Australian-Trained Vietnamese Teachersof English: Culture and Identity Formation

Phan Le HaFaculty of Arts, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia

The identity formation of Australian-trained Vietnamese teachers of English isexplored by looking at their experiences as TESOL (teaching English to speakers ofother languages) students in Australia and as teachers of English in Vietnam. Onthe one hand, the paper consolidates the understanding of identity in relation todifference and multiplicity; on the other hand, it challenges the views of identity asbeing always changing, fragmented and having no sense of core or wholeness. Itshows that a strong sense of a Vietnamese national/cultural identity is consistentlyconstructed and confirmed by these teachers, despite their global mobility, andtheir being simultaneously ‘here’ and ‘there’. This understanding of identity hasimplications for TESOL teacher training.

doi: 10.2167/lcc324.0

Keywords: English language teaching, identity, TESOL, teacher identity formation,Vietnam

Over the last 10 years, there have been Vietnamese teachers taking Master ofEducation courses specialising in TESOL in Australian universities. Theseteachers are frequently sent to Australia under national and internationalscholarship schemes and are expected to go back to Vietnam to teach after com-pleting their courses. While in Australia, they are exposed to different culturaland pedagogical practices that affect their identity formation. This paperexamines the identity formation of these teachers with regard to how it isshaped and reshaped by their negotiations of their seemingly conflictingroles and selves simultaneously, as TESOL students in the Australian class-room, and as Vietnamese teachers in the Vietnamese classroom. Specifically,how these teachers perceived the issues of asking questions in lectures, andteacher–student relationships and interactions in both contexts is discussed.In Australia, the participants were international postgraduate students, whoat the same time viewed themselves as Vietnamese teachers of English. It isassumed that in their Australian lectures, they had to negotiate whether tobehave like an Australian student or like a Vietnamese one. As the former,they should enjoy an open and equal relationship with the teachers. Butas the latter, they somehow needed to maintain a distance and show obviousrespect to them. The former and the latter also involve different approachesto learning, because of different expectations.

This paper first discusses the conceptual framework, and next presents thestudy. The data analysis and discussions follow, and finally, implications forTESOL education are offered. To provide the theoretical framework for this

20

0790-8318/07/01 020-16 $20.00/0 # 2007 Phan Le HaLANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM Vol. 20, No. 1, 2007

paper and to assist the data analysis and interpretation, and also to understandhow these teachers’ identity formation took place through the tensionsmanifested in the student/teacher dichotomy, the notion of identity as con-structed, multiple and dynamic (Hall, 1996, 1997), identity as national/culturalidentity, and identity as the sense of belonging (Phan Ngoc, 1998; Tran NgocThem, 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Tran Quoc Vuong, 2000), identity and differ-ence (Dolby, 2000; Hall, 1997; Woodward, 1997), identity and mobility (Lin,2002), and the construction of national identity (de Cillia et al., 1999) is employed.This use of the multiplicity of conceptual tools from both Western andVietnamese scholars is useful to understand the sophistication and complicationof the global and mobile identity formation experienced by these Vietnameseteachers.

Identity as Constructed, Multiple and DynamicMany scholars argue that identity needs to be seen as being constructed,

multiple and dynamic instead of being integral, originary and unified (Dolby,2000; Hall, 1996; Holland, 1996). Hall (1996) contests the notion of the stablecore of cultural identity, which suggests that cultural identity remains fixed, iden-tical and static over time. He suggests that there is no ‘unchanging “oneness” orcultural belongingness underlying all the other superficial differences’ (Hall,1996: 4). Instead, cultural identity, as well as other identities, is always changing,and transformed. Hall (1997: 51) sees identity as ‘a “production”, which is nevercomplete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, rep-resentation’. In Hall’s (1997: 52) perceptions, identity concerns both ‘positionedcontext’ and ‘fragmental’ values. Hall’s view also suggests that identity formationhas much to do with history and changing times. This causes contradictoryidentities within us to pull in different directions.

Holland (1996) supports Hall’s (1992: 277) argument of identity, that ‘identitybecomes a “moveable feast”: formed and transformed continuously in relationto the ways we are represented or addressed in the cultural systems which sur-round us’ (cited in Holland, 1996: 109). Hall’s understanding of identity, as sheacknowledges, allows her to speak of herself as ‘having multiple identities’ and‘to recognize that in different contexts and at different times [she assumes]different identities’ (Holland, 1996: 109). Holland’s interpretation of identitydemonstrates that identity is multiple, constructed and dynamic. This under-standing of identity is also reflected in Dolby (2000).

Identity formation and difference

Many theorists explore the question of identity in relation to difference(Dolby, 2000; Hall, 1997; Woodward, 1997). Woodward (1997: 1) argues that‘identity gives us an idea of who we are and of how we relate to others andto the world in which we live.’ Woodward also argues that ‘identity marksthe ways in which we are the same as others who share that position, andthe ways in which we are different from those who do not’ (Woodward,1997: 1–2). She also claims that identity is often defined at the expense ofdifference, because by asserting ‘who I am’, we simultaneously produce theimage of ‘who I am not’. By doing so, we have created ‘us’ and ‘them’. The

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 21

marking of sameness and difference is done both ‘symbolically throughrepresentational systems and socially through the inclusion or exclusion ofcertain groups of people’ (Woodward, 1997: 4).

