietnamese universities have been criticised for not helping graduates to apply for jobs that require English skills (Bui et al., 2017) or use English skills effectively in their professional jobs (Tran, 2017b). English education is believed to be marginalised compared to specialised subjects such as Maths, Information Technology and the like, and there is a disconnection between English and specialised subjects (Nguyen & Pham, 2016; Trinh & Mai, 2019). The impact of English programs on university students’ employability was reported to be negligible. In examining the effectiveness of the English program of an at-home international program in Vietnam on students’ employability skills, Bui et al. (2017) found that students were uncertain about both their English language and career skills, and therefore, their chances of being employed were limited (Bui et al., 2017).

2.3 General English Programs for University Students in Vietnam: Current State

Under the NFL, university students are required to take 12 credits of General English over the three semesters to fulfil their graduation requirements and it was expected that by 2020 students would be able to graduate with B1 (CEFRFootnote 1) or Level 3 (VSTEPFootnote 2) language outcomes. It is noted that during the time this study was conducted, due to the diversity of students’ intake in age, background, previous educational experiences or interest in the study across the country, most colleges and universities still had a certain degree of flexibility in deciding the language outcomes of the General English programs. Some universities in Vietnam do not follow CEFR or VSTEP language outcomes but have adopted other standardised English proficiency tests, such as TOEIC and TOEFL as students’ graduate requirements whereas others might adjust the CEFR or VSTEP outcomes depending on the sociodemographic status and English education experience of their students.

Despite the efforts of the NFL project in improving students’ English proficiency, the level of English proficiency of non-English major students in Vietnam was still relatively low and uneven (Trinh & Mai, 2019). It was also impossible for teachers to create interactive and interesting activities due to the time constraint of the program (Trinh & Mai, 2019). In addition, the time commitment to the job of the majority of English teachers is often low (Hoang, 2013). Nguyen et al. (2015) found that there were still many negative factors hindering the efficacy of General English teaching and learning, including insufficient time for English courses, lack of speaking component in tests and examinations and large class sizes. Low motivation to learn English (Ngo et al., 2017) was also listed as a factor contributing to the ineffectiveness of the General English programs. Other attributing factors included the divergent gaps between students’ learning outcomes and employers’ needs (Tran, 2013), resources and material constraints or exam-oriented tradition in Vietnam (Vu & Ha, 2021). In general, it has been reported that the General English programs in Vietnamese universities play a very minimal role in equipping students with proficient English knowledge and skills to improve their employability due to mismatched teaching orientations, which still place a strong focus on achieving linguistic forms rather than the ability to use the language in communication (Bui et al., 2017; Tran, 2013).

Therefore, just like their Asian counterparts, it appears that the General English programs in Vietnam just primarily focus on linguistic understanding, and intercultural competence, rather than equipping students with practical language skills for their future education, work, and life (Tsui & Tollefson, 2017; Vu, 2019). In addition, there have been many studies that look at the relationship between English programs in Vietnamese universities and employability, but very few studies have focused on General English programs for non-English major students, who constitute a big proportion of the student population in Vietnam. Moreover, there is a need for more studies that use a holistic approach to employability as discussed above. This study attempts to address those gaps by examining the effectiveness of a General English program in Vietnam through a holistic approach to employability. The study seeks to answer the two research questions:

  1. 1.

    How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of the General English program with regard to enhancing students’ employability?

  2. 2.

    What are the factors influencing the effectiveness of the General English program?

The study will contribute to filling in the gap in the literature in regard to General English university students’ employability in Vietnam. The study will also provide empirical evidence to support the growing literature on the reconceptualisation of graduate employability in universities, using the holistic approach by Tomlinson (2017).

3 The Current Study

This study employed a qualitative research design to gain in-depth and detailed understanding (Creswell, 2014) of how the teachers perceive the effectiveness of the General English program on students’ employability. The case in this study is the General English program provided by a multi-disciplinary public higher education institution in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. The School of Foreign Languages, specifically the General English Department, is responsible for coordinating the General English program for approximately 1200 students in one academic year. At the time the study was conducted, the General English curriculum consisted of three General English courses: General English 1 (4-credits), General English 2 (3-credits), and General English 3 (3-credits). The three courses comprised of 150 teaching hours in total. A2 level (CEFR) or Level 2 (VSTEP) was the required outcome for the exit of the General English program at this university, which was still lower than the expected outcome of CEFR-B1 or VSTEP-Level 3 required by the NFL project at the time due to the lower entry in terms of English proficiency of the students. After students finish the General English program, they can enrol in an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) program of their disciplines. It should be noted that these ESP programs were not compulsory and were managed by other disciplinary Departments or Faculties. The General English program was chosen in this study for three reasons: (1) General English is a foundation program in Vietnamese universities, and it is representative of General English in the Vietnamese university system, (2) the General English program accounts for a large number of students from diverse disciplines, and (3) there is a lack of research in General English programs with regard to employability.

