Using competence-based approach in the development of a writing course for engineers at Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute.pdf

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
PHẠM THỊ THU TRANG
USING COMPETENCE-BASED APPROACH IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A WRITING COURSE FOR
ENGINEERS AT VIETNAM ATOMIC ENERGY INSTITUTE
(Sử dụng cách tiếp cận dựa trên năng lực để phát triển một
khóa học viết dành cho các kỹ sư tại Viện Năng lượngnguyên tử Việt Nam)
M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
HANOI – 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
PHẠM THỊ THU TRANG
USING COMPETENCE-BASED APPROACH IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A WRITING COURSE FOR
ENGINEERS AT VIETNAM ATOMIC ENERGY INSTITUTE
(Sử dụng cách tiếp cận dựa trên năng lực để phát triển một
khóa học viết dành cho các kỹ sư tại Viện Năng lượngnguyên tử Việt Nam)
M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Dr. Dương Thu Mai
HANOI – 2016

i
DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this thesis is entirely my own work. I have provided
fully documented references to the others‟ work. The material in this thesis has
not been submitted for assessment in any other formal course. I also accept all
the requirements of ULIS relating to the retention and use of M.A Graduation
Thesis deposited in the library.
Hanoi, 2016
Phạm Th Thu Trang

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis would not be fulfilled without the help of some people, and in some
ways, I would like to thank everyone who has taught me, inspired me, challenged me,
and supported me throughout the realization of this thesis.
I would like to express my deepest thanks to my beloved supervisor, Duong
Thu Mai, Ph.D, for her whole-hearted assistance, encouragement as well as her
profound guidance she gave me while I was doing my research.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all lecturers in
Faculty of Post-graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi for their interesting lectures which have inspired
me to conduct this thesis. Besides, I would like to send my gratitute to the teaching
experts at Vietnam National University, Hanoi who took part in my interview and gave
me orientation to edit the course guide.
I would also like to express my thanks to the leaders and working learners at
Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute for their willingness to participate in the research.
Without their help, this project could not be fulfilled.
Last but not least, I am most thankful to my family members who have always
inspired and encouraged me to complete this study.
Hanoi, 2016
Phạm Th Thu Trang

iii
ABSTRACT
Strong needs of working learners, urgent demands of occupation and great
expectation of leaders have revealed there is a call for designing a writing course at
Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute. This course with workplace orientation was
developed using competence-based approach so that the learning outcomes can meet
future staffing requirements of the nuclear organization. In this case, based on
understanding of VAEI context, learners‟ needs and employers‟ requirements analysis,
the paper is to explore the target genres, determine the specificity of writing
competences covered within the course, and then develop course schedules. Notably,
there have been no attempts in investigating this issue before. Hopefully, the paper
would investigate needed English written competences for engineers at Vietnam
Atomic Energy Institute and provide suggestions for the course components including
contents, objectives, teaching methods and assessment to implement the future writing
course under the light of Competence-Based Approach.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
1. Rationale.................................................................................................................1
2. Aims of study...........................................................................................................3
3. Research questions..................................................................................................3
4. Scope of study .........................................................................................................3
5. Methods of study.....................................................................................................4
6. Design of study........................................................................................................4
PART B: LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................5
Chapter 1- An Overview of the Competence-Based Approach............................. 5
1.1. Definition of Competence and Competency ................................................................5
1.1.1. Definition of Competence...................................................................................5
1.1.2. Definition of Competency...................................................................................5
1.2. Approaches in course designing ......................................................................................6
1.2.1. Skill-based approach..........................................................................................6
1.2.2. Content-based approach ....................................................................................7
1.2.3. Theme-based approach ......................................................................................8
1.2.4. Functional-Notional approach...........................................................................8
1.2.5. Competence-based Approach.............................................................................9
1.2.3.1. The application and features of CBA in course designing................................9
1.2.3.2. The application of CBA in English Language Teaching (ELT) ......................10
1.2.3.3. Course development process according to CBA ............................................12
Chapter 2- Theoretical Issues on Writing Course.............................................. 15
2.1. Nature of writing................................................................................................................15
2.2. English writing competence in theory and in reality ..............................................15
2.2.1. English writing competences in theory .............................................................15
2.2.2. Realization of English writing competence.......................................................17
2.2.3. Writing teaching approaches ...........................................................................22
2.2.3.1. The Product Approach ..................................................................................22
2.2.3.2. The Process Approach ..................................................................................23
PART C: METHODOLOGY............................................................................ 26
3.1. Context of the study ..........................................................................................................26
3.2. The study..............................................................................................................................27

v
3.2.1.Research questions............................................................................................27
3.2.2. Participants .....................................................................................................28
3.2.3. Data collection instruments..............................................................................28
3.2.3.1. Survey questionaire.......................................................................................28
3.2.3.2. Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................30
3.2.4. Data collection procedure................................................................................32
3.2.5. Data analysis ...................................................................................................34
3.2.5.1. Needs analysis by graphical method and simple percentage analysis.......34
3.2.5.2. Content analysis ..........................................................................................35
PART D: FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS................................................................36
4.1. Students’ needs and employers’ requirements analysis.........................................36
4.1.1. Needs from students‟ perspectives....................................................................36
4.1.2. Needs from employers‟ perspectives.................................................................44
4.2. Interview results of the 1st course draft – Editting the 1st course content ......46
4.2.1. Interview results...............................................................................................46
4.2.1.1. The appropriateness of the course objectives to students‟ language proficiency
..................................................................................................................................46
4.2.1.2. The completeness of the course content and materials...................................47
4.2.1.3. The coherence of course schedule and assessment scheme to the course
objectives...................................................................................................................48
4.2.1.4. The integration of teaching methods, teachers and students‟ roles ................50
4.2.1.5. The success probability of course implementation.........................................50
4.2.2. Decisions on editting the 1st
course guide.........................................................51
4.2.2.1. Course objectives..........................................................................................51
4.2.2.2. Course content and materials........................................................................51
4.2.2.3. Course schedule and assessment scheme.......................................................52
PART E: CONCLUSION........................................................................................53
5.1. Reflection on research process .........................................................................53
5.2. Recommendations.............................................................................................54
5.3. Limitations and suggestions for further study.................................................55
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................57
APPENDICES............................................................................................................ I

vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ADDIE Analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation
CBA Competence – based approach
CBESL Competency – based education in ESL
CBLT Competence- based language teaching
CBI Content-based instruction
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CSW Common Scale for Writing
ELT English Language Teaching
EOP English for Occupational Purposes
ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages
ESL English as Second Language
ESP English for Specific Purposes
ETS Educational Testing Service
FNA Functional-Notional approach
IELTS International English Language Testing System
L2 Second language
No. Number
SBA Skill-based approach
TBA Theme-based approach
TOEFL Test of English as Foreign Language
ULIS University of Languages and International Studies
VAEA Vietnam Atomic Energy Agency
VAEI Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute
VNU Vietnam National University

vii
LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES
Table 1. VAEI leaders‟ features in the semi-structured interview...............................33
Table 2. Experts‟ features in the semi-structured interview ........................................34
Chart 1: Course development process according to CBA ...........................................13
Chart 2. Stages of teaching writing under the product approach.................................22
Chart 3.1. Stages of writing process according to process approach ...........................23
Chart 3.2. Stages of writing process according to process approach...........................24
Figure 1. Tasks expected in thewriting course............................................................36
Figure 2. Major skills needed to support ....................................................................37
Figure 3. Aim at CEFR level of language proficiency................................................37
Figure 4. Genres of written documents needed to learn..............................................38
Figure 5. Genres of written documents with difficulty ...............................................38
Figure 6. Type of feedback expected in the course.....................................................39
Figure 7. The importance of assessment types ...........................................................40
Figure 8. The effectiveness of assessment types.........................................................40
Figure 9. The appropriate teaching methods...............................................................41
Figure 10. The students‟ willingness for self-study ....................................................41
Figure 11. The appropriate proportion of class time/self-study time...........................41
Figure 12. The effectiveness of the given lesson sequences .......................................41
Figure 13. The students‟ roles in the course ...............................................................42
Figure 14. The teachers‟ roles....................................................................................42
Figure 15. The types of materials included in a writing course...................................43

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
In the industrialized world, a great number of graduates, engineers and
businessmen, who are expecting to gain more advanced knowledge and open access to
the world, notably need English competences. Among English competences that
working learners seek training, achievement of English writing proficiency assumes
an enormous importance in fitting the heavy literacy demands of their employers. Not
only is it hard to imagine modern workplaces without English essays, commercial
emails, reports, case studies and journal articles but writing is also a key feature for
writers to demonstrate their understanding of subjects and their experiences.
Nevertheless, these kinds of experiences are extremely challenging to students
and may be especially frightening to those writing in a second language. This is not
only because different languages seem to have different ways of organizing ideas
and structuring arguments but because students‟ prior writing experiences in the
school, college or university do not prepare them for the literacy expectations of their
professional workplace. That is one of reasons why for the last decades, the matter of
educational contents corresponding to future job demands has become an essential
issue in educational reforms all over the world.
Due to widespread concern about the quality of students‟ learning process, in
particular, fluency in the conventions of writing in English at work, Competence –
Based Approach originated in response to increase calls for learning outcomes upon
course completion. The approach focuses on assisting students towards
writing competence in particular target genres so as to be more responsive to
professions‟ needs; in other words, familarizing them with writing English for
Occupational Purposes (EOP) (Auerbach, 1986).
As a result, writing course designers are supposed not simply to develop the
content of teaching writing generally but to recognise particular kinds of writing
which are valued and expected in one certain professional context. In details, EOP
practitioners need to make considerable use of the findings such as the literacy
demands to determine what is to be learned and to organise instruction around the
genres that learners need and the social contexts in which they will operate.
In the social context of Vietnam, one recent upsurge attempts in acquiring
English competence involves in human resource of nuclear field, when the network