Self is constructed through other; or identity is constituted ‘through the eyeof the needle of the other’, as Hall (1991: 21) argues (cited in Dolby, 2000: 901).In other words, when we define others, we indirectly define ourselves. Wemake selves as well as others (Woodward, 1997).

Identity as national/cultural identity: A Vietnamese perspective

Many influential Vietnamese scholars in cultural studies, such as PhanNgoc (1998), Tran Quoc Vuong (2000) and Tran Ngoc Them (1999, 2001a,2001b, 2001c), tend to address identity in the light of notions of ‘nation’ and‘homeland’, which have been seen in close relation to culture. Thus, theyhave created a comprehensive picture of ‘identity’, often understood as‘Vietnamese cultural identity’, something very basic, fundamental and immor-tal. So identity here is often referred to as ‘cultural identity’ or ‘national iden-tity’. This very notion of cultural identity has, as a result, established a strongtie between each individual under this identity ‘loop’ and the loop itself. Ithas also affected their behaviour and ways of doing things. In other words, ithas created its own ‘Vietnamese’ uniqueness (Phan Ngoc, 1998; Tran NgocThem, 1999, 2001a). Vietnamese scholars have provided us with a portrayalof Vietnamese identity which has highly agreed upon distinctive qualities ofVietnamese people within its discourse.

Because Vietnamese scholars strongly believe that there is a sharedVietnamese identity, they tend to believe that every Vietnamese acts, behavesand thinks with reference to this core or ‘root’ identity. The metaphor of‘root’ is very important and significant in Vietnamese culture, and thus identityis often seen in light of this metaphor. ‘Root’ suggests continuity and the senseof belonging in identity formation itself rather than changing. ‘Root’ alsosuggests the importance of collective identity in society. Therefore, individualidentities are often either neglected or underestimated. But this fact is normallycompensated for by the general belief that Vietnam has a distinctive identityand each individual has the right, pride and responsibility to maintain anddevelop it. Vietnamese identity can be imagined as a big umbrella, underwhich every individual allegedly thinks and acts in connection with it. Thisis to say that individuals are strongly and closely influenced by the ‘shared’identity, while individual selves fade away or are put behind the scenes.Nevertheless, individuals make sacrifices for this shared identity and acceptthe reasons for their sacrifice. They are defined by the national identitywhich takes precedence over other aspects of identity.

Identity as the sense of belonging

Phan Ngoc (1998) and Tran Ngoc Them (1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) presentidentity as a sense of belonging. Although they have indicated that identityis about both ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, and place emphasis on Vietnamesenational/cultural identity as the most important identity, what appears import-ant in their discussion is a strong sense of continuity and connectedness, whichgives one a sense of belonging.

22 Language, Culture and Curriculum

Tran Ngoc Them (personal communication, 2001), admits that despite hisexposure to different parts of the world and Western theories of identity andculture, he strongly feels a Vietnamese national/cultural identity. His feelingssupport the argument that one defines oneself in relation to others(Woodward, 1997). He thus feels a stronger sense of being a Vietnamesewhen he is outside Vietnam. However, because he is a scholar of culture whoconstantly argues for the existence of a shared Vietnamese identity, his feelingsmay present resistance to what is often argued in Western theories of identityand culture. His feeling can be understood as both physical and mental.Thus, the ‘being’ of identity and the sense of it complement each other, andsuggest a sense of belonging.

Phan Ngoc (1998) sees himself as a person experiencing major historicalchanges in Vietnam over the past century, and has been influenced by edu-cation in both Chinese and French in the first half of 20th century. He hasthus developed his concern about the identity of his country. Different chaptersin his book, at first, aimed to answer the writer’s own questions. Later, realisingthat his questions are common among his generation, those in their 70s whohave witnessed first hand changes in Vietnam with its open-door policy, hedecided to publish his book (Phan Ngoc, 1998). He emphasises that his bookmainly reflects his own viewpoints. Phan argues that although people likehimself, who have had close contacts with both Chinese (a powerful Asianculture) and French (a powerful Western culture), may have some Chineseflavour in their literary works, and adopt some Western styles at work, theyremain, most importantly, a Vietnamese and are able to ‘Vietnamise’ a bit ofChinese and a bit of French to reflect the Vietnamese spiritual and mental life.

To really understand why Phan Ngoc, a highly recognised internationalscholar, strongly believes in the very ‘core’ cultural identity of his countrydespite his enriched education and his mastery of various languages, it isimportant to note that he has a strong sense of belonging. On the one hand,he does have a multiple and international identity, but at the same time, themore his identity is liberated, the stronger it attaches to core Vietnamesevalues. Put differently, the more contact he has with the world, the more hebelieves in the ‘out there’ cultural identity of Vietnam. He feels he has astrong sense of belonging, which many Western authors, such as Hall (1996)and Dolby (2000), disagree with and try to argue against. He feels that hebelongs to Vietnam.