We utilised semi-structured interviews to collect data from fourteen English teachers (thirteen females, and one male) from the Department of General English of a university, who volunteered to participate in the study. The interview questions were developed based on the literature in relation to the employability framework (Tomlinson, 2017). The interview guide included (1) teacher background information such as teacher’s teaching experience, English courses, and proficiency levels taught, educational background, (2) in-depth perceptions of the effectiveness of the General English program in contributing to students’ employability according to the five dimensions by Tomlinson (2017), and (3) factors hindering the effectiveness of the program from the teachers’ perspectives. The questions were piloted with one teacher to address possible unclear or confusing questions. The teacher was chosen as she had five years of teaching experience with the university and used to work in a few translation/interpretation projects, which was helpful for the feedback on the translation of the questions from English to Vietnamese. Generally, the questions were adequately clear. However, some terminologies related to employability capitals, such as psychological capital, or human capital were hard to translate into Vietnamese; thus, the translation was accompanied by examples to make it clearer to the participants.

As for criteria to select the participants, it was required that the participants must have at least four year of General English teaching experience in order to allow the depth of experience and perspectives on the effectiveness of the General English program. The participants were recruited by either email or phone, through which the research purpose and their role in the study were explained. Two of the teachers were also currently the coordinators of the program, contributing to program development. Information of the participating teachers is presented in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Participants’ profiles
Full size table

Following their consent, each teacher participated in a semi-structured interview which was conducted in Vietnamese, the mother tongue of both the interviewer and interviewees in order for them to express their opinions at their best convenience. Each of the interviews lasted from 40 to 60 min. Data was collected between September and October 2019. The validity and credibility of data were ensured through the rigorous steps of developing, piloting, and conducting the semi-structured interview questions. The interviews were audiotaped in Vietnamese, transcribed verbatim in Vietnamese, analysed in Vietnamese, then significant quotes were translated into English.

Data were analysed using thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006), where Tomlinson (2017) five dimensions of employability: (i) human capital, (ii) cultural capital, (iii) identity/career capital, (iv) psychological capital, and (v) social capital served as pre-determined themes. First, each interview transcript was read line-by-line several times by two researchers before the initial codes were generated based on dimensions listed. The codes were gathered based on their similarities and put into categories. Data referring to two pre-determined employability capitals were analysed separately to see which subset of the pre-determined capitals fit the most. Salient themes and dimensions were reviewed and verified for coding accuracy. Finally, codes were selected from each category to provide evidence for the analysis and were then translated into English which was also double-checked by two independent translators for its original meanings.

4 Findings and Discussion

4.1 Perceived Effectiveness of the General English Program with Regard to Enhancing Students’ Employability

The study found that the General English program was perceived to contribute to developing students’ human capital (receptive English skills and soft skills predominantly), cultural capital (cross-cultural awareness and competence, not work-related cultures), and a certain degree of psychological dimensions (self-confidence in English learning). Social capital and identity capital, however, were believed to be overlooked.

4.1.1 Human Capital

Thirteen teachers agreed that the General English program helped develop students’ English skills and soft skills. In particular, all interviewed teachers agreed that the program helped to develop English skills for students but at a very basic level (A2 CEFR). Participant 06, for example, shared:

Yes, all English skills like reading, writing, speaking, listening and elements of language like grammar, pronunciation or vocabulary are integrated well to help students develop their language skills and competences according to the curriculum objectives: A2 level. (P06)

In response to the effectiveness of the General English program in developing productive skills (speaking and writing), however, many teachers (n = 11) questioned its effectiveness.

Students’ speaking skills are really limited, even with the highest General English course (at the university), students can only communicate a few basic sentences. (P14)

The General English program outcome is A2 level, which is primarily just basic communication purposes…. From my observation, the two skills that students are still struggling with after finishing their English program are speaking and writing. (P11)

The program should focus more on enhancing students’ communication skills: listening and speaking. (P13)

With regard to developing students’ soft skills, 100% of the teachers shared that the program incorporated a lot of soft skill tasks for students. The most popular skills developed for General English students included Information Technology (IT), information search, public speaking, presentation, teamwork, discussion, and critical thinking skills.

