Repositioning and Modifying the Contemporary Approach to English Language Education for Vietnamese Graduate Employability Enhancement

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the main findings of the previous chapters to tease out the key messages of the whole book project. We note down the contribution of English language education to the development of Vietnamese students’ employability and its influence on their career prospects. We also provide a clearer picture of how English language education has been conducted in Vietnamese higher education institutions, amidst the vigorous English language teaching and learning reforms in the country. Identifying the limitations of English language education in preparing students for the world of work, we argue that there is a pressing need to consider changing the approach to English language education, focusing more on the use of the language at the workplace and moving away from testing students’ acquisition of linguistic abilities or introducing cultural snap-shot of English speaking countries. Extending Kumaravadivelu’s (Beyond methods, Yale University Press, 2003) macro-strategic framework, we propose a new approach to English language teaching and learning that can better foster the development of Vietnamese graduates’ employability.

1 Introduction

This book aims to explore stakeholders’ perspectives about the role of English language education in enhancing graduates’ employability and their experiences with the current practices of English language education in Vietnam, with a focus on its preparation of students for work. As presented in the previous chapters, we found a positive relationship between English language education and students’ development of graduate employability as well as some evidence of its contribution to Vietnamese graduates’ employment and career outcomes. We also identified a couple of issues that are hindering the effectiveness of English language education in the country in focus—Vietnam. In this chapter, we will summarize the main findings of this book project and propose a new approach to English language education to make it more effective in regard to preparing students for work and life; this proposed approach can be applicable in Vietnam and beyond.

2 English Language Education and Its Impact on Graduates’ Employability Development and Outcomes

In Part II of this book, we presented five empirical studies that looked into how students’ employability capital can be developed via learning English. Drawing on students’ and graduates’ perspectives, we found that English language education generally fosters the growth of students’ employability capital. According to Tomlinson (2017), employability capitals include human capital (technical knowledge and skills, soft skills, accrual work experiences), social capital (social network within and beyond a work sector), cultural capital (knowledge about how an industry works), psychological capital (attributes that help graduates to be more agile in their career development), and identity capital (a sense of belonging to an industry, professional field or work role).

In Chapter 5, the authors examine how English language education assists with students’ development of general knowledge and skills, as part of human capital, necessary for their future employment in the fields of Hospitality and Tourism and Information Technology graduates. Using data collected from 16 interviews and a survey with 200 students/graduates, the authors show that English language education enhances students’ access to the latest learning resources in English, contributing to advancing their professional knowledge and skills. English language education also helps develop their communication, work-related and people skills. Based on such evidence, the authors conclude that English language education can greatly help develop human capital for students.

In Chapter 6, the authors report a mixed method case study about how different forms of English language education foster the development of social relationships that can enhance employability, using the experiences of undergraduates and graduates of Information Technology and Tourism Management. The results showed that formal English language education received the highest rate of participation amongst participants. However, non-formal and informal English language education was reported to assist them with developing social relationships. Likewise, social relationships established from English learning activities outside the formal system were found to contribute to graduate employability more than that of the formal one.

The study reported in Chapter 7 investigates the development of cultural capital through learning English language and how such cultural capital contributes to English language learners’ employability. Using semi-structured interviews with 11 participants from eight academic disciplines, the authors found that cultural capital could be developed through formal, non-formal, and informal forms of English language learning. They also found that cultural capital also fosters the growth of human, social, psychological, and career identity capital.

Some personal attributes and soft skills such as self-efficacy, adaptability, resilience, and flexibility are considered psychological capital by Tomlinson (2017). They help graduates adapt and respond proactively to career challenges. Chapter 8 explores how English language education contributes to the development of students’ soft skills and personal attributes. Using 30 small focus groups with students, the author found that amongst the thirty-two listed soft skills and attributes, oral communication, self-efficacy/confidence, teamwork ability, problem-solving skills, proactiveness, and information management skills were voted as the most developed via English language education. This study also found that different types of classroom tasks and a certain kind of extra-curricular activities—such as the English speaking club—contributed to undergraduates’ development of particular soft skills and personal attributes.

Finally, in Chapter 9, the authors explore how career identity can be developed via learning English. Using a narrative research design, the authors interviewed two preservice teachers of English to explore the research issue. The study identified the preservice teachers’ levels of investment made towards English language learning, abilities to draw on English language learning experiences to articulate a narrative of career identity, and self-concepts relating to their future role as teachers of English. These findings show that the participants’ longitudinal English language learning experiences essentially contribute to the development of their identity capital, which they could use to develop and project themselves as employable graduate teachers.

As such, our book confirms previous studies about the contribution of English language education to the development of human capital (Aclan et al., 2016; Doan & Hamid, 2019; Kostikova et al., 2021; Tevdovska, 2015), and career identity (Gao et al., 2015; Yihong et al., 2005). It further provides empirical evidence about the connections between learning English and the development of social networks, understanding of work culture, and the growth of psychological attributes and personal qualities. Such findings are distinctive contribution of our book project as there have virtually been no studies about such connections. Future studies, conducted in different contexts, need to continue to explore and measure the contribution of English language education to students’ development of different types of employability capital so that our insights in these respects can be confirmed with adequate evidence.

3 Current Challenges of English Language Education in Vietnam

In Part III of this book, we presented six empirical studies that explored the effectiveness of different English courses in terms of developing graduate employability. Whilst these studies suggest some positive results, they also identified several inhibitors to English language education in the current context of Vietnamese higher education.