Identity and mobility

While the concept of mobility on the one hand problematises the existingnarratives of fixed regional identities and the closed local/national cultures(Paasi, 2002), on the other hand it confirms the importance of locality orplace-based identity in identity formation (Lin, 2002). This paper takes theview on mobility and identity as discussed by Lin (2002), whose study ofhow the great spatial mobility experienced by Hong Kong sojourners affectstheir identity formation, demonstrates that identity and mobility are mutuallyinter-related and that the inter-relationship between spatial mobility and place-based identity is complex and multi-faceted. His study also indicates thatdespite increased global mobility of diaspora and the ongoing processes of

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 23

deterritorisation and displacement, locality or place of origin plays a significantrole in transnational identity formation of Hong Kong sojourners. Lin (2002: 87)contends that ‘The great mobility of the Chinese diaspora from Hong Kong,and the diasporic landscape they have created, has been effectively shapedby their place-based ethno-linguistic identity’. This suggests that place-basedidentity is ‘one of the many fundamental forces operating behind the sceneof the great spatial mobility demonstrated by the Hong Kong sojourners’(Lin, 2002: 87). Lin’s argument of identity in relation to the simultaneity ofmobility and locality is useful for understanding how this notion of identitymakes sense of mobility. This way of looking at identity and mobility helpsus understand better the identity formation of the Vietnamese TESOL teacherparticipants.

Construction of national identity

The work of de Cillia et al. (1999) lists three ways individuals constructnational identities. First, national identities are constructed on the basis of ‘acommon history, and history has always to do with remembrance andmemory’ (de Cillia et al., 1999: 154). Second, the construction of national iden-tities is closely related to the role of culture. Third, national identities havemuch to do with ‘internalised structuring impetus which more or less stronglyinfluences social practices’ (de Cillia et al., 1999: 156).

These authors also identify four strategies used by individuals in Austriato construct their national identities, namely (1) constructive strategies, (2)perpetuation and justification strategies, (3) transformation strategies, and(4) dismantling or destructive strategies. Constructive strategies aim at build-ing and establishing a particular national identity, using linguistic acts suchas ‘we-group’ (de Cillia et al., 1999: 160) in statements like ‘“we Austrians”’or ‘“Austrians”’ (de Cillia et al., 1999: 160). Perpetuation and justificationstrategies ‘attempt to maintain, support and reproduce national identity’ (deCillia et al., 1999: 160–161). These strategies can be seen in discussions whereindividuals ‘construct immigrants as a threat to national identity’ (de Cilliaet al., 1999: 161). Transformation strategies involve transforming ‘the meaningof a relatively well-established aspect of national identity into another’ (deCillia et al., 1999: 161). Dismantling or destructive strategies are used to‘de-mythologise or demolish existing national identities or elements of them’(de Cillia et al., 1999: 161). These ways and strategies of constructing nationalidentities are useful for interpreting the identity formation of the teachersparticipating in this study.

The StudyResearch approach and design

What is presented in this paper is part of the findings from a larger study,which looks at the formation of national professional identities of Vietnameseteachers in their teaching of global English. The study adopted a qualitativecase study approach, and had seven cases who were Vietnamese teachers ofEnglish (six females and one male) studying TESOL in different Australianuniversities at the time the research was being conducted. These teachers

24 Language, Culture and Curriculum

were tertiary teachers from different parts of Vietnam, the north, the centre andthe south. Their teaching experience ranged from three to 10 years. Data werecollected through individual in-depth interviews, group focus interviews andguided reflective writing. Pseudonyms are used.

Data analysis and interpretation

Based on the data obtained from the interviews and the participants’ writing,themes were identified according to the aims of the research, which are pro-cesses of teacher identity formation and the politics of ELT. The focus of thisstudy and the way the participants identified themselves suggested dichoto-mies which were later used as tools of inquiry for data analysis and interpret-ation. It should be noted that dichotomies were not created in the questions butrather the participants themselves used dichotomies to express different rolesand selves. It is important to note that ‘dichotomy/dichotomies’ were usedmore as a tool of inquiry, a means to interpret the data rather than themeaning underlying the word(s). In this way, dichotomy/dichotomies serveas a way to understand and identify variation in identification rather than away of characterising the world.

In this paper, the processes of identity formation are explored with specificfocus on the dichotomy of the teacher and/or the student. This dichotomywas suggested by the way the participants identified themselves, such as selfas teacher in Vietnam and self as student in Australia. The use of this dichot-omy assisted the understanding of different processes of identity formation,in which the teacher as the main identity had to negotiate with other relatedidentities to guarantee its optimal status at personal, local and global levels.

The data

This section presents the data with a specific focus on the two mostpredominant tensions noticed in the participants’ accounts, their roles andselves as Vietnamese students and/or Australian students, and Australian stu-dents and/or Vietnamese teachers. Specific practices related to this dichotomyof teacher–student, namely ‘asking questions in lectures’ and teacher–student relationships and interactions, are investigated. It is apparent in thedata that these practices concerned all the participants and made them negotiatetheir dual identities as teacher and student constantly. While presenting the datain light of this dichotomy, the conceptual frameworks of identity and differenceand the construction of national identity are used to make sense of theparticipants’ perceptions of the act of ‘asking questions in lectures’ andteacher–student relationships and interactions.