In terms of IT skills, yes, the program is effective, because there is an online component complementing the textbook. Students need to do activities online as part of their assessment practice. The activities in the book help students develop skills of working in groups, presentations and public speaking. (P12)

It is obvious that students can enhance their soft skills including group work, IT and presentation skills. Specifically, they are required to practice speaking, writing and reading in groups. Moreover, the online assignments force students to level their IT skills to meet the requirements of the course. In terms of public speaking skills, students are asked to deliver both individual presentations and group presentations. (P07)

The course itself targets to improve students’ critical thinking skills through the exercises in each unit. Self-study skills and info analysis are listed in the course syllabus…. For example, when it comes to reading the passage, I can ask the students whether they totally trust the information in the passage 100%, if not, I ask them to check the reliability by going online to look for the counterarguments…if they can argue with reasonable justifications, they will earn a bonus mark. (P04)

As for the food and drinks topic, I set up a situation in which students are divided into groups to make conversations. Through those situations, students learn how to solve problems. Also, they can introduce the specialties or typical food of their living place… Furthermore, many students can improve their IT skills through video-filming and subtitle-creating activities. (P02)

4.1.2 Cultural Capital

Most teachers (n = 12) agreed that the General English program contributed to developing students’ general cultural competence and intercultural competence. The teachers believed a lot of intercultural lessons and materials were introduced in the General English program.

The intercultural elements were embedded in the textbook and the materials. Students learn about different cultures and make conversations taking cultural factors into consideration. (P15)

However, the levels of intercultural competence taught were dependent on individual teachers’ practice and lesson design. For example:

I think we help the students develop cultural competence well. Our textbook focuses on the awareness of other cultures of different countries in the world. The key to successfully integrating intercultural lessons into English classes depends on how well the teachers design at the post-task phase (of the communicative approach). (P10—Coordinator 02)

It was also mentioned that due to time constraints, cultural capitals could only be partly introduced into the program.

The General English program offers some units related to cultural issues in other countries. For instance, students learn about some Malaysian festivals or local food in other countries …Although being introduced in certain parts of the program, intercultural competence is not the focus of the program. To fully understand a culture of a country, learners must encounter real-life situations. (P08)

Teachers can only introduce the cultural aspects mentioned in the course book… It’s impossible for teachers to assist students with improving intercultural competences due to time constraints. (P02)

In addition, 100% of the teachers shared concerns about the effectiveness of the program on developing students’ workplace culture. Although intercultural/globalised contents were mentioned, work culture was not perceived in the program. For example, two participants shared:

I teach students how to write emails in workplace settings. I teach them about the writing styles, and formats but in general, it only provides general information about one aspect of workplace communication. Workplace culture demands more complicated languages and work experiences. It is too high for General English students. (P06)

The coursebook doesn’t cover the work-culture-related feature. It partly introduces job interviews and dress code in general but fails to help students to have insights into work culture in a certain field. (P02)s

From the findings, it might be concluded that the General English program, in this context, does contribute to the development of students’ human capital and cultural capital. However, human capital and cultural capitals were perceived from a narrow perspective (Bridgstock, 2009), focusing on just students’ language skills (basic language level) and other soft skills at the workplace (IT skills, teamwork, public speaking, information searching, and analysis skills), whereas students’ competence in using English in their discipline (especially communication skills: listening and speaking) and applying work cultures and practices in specific contexts were not addressed. The program’s lack of focus in addressing students’ ability to use English in the workplace has been discussed in the literature in other contexts (Al-Mahrooqi & Denman, 2018; Belwal et al., 2017). The findings are also in line with Tsui and Tollefson (2017) or Vu (2019), who claimed that English education in Vietnam was just helping students develop linguistic understanding, and intercultural competence whilst practical language skills/abilities for job-readiness were ignored.