2
of nuclear programs has spread in various regions of the world and Vietnam is
considering the introduction of Nuclear Power as part of its national energy strategy.
Related to this strategy, Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute (VAEI), Ministry of Science
and Technology is national research institute whose responsibility is to train and
develop man power in the field of atomic energy – the field encompassing a plenty of
international scientific studies and technological materials. Hence, building and
maintaining the availability of research workforce, who are competent in written
English, has been one of the most critical challenges of VAEI.
Meanwhile, the same issue as above-mentioned, “the abyss existing between
the goals of the academic and the professional world” inevitably exists at VAEI
(Dominguez and Rokowski, 2002). In particular, because of a discrepancy between
the university English language curriculum and requirements for jobs, almost all
graduates working here have deficiency of written English competences. As a
consequence, much concern of both themselves and their employers has been given to
the adequate outcomes of their written works in English to effectively serve the
occupational demands in a research institute.
Strong needs of working learners, high demands of occupation and great
expectation of leaders reveal there is a call for study of designing an EOP writing
course at VAEI. This course with workplace orientation should be developed using
competence-based approach so that the learning outcomes can meet future staffing
requirements of the nuclear organization. In this case, based on understanding of VAEI
context, learners‟ needs and employers‟ requirements analysis, course designers are to
explore the target genres, determine the specificity of writing competences covered
within the course, and then build up course guides and schedules. Notably, there have
been no attempts in investigating this issue before. It is, hence, of principal importance
to research the matter intensively at this Institute.
The aforementioned reasons have given rise to the development a writing
course in this study, in which competence-based approach is selected. Hopefully, the
researcher would make the contribution to complete an in-depth investigation of
needed competence in English written communication for engineers to shed some light
in the area where resources are limited.

3
2. Aims of study
As discussed earlier, the present study aims to develop an English writing
course regarding to professional preparation for VAEI staff. The course is similar to a
workplace-oriented language program since its main goal is to enable the learners to
use written English at work.
The first objective of the research is to interview human resources managers
and conduct a survey among engineers to identify and analyze their English writing
needs and expectation. The second, the paper aims to design the course guide,
including the description, learning objectives, contents, activities, materials,
assessment and testing. Accordingly, the course would be developed based on the
needs analysis. Finally, experts were invited to validate and evaluate the course in
order that necessary adjustments can be done according to their suggestions.
3. Research questions
In order to achieve the above-mentioned aims, the following research questions
are raised in the study:
1. What are the components of a writing course using competence-based
approach for engineers at VAEI?
2. What are the teaching experts‟ opinions of the developed need-based
competence-based writing course?
4. Scope of study
The development of a EOP writing course using competence - based approach
is such a broad topic that it can not be wholly discussed within the framework of this
paper. Thus, this minor thesis is restricted in touching upon the theory and application
of Competence – Based Approach in English Language Teaching, particularly in a
workplace – oriented writing course, the theory and realization of English writing
competences in Literature Review. Then it attempts to investigate the foremost needs
of targeted learners group and leaders‟ typical requirements for their staff‟s English
writing competences. VAEI has 09 subsidiaries across the country but the survey of
the study was merely conducted among the participants currently working in Hanoi
due to the limited time. Also, the syllabus was designed with the most important
learning activities, so that the framework can be flexibly used and adapted by the
Institute later.

4
5. Methods of study
This study employed qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to
have a more detailed and comprehensive picture about what is investigated. To take
the first place, an occupational needs analysis was conducted. Due to time and
resources limitation, the first step was to utilize semi-structured interviews with 03
managers in nuclear field. Then a survey questionaire was delivered to 50 engineers at
VAEI. The results summarized and analyzed in quantitative statistics are the basis for
the first draft of course design.
Qualitative research method was further conducted by interviewing 03
experienced English teaching experts who are all specialists in the course development
Then the researcher analyzed the experts' opinion about the quality of the developed
course, their recommendations for adaptation and adjustment under the light of
Competence – Based Approach.
6. Design of study
This study is composed of three following parts:
Part A: Introduction presents the background, aims, research questions,
methods, scope, and the design of the study.
Part B: Literature Review is organized around two chapters as follows, which
conceptualize the framework of the study through the discussion of issues and ideas on
theories of developing a writing course using competence-based approach.
Chapter 1 – An overview of the Competence-Based Approach
Chapter 2 – Theoretical Issues on Writing Course
Part C: Methodology presents the context, the methodology used in this study
including the context, the subject, the data collection instruments, data collection
procedure, and data analysis.
Part D: Findings and Discussions consists of a comprehensive analysis of the
data and a discussion on the findings of this study.
Part E: Conclusion offers a summary of the findings, recommendations,
limitations, and future directions for further study.

5
PART B: LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 1- AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMPETENCE-BASED APPROACH
This chapter is devoted to give a clear presentation of theoretical background
for the realization of the Competence – Based Approach (henceforth CBA). Firstly, it
would be better to include the conceptual basis about CBA as a new and dynamic topic
in Vietnam. It is clarified by defining the key terms named competence and
competency. Also, the various development approaches of language teaching
programs before and the features of CBA are described before the process of
developing a competence-based course in a variety of disciplines is mentioned.
1.1. Definition of Competence and Competency
The aim of CBA is to make students more competent through the acquisition of
competencies and the further development of the newly acquired or already held
competencies (Kouwenhoven, 2003). Therefore, “competence” and “competency” are
often considered as important concepts in this approach. Based on various definitions
and dimensions, these two concepts can be clarified in the literature.
1.1.1. Definition of Competence
Kouwenhaven (2003) defines this term as ''the capacity to accomplish „up to
standard‟ the key occupational tasks that characterize a profession''. In like manner,
Field and Drysdale (1991) refers to competence as output – the ability to perform in
work roles or jobs at a desired level or to a certain standard in employment. On the
other hand, Kirchner et al. (1997) claimed competence is the possession and use of
certain attributes such as knowledges, skills and attitudes or competence as input.
Accordingly, there is an unskeptical difference from one view to another. Some views
see it as a a broad and general concept which is doing with occupational tasks;
however, others consider it as a narrow concept which focuses on the routine work
activity. In spite of the varied definitions, all of them emphasize the fact that
competence is both a physical and an intellectual ability to reach satisfactory or
superior performance in key occupational tasks through repeated experiences.
1.1.2. Definition of Competency
Regarding competency, there is the shortage of definition in an integrated way,
leading to confusion between terms such as competence, competency, competencies,

6
and competences. For example, the New Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary
(2005) defines competence as “the ability to do something well‟‟ (p. 294). Oxford
further states that competence and competency are synonymous as competences and
competencies. This view is also shared by Burke (1989), who said that these terms are
often used interchangeably.
Attempts by researchers, such as Kouwenhoven (2003), a comprehensive
definition of competency can be further clarified in a model from which, competency
is seen as “the ability to process various inputs in an intentional way”. In other words,
Kouwenhoven, from his part, coined the term as the capability to choose and apply an
integrated combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes with the intention to realise a
specific task in a certain context. From this definition, it can be inferred that
competency consists of a set of components which are skills, abilities, and
knowledge and the competencies as a collection of competency. By the same token,
Blakemore (2008) described competency as the result from breaking down a job or
role into a particular and observable skills that are needed to do it well. All these
definitions enable us to have a clear idea about the concept 'competency' which
involves being good at doing something particular in specific conditions.
1.2. Approaches in course designing
The approaches in course designing, which have been characterized by the
pedagogical tendencies, have been profuse and varied. More and more different trends
have been evolved and formulated mainly in terms of diverse teaching methods, each
of which has attempted to find more effective and efficient ways of teaching and
learning. Hence, the aim of this part is precisely to review such merits and
shortcomings of recent approaches to general course designing. This effort will help to
shed the light into the core of each selected approach, then determine which aspects of
CBA can be considered to outweigh others when facing workplace settings or less
academic situations in this “post-communicative era” (Molina et al., 2005).
1.2.1. Skill-based approach
According to Reilly (1988), the skill-based approach (SBA) drew its theoretical
roots from behavioral psychology and structural linguistics. One of its principles is
“the whole is equal to the sum of all its parts”. In accordance with this, advocates