Identity and difference

The participants reported that students asking questions was a very commonpractice in Australian lectures. Through their perceptions of the practice of‘asking questions in lectures’, their identity formation took place. Theyconstructed their identities in relation to difference. When the participantswere mixed with their Australian classmates, they used different identityfilters to group themselves into one category and Australian students intothe other. One visible identity filter is some difference in the teacher–student

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 25

relationships. The very open and democratic Australian classroom environ-ment was interpreted as lack of respect by the participants, who came from ahighly hierarchical educational system where the role of teachers was well pro-tected by norms of respect. This identity filter of difference is actually betterunderstood as value or respect in the Vietnamese sense. In other words, the par-ticipants used their values of behaviour in the educational setting to identifythemselves and therefore constructed images of Australian students whopossessed different practices.

Here are their voices.

Teachers here generally encourage students to ask questions, so if we haveany questions or aren’t sure of anything we can ask . . . ‘cause they want itthat way. . . the atmosphere in the class is very relaxing because Aussiestudents always ask questions, ‘no matter what’ and they don’t carewhether lecturers mind or not, they keep asking if they have anythingto ask, and they even occupy lecture time. . . . Students here make meact faster. I mean if I’m not quick enough then they’ll take over my turn. . . Aussie students are like that. They ask too much and this forces meto be braver to ask questions. (Linh, individual interview)

In Vietnam the teacher–student relationships are rather distant comparedto those in Australia, but the distance has two sides. In terms of advan-tages, the distance is necessary because it defines who is teacher andwho is student. It means students show hierarchical respect to teachers.It’s not like here in Australia, teachers allow students to ‘feel free’, so stu-dents can answer back or even challenge teachers in class. We, Vietnamesestudents in Australia are still shy and we still behave the way we do inVietnam. (Chi, individual interview)

In my class [in Australia] there’s a student who always asks questions. Itseems that he has nothing to ask but he just wants to attract the lecturer’sattention and to show that he’s asking questions and that he’s active.Many of his questions are nonsense, funny and ridiculous . . . He saysthat he doesn’t care whether his questions make sense or are relevant.What he cares is to make the lecturer know that he’s keen to ask questionsand he’s interested . . . He says that studying in Australia is like that. If wehave nothing to ask, we still have to make up some questions, even totallyirrelevant ones. He says lecturers are in favour of those who often askquestions. But in Vietnam it’s very different. We students often thinkwhether our questions are heavy-weight enough to ask before we askthem . . . If questions are not worth to ask or not important or solvable,we can do it ourselves and don’t have to ask. But here in Australia theyask and ask. They don’t care. . . Our Vietnamese perceptions are differentfrom theirs. If we keep asking questions in class, it’s like we challengeteachers or test their ability. Thus, we always have to consider our questions,whether we should ask or not. (Trang, group interview)

The participants identified themselves on the basis of difference. Thisconfirms the argument that self/identity is constructed through the other(Dolby, 2000; Hall, 1997; Woodward, 1997). Others here are Australian students

26 Language, Culture and Curriculum

and teachers, from whom the participants felt different. At the same time, bycontrasting Vietnamese students to Australian students and by describinghow they performed in their lectures, they co-constructed their identities asboth students studying in Australia and Vietnamese teachers.

The participants identified themselves by defining ‘others’. Australianstudents were generalised as those who were eager to ask any questions in lec-tures, including ‘ridiculous’ and ‘irrelevant’ ones. They were also described asthose who sometimes did not consider others and asked questions for the sakeof asking rather than contributing to, or co-constructing knowledge. The par-ticipants also implied that Australian students could be considered rude bytheir Vietnamese standards and values when they asked too much and theirquestions were too funny. Put differently, the participants observed thatrespect did not seem to be a concern for Australian students.

One’s identity is constructed partly by stereotyping others, and by assumingAustralian students act in certain ways, the participants stressed the differences.They tended to identify differences and stereotype Australian students andsimultaneously assume their own identity. They identified themselvesby defining others. The participants used ‘they’ versus ‘I’/‘we’ and ‘them’versus ‘me’ to mark the differences between Australian students and themselves.

They are what they are not (Woodward, 1997). By describing Australianstudents as those who always asked many questions including ‘silly’ ones andeven occupied lecture time, they presented themselves as those who alwaysthought before asking. By referring to Australian students as those who feltfree to ask anything, they showed themselves as those who paid respect toteachers. They also considered their face and their lecturers’ face. They weredifferent from Australians. They brought their existing values to theirAustralian lectures to find those values different from what took place there.It was clear from the data that they all pictured Australian students as thosewho always asked and somehow did not show enough respect to teachers.