Both Chapters 10 and 11 investigate the effectiveness of General English courses offered in Vietnamese universities, with a focus on how it contributes to students’/graduates’ employability. In Chapter 10, the authors obtained the feedback of the currently-employed graduates on their experiences with the General English courses and how such courses benefited their work performance. The analysis revealed that overall the employees found that the English courses equipped them with good English knowledge and skills that could support their communication at work. However, in their views, several aspects of the English courses could be further improved to better prepare students for the world of work: (i) theory-based curriculum, (ii) unauthenticity of teaching activities, learning materials, and assessment tasks, (iii) a lack of ongoing feedback from using formative assessment so that students can improve their weaknesses, and (iv) students’ inability to self-regulate their learning. The authors discuss measures to improve such inhibitors so that the General English courses offered by Vietnamese universities can be more effective in preparing their students’ English skills for employability.

In Chapter 11, the authors report a case study about teachers’ perspectives on (i) the effectiveness of a General English program in a Vietnamese university with regard to enhancing students’ employability and (ii) factors influencing the effectiveness of the program. The authors found that in teachers’ perspectives, the General English program helped strengthen students’ employability mainly through the development of English receptive skills, soft skills, and intercultural competence. They found that (i) students’ motivation and shyness, (ii) teachers’ English proficiency, teaching quality, and commitment, and (iii) administration and management issues inhibited the effectiveness of the program.

Chapter 12 moves forward to investigate the effectiveness of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) programs offered in Vietnamese higher education institutions. The study reported in this chapter used graduates’ self-reflected experiences to examine the contribution of ESP courses to Vietnamese graduates’ employability. The analysis showed that these ESP courses contributed to the development of specialized English language, knowledge, and generic skills that enhance graduates’ employability. The authors also identified limitations of ESP courses in terms of the course designs and teaching practices.

Chapter 13 explores the implementation of English as the medium of instruction (EMI), one of whose purposes is to enhance graduates’ employment prospects, in Vietnamese universities. Using the experiences of teachers and current students, the authors found that for teachers, the program required them to possess a good command of English and innovative pedagogical skills that they are unfamiliar with, resulting in lowered teaching quality. Students faced difficulties in understanding the lessons and learning tensions most likely caused by the language barriers, long-standing question-suppressing teaching culture, and mismatches between academic expectations and students’ dependent learning habits. These issues, in turn, appeared to hinder the development of students’ employability. The good news was that the authors found that the situation improved from the first to the final year, with students being extensively exposed to English and constantly exercising their personal agency to improve their English and enrich their learning.

Chapter 14 explores teacher perceptions and practices of culture teaching in English classes at a Vietnamese university. Data for the study were collected from classroom observations and interviews with fourteen teachers of English language in a Vietnamese university. The findings indicate that although the participants were aware of the inextricable relationship between language and culture, their perceptions of culture teaching centred around topical dependence, priority of language over culture in language teaching, inadequate exposure to culture in language courses, and other constraints on culture teaching. Their teaching practices were dictated by traditional approaches to culture teaching, which focused on cultural knowledge about English speaking countries.

In this increasingly digitalized world, it is insufficient to investigate English language education without taking into account online English courses. These courses are often taken out of the formal English language education offered by Vietnamese higher education institutions. Chapter 15 reports a study that explored factors influencing foreign language learners’ decision to take English online courses, challenges associated with pursuing online learning, and the impact of such learning experiences on their employability. The authors used semi-structured interviews to collect data from 20 Vietnamese online learners of English. The authors found several factors encouraging participants to select online English courses, including time flexibility, teacher–student interaction, cost-saving, recommendations from friends, teaching and learning materials, and teaching methods. They also identified issues encountered by learners when taking these online English courses in terms of practicality issues and professional competence of online instructors.

As such, stakeholders involved in this book project confirmed that the current English language education in Vietnam, mostly at the higher education level, enhanced the development of students’ employability capital and graduates’ work-readiness to some extents. They also helped identify different blockages of the effectiveness of such English language education. These include management and administrative practices as well as issues associated with curriculum design and content. These issues have been identified in previous studies (e.g., Nhung et al., 2020; Tran, 2018a), and yet they have not been adequately addressed. In addition, several student-related factors also inhibited English language education from effectively equipping them with capital for their employment and career prospects. The most critical issue from the student part is their dependent learning behaviours and inability to self-direct their learning, which have been a concern in the process of English language education reforms in Vietnam (Dang, 2010; Ton & Pham, 2010; Tran & Tran, 2020a, 2020b; Tran et al., 2014). Most importantly, six studies in Part II of this book consistently revealed that the main obstacle of English language education in Vietnam is related to teachers, with their perspectives and beliefs towards an appropriate way to teach English, the particular pedagogical practices they adopt, their commitment to teaching, and their teaching experiences. Such teacher-related factors can be associated with some practicality issues that their institutions fail to afford, such as large class sizes, time constraints due to inadequate time allocated to each English class, a lack of teaching–learning resources, a heavy teaching workload, insufficient teacher professional development, etc. (Le, 2019; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019; Nhung, 2019). In short, it is important to tackle these challenges so that English language education reforms in Vietnam can progress and better help develop employability for students, contributing to their employment and career outcomes.

4 Introducing a New Approach to English Language Education: A Macro-Strategic Framework

The previous two sections have summarized the main findings reported in the previous chapters. Whilst stakeholders pointed a positive relationship between English language learning and graduate employability, they suggested that the current English language programs in Vietnamese higher education have failed to prepare their students for employability and employment purposes. This highlights the urgent need for English language educators in the Vietnamese higher education context to search for new teaching practices, taking into account the role of English as a key component in enhancing graduate employability, not solely for linguistic or cultural understanding. This section will propose a new approach to English language education. It will start with a comparison between the traditional and contemporary pedagogical approaches to English language education, and then introduce the macro-strategic framework for English language teaching for employability (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). It is then followed by some ideas about how to make good use of learning opportunities beyond the classroom-based activities.