7
view the course content following SBA involves a collection of particular and
seperated skills that may play a role in bridging skill gaps. Each skill is divided into
subskills, which are gradually taught in a predetermined sequence through direct
explanation, modeling and repetition. Within it, specific subject matter teaching is
carried out through the focus on a concrete academic skill area. The mastery of these
skills are constantly measured using discrete – point tests before learning a new one.
Thus, it is claimed that this approach can not only be easily implemented but enable
the learners to acquire skills easier and satisfy their needs to some extent.
Nonetheless, Anderson (1984) warns against the course design in which
isolated skills are taught due to the fact that the brains can not store bits of information
for a long time. Additionally, the passive role of students and narrow skill – based
instructions are said to lead to underdevelopment of independent learning skills and
competences.
1.2.2. Content-based approach
The second noteworthy approach which is linked with the previously examined
model according to which it can be organised is content-based instruction (CBI). It
has been widely used in a variety of different settings such as ESP, EOP since the
1980s with the integration of targeted knowledge instruction and instruction in
the content areas. The focus is thus on the substance or meaning of the content that is
being taught. Its advocates claim that it leads to more successful program outcomes
than alternative language teaching approaches. Critics say that most language teachers
have been trained to teach language as a skill rather than a content subject. For the
student, they may feel confused, overwhelmed, or even frustrated. They may also have
limited time to achieve an adequate academic level. Also, assessment is made more
difficult, as both subject matter and language skills need to be taken into account. In
spite of these possible problems, all in all, CBI is currently considered “one of the
most promising present and future trends in language teaching and learning”
(Fernández and Sánchez, 2001, p.129). As Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 220) put it,
“we can expect to see CBI continue as one of the leading curricular approaches in
language teaching”.

8
1.2.3. Theme-based approach
Within the broader model, CBI is advocated by designing courses through
theme-based approach (TBA). In ELT, it differs from traditional language instruction
in that the language structures/items to be covered in a syllabus are determined by
the theme or topic. For learners, TBA teaches language use; creates a low anxiety
environment for using the language; provides a language-rich classroom environment
by focusing on many aspects of a particular topic; offers opportunities for students to
make connections between what they know and what they are learning; and finally,
presents a variety of content-related activities through which learning can be
accomplished (Enright, 1988). In line with this, the theme or topic runs through
everything that happens in the classroom and acts as a connecting thread for pupils and
teachers; hence, effective theme-based instruction is extremely demanding for course
designers in both planning and in implementation. Knowledge of a wide repertoire of
activity types and resources is needed to plan for learners of all abilities to be stretched
and learning all the time (Bahtiar, 2012). In short, according to TBA, there is a real
potential for effective language learning take place, because the pupils and teachers
open up the language classroom by bringing in the world outside and linking into
children‟s real interests and enthusiasms.
1.2.4. Functional-Notional approach
The next-to–last instructional approach which is spawned by Comunicative
Approach is the Functional-Notional approach (FNA). White (1988, p. 75) explains its
main focus is on the concepts such as “time, space, movement, cause and effect” and
“the intentional or purposive use of language” that learners need to communicate
about. However, it is argued by Widdowson (1979) that FNA provides limited
communication that could be achieved only in certain settings; consequently, learners
are incapable of interacting in different situations as they do not know how to use the
language. From my perspective it is an effective syllabus that could make a strong
contribution to learners communication ability. On the contrary, it seems that it is not
always feasible to utilise it in designing courses because of the varities in institutions,
societies, cultures, teachers and learners. Also, although teaching situation is suitable it
may be difficult to organise a fruitful content for a FNA syllabus as learner needs

9
vary. To sum up, the syllabus under FNA could be seen as an ideal way of teaching
purposeful communication as long as all suitable circumstances are implemented.
1.2.5. Competence-based Approach
It is high time to explore the last approach, competence-based approach (CBA)
which has gained growing interest from course developers. The term “backward
design” has been used to describe this approach in which the starting point is a
specification of learning outputs and to use these as the basis for developing
instructional processes and input (Richard, 2010).
1.2.3.1. The application and features of CBA in course designing
Many researchers shared the common thought that CBA focuses on the
outcome and competences acquired rather than on inputs to learning in the
development of training programs (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Thereupon, the
competences that should be developed by the end of the education programme is the
criterion for arranging the course. More pariticularly, competences that are needed by
a competent professional are supposed to determine the underlying attributes in
terms of knowledges and skills included in designed courses using competence-based
approach.
In this sense, the competences or a set of competences must be clearly defined,
measurable, and related to the knowledge or skills needed for future endeavors, such
as additional education or employment. Also, according to Kouwenhoven (2003),
knowledges and skills determined by competences are “domain specific”. For each
domain, a set of subdomains elaborate the specific competences that a student must
demonstrate.
One more essential feature is CBA addresses what learners are expected to do
with what they learn. By all means, CBA is learner-centered and the individual
worker is central. Based on his “competence status” or already acquired competences,
the competences are defined that still have to be acquired and developed. Another key
point of a learner – centered approach in CBA is continuous feedback on the
formation and development of their competences and the use of appropriately
designed materials with competence (Chinh, 2012).
That is to say, the course arrangement and how to convey knowledge in CBA

10
support the development of competences. Moreover, the acquisition of knowledge
takes place in the context of professional application. Thus, the trend to competency –
based development became a policy strategy in many countries during the 1990s as
they strove to restructure their vocational education systems, including Australia, the
US, the UK and many European countries. Biemans et al. (2004). suggested that the
basis of this popularity lies in the belief that competence course design will help
bridge the gap between education and the labour market, facilitating the transition
from school to work. This preparation for work is also seen as having the benefit of
fostering learning to learn skills that will make employees and citizens more flexible
and change – responsive. (Lans et al. 2004; van der Klink and Boon 2002).
As a conclusion, the present society requires professionals to be able to face
condidently and expertly dynamics, knowledge intensity and new situations. Hence,
learning in a professional context become more important and general academic
course design is becoming more professional oriented. In this perspective, CBA could
be an appropriate choice. This requires fundamental changes in course design,
including course designer’s recognition about working learners and industry
needs, the course context, the roles of students and teachers.
1.2.3.2. The application of CBA in English Language Teaching (ELT)
This final noteworthy approach has of late entered the language teaching
panorama. Wong (2008) stated that CBA emerged in the 1970s in the US. At that time,
teaching English as a second or foreign language became an important matter because
of the urgent need for practical English for people in many parts of the world rather
than academic English language acquired in school. All the circumstances led to the
widely adopted applications of the CBA principles into adult English as Second
Language (ESL) programs called Competence- Based Language Teaching (CBLT)
(Auerbach, 1986).
In the language area, according to Grognet & Crandall (1982, as cited in
Auerbach, 1986, p. 413), CBLT focuses on performance-based language tasks that
lead to a demonstrated mastery of the language associated with specific skills which
are necessary for individuals to function proficiently in the society. Likewise, Findley
and Nathan (1980, p. 223) indicated the emphasis of CBLT is not on what the students

11
know about a language anymore but more to what learners can do with language.
Whosoever, these scholars share the same view on the aspect CBA and its application
such as CBLT both see outputs very importantly rather than the learning process.
The priority of learning outcomes or successful functioning at work and in
society has led to designed language tasks and syllabi with performance
orientation and competencies identified with focus on the professional practice
rather than language ability only (Auerbach,1986). Field and Drysdale (1991) added
the language learning content is based directly on the skills needed to do a job.
As mentioned above, CBA is learner-centred in the use of individualised
materials, flexible learning time and a continuous feedback to the learner. Thereforth,
objectives of the lessons or competencies to be acquired are stated via individual
requirements. Objectives are broken into narrowly focused sub-objectives, so that
both teachers and students can get a clear sense of progress (Richards, 2001).
Equally important, assessment is the integrated part in implementing the CBA
in ELT which considered not only in exams but also in an ongoing instruction. Also,
it is implemented through criteria referenced assessment, which measure the
achievement of each individual in the compared relation to standards, criteria, not
by comparing learners with others (Chinh, 2012).
Last but not least, the role of the teacher in ELT under CBA is that of a
“cognitive guide” or a guiding role (Kouwenhoven, 2003). Teachers encourage
language learners to engage in active inquiry and make competencies visible. On the
other hand, he added that the involvement of a teacher in the learning process moves
students gradually to their self – regulation or gets them slowly used to independent
learning.
In a nutshell, CBA is indeed learner-centred, outcome-based and adaptive to
the changing needs of students, teachers and the community. It deals with the demand
to function or at least survive in society by using focus on the mastery of the
performance rather than theory. The course is broken down into very specified
objectives which are set based on the learner needs and the expected outcomes and
through on going assessment. One application of CBA is CBLT which focuses “on
language as a tool for communication rather than on language knowledge as an end in