Though the participants all acknowledged that they liked the open and equalrelationships with Australian lecturers and the quite relaxing environment inclasses where students freely contributed to discussion, at the same time theyshowed obvious tensions when they had to perform student in an Australianclassroom. Still, the Vietnamese part in them had a strong influence on howthey behaved in the Australian classroom. On the one hand, they realisedthat asking questions showed that one was interested in lectures and keento learn. It also contributed to satisfying their lecturers. On the other, theyall set the extent to which they should ask questions. Their questionsstill needed to make sense and be important enough to be raised. They choseto consider the burden they would place on lecturers and their friends ratherthan just ask questions for the sake of asking. So, being present in theAustralian classroom, they chose to let their Vietnamese part be activeand somehow predominate in their decision whether to ask questions. Theycould not act in the Australian way, simply because as they all revealed, theywere different.

Thus they were influenced and constrained by existing values and practicesthat made them Vietnamese students. Although the participants knew thatasking questions in lectures was a good way for students to construct

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 27

knowledge, it is significant and vital for them to be regarded as teachers whoenjoyed a higher status than students and who could not let students ‘feelfree’ to ask any questions in class. For example, Chi insisted on the distancebetween teachers and students in Vietnam, but also appreciated the friendlyenvironment in Australian classrooms. On the one hand, Linh unfastenedher Vietnamese identity by trying to ask questions in lectures to mix withAustralian students, but on the other she fastened it by claiming herVietnameseness as a teacher to confirm that she belonged to the Vietnameseculture, which defines quite strictly the position of teacher and of student.

The Construction of National IdentityWhen the participants identified themselves in relation to Australian

students and Australian lecturers, they, by implication, constructed aVietnamese national identity. In the light of de Cillia et al. (1999), instancesand discursive practices will be drawn on to discuss how national identitywas constructed, since the authors argue that ‘the national identity of individ-uals who perceive themselves as belonging to a national collectivity is mani-fested, inter alia, in their social practices, one of which is discursive practice’(de Cillia et al., 1999: 29). Also, arguments about identity made by Phan Ngoc(1998) and Tran Ngoc Them (1999, 2001a) will be employed to interpret theconstruction of a Vietnamese national identity.

Assumption of sameness among Vietnamese students

The participants assumed sameness among Vietnamese students, who inher-ited a long and rich tradition of respecting teacher and the teaching profession.

In Vietnam the teacher–student relationships are rather distant comparedto those in Australia . . . The distance is necessary because it defines who isteacher and who is student. It means students show hierarchical respect toteachers . . . We need to show our respect to senior teachers/predecessorsfor their effort and dedication to constructing knowledge and teaching us.(Chi, individual interview)

In the educational environment, we often talk about, like what Vy has saidearlier, the tradition of respecting teacher and the teaching profession, andlike what Kien has mentioned, about teacher as role model. In my under-standing, these are traditions of our people . . . we need to preserve andpromote these traditions. (Linh, group interview)

We also have the tradition of learning how to behave before learningknowledge. I think it’s as important as respecting teacher and the teachingprofession. (Vy, group interview)

They spelt out the word ‘tradition’, explicitly or implicitly referring to it byreifying how it operated. Among the participants, it seemed that they held ashared understanding of the traditions, particularly Kien, Linh and Vy.

They also assumed that Vietnamese students all perceived and practiced thetradition in similar ways. For example, they reported that they felt happy andrewarded when their former and current students greeted them respectfully

28 Language, Culture and Curriculum

both inside and outside the classroom; or they all observed that students at alllevels in Vietnam respected teachers.

Regarding teacher–student relationships, many students are veryemotionally close to teachers. As you know about our teaching profession,we have different generations of students and they still greet us whenthey see us in streets although they have already graduated, and manyof them are even older than us. It’s such a nice and respectful manner,and I feel very happy. (Thu, individual interview)

The teacher–student relationships are close and students normallyrespect teachers. (Chi, individual interview)

Students always respect teachers. (Trang, individual interview)

Furthermore, they revealed that neither their students in Vietnam answeredback to them nor they themselves did so to their lecturers, even when theywere in Australia where they were encouraged to ask questions and arguequite freely in class. They paid respect to teachers and only asked ‘worthy’questions in lectures. The tradition seemed to hold them back and remindedthem that they were Vietnamese.

In Vietnam, the tradition of respecting teachers and the teaching profession isan essential value embedded in moral lessons introduced to students at pre-school and school. Both teachers and students practise it consciously, andthen it becomes a built-in quality which society and its members appreciateand promote. Thus, whoever goes against the tradition is considered dis-respectful and rude. It is the tradition that made the participants assumesameness among themselves, and thus create a Vietnamese identity. de Cilliaet al. (1999: 160–161) termed this means of constructing identity ‘perpetuationand justification strategies,’ in which the participants ‘attempt to maintain,support and reproduce national identities.’ In this case, the tradition of respect-ing teachers and the teaching profession was emphasised, advocated andshared among the participants.