4.1 Traditional vs. Contemporary Pedagogical Approaches

From a broad perspective, English language teacher educators and teachers themselves should balance traditional teaching and learning approaches and the contemporary ones, based on the demands of the Twenty-First Century (Triling & Fadel, 2009). To strike such a balance, Triling and Fadel (2009) represent two ends of a continuum between more traditional versus more contemporary pedagogical approaches. From the traditional end, pedagogical approaches focus much on the teacher’s role, seeing the learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, theory, and basic skills. Knowledge is defined as students’ knowledge of facts and principles. In terms of design, a course is curriculum-based with fixed time allocation and one-size-fits-all. The course is often delivered inside a classroom where students interact with the text as the learning materials and use competing amongst students are used as learning motivations. Traditional approaches often place much importance on summative tests at the end of the course; thus, it serves students’ learning for school purposes only. On the other end, contemporary pedagogical approaches promote the role of the learner in their learning processes. They emphasize practice and prepare students for life, and as such, learning outcomes focus much on skills, the ability to apply the skills, and competence development. Courses are personalized to the needs of the students. They are project-based and delivered on demand instead of fixed, placing importance on student collaboration. Courses are often designed to allow learning to occur in the global community. They may also expand to the virtual world, where students can work on web-based content. Various formative assessment forms are used in the course for the learners to identify and improve weaknesses. Commenting on these two ends, Triling and Fadel (2009) noted, “Clearly it will take the best from the entire range of learning practices represented to successfully prepare our students for their [employability] future, with the approaches on the right side of the chart becoming more and more important as we move through our century” (p. 40).

With specific reference to pedagogical approaches to English language teaching and learning, in a recently published book titled Contemporary Foundations for Teaching English as an Additional Language: Pedagogical Approaches and Classroom Applications, Vinogradova and Shin (2020) asserted that approaches to teaching and learning English are not binary categorizations. They pointed out the global shift from the one-size-fits-all, knowledge-based and text-based approaches (the hallmark of traditional approaches) to more contemporary ones that put English language learners, the English skills, and web-based learning at the centre of our educational goals. In light of this, new practices for English language education in the Vietnamese higher education contexts need to consider this global shift and incorporate all the increasingly important characteristics of the contemporary approaches to teaching and learning (Triling & Fadel, 2009). However, it does not mean that traditional approaches should be avoided at all costs, but they can be used in appropriate situations and when they suit learners’ needs.

4.2 A Method(s) or a Pedagogical Framework for English Language Classroom Applications

A review of the literature on how to teach English in actual classrooms indicates that there has been a debate with contrasting views over which “method” is the best to teach English for more than half of a century. In 1990, Prabhu wrote an influential paper called “There is no best method - why?”, and in the following year, Allwright published another called “The Death of Method”. In an attempt to summarize methods of English language teaching, Thornbury (2017), an internationally recognized academic and teacher trainer in the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) published a book on 30 Methods of Language Teaching in 2017. These 30 methods are grouped into five categories, namely, natural methods, linguistic methods, communicative methods, visionaries, and self-study methods. In terms of what happens in actual classrooms, according to Thornbury (2017, p. ix), language teachers “seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them”. Thornbury (2017) commented that though most training courses and methodology texts include a section on “the history of methods” and this typically takes the form of a “modernist” narrative, i.e., one of uninterrupted progress from “darkness into light”, language teaching methods not only co-exist, often for long periods of time, but also are continuously re-invented out of the same basic ingredients.

To reinvent new practices of teaching and learning in actual classrooms, it is essential for English language teachers, both novice and experienced ones in Vietnam, to be aware of and equipped with a systematic framework of the basic ingredients. With this in mind, rather than advocating for a particular “method” or “methods”, this book follows Kumaravadivelu (2003), a seminal researcher in the field of English language teacher education, who highlights a need for a macro-strategic framework in English language education. This framework can enable English language teachers to develop the knowledge, skill, attitudes, and autonomy necessary to devise for themselves a systematic, coherent, and relevant personal theory of English language teaching practice for employability.

4.3 A Macro-Strategic Framework for English Language Education

Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) macro-strategic framework is an alternative to method where language teachers have complete autonomy to choose and develop teaching strategies suitable for their classroom with the guidance of principled pragmatism. The macro-strategic framework for English language teaching consists of macro-strategies and micro-strategies. A macro-strategy, according to Kumaravadivelu (2003), is a general plan, or a broad guideline based on which teachers will be able to generate their own situation-specific, need-based micro-strategies or classroom techniques. Macro-strategies are defined as guiding principles derived from historical, theoretical, empirical, and experiential insights grounded in L2 classroom-oriented research and are made operational in the classroom through micro-strategies (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, 2006). In other words, macro-strategies in Kumaravadivelu’s proposed framework serve as the basic ingredients for language teachers to develop their own classroom teaching techniques as they see fit for their own classrooms.

The macro-strategic framework, as Kumaravadivelu (2003, p. 43) puts it, “seeks to transform classroom practitioners into strategic thinkers, strategic teachers, and strategic explorers who are recommended channelling their time and effort in order to:

• Reflect on the specific needs, wants, situations, and processes of learning and teaching;

• Stretch their knowledge, skill, and attitude to stay informed and involved;

• Design and use appropriate micro-strategies to maximize learning potential in the classroom; and

• Monitor and evaluate their ability to react to myriad situations in meaningful ways”.