12
itself” (Nunan, 2007). Thus, CBLT learners‟ confidence is enhanced because they can
achieve language competencies required in the performance in real life.
No matter how good an approach is, some weaknesses are always found. With
regard to CBLT, there are several criticisms in Auerbach‟s article. He supposes that
CBLT openly put the objective of serving the industry as one of its aim thus preparing
students to fulfil employers' needs (Auerbach, 1986). Yet, the effect of this simplistic
objective is the teacher must eliminate any curriculum which does not relate
directly with the employment. Besides, he shared about the English Language
teaching material under CBA, the linguistics competence is taught in chunks in which
the language learnt is specific. Meanwhile, the fact is that a language is complex and
dynamic.
The story of CBESL has taken decades of scholarship for debate on whether
embracing or rejecting it. Critics of educational policy argue in various ways that
CBESL has not and probably will not “improve learning” in most of contexts where it
has been applied. They have called it a “theoretical and methodologically vacuous
strategy” for upgrading of the vocational education and training system (Hyland, 1992
p. 35). On the contrary, advocates of CBESL support a view point that CBESL
indicates “successful performance in life-role activity” (William, 1977 p. 10).
Regardless of a great deal of paradoxes and contradictions of CBLT, for the last
decades, it has become adopted in many countries, leading to series of changes at the
level of syllabus and language course development which will be mentioned below.
1.2.3.3. Course development process according to CBA
Gustafson & Branch (2002) states that course development is a “complex
process that, when appropriately applied, promotes creativity during development and
results in instruction that is both effective and appealing to learners”. In their book,
they present an instructional development model in which a variety of systematic
instructional design processes have been described (Dick & Carey, 1996; Gagné,
Briggs, & Wager, 1992; Kemp, Morrison, & Ross, 1998; Smith & Ragan, 1998). All
descriptions include the five core elements of Analysis, Design, Development,
Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE). Chart 1 illustrates the conceptual

13
relationship among them where revision continues throughout the process at least until
the course is implemented.
Chart 1: Course development process according to CBA
According to ADDIE (Gustafson & Branch, 2002), Analysis often includes
conducting a needs assessment, which includes input from students as well as from
the various people connected to the course, such as teachers, funders, and employers
(Graves, 1996). In order to conduct this assessment, course designers may use a
variety of methods, including questionaires, tests and interview as common tools.
After that, the goals focused on learners’ needs are to be determined and stated.
The second stage is Design which needs to be specific with attention to details
and the attainment of the course‟s goals. It includes writing objectives in measurable
terms, classifying learning as to type, specifying learning activities, and specifying
media.
The third, Development consists of preparing student and instructor materials as
specified during design (Kemp, Morrison, & Ross, 1998). Then Implementation
includes delivering the instruction in the settings for which it was designed (Greer,
1996). The last stage, Evaluation includes both collecting data to identify needed
revisions to the instruction and to assess the overall worth of the instruction (Dick &
Carey, 1996).
As it can be obviously seen, the strengths found in ADDIE model are
compatible with CBA in course designing. Initially, ADDIE and CBA are learner-
centered, which means that the learner and his or her performance are the focal point
of the instruction. In addition, employing ADDIE and CBA, course designers are
expected to establish well-defined goals and break them down into very specified
objectives which are set based on the learner needs and the real – world performance
and through continuous and on going assessment. Related to the issue of performance,

14
ADDIE is believed to be geared toward reliable and valid measurement of the skills
and knowledge learners will be required to demonstrate in the real world. (Gustafson
& Branch, 2002). That is to say, ADDIE model should be made use of in course
designing according to CBA.
Within the framework of this study, four out of five ADDIE elements, including
Analysis-Design-Development-Evaluation, were applied into the process of writing
course development using CBA. Needs analysis was an initial step to gather data and
information about the foremost needs of VAEI working learners group as well as some
VAEI leaders‟ typical requirements and expectations for their staff‟s writing
competences in English. The data were then analysed to identify the essential and
context – dependent writing competences for the purpose of course development and
selection for Design and Development. Based on the specification, course designer
recognized and determined five domains in course development, including course
objectives, contents, activities, assessments and materials. Those domains are the most
important and highly required in the sample of outcome-based course guide of Hanoi
National University (Hướng dẫn xây dựng và hoàn thiện chương trình đào tạo theo
chuẩn đầu ra, 2010). The last stage is Evaluation which made exploration into a
group of teaching experts‟ opinions of the developed need-based writing course pilot
using CBA for appropriate modification. In the scope of the minor thesis, the fourth
stage of course Implementation was skipped and may be hopefully shed into light in
another further research.
Conclusion
Approaches and methods of language teaching have been changing over time.
With global developments in science, society and economy, the demand for more
practical English teaching emerged outstandingly. One answer to this is the new
approach, CBA - a stronger focus on the world of work with professional purposes. It
enables learners the substantial acquisition of knowledge and performance capacity
required for professional practice. The difference between vocational and
academic/general education is getting smaller. Therefore, the learner can construct and
create his own knowledge and understanding in order to be successful at work.

15
CHAPTER 2 - THEORETICAL ISSUES ON WRITING COURSE
Writing well is the purpose for many learners of foreign languages. Therefore, a
great number of experts in foreign language writing focus their attention in their
papers, dissertations, books about issues related to writing. This chapter deals with
writing skill which is considered as an important issue for engineers in VAEI. After an
overview of the nature of writing and its components is given, English writing
competences in theory and practice are presented. Finally, how to design and select the
tasks is tackled. It also highlights assessment under the CBA with a particular attention
given to one of the most appropriate procedures.
2.1. Nature of writing
Writing as one of the four major language skills plays a vital role in the
teaching and learning process because of the several advantages it provides. Like the
other skills, it may be considered as a skill that can help learners to achieve proficiency
in the foreign language. Bashyal (2009) claimed in his paper that writing uses visual
symbols (or graphic symbols) to represent the sounds used in speaking or to express
what the author intends to tell. He added it is a productive skill which involves better
organisation of meaning and also more accuracy of form than speaking. Likewise,
Dornan & Dawe (2005, p. 1) defined ''writing is a concentrated form of thinking''. This
means that the writer requires a full concentration during his writing in order to
produce a readable and meaningful text.
From these definitions, it can be seen that writing effectively is a tough task that
even many native speakers of English never totally master. Thus, for non-native
learners, the ability to express their ideas in written form in a second language and to
do so with reasonable accuracy and coherence is “no mean achievement” (Celce-
Murcia & McMcintosh, 1979).
2.2. English writing competence in theory and in reality
2.2.1. English writing competences in theory
Because of the hard nature of writing, language scholars around the world have
dedicated great efforts to describe and categorise its relevant competences. Four
basically underpinned English writing competences defined by Hymes (1979) and
Canale & Swain (1980) is “grammatical competence”, “socio-linguistic competence‟;

16
“discourse competence‟ and “strategic competence”. The first one refers to the
knowledge of a finite system of rules that enables an ideal language user in a
homogenous speech community to generate and understand an infinite variety of
sentences (Fatemi, 2008). He said writing and grammar are “inextricably intertwined”
owing to good writing derives its excellence from faultless grammar.
Secondly, Bashyal (2009) claimed a good piece of writing is not only
grammatically accurate but logical and correct in word choice, spelling and
punctuation. A written text must also maintain cohesion and coherence by providing
good reasons and evidences for opinions to clarify or to persuade the readers. There is
quite often no physical presence of the readers – but only an assumed audience. The
readers cannot ask questions so the writer must anticipate possible questions and
explain them (Ur, 2008, pp. 160-161). What is more, having the awareness of the
social rules of a language, the formality, directness, politeness, non verbal behaviors
and cultural references is included in this competence, namely “socio-linguistic”.
Equally important, to be able to write in a second language (L2) effectively,
writers need to learn its orthography, morphology, lexicon, syntax, as well as the
discourse and rhetorical conventions. In other words, “discource competence” must
be taken into account. For instance, among the competencies that learners need to
attain to achieve proficiency in L2 writing are the ability to produce lengthy texts that
have appropriate metadiscourse features such as exemplifiers, connectives, hedges and
varied and sophisticated vocabulary and syntactic structures (Buckwalter & Lo, 2002;
Grant & Ginther, 2000), to employ different patterns of overall text organization, for
example, description, narration, argument, and to incorporate others‟ ideas and texts in
their own writing effectively (Cumming, 2001).
Last but not least, Cumming (2001) sees learning L2 writing as the acquisition
of successful writing strategies or attainment of “strategic competence”. From this
perspective, learning L2 writing is seen as the acquisition of both macro strategies
such as planning, drafting and revising, and micro strategies such as attending to
content and form concurrently and automatic searches for words and syntax. It should
be noted here that knowledge of L2 linguistic and discourse aspects, the type of
knowledge that tends to be above emphasized, affects these processes. Thus,