4.1.3 Psychological Capital

Current literature supports the important role of developing students’ self-confidence, resilience, and adaptability in higher education, especially in uncertain movements of the current global economy and job markets (Cai, 2013; Pham, 2021; Tomlinson, 2012, 2017; Zainuddin et al., 2019). In this study, nine teachers thought that the General English program was quite helpful in developing students’ self-confidence or patience. For example:

I believe the program helps students be more confident. For example, parts of my class assessments include oral presentations on a certain topic, which make my students become more confident in public speaking. The more they practice public speaking by presenting, either in groups or by themselves, the more confident they become… (P09—Coordinator 01)

In my class, students need to do a lot of group work, and then summarise their ideas to present to the class. At first, they were not comfortable, and shy to work in groups and present, but gradually, they became more confident sharing their ideas in English (even broken sometimes). (P06)

To some extent, when they did group work with their peers, they needed to help each other, the one more proficient was expected to help the less proficient, and they might learn to be patient with one another. (P10—Coordinator 02).

With regard to resilience and adaptability, teachers’ views tend to be doubtful. Half of the teachers (n = 7) questioned the ability to develop those psychological attributes for the General English students. For example:

Those attributes like adaptability or resilience, to me, are quite “general” and cannot be developed by just participating in the General English program. I don’t think the General English program can help students build up those attributes, considering the limited time we have with students. (P08)

I don’t think the program helps students to develop resilience or adaptability, to the best of my understanding. Those are the qualities they might gain from their living experiences, or maybe later years in their students’ life. (P02)

Overall, the teachers mentioned that the General English program might help develop students’ patience and confidence, through the introduction of group work or public speaking presentation activities. Nonetheless, other psychological dimensions that help students proactively respond to career challenges or life transitions such as resilience and adaptability (Tomlinson, 2017; Tomlinson & Tran, 2020) were totally absent. To some teachers, some of those psychological attributes could only be achieved in students’ later years at the university and in their transitions after graduation.

4.1.4 Social Capital

Most teachers (n = 11) were doubtful about the role of the General English program in connecting students to other stakeholders (recruiters, employers) and in helping them to network. It was explained that due to the time constraints and the focus of the program on only language outcomes, developing students’ social capital was not the responsibility of the General English teachers.

We only have three-period per week for General English. Networking between teacher-students or students-students is not even strong. The relationship (between teacher-students) is hard to build upon a limited class time like this, let alone incorporating other networking activities. (P10—Coordinator 02)

It would be difficult for teachers to include teaching social networking skills in the program due to our limited time. Those activities would be helpful to improve their social or networking skills, but we need to focus on their language skills first. (P07)

Our program was limited to just teaching basic English skills, and there was little role for us as teachers to help students network with employers. Sometimes the university organises some job fairs in which students are informed. The focus of the General English program to me is only to improve their basic language skills, maybe they can learn more about networking in their disciplines or through participating in extra-curricular activities which are organised by their disciplinary departments. (P14)

However, a few teachers (n = 3) suggested teachers have a role to play in orienting students’ networking skills, both in their social contexts, and in their future jobs. For example:

I think teachers have a role to play to help students extend their social networks. As an English teacher, we can encourage students to find out about certain companies they want to work for and connect with them in terms of social networking, following the company pages/Facebook pages. (P05)

We could incorporate activities in which students research their potential employers and how to reach them through emails or participation in their job fairs events. However, this might apply to only topics related to employment or social networking. (P12)

Clarke (2017) and Fugate et al. (2004) suggested that social networks could provide more occupational opportunities for students. Social capital or the ability to help students to network was not present in this General English program. The participants in this study generally believed that this should be the responsibility of the disciplinary departments. Currently, many other Vietnamese universities have started incorporating extra-curricular activities, internships, and study exchange programs to help students develop social capital (Bui et al., 2017; Tran & Nguyen, 2018; Tran, 2017a, 2017b). Tran et al. (2019) found that an at-home international program at a university could help students improve their social network much better than other programs (General English included) by promoting opportunities for students to network with leading experts and professionals as well as friends in and out of their fields, both locally and overseas (p. 826). Those activities, however, were designed for students of at-home international programs only. The role of the General English program in promoting students’ social capital was still vague.

4.1.5 Identity/Career Capital

All teachers were in agreement that the General English program did very little in helping the students develop their identity capital (e.g., exploring career direction, developing a sense of belonging to a certain industry, and having confidence in applying for a job etc.). The reasons justified by the majority of the teachers were the large number of students and the mixed disciplines of the classes.