It includes ten macro-strategies:

• 1. Maximizing learning opportunities both inside and outside the language classroom

• 2. Minimizing perceptual mismatches between the learners’ interpretations, teachers’, and teacher educators’ intentions

• 3. Facilitating negotiated interactions

• 4. Promoting learner autonomy

• 5. Fostering general and critical language awareness

• 6. Activating intuitive heuristics

• 7. Contextualizing linguistic input

• 8. Integrating language skills

• 9. Ensuring social relevance

• 10. Raising cultural consciousness

Along with the ten macro-strategies, this framework is founded on the three parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility, which “constitute the operating principles that can guide practicing teachers in their efforts to construct their own situation-specific pedagogic knowledge in the emerging post-method era” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 40). These three parameters make the macro-strategic framework a three-dimensional one. Each of these three parameters will be discussed below.

• The parameter of particularity: It requires that any language pedagogy, to be relevant, must be sensitive to a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners pursuing a set of specific goals within an institutional context. This parameter of particularity then is opposed to the notion that there can be an established method with a generic set of theoretical principles and a generic set of classroom practices. It starts with practicing teachers, either individually or collectively, observing their teaching acts, evaluating their outcomes, identifying problems, finding solutions, and trying them out to see once again what works and what doesn’t in particular contexts. Such a continual cycle of observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for the development of context-sensitive pedagogic theory and practice of English language teaching for employability. Following the requirement of the parameter of particularity, English language teachers in Vietnam need to develop their ability to be sensitive to the local Vietnamese educational, institutional, and social contexts in which English language learning and teaching take place.

• The parameter of practicality: It relates to a much larger issue that directly impacts on the practice of classroom teaching, namely, the relationship between theory and practice. The parameter of practicality entails a teacher-generated theory of practice and recognizes that no theory of practice can be fully useful and usable unless it is generated through practice. The intellectual exercise of attempting to derive a theory of practice enables teachers to understand and identify problems, analyse and assess information, consider and evaluate alternatives, and then choose the best available alternative that is then subjected to further critical appraisal. In this sense, a theory of practice involves language teachers’ continual reflection and action, together with their insights and intuitions. The parameter of practicality, according to Kumaravadivelu (2003, p. 36), requires that teachers view pedagogy not merely as a mechanism for maximizing learning opportunities in the classroom but also as a means for understanding and transforming possibilities inside and outside the classroom. Following the requirement of the parameter of particularity, English language teachers in Vietnam need to develop abilities to reflect and embark on continuous reflection on their classroom teaching practices.

• The parameter of possibility: It is derived mainly from the works of critical pedagogists who take the position that any pedagogy is implicated in relations of power and dominance, and is implemented to create and sustain social inequalities. They call for recognition of learners’ and teachers’ subject-positions, that is, their class, race, gender, and ethnicity, and for sensitivity towards their impact on education. In the process of sensitizing itself to the prevailing socio-political reality, the parameter of possibility is also concerned with individual identity.

One way to conceptualize this macro-strategic framework is to look at it three-dimensionally as a pedagogy of particularity, practicality, and possibility. The parameter of particularity seeks to facilitate the advancement of a context-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy that is based on a true understanding of local linguistic, sociocultural, and political particularities. The parameter of practicality seeks to enable and encourage teachers to theorize from their practice and to practice what they theorize. The parameter of possibility seeks to tap the socio-political consciousness that participants bring with them to the classroom so that it can also function as a catalyst for a continual quest for identity formation and social transformation. Inevitably, the boundaries of the particular, the practical, and the possible are blurred. As Fig. 16.1 shows, the characteristics of these parameters overlap. Each one shapes and is shaped by the other. According to Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2003), they interweave and interact with each other in a synergic relationship where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The result of such a relationship will vary from context to context, depending on what the teachers bring to bear on it.

Fig. 16.1

(Adapted from Kumaravadivelu [2003])

Parameters of a macro-strategic framework

This macro-strategic framework is “a set of tools” to be creatively used to develop English language teachers’ own theory of teaching practice and has its strengths. Institutions and teachers can be used it as a checklist to critically review the current practices of English language teaching and learning in a particular context to see which macro-strategies are being well implemented and which ones are missing or not doing well. One strength of adopting these macro-strategies is language teachers’ and learners’ collaborative roles in the actual classroom, which are of importance for building social capitals. Another strength is that this framework seeks to inform English language classroom teachers’ day-to-day teaching, providing them with a possible support mechanism, which can “be used by teachers to self-observe, self-analyse, and self-evaluate their own teaching acts” to “begin to theorize from their practice and practice what they theorize” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 43). In addition, to actualize this framework, language teachers can use the ten suggested macro-strategies to design their own situated micro-strategies. Such a strategic activity, if carried out seriously and systematically, has the potential to transform teachers into strategic thinkers, teachers and explorers. Whilst the purpose of such a framework is to help teachers become autonomous decision-makers, it should, without denying the value of individual autonomy, provide adequate conceptual underpinnings based on current rhetorical, empirical, and experiential insights so that their teaching act may come about in a principled action. Last but not least, through the use of the framework, developing graduates’ English language proficiency to effectively communicate, engage, and perform in a globalized and multilingual world, has intersected with all the five kinds of human, social, cultural, psychological, and identity capitals which, as the previous chapters reveal, are essential for employability.