17
knowledge of these L2 linguistic and textual aspects allows writers to use their
linguistic resources more fluently and to plan, draft, and revise more effectively
(Chenowith & Hayes, 2001; Cumming, 2001).
2.2.2. Realization of English writing competence
Inspired by the above line of inquiry, and in order to design the contents for the
targeted course in this study, the present part proceeds to give a second thought to the
application of theoretical writing competence into practice, most visible from the
writing constructs in large scale tests. In this line, the tradition of using rating scales in
writing assessment is investigated.
In the first place, one of the best alternatives may well be the widely approved
writing assessment rubric, namely IELTS (International English Language Testing
System) Profile Band Descriptors for Academic and General Training Writing
Module. The IELTS writing test is used as an example of a large scale high stake test
in measuring test-takers‟ English language communicative competence. In IELTS
profile band descriptors, writing pieces are required to be assessed from three aspects
including: “communicative quality”, “arguments, ideas & evidence and vocabulary &
sentence structure”, which almost cover the three competences, suggested beforehand
(Cao, 2012).
Besides IELTS, as applied to the second-language arena, the Test of English as
Foreign Language (TOEFL) writing of Educational Testing Service (ETS, USA) is
designed to target a range of proficiency such as lexical and syntactic standards of
English and the effectiveness with which the examinee organizes, develops, and
expresses ideas in writing (ETS, 2004). That is recognized as “socio-linguistic”
competence. Except for that, the context of the TOEFL suggests a stricking attention
to writing as "discourse competence,” that takes place within a context, accomplishes a
particular purpose, and is appropriately shaped for its intended audience (Hamp-Lyons
& Kroll, 1997). On the other hand, using correct grammar, vocabulary, spelling and
punctuation is highly required in TOEFL writing pieces.
As can be inferred from the pictorial representation above, IELTS and TOEFL
writing descriptors have put different weight of emphasis on a variety of examinees‟
writing competences. For more example in the categories of the scale, the Cambridge

18
ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) Common Scale for Writing (CSW)
as a wellknown descriptor of writing proficiency levels would be examined to reveal
any implicit assumptions and/or hidden values involved (Hawkey & Barker, 2004).
In Cambridge ESOL exams, writing involves multiple competences including
vocabulary and grammatical knowledge, phonological control, knowledge of
discourse, and pragmatic awareness (Hamp-Lyons and Kroll, 1997). Ramshaw (2010)
also shared his view with that writing ability is regarded as a “linguistic, cognitive,
social and cultural phenomenon” that takes place in a “specific context” and for a
“particular purpose”. Furthermore, writing tasks set as part of the tests are currently
scored by rating degree of task fulfilment and evidence of target language control
according to criteria such as communicative effectiveness, register, organisation,
linguistic range and accuracy (Hawkey & Barker 2004). Apparently, it is necessary
for candidates to achieve a satisfactory level in organising and structuring their
response coherently and offering relevant information which addresses the
requirements of the task.
It is impossible not to mention the The Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR) as a key guidance for course designers in shaping
the course contents. CEFR describes language learners‟ ability of speaking, reading,
listening and writing at six reference levels ranging from the basic user stage to the
proficient user stage, levels A1 to C2.
In terms of writing, the CEFR provides „illustrative descriptors‟ and these are
presented as a series of scales with Can Do statements from levels A1 to C2. These
scales can be used for writing syllabus designers, coursebook publishers and writing
test providers worldwide, including Cambridge ESOL, seek to align their exams to the
CEFR for reasons of transparency and coherence. It can be seen from the descriptors,
users/learners bring to bear their capacities as detailed above for the realisation of
written communicative competence, in narrow sense, including linguistic
competences, sociolinguistic competences and pragmatic competences (Council of
Europe, p.108).
For linguistic competences in writing, CEFR clearly distinguished them into
lexical competence, grammatical competence, semantic competence, orthographic

19
competence. Lexical and grammar competences are similar to competences that were
aforementioned. Adding to that, CEFR writing referes to semantic competence which
deals with the “learner‟s awareness and control of the organisation of meaning”.
Orthographic competence involves “a knowledge of and skill in the perception and
production of the symbols of which written texts are composed” (CEFR, p. 117). For
alphabetic system such as English, learners should know and be able to perceive and
produce the form of letters in printed and cursive forms in both upper and lower case,
the proper spelling of words, including recognised contracted forms, punctuation
marks and their conventions of use.
With regard to sociolinguistic competences, the knowledge and skills required
to deal with the social dimension of language use such as linguistic markers of social
relations, expressions of folk-wisdom, register differences. The first use is widely
divergent depending on relative status or closeness of relation such as use and choice
of address forms (Council of Europe, p.119). The second, expressions of folk-wisdom
are frequently used, or perhaps more often referred to, for instance in newspaper
headlines, proverbs, idioms. Meanwhile, the term „register‟ is used to refer to
systematic differences between varieties of language used in different contexts. This is
a very broad concept, which could cover what is here dealt with under „tasks‟ or „text-
types‟. All of these vary in different contexts and from one culture to another.
In respect of pragmatic competences, they are concerned with the user and
learner‟s knowledge of the principles according to which written texts are organised,
structured and arranged, used in communication for particular functional purposes
such as description, narration, commentary, exposition, exegesis, explanation,
argumentation, persuasion (Council of Europe, p. 126).
To cut a long story short, writing in CEFR is designed to target a single
proficiency level – from A1 to C2 level of the CEFR; therefore the writing test reflects
tasks, skills, and competences appropriate to this single level. In curriculum and
syllabus design, the CEFR writing scale is a rich source of descriptors which can be
related to both high and lower-level aims and is designed to be applicable to many
contexts, including education, university, migration, and work. Thus, linking a writing
course to the CEFR means relating the particular features of a particular context of

20
learning (the learners, the learning objectives, etc.) to the CEFR, focusing on those
aspects which can be found reflected in the level descriptors. Upon finding relevant
scales and descriptors in the CEFR, the course designer can then state the language
proficiency level at which students are expected to be able to achieve the objectives.
This also illustrates that linking to CEFR is a very effective way of focusing on the
outcomes of language teaching (Council of Europe 2001a).
Summary
The above constructs of writing competence in ESL have varied significance to
course designers. Firstly, despite outstanding IELTS Profile Band Descriptors for
Academic and General Training Writing Module, it is hard for designers of a writing
course according to CBA to follow the IELTS writing module. In my view, the
significant reason is that the IELTS writing module claims to prepare test-takers for
the writing skills required in English-speaking universities. In addition, Leki,
Cumming and Silva (2008) found it not to cover the essential and universal skills used
in workplace context such as specific subject matters, specialized vocabulary,
researching, citing references, writing lengthy papers. Weigle (2007) also criticized the
short, timed essays used in the IELTS writing tasks for failing to match the context
where the tasks require students to respond through other texts that have been read or
discussed already, and involved elements of research and citing sources.
Secondly, regarding TOEFL, in the design phase the primary concern was that
the tasks must represent writing which is integral to university or college contexts.
This has been borne out in the development of the integrated writing task, which has
clearly been modelled on an academic classroom environment. Its advocates claim that
this form of writing does allow the candidate to show language, structure and
reasoning abilities that would be required in an educational setting (Enright &
Quinlan, 2010). However, a university student is rarely called on to write a 300-word
essay in 30 minutes without reference to other sources (Weigle, 2002). At the same
time, it seems to be too challenging for engineers at VAEI to practice and perform
their writing competence under the integrated task. On the other hand, in order to
adopt TOEFL writing scoring rubrics, preparation for TOEFL test is highly needed;
thus, the instructors are required to spend considerable time and effort designing

21
courseware and exercises specifically targeting this perceived weakness. Due to time
constraints, it seemed more productive to devote resources to creating a “solution” by
another option rather than investigating the proposition.
In the case of the Cambridge ESOL General English suite of exams, different
exams target five different proficiency levels; however, the written responses are
assessed via different multiband (or multilevel) rating scales. To link the various rating
bands across the five exam levels, Cambridge ESOL has recently completed a long-
term project to develop a Common Scale for Writing covering the five upper CEFR
levels. However, it remains unclear how the finer bands of the exam-specific rating
scales can be interpreted with reference to the levels of this Common Scale and to the
CEFR proficiency levels; to be more specific, could a band 5 rating, for instance, in
the CAE be interpreted as the candidate having shown a writing performance beyond
CEFR Level C1? Although this issue is addressed for the overall grade, it is not
addressed for reporting a profile for the different skills covered in the exam. Thus, it
seems difficult to transparently trace how multiband ratings of written performances in
this suite of exams could lead to the assessment of a candidate‟s writing proficiency in
terms of CEFR levels (Taylor & Jones, 2006).
When it comes to the particular writing course design and writing assessment
context of workplace for occupational purposes, CEFR appears to outweight other
mentioned procedures. It can be adaptable to fit the context and central to the
outcomes of learning which competence-based approach aims at. Once the context and
purpose are established, it is possible to delineate the target language use (TLU)
situations. For example, for the VAEI engineers, several TLUs can be imagined:
attending lectures, participating in seminars, giving presentations, reading books and
papers, writing reports and essays; and each TLU may suggest a different combination
of skills and language exponents. Furthermore, demands may vary on different
courses: those such as engineering may require higher levels of ability in literacy-
related areas than others (Council of Europe 2001a). This is why CEFR descriptions
will be used to design the most important component of the targeted writing course in
this study: the course objectives.