In one class, there are many disciplines, uhm…for example, education students and IT students…who have different job purposes and personalities and even goal orientations. And there are usually 40-50 students in a class. I can’t go deep into inspiring them for a certain industry or encourage them to develop their identities for a certain industry either. I think their faculty can help them develop career identity better. (P01)

Students in our class come from different disciplines and it is impossible to orient their career identity. (P10—Coordinator 02)

Considering our program objectives and the mixed disciplines of our students, I think it is difficult for us to include elements related to identity or career belonging in our program. Maybe that is something their disciplinary faculty could do better. (P04)

Trede et al. (2012) argued that if career identity is encouraged, graduates tend to be more proactive in their desired career outcomes. However, little research has investigated how General English programs might help students improve their career identities. From this case study, it seems that the General English program did very little in inspiring students to explore their discipline/career or developing a sense of belonging to a certain industry. Tran et al. (2019) found that in one high-quality program in a Vietnamese university, the program could target career identity by helping them obtain the jobs they wanted and assisting students in navigating their career development. Teachers interviewed in this General English program, however, believed that disciplinary lecturers were responsible to help students identify “who I am or want to be” (Fugate et al., 2004).

4.2 Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of the General English Program

The findings reveal three factors influencing the effectiveness of the General English program with regard to employability: teacher-related factors, student-related factors, and management and administration-related factors.

4.2.1 Teacher-Related Factors

It is found that teachers’ English proficiency, teaching quality, and commitment of teachers were hindering the effectiveness of the General English program. In particular, some participants (n = 5) stated that due to teachers’ insufficient English proficiency and ineffective teaching methods, the program was not really good. For example;

As I can tell, some teachers have bad English pronunciation and students will imitate their bad pronunciation. I think … teachers should be encouraged to take English proficiency every two years to constantly improve their English proficiency. And also, teachers should include more ITs because they are teaching Generation Y. The situation at our department is the stagnation of the teachers, who do not want to apply innovative teaching methods or find ways to improve their own English proficiency. (P05)

Some teachers do not have very good teaching methods and they still used grammar-translation methods to teach English communication skills those days… (P15)

This was also observed by the program coordinator, as she insisted the English proficiency and the teaching competence of the teachers in the department was not similar. “The quality of teaching of our teachers is not the same and so does their motivation to teach” (P09-Coordinator 1).

Four other teachers also observed that General English teachers did not have the enthusiasm for teaching and spent little time for the lessons because they had very busy teaching schedules. One shared:

Some teachers tend to have very little devotion in teaching General English classes, and they did not want to use communicative teaching methods as designing those communicative activities could be time-consuming for them. This could demotivate the students. (P04)

The two coordinators also confirmed that the teachers of the program were not equally qualified and committed to teaching. In fact, permanent teachers of the General English Department were believed to be less committed than contracted teachers as contracted teachers needed to work hard to have their contracts renewed.

For contracted teachers, there is a threat to stop the contracts which stimulate teachers to invest more for the teaching quality, whereas tenured teachers tend to be less motivated to teach. Some teachers therefore are more committed to teaching quality than others. Some other teachers are busy with their teaching and come to class with less preparation. (P10—Coordinator 2)

Teachers’ English proficiency in Vietnam has been discussed in many studies (Dudzik & Nguyen, 2015; Vu & Ha, 2021) and the NFL has attempted to improve teachers’ language competence by delivering a lot of language competence training. Vu and Ha (2021), however, observed that although the NFL seeks to address teachers’ language competencies, it is unreasonable as the language proficiency of many student–teachers at the entry level is very low. Although under the NFL, it is expected that university teachers should have C1 English proficiency (CEFR), in reality, it is still a work in progress as it might take a while for teachers to achieve that level. In addition, it is noted that even with good English proficiency, some teachers cannot effectively use English for teaching purposes (Le et al., 2017; Vu & Ha, 2021). Vietnamese teachers’ teaching methods in English programs have been widely discussed (Hoang, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2015; Vu & Ha, 2021). It was suggested that more support for teachers’ professional development activities (using communicative teaching approach, using tasks-based portfolio in teaching language) is needed (Nguyen et al., 2015). Five out of the 14 teachers in this case study insisted that more professional development opportunities (e.g., using communicative teaching approach effectively) were needed. Those suggestions are in line with Dudzik and Nguyen (2015) and Al-Mahrooqi and Denman (2018) who believed that a more communicative approach to teaching English should be encouraged if English programs in non-English countries want to improve students’ communicative competence and other employability competence and skills.

