“It is said that people living in the global integration age should know English at least for communication. Do you agree with this?” Once a friend of mine asked me this question, and without thinking, I answered at once “Yes, undoubtedly so.” This thought has not changed since that day and English nowadays dominates over the other foreign languages and is considered a second language in many countries all over the world. Like other developing countries, in Vietnam the demand of using English has increased dramatically in the last few years. Actually, with the open policy and a stable political system, Viet Nam today has attracted more and more foreign investors, tourists come to do business and relax. And obviously, English is the first choice for most Vietnamese people, especially the youth. That reflects in the enormous number of English centers, clubs, schools, universities . including home and foreign ones. However, the reality of teaching and learning English in Vietnam is still not a perfect picture even at the universities, colleges let alone at the English centers. One of the reasons is a less effective teaching methodology and wrong myths on understanding it. Let’s take teaching vocabulary as an example. This aspect of teaching methodology has been lightened and even neglected for a long time, while we all know that vocabulary is a means to link four skills, namely speaking, writing, listening, and reading and without vocabulary we cannot transfer exactly what we want to say to the listeners. As a communication instrument used by people all around the world, the use of English required much vocabulary. According to many linguists, in communication, vocabulary is more important than grammar. However, it has not received the recognition it deserves in the classroom. “A vast amount of teaching time is consumed by explanation and definition, classroom blackboards are often littered with masses of new lexical items, and students compile page upon page of vocabulary word - lists that they rarely have the opportunity to practice” (Ruth Gairns & Stuart Redman 1986).