22
2.2.3. Writing teaching approaches
Because of the hard nature of writing skill, engaging learners in writing in the
target language is a tough job. As a result, different theories have emerged to provide
teachers with a relevant ways of teaching writing. Two of the most common ones are
the product approach and the process approach.
2.2.3.1. The Product Approach
Since 1970, the product approach has been known as or the text based approach
and has become one of the most practiced approaches for writing around the world.
This writing approach encourages students to produce an end product which may be
likened to a model essay or the essay normally provided by teachers. According to the
approach, students are encouraged to mimic a model text, which is usually presented
and analysed at an early stage. They also copy and finally transform the models into a
new essay to be as perfect as the one that they have imitated by focusing on the
language as instructed by the teacher. After that, students are required to submit their
written essays to the teacher to be marked and graded rather than evaluated. Teachers
in this perspective see errors must be corrected or eliminated (Tribble, 1996). A typical
product approach comprises the following stages:
Chart 2. Stages of teaching writing under the product approach
It was pointed out that guided composition helps student learn about sentence
structure (Hyland, 2002). In addition, students have a model to follow, a plan or outline
to expand from a partly written version. Despite the benefits provided by this approach
for the accuracy structure of the sentence, it arouses deficiency in its application, since
it forms students who can produce grammatically correct sentences. In other words,
under this approach, the teacher‟s feedback is based on the grammatical and lexical
errors (Matsuda, 2003, p. 20).

23
2.2.3.2. The Process Approach
In the 1980, changes happened in both second language acquisition and
composition. Thus, writing researchers and teachers shifted their concern from textual
features to the process of writing itself. This led to the emergence of the process
approach which ''emphasized the view of writing as a process of developing
organization as well as meaning'' (Matsuda, 2003, p. 21). According to Brown & Hood
(1989) the basic stages of writing process are: planning, drafting, and revising.
Chart 3.1. Stages of writing process according to process approach
The diagram refers to the nature of relationship between the stages during the
practice and there is no obliged sequence to follow. In this approach, students are
needed to move back and forth while going from one stage to another stage and take
part in writing activities. During the activity, they may return to pre-writing activities
even after reaching the final revising stage. In this process, the focal point is the writer
and the writing process. The emphasis is on the linguistic skills of learners such as
planning and drafting prior to linguistic knowledge like grammar and text structure.
The teachers are facilitators who monitor the activities in various stages. On the other
hand, in process writing approach, many models in process are used, but there are four
interrelated activities involved – generating, organizing, composing and revising
(Gregg & Steinberg,1985). Basically a typical process writing approach comprises
eight essential stages before the students produce the final evaluation from the teacher.
The process model is shown below adopted from that of Steele (2004).
Obviously, all stages are of great importance in teaching writing, which shows
that the process approach focuses on the process of writing rather than the end –

24
product. Also, the end – product is not completely neglected. The best product is
believed to be achieved after a few draft. The grammatical mistakes are tolerated
Chart 3.2. Stages of writing process according to process approach
to improve the development of the content ideas of the learners.
Summary
To recapitulate, section 2 has shed light on several well-known approaches in
English language course designing, the nature of writing and the realization of English
writing competences in theory and practice. In order to shape the competence-based
writing course, its components are determined as follows.
Firstly, the professional oriented course will adopt one of the most widely used
CBA‟s applications, CBLT which was shown indeed learner-centred, outcome-based
and adaptive to the changing English language needs of working learners, employers,
and occupations. Secondly, course development process under CBLT was determined
by four out of five ADDIE elements, including Analysis-Design-Development-
Evaluation. After the needed data are collected and analyzed, the course objectives,
contents, and materials for targeted competences accomplishment will be determined.
Thirdly, designing and selecting tasks as well as assessing written work will follow
CEFR procedures at occupational context of VAEI. Fourthly, the combining of both
product and process approaches to writing teaching activities will assist student writers
widen their skills in using the language by experiencing a whole writing process as
well as gain knowledge from the model texts. The last stage applied in this study is
Evaluation which explores a group of teaching experts‟ opinions of the developed
need-based writing course pilot using competence-based approach for appropriate
modification. In the scope of the minor thesis, the fourth stage of course

25
Implementation was skipped and may be hopefully shed into light in another further
research.
To sum up, in this part, the course development process and realization of
writing competences were given in details. Based on that, the next part of the study
would take them into account within the particularly involved context of VAEI.

26
PART C: METHODOLOGY
This part deals with the study process to obtain the research objectives and
figure out how to disclose the answers to two research questions. In respect to that, the
context of the study, the research questions, data collection instruments such as survey
questionaires and interviews, data analysis employing qualititive and quantitive
methods were deeply touched upon in this part. Some limitation of study methodology
and scope will be indicated as well.
3.1. Context of the study
Writing, which was once considered the domain of the elite and well-educated,
has become an essential tool for people of all walks of life in today‟s global
community (Weigle, p.2). As our current world has entered the era of international
communication and advanced technology, it has been widely recognized that writing
plays a vital role not only in conveying information, but also in transforming
knowledge to create new knowledge (Chelli & Hassina, 2010). It is thus of central
importance to both students in academic, second and foreign language programmes
and to people who are studying and working in technical fields throughout the world.
Unexceptionally, engineers at Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute need to be
equipped with adequate writing ability so that they can communicate technical
information clearly to the external world on at least a basic level. Written documents
which are to be communicated may include text such as trip reports, proposals, status
reports, meeting minutes, reports documenting site visits (Crawforth, 2012).
Additionally, they may consist of calculations, plots and figures like lab reports,
progress reports, user manuals and journal articles. In fact, poor written English
prevents engineers from reaching their full potential at professional level or going to
further study. They are aware of their own difficulty in writing but their attempts to
improve their writing skill are often thwarted by its complex nature and the gap
between their own and their tutors‟ understanding the criteria for writing assessment
(Pushpalatha, 2012).
Pushpalatha added, the recent emphasis on the acquisition of professional skills
has put more urgency to the need of teaching writing skills within specialist subject
areas. In today‟s fast-paced and information-driven world, engineering executives

27
want engineers who can write clearly, concisely and comprehensively. It helps to save
significant time, prevent misunderstanding and improve results. An engineer with well
developed written communication skills will be successful in his or her career. In such
context, consciousness of an English writing course for engineers, particularly in
nuclear field are highly raised on these days.
However, there have not been any attempts at VAEI or any educational
institutions in Vietnam designing such a writing course which focus on English writing
outcomes to satisfy engineers‟ needs in contributing to their professional recognition
and career prospect. Hence, this paper can be considered as the first trial to develop the
writing course which serves to foster learners‟ English writing competences at
workplace. That is to say, the demand and contraints of particular context call for
competence-based approach to fit in and enable learners to build targeted
competences.
3.2. The study
3.2.1. Research questions
As discussed earlier, the present study aims to develop an English writing
course which is similar to a workplace – oriented language program to improve
English written competences of the learners at VAEI context. Thus, the first research
question is regarding to survey human resources managers and working learners,
identifying their needs in learning written English. Based on the needs analysis, the
course designer is supposed to recognize the essential and context-dependent writing
competences, relevant knowledge and skills for engineers at VAEI. Based on the
specification, course designer is to build needs-based writing course, determining
course objectives, contents, and materials which is potentially delivered to VAEI
learners for targeted competences accomplishment. Henceforth, the second research
question aims to make exploration into a group of teaching experts‟ opinions of the
developed need-based writing course pilot using competence-based approach for
appropriate modification. Experts were invited to validate and evaluate the course in
order that necessary adjustments can be done according to their suggestions.

28
3.2.2. Participants
The first research subjects are learners who are taking part in the course. In
addition, learners‟ needs are influenced by the environment where they are working,
particularly by their employers‟ requirements of English writing competence.
Accordingly, in this study, to ensure the objectiveness and representative samples, a
survey questionaire is delivered to 50 engineers at VAEI whose entry level is
considered equivalent to at least B1 and a semi-structured interview with 03 leaders
from different institutes and centers which are developing nuclear research and
applications. They include Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute (VAEI); Vietnam Atomic
Energy Agency, Nuclear Training Center. They are all PhDs in nuclear engineering
and have experienced in writing articles for international journals.
Graves (1996) added that course designing includes needs analysis which is
conducted among not only learners but also among others who are related to or
affected by the course, such as lecturers or pedagogical experts and employers. For
example, lecturers who will be in charge of teaching the course can make a good
contribution of the knowledge that need to be acquired by learners because it helps to
establish the course content. As no teachers at the Institute are available, 03 lecturers
with English Teaching and course designing experience from different faculies were
invited to comment on the course initially developed by the researcher based on the
students‟ needs. Their critical comments and practical recommendations can help to
enhance the procedure of course designing as well as course content.
3.2.3. Data collection instruments
Data collection instruments which are emloyed in this research are composed of
a survey questionaire and a semi-structure interview protocol.
3.2.3.1. Survey questionaire
According to Gillham (2000), survey questionaire is the first and foremost
instrument to usefully collect data in large scale. Not only does it help to save
significant time, efforts and finance but also bring about good effects in gathering
comments from a group of population. Provided that the survey questionaire should be
well designed, processing and analysing the data become faster and easier compared to
other research instruments. Another characteristic that makes it dominant over others