However, this macro-strategic framework does present challenges for English language teachers and teacher educators as many of them might not be well equipped with knowledge and skills needed to use these ten macro-strategies to design their own situated framework and to meet the three parameters of practicality, particularity, and possibility. Thus, this highlights the need for Vietnamese teacher education universities to revisit and re-evaluate their current English language teacher education practices. They should take into account the role of macro-strategy applications in actual English language classrooms as a key component in equipping preservice English language teachers with the needed skills, expertise, and capacity to assist their future students with the development of employability capital, not solely for linguistic, cultural, or methodological understanding.

5 Applying the Macro-Strategic Framework for English Language Education in Vietnam

Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) macro-strategic framework, with ten macro-strategies, is useful for implementing English language education in Vietnamese universities in regard to developing employability capital for students. It can be a reference point, not for teachers but also for institutional leaders, students, and other stakeholders in the process of reforming English language education for enhancing students’/graduates’ employability.

5.1 Teacher Roles

It is essential for English language teachers in Vietnamese universities to be aware of and have the abilities to creatively apply all these ten macro-strategies as the basic ingredients for an integrated pedagogical framework for Vietnamese graduates’ employability.

• 1. Maximizing learning opportunities both inside and outside the language classroom: In Vietnamese universities, most English language learners are unfortunately passive (see Chapters 10, 11, 13, and 14 of this book) and learning opportunities outside the language classroom are still limited, except if students pay to go to private commercial English language centres (Tran, 2018b). This macro-strategy, in Kumaravadivelu (2003)’s view, envisages language teaching as a process in which classroom teachers strike a balance between their role as managers of teaching acts and their role as mediators of learning acts whilst learners playing roles as partners, rather than passive ones, in the joint production of English language classroom discourse. For Vietnamese graduates’ employability prospects, classroom teachers should have a responsibility to create and utilize opportunities, for example, through learner involvement and teacher questioning inside the classroom, or connecting with the local and global community outside the classroom, thus helping learners capitalize on English learning to build their technical knowledge through Content and Language Integrated Learning—CLIL (i.e., human capital), knowledge about how a particular industry or industries work through English for Specific Purposes—ESP (i.e., cultural capital), and attributes that help graduates to be more resilient in their career development (i.e., psychological capital).

• 2. Minimizing perceptual mismatches between the learners’ interpretations, teachers’, and teacher educators’ intentions: In Vietnam, both learner training and the use of formal and informal questionnaire surveys for students’ evaluation of teaching have not yet been used as frequently as they should be, as revealed in Le et al. (2019). It may result in perceptual mismatches between learners’ interpretations, teachers’, and teacher educators’ intentions. According to Kumaravadivelu (2003), this macro-strategy emphasizes the recognition of potential conceptual mismatches between intentions and interpretations of the learner, the teacher, and the teacher educator. Adopting this macro-strategy, teachers in Vietnamese universities could train their learners to identify and express their thoughts on such potential mismatches. Learner training strategies can be followed by using an appropriate formal/informal questionnaire survey to get learners’ evaluative perceptions of a selected lesson, helping them be willing to raise their voices to communicate their formal/informal evaluation of teaching so that they would be more proactive in their future career development (i.e., psychological capital).

• 3. Facilitating negotiated interactions: This macro-strategy refers to meaningful learner–learner and learner–teacher classroom interactions in which learners are entitled and encouraged to initiate topic and talk to produce language outputs, not just react and respond (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Such interactions are essential for developing more human and social capitals than psychological, cultural, and identity capitals. To facilitate negotiated interactions in the classroom, the teachers need to be able to manage how learners talk (i.e., talk management) as well as what they talk about (i.e., topic management). Indeed, this macro-strategy can help tackle the issue that Vietnamese teachers of English seemed to focus more on topic management, and undue attention has not yet been paid to talk management (Dang, 2010).

• 4. Promoting learner autonomy: Vietnamese students are notorious for being dependent in their learning (Dang, 2010; Humphreys & Wyatt, 2014; Tran et al., 2014; Tran & Tran, 2020a, 2020b), and thus fail to direct their learning to achieve their learning goals (see Chapters 10 and 13). This macro-strategy involves helping learners learn how to learn, equipping them with the means (e.g., the learners’ awareness of learning strategies and the teachers’ effectiveness of learner training) necessary to self-direct and self-monitor their own learning. This could help produce autonomous learners who could learn how to build their own human, social, cultural, psychological, and identity capitals needed for employability purposes.

• 5. Fostering general and critical language awareness: This macro-strategy refers to teachers’ attempts to draw learners’ attention to the formal and functional properties of their L2 (e.g., formal–informal language use or the development of advanced skills in critical thinking, reading, and writing) in order to increase the degree of explicitness required to promote L2 learning (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Doing so, teachers may better facilitate the process of noticing or consciously raising learners’ language awareness, developing their linguistic and cultural knowledge (Nunan, 2001) which could serve as tools for developing their human and identity capital. Using this macro-strategy may help reduce the limited general and critical language awareness remains currently existing in English language classrooms in Vietnamese higher education institutions (Phan, 2020).

• 6. Activating intuitive heuristics: This macro-strategy highlights the importance of providing textual data, such as the activities and tasks in grammar-based books, so that learners can infer and internalize underlying rules governing grammatical and communicative usage (i.e., form, meaning, and use) (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). It lays a foundation for their further development of human and psychological capital. Unfortunately, Vietnamese teachers of English have been found to popularly direct teaching and rote learning as well as use exam-oriented pedagogies in Vietnamese universities (Phan, 2020; Tran, 2007; and Chapter 10 of this book). As such, this macro-strategy needs to be applied more intentionally to gradually remove the inertia of using traditional teaching and assessment methods in English classrooms.