4.2.2 Student-Related Factors

Most interviewed teachers (n = 12) perceived students’ low motivation as the most significant issue refraining them from learning English. Many teachers shared similar views:

The motivation of students in this program is worth discussing. Most of them (after graduating from universities) just want to go back to work in their hometown and for the local government [where English is not required], and they do not see the roles of English in their future employment prospects. (P10—Coordinator 2)

General English students have a very low level of English proficiency and they come to class just to pass the General English courses as they are compulsory. How can they have the motivation to learn? (P08)

Most of the students just wanted to finish the three General English modules as a requirement of the university. Some students even said they would go back to work in their hometowns in rural areas where local agencies or companies do not consider language competencies as a requirement of recruitment. (P01)

The perceptions of teachers in this study are similar to Nguyen et al. (2014) who accentuated students’ low motivation in language learning as the biggest problem associated with the General English programs in Vietnamese universities or to Trinh and Mai (2019) who suggested that even when General English was made mandatory, students still would not have the intrinsic motivation to learn English. However, Nguyen and Habok (2021) suggested that Vietnamese students could be more motivated to learn English if their awareness of the importance of English in the era of the fourth industrial revolution was addressed (p. 8). Contrary to the findings from this study, Nguyen and Habok (2021) believed that student’s motivation could improve if the English program shifts away from linguistics and exam-oriented to career development and communicative purposes.

In addition, being shy, and passive was addressed as another factor preventing students to use English in class and to interact with friends and others, as two participants shared:

General English students are timid and cannot communicate in English at all and this affects their interpersonal interactions with others. (P03)

When they are merged with other disciplines for groupwork activities, they do not want to blend in whatsoever when I asked them to do group work. Students are very passive, and they just don’t want to go out of their comfort zone. (P08)

This finding is in line with the past studies on how shyness prevents Vietnamese university students from communicating in English (Bui & Duong, 2017; Trinh & Mai, 2019). Wen and Clement (2003) persisted that group cohesiveness and attachment to group members are factors influencing students’ communication in the classroom and suggested teachers use group work activities to encourage students to overcome shyness and interact with other members in the class. However, Vietnamese General English students were believed to be passive and rote learners who are not familiar with engaging activities such as paired or group work, discussion (Trinh & Mai, 2019). The findings, therefore, support other studies (Bui & Duong, 2017; Trinh & Mai, 2019; Vu & Ha, 2021) in concluding that students’ cultural factors (shyness, passive, inferiority to friends of other disciplines, afraid of making mistakes, losing faces…) are one of the biggest factors hindering students to use English effectively.

4.2.3 Management and Administration-Related Factors

All interviewed teachers (n = 14) perceived the management and administration as another hindering factor to the effectiveness of the General English program. There were four distinct areas related to management as external factors of teaching: big class size, the program outcomes, teaching and learning incentives, and collaboration between departments/faculties.

Big class sizes and mixed-disciplined grouping were deemed as one factor influencing the effectiveness of the program, as one participant shared:

In one class, there are many students, ranging from 35-50 students, who are from many disciplines, uhm… and it is just tough for us to teach big and mixed classes. (P02)

Big class size is also a challenge and if language quality is to improve, language class size should be smaller. In accordance with the present results, previous studies (Bui & Duong, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2015; Trinh & Mai, 2019) have already demonstrated that class size should be reduced in order to help improve the effectiveness of English programs. Large class size was believed to hinder teachers from using communicative teaching methods (Trinh & Mai, 2019; Vu & Ha, 2021).

There was a consensus on the two coordinators and twelve teachers’ viewpoints about the low outcomes of the program (Level 2 VSTEP). The teachers agreed that the low outcome of the program restricted students’ ability to use English for employability purposes. As one participant said:

I think we can improve the employability of students by making a few changes in terms of program management, like changing the outcome of the program… I doubt whether recruiters will value the outcome (A2) we are targeting right now. (P10—Coordinator 02)

Some other teachers even believed that if employability is the focus of the program, then the outcomes should be aligned to some international testing systems such as TOEIC or IELTS because VSTEP Level 2 (the NFL Project) was too localised and cannot prepare students to use English communicatively for their future career.