Highlighting Vietnamese identity by emphasising differences

By emphasising their differences from Australian students, the participantshighlighted their Vietnamese identity. They implied they were different andthus they had their own identity, the identity of Vietnamese students.Comments, such as ‘Aussie students are like that’ (Linh) or ‘studying inAustralia is like that’ (Trang) or ‘but here in Australia they ask and ask. Theydon’t care’ (Trang) or ‘it’s not like here in Australia’ (Chi), gave Australian stu-dents a certain identity, and at the same time implied that Vietnamese studentswere not like that. Thus, an assumed unique Vietnamese identity was con-structed, confirmed and made solid as differences were noticed and clearlyidentified. This supports the argument made by de Cillia et al. (1999) aboutthe strategies and ways individuals use to construct their national identity.

Assumption of a shared Vietnamese identity

By declaring explicitly that there was a Vietnamese way concerning askingquestions, the participants confirmed a practice which they believed to be

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 29

Vietnamese. Such instances as ‘but in Vietnam it’s very different’ (Trang) or ‘ourVietnamese perceptions are different from theirs’ (Trang) suggested that theyhad in mind an idea of how students performed in the Vietnamese classroom,and they labelled that practice Vietnamese. Particularly, when Trang referred to‘our Vietnamese perceptions’, she assumed that the other group-mates andmyself understood what she meant. She assumed a shared meaning amongher Vietnamese peers. This confirms ‘the constructive strategies’ individualsuse to construct their national identities suggested by de Cillia et al. (1999: 160).

In the light of the constructive strategies, ‘we’ is a useful linguistic means toindicate sameness, and thus contributes to the construction of nationalidentity (de Cillia et al., 1999: 160). The participants used ‘we’ to assert theirVietnameseness and national solidarity. If in the beginning Trang gave anexample of an Australian student advising her to make up any questions,even ridiculous ones, to ask in lectures, she concluded with ‘but in Vietnamit’s very different. We students often think whether our questions are heavy-weight enough to ask before we ask them.’ She did not respond to thatadvice on her behalf, but on Vietnamese students’ behalf. She assumed same-ness among her peers and other Vietnamese students. Instead of saying ‘we’alone, Chi said ‘we Vietnamese students’, which included herself and herpeers as well: they were all Vietnamese students (and not teachers), andthus they were the same or at least very similar in the way they asked questionsin class. Moreover, the adverb of place ‘here’ was also used by the participantsto make distinctions between the Vietnamese way and the Australian one, suchas ‘teachers here’ (Linh), ‘but here in Australia’ (Trang and Chi). They implicitlymeant ‘here things are like that’ and ‘there things are like this’ and ‘here’ isAustralia but ‘there’ is Vietnam.

An assumed Vietnamese identity is also evident in Linh’s argument in thegroup-interview with Vy and Kien whether or not to allow students to callteachers by their first names:

To be honest, for example if a student sends me a letter and salutes mewith ‘Dear Linh’, I would feel extremely offended. No matter where weare and who we become we’re still Vietnamese and we’ve hadVietnamese cultural values embedded inside us. Even though we’rehere [in Australia] we’re still Vietnamese and there’s no way we canlose our cultural values.

In Linh’s argument, Vietnamese cultural values were something ‘out there’,available and inside her, something immutable that she would never lose. Byusing the word ‘lose’ and the expression ‘there’s no way we can lose our culturalvalues’, Linh assumed that her peers and myself possessed the same values, theVietnamese ones. Thus, a group solidarity and union was formed. AVietnamese identity became visible and it was actualised under a name‘cultural values’. It is also clear in Linh’s argument that some practices areencoded ‘Vietnamese’ and some are labelled ‘Australian’ or ‘Western’. Herethe Vietnamese identity was not something abstract, but something specific.It was embodied in Linh’s identity. She showed a strong commitment tothese Vietnamese values, the values that made her a Vietnamese no matterwhere she was and who she would become. This consolidates the argument

30 Language, Culture and Curriculum

of identity as national cultural identity and as the sense of belonging discussedby Phan Ngoc (1998) and Tran Ngoc Them (1999, 2001). This also highlights thestatement that the construction of national identity is closely related to the roleof culture made by de Cillia et al. (1999).

DiscussionIdentity and difference

It is seen from the data that the participants clearly constructed their identityin relation to difference, specifically in opposition to Australian students. Theyseemed to represent their own images and Australian students in a particularway and appeared to hold certain assumptions about the Australian lectures.So what made the participants have such a conception in mind? Why didthey construct images of Australian students and themselves in this way butnot in other ways?

First, it might be because it was easier to notice differences, although suchdifferences did not necessarily truly representative of Australian students; orsecond, it might be the democracy and freedom students had with theteacher in the Australian classroom that attracted the participants’ attention.

Third, it was their response to existing stereotypes about passive, uncritical,quiet and obedient Asian students as opposed to active and critical Australianstudents in Australian classes (see for example Ballard & Clanchy, 1997; Barrett-Lennard, 1997; Samuelowicz, 1987). After the data analysis was completed,analysis regarding their perceptions of Australian students was shown to theparticipants to seek their clarifications of why they created such images inmind. They reported that they had heard or been told about such stereotypesbefore they came to Australia, or became aware of them when reading books.Specifically, some reported that they were even introduced to the book byBallard and Clanchy (1997) published by IDP (International DevelopmentProgram) Australia and were advised to use it as ‘useful’ guidelines fortheir studying in Australia. While Linh seemed to show her willingness tobe mixed with Australian students and thus challenged what had beensaid about passive Asians, the other participants tended to confirm somestereotypes by stressing different values that differentiate Vietnamese andAustralian students. They tended to show resistance to Australian ways ofperformance to draw a border between Vietnamese and Australian values.This resonates with the construction of national identity which I will discussin the next section.