• 7. Contextualizing linguistic input: It is observed that although linguistic input has been provided in English classrooms, not many teachers have paid due attention to contextualizing such linguistic inputs (see Chapter 10 of this book). This macro-strategy highlights how language usage and use are shaped by linguistic, extra-linguistic, situational, and extra-situational contexts (i.e., the contexts of culture) (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). The implementation of this macro-strategy could help the language learners realize that an appropriate and coherent text—whether spoken or written—can be created only if the realities are taken into consideration, facilitating the learners’ development of all the five capitals for employability, especially, the human and social capital.

• 8. Integrating language skills: In Vietnam, English language teachers still experience challenges in integrating skills in their classrooms due to personal and contextual constraints (Le et al., 2019). This macro-strategy refers to the need to holistically integrate language skills traditionally separated and sequenced as listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). An integration of all these four English language skills in classrooms, through teachers’ exploitation of various teaching and learning resources, other than commercially available textbooks, could get learners engaged in classroom activities and thus be equipped with social capital.

• 9. Ensuring social relevance: It is observed that teachers are still excessively dependent on the prescribed curriculum and commercial textbooks (Phan, 2020; Tran et al., 2014) and appear not to pay adequate attention to sociocultural, political, and economic aspects that learners bring to the class (see Chapters 10 and 13 of this book). This macro-strategy refers to the need for English language teachers to be sensitive to the societal, political, economic, and educational environment that shapes the lives of their learners and their linguistic and cultural identity, in which L2 learning and teaching take place, developing learners’ cultural, social, and identity capital. Aiming to be socially relevant, English language teachers in Vietnam must critically consider, amongst other things, the use of English language proficiency standardization (e.g., CEFR), the role of the home language, and the use of appropriate teaching materials.

• 10. Raising cultural consciousness: This is not an option but an obligation (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). This macro-strategy emphasizes the need to treat learners as cultural informants so that they are encouraged to engage in a process of classroom participation. It not only creates in the L2 learner an empathy towards and an appreciation for the culture of the English language speaking community but also puts a premium on their own Vietnamese cultural knowledge and values, laying the foundation for developing all the five capitals, especially, the cultural capital. It is also important to articulate culture in terms of understanding of work practices and work culture to fit with the language of employability (see Tomlinson, 2017). The use of this macro-strategy can result in Vietnamese learners’ meaningful cultural growth, through a meaningful negotiation of differences between the inherited Vietnamese cultures and the learned cultures of other countries as well as what is expected of them in the workplace of a certain labour market. It will help reduce the existing undue attention being paid to the language-culture connection strategy in English language classrooms in Vietnamese tertiary institutions (see Chapter 14 of this book).

5.2 Student Roles

The effectiveness of English language education in terms of preparing students’/ graduates’ employability should not rely solely on the work of the teachers. Students are key agents of their learning process and collaborators of the teachers; together they create meaningful learning experiences (Nel, 2017). Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) macro-strategic framework can be further developed for students to plan and execute their personal project of becoming more employable via learning English.

Parallel with teachers’ putting the possibility parameter into practice, students need to build an awareness about the importance of English for their future careers and identify English learning opportunities to help them achieve their career goals. Such learning opportunities can be within the classroom; or they can be out there in the communities such as volunteer work, or part-time job, which are often referred to as work-integrated learning profoundly applied for its conduciveness to students’ employability development (Jackson, 2015). It can be any events that students can participate to use and learn English by which they can connect with people, understand more about what is needed in the workplace. Having such an awareness and identification of learning opportunities function as a catalyst for students to construct their desired professional identity, which will direct them to proactively build up other employability capital so that the desired professional identity can be realized.

To align their learning with their teachers’ use of particularity parameter, students should engage with the identified learning activities to build up English competence and associated employability capital. With the support of the teacher’s pedagogical practices, or the affordances of real-world or virtual learning environment, students can construct their understanding of linguistic, sociocultural, and political particularities, which will foster the development of their sensitiveness of contexts. This is extremely important for them to develop cultural capital, i.e., understanding of the work practices or culture associated with a role or industry (Tomlinson, 2017), and soft skills, which are found to closely related to culture (Tran, 2019). It is also noted that teachers should focus on enhancing students’ autonomous learning ability so that they can perform well the learning tasks under this particularity parameter.

Parallel with the teachers’ ability to theorize from their practice and to practice what they theorize (i.e., practicality parameter), students should be able to practice what they believe to be important for their future careers and life. In this case, as students have already engaged with building employability capital that affords them to enter a target industry, they should actively transform themselves to become more employable, as acknowledged by others. High scores for English tests, English certificates, teachers’ compliments, awards, evidence of volunteer activity participation in which English is used, referees that they were connected with community-based English learning activities, etc. are examples that students can use for the purpose of transforming their employability. Without such evidence, the development of their employability is invisible. Finally, when the time is right, students can translate their English competence and associated employability capital into employment and career outcomes via job application processes. It is when students/graduates need to demonstrate their employability to prospective employers using the acquired skills and evidence pieces of their employability capital (Fig. 16.2).