I personally thought that with the current outcome of General English, once finishing the program, students will not meet what future employers want: communicating fluently in English. We need to adopt an international testing system as some other universities have done [TOEIC, IELTS]. (P11)

According to Decision 1400/QĐ-TTg (2008), the outcome of university students when finishing university should be equivalent to B1 CEFR (or Level 3 of VSTEP). The language outcome of this General English program was, therefore, one level lower. Employers might also expect students to possess an international English proficiency certificate depending on their workplace settings. Employers might also want students to use English in professional contexts rather than academic English or linguistic understanding (Vu, 2019). There is a need to reconsider the outcomes of the General English program considering the diverse and changing job markers nowadays in Vietnam (Tran, 2013).

In addition, the lack of teaching and learning incentives or financial resources was believed to discourage the effectiveness of the program. A few participants believed that grants, scholarships, bonuses could help improve students’ motivation. Teaching effectiveness was also affected due to the lack of incentives for teachers, which demotivated them in their careers. As one participant explained:

Teaching effectively or not, we are paid equally, so why do we have to invest more time designing soft skills activities for students? There is no incentive for teaching innovations. (P03)

When asked if the General English Department planned to help their students to develop social networking skills and communication skills by organising some extra-curricular activities, most participants agreed that those activities would be helpful but they could not do it as their budget was limited.

Extracurricular activities or job fairs or internship opportunities are great for students but due to the lack of financial and human resources, and the coordination with other departments, we are unable to organise it for our program. (P09—Coordinator 1)

The lack of incentives and funding for activities outside class time is quite common for General English programs in Vietnam. Activities, such as English speaking clubs or job fairs or music festivals that might help students improve their English and other skills (group work, public speaking, networking), are useful, but funding has always been an issue (Nguyen et al., 2015).

There also seemed to be a disconnection between the General English department and other faculties in the design of the English curricula. Most teachers (n = 11) mentioned that they did not know what were taught in other English programs (e.g., ESP, at-home international English programs).

There is no connection between our department and the other disciplinary departments. General English and ESP programs are different, and I do not know what they teach in ESP. High-quality (at-home international) programs also use different English curricula, so it seems like… we do not speak the same languages here (in our own university). (P06)

The disconnection between the ESP and the General English programs could also be counted as one management-related factor influencing the effectiveness of the General English program. In this context, the General English program was administered by the School of Foreign Languages, which includes three modules as discussed in the Methodology. After finishing those modules, students can choose to enrol in an ESP program administered by their disciplinary department. Teachers teaching ESP are recruited by the disciplinary departments, and the teachers could be either English teachers or disciplinary lecturers. The design of ESP programs is different from one faculty to the other (the outcomes and the module numbers) and it is not related to the General English program examined in this case.

Most of the teachers in this study suggested that some of the employability capitals (e.g., connection with external stakeholders, social networking, career identity, or knowledge of their disciplines in English, etc.) could only be developed through ESP programs, which were beyond their job responsibilities. Their perceptions align with Cigar (2013) and Harding (2007) who stated that ESP programs had a more pragmatic value and were more selective towards students’ occupational goals. However, it must be noted that although students’ demand for ESP was increasingly high, teaching ESP at Vietnam universities was found to heavily focus on grammar and vocabulary whilst English communication skills were also neglected (Nguyen & Pham, 2016). In the scope of this study, it is unclear how the ESP in this context helped students improve their employability, but it might be concluded that there was a disconnection between the two English programs with regard to the learning outcomes, interconnection of the two programs, and their collaboration opportunities.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

The present study explores teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the General English program with regard to enhancing students’ employability in one Vietnamese university. The results show that the General English program contributes to developing students’ human capital: English skills (with less efficiency on productive skills), and soft skills; cultural capital (cultural knowledge, intercultural competence, but work culture is excluded); and a certain degree of psychological capital (self-confidence). Social capital and identity capital were the overlooked capitals. The study also reveals three factors influencing the effectiveness of the program: students-related issues (low motivation, shyness, and unwillingness to communicate), teachers-related issues (English proficiency, teaching methods, and commitment), and management issues (large class size, outcomes of the program, incentives for program, lack of collaboration between the General English Department and other disciplinary departments).