Fourth, some stereotypes were formed because the participants were misledby Australian students’ performance. The example given by Trang demon-strated certain assumptions they held about Australian students who activelytook the asking role, even when they had nothing to ask. This created someimages of the other, ‘the Australians’, assuming ‘they’re like that’, and thusany Australian student would be seen in the same way. As seen in the thirdpoint above, this could also well be due to the existing stereotypes introducedto the participants in their study in Australia. The way the participantsconstructed the images of Australian students indicates how ‘destructive’well-established ‘scholarly’ stereotypes can be.

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 31

To conclude, the participants constructed their identities in relation to differ-ence from others (Hall, 1997; Woodward, 1997). The notions of ‘us’ and ‘them’were often brought into their negotiation, for example ‘we Vietnamese stu-dents’ and ‘they Australians’. The notions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ are not necessarilycreated by the way the questions were asked, nor are they a product of a delib-erate positioning of self in relation to others. Rather, they are in part functionsof the tasks the participants were undertaking in Vietnam and Australia.Although they all emphasised differences between Australian students andthemselves, and stated that they were different, the participants did notisolate themselves in Australian lectures. They tended to keep a certain dis-tance and showed that they were Vietnamese and thus different. They hadreasons for not being the same as Australian students, and their being silentor seemingly passive was determined by their Vietnamese values, and pastand current experiences. Thus, even in circumstances when they mightbehave like Australian students, particularly in Linh’s case, they still perceiveddifferences. However, perceiving differences did not seem to make them asabsolutely different from Australians as chalk and cheese. They showed adegree of mixing and adjusting. In other words, since ‘difference is not astatic, immobile reality, but a discursively constructed set of practices . . .’(Dolby, 2000: 902), the participants constructed these differences as they wenton and experienced a new set of values. Their identities, thus, were reshapedand negotiated within their awareness of differences. Their identities aresubject to reconstruction but along the lines of existing values embedded inthem. This may suggest stability, but it is rather a sense of connectedness inthe fluid negotiation of values. All of these give them a sense of belonging.

The role of national cultural identity and placed-based identity inidentity formation

National cultural identity and place-based identity appeared dominant in theparticipants’ processes of identity formation, and this strongly supports the dis-cussion of identity as national cultural identity by Phan Ngoc (1998) and TranNgoc Them (1999, 2001a), and the argument of the central role of locality inidentity formation by Lin (2002). Where were the participants in this mixtureof values, pedagogical practices and mismatch of expectations? Where werethey when they always had two spaces, Vietnam and Australia, in mind?Where were they when the reality in Vietnam was different from their experi-ences in Australia? Clearly, they needed a place where they belonged. Thiscaused them consciously and subconsciously to negotiate their identities tofeel included. Their exposure to Australia also made them feel theirVietnamese identity stronger, since most of the time they had to rely on it tonegotiate new values and practices, and to situate themselves.

Their identities continued to be shaped and reshaped as they negotiated theirexisting values with other new values. They tended to present themselvesthrough their multiple identities, which seemed to hold together on the basisof a shared cultural and national identity. This suggested a sense of continuityin their identity formation processes, despite the obvious tensions and contra-dictions they experienced in the movement in space and time between Vietnamand Australia. Above all, their sense of Vietnameseness seemed to influence all

32 Language, Culture and Curriculum

their processes of identity formation, and in each process, they constructed andreconstructed the Vietnamese identity.

The way the teacher participants constructed their multiple identities withconstant references to their Vietnamese identity confirms and supports therole of place-based identities in identity formation (Lin, 2002). This also conso-lidates the complex and multi-faceted interrelationship and interdependencebetween mobility and identity. Truly, despite the participants’ mobility, theirlocality or place of origins, in this case Vietnam, plays a significant role intheir identity formation. This affirms that place-based identity is among themost fundamental forces operating behind the realities of mobility, and it ismobility that offers the ground for place-based identity to assert itself.

This study, on the one hand, confirms the understanding of identity asdynamic change and multiple, but on the other hand is strongly in favour ofthe argument of identity as the sense of belonging and a particular locality,which in this study, is also perceived as cultural national identity.

Implications for TESOL

Based on the above findings and discussion, several suggestions to theTESOL field can be offered. These suggestions may help make more explicitinherently contradictory roles and selves perceived and experienced byteachers of English who study in TESOL courses in Australia. Making thesecontradictions explicit may assist the acknowledgement and understandingof what TESOL students experience in relation to their identity formation,and thus helps make the TESOL curriculum respond better to their situations.These suggestions can also be extended to TESOL courses in other English-speaking countries.