Fig. 16.2

Students’ macro-strategic employability-enhanced framework via English learning

5.3 Institutional Roles

Any English language courses will not optimize their effectiveness without the support from the institution. Our book has identified that English courses offered by Vietnamese universities were not so effective in helping students develop employability capital via learning English due to a lack of management and administrative support; thus, teachers were disengaged and showed low levels of commitment with their role (Chapter 11). Institutions also appeared not to provide adequate resources for teaching and learning activities (Chapter 10). This is also related to curriculum design (Chapter 12) as this task in Vietnamese higher education institutions is mostly decided by institutional leaders (Phan, 2020; Tran et al, 2019). A lack of institutional support is also associated with teachers’ inability to use innovative teaching approach as they are insufficiently prepared for it (Chapters 10, 12, and 13) or the inertia in their perspectives about what and how to teach in their English courses (Chapter 14). Therefore, it is important that leaders of Vietnamese higher education institutions pay due attention to making English language courses a channel for students to capitalize on their English language competence and associated employability capital.

In particular, they need to firstly adopt an approach to English language education that can allow teachers to employ different teaching methods flexibly to suit the needs of developing English competence for a cohort of students with diverse learning styles and English backgrounds. Such an approach also fosters the growth of employability capital via learning English. As presented earlier, Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) macro-strategic framework can be a great starting point. In our view, curricula for English language programs may not be so important for the adoption of Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) macro-strategic framework, but there should be a common reference point for both teachers and students about what will be taught/learned and the expected learning outcomes. They are also important for quality assurance purposes, an increasingly influential practice in higher education (Do et al., 2017), and for standardization of English language achievements currently in use in Vietnam (Prime Minister, 2008).

Secondly, once the approach to English language education is selected, institutions need to articulate it clearly in policies, and even in implementation guidelines as research has consistently reported that in Vietnamese higher education, stakeholders often relied on leadership direction for the implementation of a policy instead of taking initiatives (Ngo, 2019; Tran & Tran, 2020a, 2020b). One of the most influential policies for English language education may be policies related to standardization of students’ learning outcomes, such as attainment of an English proficiency of Level 3 in the 6-level Foreign Language Competency Framework for Vietnam or get an overall score of 4.5 in the IELTS (The Government of Vietnam, 2014). Such a policy can importantly drive both teachers’ and students’ behaviours to achieve the learning outcomes specified for a course/program because they know that if students fail to meet such learning outcomes, they cannot graduate. Likewise, management tools, with incentives for excellent performers, should accompany the policy to ensure that everyone involved in executing the policy engage, or at least comply, with the objectives envisioned in the policy (Nguyen & Tran, 2019).

Thirdly, any successful implementation needs adequate resources (Ngo, 2019). To execute the policy of developing employability capital via English language education, it is important to invest in building or buying new teaching–learning materials that are work-focused instead of English textbooks aiming to provide students with English linguistic knowledge and skills via general contents. To catch up with the needs and lifestyles of the young generations, it is also important to have online learning resources that students can access for learning at their own pace and time. Setting up learning groups in Facebook or similar media channels can be alternative options (Kabilan et al., 2010); sharing YouTube learning resources may be helpful and inspiring, such as videos sharing learning experiences from successful English language learners or free lessons from private English language teachers or tutors around the world (Wang & Chen, 2020). However, online English learning can only be effective if students have already been able to study autonomously and developed online learning skills (Kuama, 2016; Wang & Chen, 2020); thus institutions also need to have an academic support unit to equip students with such skills as well (Tran & Tran, 2020a, 2020b).

Last but not least, building teacher capability is the central task of institutional leaders in implementing any teaching-related policies (Barrie et al., 2009; Tran, 2017a), not just with re-approaching English language education for embedment of developing graduate employability. As suggested consistently by the studies in Part III of this book, teachers appeared not to have successfully integrated the development of graduate employability in their English classes, mostly because of their lack of experiences in using innovative teaching methods, formative assessment practices, providing authentic teaching activities, and assessment tasks, etc. Therefore, it is imperative that institutional leaders impact on teachers’ beliefs about what, why, and how they should change their approach to English language teaching because their beliefs will powerfully influence their actual practices in the classroom (e.g., see Tran, 2017a). They should invest in building teacher capability appropriately so that they can be confident using teaching approaches or methods strategically to meet the three parameters—particularity, practicality, and possibility—which may not only benefit students’ acquisition of the language but also their development of employability capital. One of the most affective pedagogical approaches that has been found to positively enhance students’/graduates’ employability is work-integrated learning (Jackson, 2015). It may not be so unfamiliar in several disciplines, but it may be difficult to put into use in English courses for non-English majored students. Yet, we do not mean that it is impossible, as to be elaborated in the next section.

5.4 Community Roles

The society at large is also responsible for training a quality workforce, especially from the part of industry stakeholders who have complained about the lack of employability skills in fresh graduates. These stakeholders can support the implementation of the new approach to English language education by providing work-integrated learning opportunities, either in the community or in the classroom. Work-integrated learning has been found to positively enhance students’/graduates’ employability (Jackson, 2015). It can be done via two directions. On the one hand, institutions send students to the workplace, with such initiatives as student internships, work placements, field trips, service learning, to name a few (e.g., see Valencia-Forrester, 2020). On the other hand, institutions can bring the workplace into the classroom by adopting pedagogical practices imitating the work environment (e.g., project-based learning), using authentic learning materials (e.g., data, case studies, etc.) or inviting industry professionals or experts to act as a visiting/guest teacher (Doan, 2021; Hart, 2019; Rizvi & Aggarwal, 2005).

In the first instance, it may be difficult for English language teachers to organize the former for all students, especially concerning the large class sizes often seen in Vietnamese higher education institutions (Trinh & Mai, 2019). Therefore, such work-based or community-based work-integrated English learning may be limited to students that industry partner selected via competition. For example, Tourism and Hospitality students can apply for a short-term internship position at an international travel agency who only picked the most suitable ones for them. Other similar activities that can host more students include but are not limited to part-time jobs at an international fair, volunteer activities to welcome international tourists or for an international event, community development campaign, etc.