29
is flexibility, which allows its users to approach various subjects under a variety of
situations.
For this research, the survey questionaire (see. Appendix 1) is the most
appropriate instrument to gather information from 50 learners because of the large
amount of information collected from participants. Moreover, the information
processing after gathered from questionaires are supposed to be less complicated.
This intrument, one questionnaire with 14 questions, functions as the source to
answer the first research question concerning students‟ needs of English writing
course. In order to make sure that the participants can understand correctly the content
of the questionnaire, the questionnaire items are presented in Vietnamese as well.
Explanation is elicited where necessary. These 14 questions have tightly responded to
five main elements that were mentioned in outcome-based course development in
Literature Review, including course objectives, contents, teaching and learning
methods, assessment and materials.
With regards to course objectives, in the first three questions, students were
asked about learning tasks, skills and CEFR level of language proficiency that they
were expected to achieve at the end of the course. These questions aim at investigating
students‟ needs of knowledge, skills and targeted level of English upon the writing
course completion. Questioning about such issues as the necessity of language skill
supporting writing and English outcomes from the course were essential to meet one
of course objectives, enhancing students‟ written communicative language
competences. According to the recent upsurge requirement of English competent
workforce involving in research and development of atomic energy field, when VAEI
is generating it as part of the national energy strategy, obtaining certain written English
proficiency level has become a fundamental pre-requisite for engineers at VAEI.
Two next questions in the questionaire identified students‟ needs about the
course contents, in particular, the written genres which were supposed to be tough
documents to handle and need to be taken into consideration through learning process.
The aim of these questions is to find out the most appropriate and helpful contents for
working learners so as to build up the targeted writing course. The questions were

30
designed as the lists of written genres and also included the open answers for students
to share their own views.
The sixth and seventh questions aimed to shed the light into the students‟ needs
of different assessment in the course. Accordingly, they are asked about their views
and needs of selected-response tests and written essay tasks, designed by teachers or
standardized tests, self and peer assessment, weekly and final assessment.
Next, the questions on learning and teaching methods are the focus of the
questionaire for students. Apparently, this study emphasized the development of a new
course with competence-based approach which is learner-centered and outcome-based.
The questions regarding to teachers‟ lesson sequence, students‟ self-study willingness,
teachers and learners‟ roles in class were considered as significantly important. The
obtained information were helpful in the new course design, particularly it determined
how teachers‟ guidance is delivered to students in doing tasks to achieve the targeted
competences of the course.
The last question in the questionaire was relevant to the course materials which
are importantly responding to the course content. In the writing course, there is no
doubt that the materials are close – knit to the writing genres and documents. The
question was designed in lists of options, thus, students could not only demonstrate
their needs of the given materials but fill with others which were not included in the
list but claimed to be beneficial to them.
In short, all questions in the survey questionaire were built up for students not
to be restricted in statingtheir needs for the expected course. The content of
questionnaire were tightly related to the components of the course and and highly
oriented to those who will implement the course in the future.
3.2.3.2. Semi-structured interviews
Although the questionnaire is the main instrument, this study encompasses the
use of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The qualitative data is gained
from two separated semi-structured interviews (see. Appendix 2) with with 03
employers and 04 experienced experts in the English course development at the
Faculty of English Pedagogy, Vietnam National University.

31
The interview took place in the form of semi-structured, in which the
interviewer identifies and prepares the main questions in advance, but can raise new
questions based on the answer of the respondents (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). With
questions based on the answers, the researchers are enabled to exploit the deeper
explanation from the respondents. In addition, this way of interviews creates the
relaxing atmosphere of a natural exchange between the interviewer and the
respondents, thereby, helps them openly provide the interviewer with further
information.
The first interview for 03 leaders involves the employers‟ requirements of
English writing competence to their staff. It includes three main questions. The first
identifies the working position and experiences of interviewees which are relevant to
English writing. The next one is the priority genres of documents that they suppose the
staff need to enhance their writing in timely manner at workplace. The third is about
how they frequently do to assess their engineers‟s English writing competence. The
last one is their instruction, guidelines and further advice for the staff regarding their
expectations of written English.
The second interview is based on five main questions. The first one is about the
appropriateness of the course objectives and students‟ language proficiency level. The
additional questions about further objectives and task suitability may be raised. The
second one is related to the experts‟ evaluation on completeness of content modules
and materials. This issue is evaluated based on current context and other
characteristics of the course. Furthermore, the interviewer may ask which course
content should be added. Thirdly, the integrity and systematism of teaching schedule,
and the coherence among the schedule, assessment scheme and course objectives are
considered by the experts. The fourth and fifth questions aim at their evaluation on
teaching and learning methodology which is mentioned in course outline, particularly
its appropriateness, practicality of the revised course, and their recommendations on
solving the difficulties in applying the revised course in fact. These questions are
significantly important to the following period of research: editting the course to suit
the opinion of the experts and reach the feasibility.

32
3.2.4. Data collection procedure
The data collection procedure was composed of two main stages. The initial
stage was the delivery of the questionnaire whichdesigned to investigate the VAEI
students‟ needs of a writing course‟s components. The paper-based questionnaire were
sent to 50 working learners at VAEI whose English proficiency level is B1 and higher.
The job nature enabled the researcher to approach and directly work with the
respondents from four main subsidiaries of VAEI, including Head Office, Institute of
Nuclear Science and Technology, Institute for Technology of Radioactive and Rare
Elements, and Non-Destructive Center. Due to four seperatedly locations, the survey
was implemented in each subsidiary within 30 minutes while the researcher clearly
presented about the aims, contents of the questionaire to the respondents. Also, the
process of delivering and collecting the questionaires were tightly monitored. The
students' queries were answered thoroughly to avoid misinterpretation leading to false
identification. A known limitation of the sample for this study is that learners with
English proficiency level below B1 were only included marginally. It was
acknowledged that researcher‟s bias could have occurred when selecting participants.
Response rates are very high in the questionnaire; the results will be presented in
details in the following section.
In addition to the first stage, the semi-structured interview was done to work out
the employers‟ requirement to English writing competences of their engineers. Three
interviewees‟ significant details are described in the graphic below:
Inter-
viewee
Relevant Experiences
Current Position
&Workplace
Responsibility
No. 1
More than a decade of
continual studying,
researching in
Stockholm, Sweden and
winning Sigvard Eklund
Prize 2011 for the Best
PhD Thesis Related to
Nuclear Technology
President of
VAEI
Leader;
Decision maker determining
the criteria of recruitment
and setting up competences
requirements for engineers at
VAEI;
Researcher;
Editor of Journal Nuclear

33
among the Swedish
Universities.
Science and Technology.
No. 2
Nine years pursuing
postgraduate education
in Malaysia, France and
PhDs in Nuclear
Engineering at
University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri,
United States.
Head of Training
Department,
Nuclear Training
Center, VAEI
Making training and
education plan for engineers
and specialists at VAEI;
Reviewing and editing
journal articles for
publishing in “Nuclear
Science and Technology” – a
Vietnamese journal in
nuclear field;
Doing research.
No. 3
More than 25 years
working in international
cooperation of nuclear
field;
More than 10 years
training general and
nuclear English for
engineers at VAEI &
VAEA
Director of
Department of
Administration
and Personnel,
Vietnam Atomic
Energy Agency
(VAEA)
Making decisions for those
who are qualified in English
to be sent abroad for further
training;
Maintaining internation
cooperation;
Training English for
engineers.
Table 1. VAEI leaders‟ features in the semi-structured interview
All of them are PhDs graduating abroad and currently working for VAEI, have
high frequency and experiences of dealing with English technical writing and
international journalling.
The second semi-structured interview was conducted with four experts of
course development. This interview was actualized after the first version of needs-
based course had been developed. It consisted of five fundamental questions which
were raised on the basis of the second research objective – ascertaining experts‟
sentiment and judgment on the course draft for the judicious modification of the final
course. The characteristics of four experts are summerized in Table below:

34
Interviewee Experiences in ELT Courses developed
No. 1 15 years English Language Teaching
No. 2
16 years English for Academic Purposes
English for Social Purposes
No. 3 09 years Writing; English Language Teaching
No. 4 14 years Writing; English Language Teaching
Table 2. Experts‟ features in the semi-structured interview
Three experts are all knowledgeable, prominent and renowned in the field of
designing English language course. The consultation outcome will be conferred in the
next chapter.
3.2.5. Data analysis
This research employs two methods including graphical method and simple
percentage analysis for the questionnaire and content analysis for the interview data
analysis as follows.
3.2.5.1. Needs analysis by graphical method and simple percentage analysis
Graphical method is the basic method of data analysis for quantitative data. It
allows the researcher to visualize data in a clear, easily digestible manner - this helps
to explain the data more easily (Castillo, 2010; Dorney, 2003). Babbie (2010) stressed
that, when the amount of data collected is very large and very difficult to get an
overview or to draw significant conclusions about them, the graphical method is
helpful for summary and data description in the form of "the most manageable".
On account of the above reasons, graphical representation form is used in this
research to process data with close-ended questions in the questionaire for students.
50 questionaires were disseminated directly to students and 50 questionaires were
returned, notwithstanding, 13 out of the total 50 responses were not completely
answered mainly due to time constraints, and thereupon, excluded from the analysis.
Except for that, the other respondents were valid by student‟s fulfillment and without
omission. Neuman (2000) and Bryman (2012) both describe the calculation of the total
response rate as: the number of usable questionaires divided by the total sample minus
the unsuitable or uncontactable members of the sample muliplied by 100, which they
expressed as an equation:

35
Correspondingly, the total response rate in this study is 135%, which is
relatively high response rate due to the questionnaire distribution on a personal basis.
To interprete the data effectively, the stastical treatment is conducted and stated in
Appendix 4.
3.2.5.2. Content analysis
The qualitative data, such as data obtained from interviews and open-ended
questions (open-ended questions) in the questionnaire, were analyzed by the method of
content analysis. To start with, the interviews were transcribed on paper-made
documents in Appendix 3 to help researchers easily interprete the data and analyze
them thoroughly and deeply. The responses in the interview and answers in the
questionnaire were repeatedly read. Key words and phrases were identified, grouped
and placed according to emergent topics. Subsequently, the typical utterances of the
interviewees are chosen as the quotes to illustrate the topics. Each topic will be
described based on the data that has been encrypted in the next part of the study.
Summary
In the nutshell, part C has clarified the significant components of the study
methodology such as important features of the study context at Vietnam Atomic
Energy Institute, which have a great influence on defining the deficiency of the needed
course and shaping the future one. Additionally, the reasons for forming two research
questions, the details of involved participants, the building up two major data
instruments including questionaires and semi-structured interviews and data collection
procedures were specified. Both strenghs and encumbrances of each instrument were
also illuminated. Notwithstanding, it can be drawn that their prominence outweighed
the hindrance they brought about during the process of data gathering from a small
sample of selected participants in this study. Last but not least was the presentation of
data treatment in which students‟ needs were analysed by graphical method and
percentage analysis method, meanwhile, content analysis method was employed for
the inpretation of two semi-structured interviews among VAEI leaders and English
language teaching experts. All the issues will be the grounded and vital base to link the
theory and the methodology for further research solution.

36
PART D: FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS
This part is dedicated to interpretation students‟ needs and views from
interviewees upon the development of a writing course according to CBA. It is thought
that the development is a long but worthwhile journey which begins with careful
investigation needs, the translation of needs and relevant factors into a course design, a
process of verification and evaluation of the lessons and materials, then producing the
editted writing course guide. Obviously, it involves a great number of steps and takes
lots of time and resources to do research and analysis. That is to say, it is high time to
look thoroughly at the findings and discussion presented right below.
4.1. Students’ needs and employers’ requirements analysis
4.1.1. Needs from students’ perspectives
The questionaire was distributed to 50 engineers – potential students of the
writing course; yet, 37 participants, which accounts for 74%, answered all sections and
returned them on time. The questions in the questionaires are responsively analyzed as
follows.
4.1.1.1. Section 1: Course objectives
For Question 1 “What tasks do you expect to acquire from an English Writing
Course for engineers at VAEI?”, the data was displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Tasks expected in thewriting course
As it can be seen, two tasks “Controlling grammatical mistakes” and “Writing a
journal article” are ranked as “Very important” by the highest percentage of
respondents - nearly 70% and “important but not essestial” by approximately 20%.

37
Hence, these tasks can be considered as the most important to potential students of the
course. In the second position are the tasks “Writing formal emails in English”,
“Solving word choice problems” and “Writing journal abstracts” with the rate of about
50 – 60%. Meanwhile, only the minority of students, from 0% to 5%, selected the
option “not important” for all the listed tasks. On the other hand, the least important to
students are supposed to be “Analyzing critically previous work when writing for
international journals” and “Describing diagrams, tables, charts and other graphical
tools” (above 20% claim them “very important”)
For Question 2 “Which language major skills do you need support in learning
English Writing?”, the responses was illustrated by Figure 2. It shows listening is by
far the most significant skill that students need to be supported in the writing course
with “very important” in the majority (95%) cases. This result suggests the language
used in teaching process should be flexible between English and Vietnamese for both
students‟ improvement in listening and their knowledge acquisition. On the contrary,
less than 40% concerned the reading skill. This obtained figure is rather lower from
the expected result in which reading should have been the most necessary to be
supported in approaching easier a productive skill as writing. However, the
discrepancy can probably reveal a strong possiblity that they will have a few
difficulties in reading during the course.
Figure 2. Major skills needed to support Figure 3. Aim at CEFR level of language
proficiency
For Question 3 “Which CEFR level of language proficiency do you aim to
achieve at the end of the course?” the answers rate has been demonstrated in Figure 3
above. The expectants to achieve B2 level in Common European Framework
Reference (CEFR) upon the end of the course are the most frequent (> 40%). Besides,

38
nearly one-fourth of respondants reported B1 is their target and 7 students surveyed
determined to reach C1 and C2. This result indicates that the CEFR level of language
proficiency which learners tend to aim at is the range between B1 to B2.
4.1.1.2. Section 2: Students’ needs about course contents
Question 4 is “What genres of written documents would you like to learn about
in the course?” The illustration of the data in Figure 4 shows the top three genres of
documents of respondents‟ interest are journal articles, emails and research papers, all
of which are popular types that engineers have to deal with at their workplace. Thus,
the reason for their occupying about 70 – 80% responses of “very important” and
“important but not essentially” is fully understood. Meanwhile, the percentage of
reporters who chose reports and user manuals as their favourite is marginally smaller –
approximately one – third.
Figure 4. Genres of written documents
needed to learn
Figure 5. Genres of written documents with
difficulty
Additionally, across six categories, meeting minutes seems to draw the least
attention by the ratio of close to 0.1; in contrast, electronic emails are the only
exception being regared as “not important” by a relatively low of 8%. In short, the
kinds of documents which occupied the first place of students‟ expectation tend to be
emails, journal articles and research papers.
Figure 5 clearly shows the data for Question 5 “Do you have difficulties in
studying the genres of written documents?” Apparently, the difficulties students
predict to have in learning different genres of documents are rather similar, range from
above 10% to less than 30%, except for journal aticles and research paper. “Research
paper” is at the top of the list with almost exactly twice as many replies supposing it is

39
“very important” as in “Eletronic emails”. In the second place on a scale of difficulty,
“journal articles” is claimed “very important” by slightly more than half of responses.
Meanwhile, the genre causing by far the least arduousness is “meeting minutes” with
significantly fewer students choosing “not important” (around 3-4 participants). In
general, those who were surveyed tend to concern the most about research paper and
journal articles, which reveals that there is a clear correlation between this concern and
the documents of interest analysed above.
4.1.1.3. Students’ needs about feedback and assessment
For Question 6 “What types of feedback would you like to get in the course?”,
Figure 6 reveals the data.
Figure 6. Type of feedback expected in the course
There was highly noticeable expectation in direct correction (underlining and
correcting errors) with the support of nearly all participants, from “may be important”
to “very important”. “Both comments in the margin and end notes” is the second most
common choice of 60% potential learners of the course who suggested “very
important”. Just under half of responses would like to get oral feedback from teachers.
The least important/effective way – “Errors counted at the end” is likely predicted with
only a tenth supposing it very important, whereas the number of opponents tripled.
Likewise, feedback by using correction code is barely considered as “very important”
by above 10% students.
Question 7 asks how important these types of assessment are. Figure 7
demonstrates the relatively equal importance of seven given assessment types
according to students‟ views. All the types are thought to be “very important” by more
or less 40% people surveyed. The most striking type, “Teacher assessment” gets

40
almost all support as “important/very important” and only insignificant 1% response of
“may be important”. Rather similar is “final assessment” without any percentage of
“not important”. Accordingly, it seems to be a reflection of the fact that two just-
mentioned types of assessment are the most reliable to the students.
Figure 7. The importance of assessment
types
Figure 8. The effectiveness of assessment
types
From Figure 8 related to Question 8 “What is the effectiveness of these types of
assignments for learning?”, it is obviously recorded there is a marked difference
among the effectiveness levels of the given assignments types for learning. However,
“final assessment” and “teacher assessment” remained highly appreciated in terms of
the effectiveness they may bring. In this case, they reach two highest levels with 65%
and 60% collected answers choosing “very effective” respectively. The third highest
level of “very effective” chosen by a half of responses is “Standardized tests outside
the institute”. The assessment type that seems to be the least important is peer and self-
assessment with a fifth students claiming it “very effective” and more than a third of
them supposing it “may be effective”.
4.1.1.4. Students’ needs about teaching and learning methods
For Question 9, “Which types of teaching methods would be appropriate for
engineers in a writing course?” the data was presented in Figure 9 below.
When answering on the appropriateness of teaching methods for the writing
course, the students thought that the least suitable method is “Teachers‟ lecture-based”
with only 6 of them choosing the "very appropriate" and some student even ticking
“not appropriate” . In their view, the most important is the combination of two

Using competence-based approach in the development of a writing course for engineers at Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute.pdf

Using competence-based approach in the development of a writing course for engineers at Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Using competence-based approach in the development of a writing course for engineers at Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute.pdf

Similar to Using competence-based approach in the development of a writing course for engineers at Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute.pdf (20)

More from HanaTiti

More from HanaTiti (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Using competence-based approach in the development of a writing course for engineers at Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute.pdf