In fact, although the General English program was perceived to focus on human capitals (helping students to develop linguistic knowledge and soft skills), the program was not effective in helping students to use English to communicate in real life and in the workplace. Findings in this study are aligned with studies that found English programs in Asian countries can successfully develop students’ linguistic skills, but fail to strengthen their employability for future education, work, and life (Belwal et al., 2017; Chuanpongpanich, 2021; Erling, 2014; Tsui, 2021). In line with previous studies (Bui et al., 2017; Tsui & Tollefson, 2017; Tran, 2017a; Vu, 2019), this study confirms that the examined English program did not provide students with sufficient practical language skills for their career development. The following recommendations could be considered to help improve General English program students’ communicative competence and address the employability dimensions that were overlooked. Firstly, it has been suggested that a student's self-learning skill, self-responsibility, adaptability, or resilience (psychological capitals) could be improved through using task-based learning, project-based learning, flipped-classroom in language teaching (Baker, 2012). Secondly, since online learning has become popular, it is recommended that language teachers should create online platforms or communities to help students develop intercultural exchange and network with their peers and potential recruiters (Mai et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). Interactions with selected virtual sites and foreigners could facilitate authenticity and participation in the language practice community and improve students’ motivation to learn English and become more career-ready (Nguyen & Habok, 2021). Finally, it is also highly recommended that work-related themes, extra-curricular activities (projects, job exhibition, recruiters’ exchange, internship, etc.) be incorporated into the General English curricula so that students’ employability is enhanced (Bui et al., 2017; Clarke, 2017; Tran, 2017a, 2017b; Tran & Nguyen, 2018).

Furthermore, the study supports the claims that teachers’ qualities and commitment remain a challenge in English education in Vietnam (Hoang, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2015). On-going professional development training with a focus on teaching English communicatively and using new approaches such as task-based or project-based should be conducted more often and effectively (Baker, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2015). It is, however, advised that the varying needs of the students and teachers should be considered in teachers’ professional development opportunities and that the delivery of the training should be designed in a more interactive and sustained way, rather than the so-called intensive, one-off training workshops (Nguyen et al., 2019; Vu & Ha, 2021). Nguyen et al. (2019) asserted that professional learning activities (e.g., peer observation, peer mentoring, instructional rounds, action research) for teachers should be on-going and interactive to help teachers reflect, collaborate, and improve their teaching practice. If teachers are motivated to teach and are competent to teach, issues related to students’ motivation and shyness could be overcome.

The lack of resources (facilities, class size, budget for extra-curricular activities) mentioned in this study has been addressed in the literature (Tran, 2013; Trinh & Mai, 2019; Vu & Ha, 2021). If class size was smaller and there were more human and financial resources allocated for the English programs, the program could have done better with regard to employability. In specific, funding for English programs to embed work-related elements (projects, guest speakers, job fairs…) should be allocated. Curriculum developers and administrators need to also consider the shift from linguistic and exam-oriented English teaching to one that focuses on communicative purposes and career development (Nguyen & Habok, 2021; Tran, 2013). As Tran (2013) put it “there is a need to re-design English classes, to reconsider the aim and the focus of English teaching in English non-specialized programs” (2013, p. 138) as it is not clear if students learn General English for what purposes: for communicative purposes, for academic purposes, or for occupational purposes. If possible, the role of the General English program in helping other more advanced English programs such as ESP should be articulated. Indeed, participants in this study revealed that developing certain employability capitals (identity/career or social capitals) should be the responsibility of the ESP program and the disciplinary faculties, not the General English program. More collaboration amongst different English programs administered by different disciplinary faculties is needed to address the gaps described in this study.

This study only involved 14 teacher participants; thus, whilst it reflects the perceived effectiveness and contribution of the General English program with regard to students’ employability at a Vietnamese university, the findings are not typical for all General English programs in Vietnamese universities. Future studies can consider using interviews and a large-scale survey with students, graduates, and employers to add more perspectives on the effectiveness of the program regarding students’ employability. Overall, the present study makes two contributions to the field of English language teaching (General English programs) and employability capitals at universities. First, it fills the gaps in research related to a General English program and its roles in developing students’ employability in a Vietnamese context. The effectiveness or challenges of the program were discussed using the holistic approach to employability. Pedagogically speaking, it reveals some gaps in the design and implementation of one General English program and suggests strategies that teachers, policy developers, and administrators could adopt to improve the program effectiveness. Secondly, the study provides empirical evidence to support the overlooked employability capitals (social, identity/career and psychological capitals) which have been argued as necessary for students’ career development (Bates et al., 2019; Clarke, 2017; Jackson, 2016; Pham, 2021), from a Vietnamese university context. The study concludes by providing suggestions to embed more employability capitals in the language programs so that graduates could be well-prepared for their career development and career sustainability (Pham, 2021; Tomlinson & Tran, 2020).