In the second instance, English language teaching–learning activities that simulate workplace activities or authentic materials can be used. For example, teaching students about the use of the modal verb “can” using a mock job interview is great as it helps students pick up the language use in a particular context. It will be greater if a real HR manager comes to interview students so that students not only learn the language, but also feel inspired by the professional, learn something useful from his/her advice and feedback, or simply learning from observing the way he/she talks and self-presents. Another example is to use project-based activities where students are asked to work in a team to solve an authentic work situation then present their solution in English. By that way, students can develop teamwork, analytical, and communication skills along the way executing that project and simultaneously develop their English competence.

Another activity that community members and industry partners can support the employability-focus English language education program is organizing free English speaking clubs, a type of extra-curricular activity (Tran, 2017b). Experienced professionals or senior students who speak fluent English can lead the club to discuss work-related topics in English. Participants can develop their English speaking skills and network with others who may give them relevant advice about the future careers. Similarly, such an activity can be organized virtually with Facebook groups that frequently post self-study English learning materials or organize virtual catch-ups between group members. Such activities may increase students’ openness, confidence, adaptability, and interpersonal skills, which are all important assets for employability.

5.5 A New Approach to English Language Education

The discussion up to now has pointed out that in order to successfully develop employability for students via English language education, it is important to adopt a new approach to English language education. We propose a macro-strategic employability-enhanced framework for English language education (Fig. 16.3). It is developed based on Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) ideas about a macro-strategic framework and our understanding about the process to develop employability capital, English language teaching–learning principles, and policy implementation.

Fig. 16.3

A macro-strategic employability-enhanced framework for English language education

Under this framework, English language teachers adopt a macro-strategic framework that enables them to organize teaching–learning activities in the classroom, focusing on three parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Specific strategies with recommended activities for English language teachers to consider have been discussed above. Students are placed in the centre of classroom activities, collaborating with their teachers to develop employability capital via English language learning. It is crucial to enhance students’ awareness of the importance of English and identify English language learning opportunities, both in and outside the classroom. Both tasks are parallel with the possibility parameter that the teachers implement. They need to engage with English language learning activities and proactively seize opportunities to develop employability capital via such English language learning activities where possible. These tasks are connected to their teachers’ practices that rely on the particularity parameter. Finally, students need to transform what they have learned or experienced into concrete evidence for employability capital: test scores, certificates, awards, positive feedback from the teacher or a stakeholder, etc. They can use such evidence to demonstrate their employability to prospective employers and convert such capital into employment and career outcomes. Such processes are parallel with their teachers’ practice of the practicality parameter.

To assist students, teachers need to adopt the ten macro-strategies discussed earlier to make their class more flexible, meet learning objectives, and enhance students’ autonomy in learning, as discussed earlier. Institutional leaders can support the implementation of employability-enhanced English language courses by developing teachers’ expertise and create institutional conditions that can enable them to use the macro-strategies. It is also vital that they provide clearly-articulated policies, incentivize and employ management tools to ensure that the implementation can progress and achieve the intended students’ learning outcomes. Real-world community and online community can also be of great resources for such a teaching–learning process, with the provision of work-integrated learning opportunities, extra-curricular or online learning resources. These resources are meaningful for the practice of English language skills and authentic development of employability capital outside the classroom environment.

6 Conclusion

This edited book aimed to explore key stakeholders’ perspectives about the role of English language education in enhancing graduates’ employability and their experiences with the current practices of English language education in Vietnam, with a focus on its preparation of students for work. Empirical findings revealed a positive relationship between English language education and students’ development of human, social, cultural, psychological, and career identity capital, all of which constitute graduate employability. There was also some evidence of the contribution of English language education to graduates’ employment and career outcomes. Our studies presented in this book also identified a couple of issues that are hindering the effectiveness of English language education in Vietnam. These issues stemmed from leadership and management, curriculum design, and foremost from teacher and student factors. Teachers appear not to have embraced the idea of developing employability for students in their English courses. Instead, they were largely used traditional teaching methods, which are blamed to hinder the development of skills and employability capital (Tran, 2018a). Where they used innovative teaching methods which are found to be conducive for skills development in the classroom (e.g., Hart, 2019; Jackson, 2015), they found difficulties associated with personal and contextual constraints. Their teaching activities and assessment tasks lacked authenticity, which created a gap between what being taught and how it can be used in the workplace. This resulted in a reduction in students’ motivation and engagement with learning as well as poor-quality learning experiences. From the part of students, the majority of them were aware of the importance of English in enhancing their future career prospects and attempted to learn the language. Unfortunately, the traditional teaching culture together with their inexperience in autonomous learning prevented them from effectively developing English language competence and associated employability capital.

Based on the findings, we proposed a macro-strategic employability-enhanced framework for English language education. This framework allows teachers to facilitate the advancement of a context-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy (particularity), encourage teachers to theorize from their practice and to practice what they theorize (practicality), and tap into the students’ socio-political consciousness to help students construct their identity formation and ambition to contribute to social transformation (possibility). This framework also attempts to help students develop their metacognition of what, why, and how they should act within English courses so that students can make good use of learning opportunities for the purposes of developing English language proficiency and employability capital useful for their future careers. The framework also denotes the collaboration between key stakeholders involved in training the future workforce, either face-to-face or virtual. Overall, it is a macro-strategy framework that aims to harness the potential of English language education in developing essential employability capital for graduates’ employment and career outcomes; this proposed framework, if carefully implemented, serves as a new approach to English language education that can be applicable in Vietnam and beyond.