Explicit on-going orientations about changing senses of self needto be introduced

Since TESOL students normally experience tensions between theirapparently contradictory roles and selves when they go to an English speakingcountry for training in TESOL, it is necessary to introduce explicit ongoingorientations about changing senses of self before, during and after a courseof study. These orientations should act as an arena for TESOL students toexpress and exchange their perceptions of their identities.

For example, before commencing their course, TESOL students can bedivided into groups, and each group maintains ongoing contacts among itsmembers, through means such as focus group discussions. In such discussions,they will talk about how they identify themselves as teachers and learners ofEnglish, and how their views change as they go on with their course. Thosefocus groups will have a channel, by which they can give feedback to teachingstaff. They may also choose to have a mentor or liaison person who can act as abridge to staff on their requests to deal with issues that affect their identitiesnegatively.

Introducing readings from non-Western scholars

Since the TESOL classroom is a site of identity formation, and we can controlits context to some extent, this study suggests that we make it a site of respectful

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 33

and open interchange of ideas. TESOL students tend to have a strong sense oftheir own cultural national identity, and given the political context of TESOL,this sense can grow even stronger. It is thus necessary to introduce readingsto which students can relate themselves more meaningfully, the readings thatare written by those who more or less share their concerns and understandtheir teaching contexts from the insider perspectives. Also, the introductionof these readings would make international TESOL students more confident,as they can see that the academy is not totally controlled by Western voices.This could encourage them to contribute more in the classroom. Their identityformation is thus more meaningful and positive. This would make the TESOLclassroom a site of mutual and respectful understanding.

Creating cross-cultural dialogues in the TESOL classroom

It is important that the TESOL classroom acknowledges and understands theconflicting roles and selves experienced by TESOL students. Solutions to helpTESOL students resolve more meaningfully their inherently contradictory rolesand selves as teacher and student are thus needed. This could be achieved byredesigning tasks in the TESOL classroom. Instead of spending time on discus-sion and asking question activities, reflective journal writing and thinking logscould be used more often. Another possibility may be inviting students todemonstrate the way they teach their students and how they handleteacher–student interactions in the classroom in their home countries. Thiswould create cross-cultural dialogues in the TESOL classroom and thus be ofbenefit to all students, since they would feel a meaningful part of the dialogueswhen their voices were appreciated and valued.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Phan Le Ha, School ofLanguages, Cultures and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Monash University,Clayton, Victoria 3800, Austrialia (ha.phan@education.monash.edu.au).

ReferencesBallard, B. and Clanchy, J. (1997) Teaching International Students: A Brief Guide for Lecturers

and Supervisors. Deakin, ACT: IDP Education Australia.Barrett-Lennard, S. (1997) Encouraging autonomy and preparing for IELTS: Mutually

exclusives goals? Prospect 12 (3), 29–40.De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (1999) The discursive construction of national

identities. Discourse and Society 10 (2), 149–173.Dolby, N. (2000) Changing selves: Multicultural education and the challenge of new

identities. Teachers College Record 102 (5), 898–912.Hall, S. (1996) Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall and P. Du Gay (eds)

Questions of Cultural Identity (pp. 1–17). London: Sage Publication.Hall, S. (1997) Cultural identity and diaspora. In K. Woodward (ed.) Identity and

Difference (pp. 51–59). London: Sage Publication.Holland, W. (1996) Mistaken identity. In E. Vasta and S. Castles (eds) The Teeth are

Smiling: The Persistence of Racism in Multicultural Australia. NSW: Allen and Unwin.Lin, G.C.S. (2002) Hong Kong and the globalisation of the Chinese diaspora: A

geographical perspective. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 43 (1), 63–91.Paasi, A. (2002) Bounded spaces in the mobile world: Deconstructing ‘regional identity’.

Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 93 (2), 137–148.

34 Language, Culture and Curriculum

Phan Ngoc (1998) Ban Sac Van Hoa Viet Nam (Vietnamese Cultural Identity). Hanoi: NhaXuat Ban Van Hoa Thong Tin.

Samelowicz, K. (1987) Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story.Higher Education Research Development 6 (2), 121–132.

Tran Ngoc Them (1999) Tu nghi quyet trung uong 5, nghi ve ban sac van hoa dan tocVietnam. Bai trinh bay tai Hoi thao ve van hoa Viet Nam tai Hoc vien chinh tri quocgia Ho Chi Minh, phan vien phia Nam. Paper presented at the Conference aboutVietnamese Culture, Ho Chi Minh Political and National Institute, Ho Chi Minh Citybranch.

Tran Ngoc Them (2001a) Tim Ve Ban Sac Van Hoa Viet Nam. (Discovering the Identity ofVietnamese Culture: Typological-systematic View) (3 edn). Ho Chi Minh City: NhaXuat Ban TP.

Tran Ngoc Them (2001b) Personal communication. (26 September).Tran Ngoc Them (2001c) Personal communication. (27 September).Tran Quoc Vuong (2000) Van hoa Viet Nam: Tim Toi va Suy Ngam. Hanoi: Nha xuat ban van

hoa dan toc & Tap chi van hoa nghe thuat.Woodward, K. (ed.) (1997) Identity and Difference. London: Sage Publications.

Australian-Trained Vietnamese English Teachers 35