The Communicative Language Teaching Approach in Uzbekistan
Firdavs Navruzov, Uzbekistan
Firdavs Navruzov has an MA in TESL. He is a teacher at a private language and tutoring school named “LTC Leader”. He is interested in second language acquisition, communicative language teaching, intercultural communicative competence, and the use of reading (especially literary texts) in improving communicative and cultural competencies of students. He has already published many articles. Currently he is involved in the preparation of pre-service language teachers and and works with young adults and adults in both EFL and ESL contexts. Email address: E-mail: firdavs.navruzov@mnsu.edu
Menu
Introduction and background
The role of English in the education system of Uzbekistan
Literature review
CLT in Uzbekistan
Conclusion
References
The Republic of Uzbekistan is one of the five Central Asian countries, with its population estimating 29,324,920 according to the World Population Review of 2014. Ethnically, the country consists of 80% Uzbeks, while the remaining percentage belongs to Tajiks, Karakalpaks, Russians and other ethnicities. Among the main spoken languages are Uzbek, the official language, Russian, the former lingua franca, and Tajik, spoken mainly in such regions as Bukhara and Samarkand. Soon after gaining its independence in 1991, Uzbekistan launched into a series of international and business relationships with many foreign countries, which resulted in many changes in economics, politics and education of the country. The demand for English started increasing at a rapid pace and soon it became the most popular foreign language taught and learned both in public and private sectors.
Being aware of the pedagogical background in relation to teaching English is of great importance, as it is closely connected to the present approaches used throughout the country. The English language was first introduced to the educational system of Uzbekistan during the Soviet Union in the mid-1950s. During that period, it was heavily based on grammar-translation methods and the cardinal purpose of acquiring the language was to become interpreters and translators of technical, scientific and literary texts. Purely linguistic interest in the language left no room for understanding the culture and tradition of the native speakers. Furthermore, all lessons were teacher-fronted and very little language production could be observed, thus imbuing students with the concept that their involvement was not expected.
However, the use of these approaches decreased significantly after the country gained its independence, in turn giving way to a more up-to-date approach such as communicative language teaching. Especially, the last decade and a half have seen considerable changes in the methodology and pedagogics of second language acquisition and the use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The relevant ministries, as well as some foreign organisations such as the British Council and US embassy, have been creating new language teaching materials, syllabi and workshops for EL teachers of Uzbekistan.
Notwithstanding these steps that the country has taken, there are a few issues that need addressing, which will be our guiding questions in this study:
- How can the instructors’ understanding of CLT and its use in the classroom improve?
- Why more teaching material and resources are essential for the implementation of
CLT?
- How to implement student-centred approach when it conflicts with the expectation of the students of how classes are supposed to be conducted?
The present study will first provide an overview of the educational structure of the country, specifically to the role of English at schools and universities. In the literature review section, I will give an outline to communicative language teaching and its role in Uzbekistan classrooms. The paper will be concluded with pedagogical implications and perspective for future research and a conclusion.
After the independence of Uzbekistan, the country started building relationships with other countries, and then meeting the demands of global educational standards, especially concerning the instruction of foreign languages became a priority. The need to introduce more innovative ways of instructing English and to increase the number of hours it was being instructed was specifically emphasised. Consequently, the new methodology and regulations entered the curriculum of schools and higher educational establishments.
Structure of Education at Schools and Colleges
The education at schools is divided into two stages, which in total make up nine academic years: elementary school and secondary school. The place of English in the curriculum of elementary schools has changed considerably since the independence. Until 2013, English was taught at this level only at some specialized schools and gymnasiums, and the hours allocated to English were only 2-4 hours a week. However, according to the decree by President Islom Karimov of 2013, all schools were obliged to provide students with English classes from the 1st grade and the hours of instruction rose to 6-8 hours. At the secondary school level, although, English started being introduced from the 5th grade, its instruction hours are still 2-4 hours a week. Today the educators are looking into increasing these class hours to 6-8 hours a week as well. After completing a nine-year education at school, students go on to study at either professional colleges or academic lyceums. English is taught more in depth in these establishments, and most academic lyceums also offer English faculties, where students specialize mostly in the English language and literature. As these lyceums and colleges mainly serve the purpose of preparing students for National Entrance Exams to the universities around the country, their focus in English is considerably higher and most students have English on a daily business.
Structure of Higher Education
In order to be accepted by a higher educational establishment in Uzbekistan, students take National Entrance Exams, which consist of three sections depending on their field of study. According to Hasanova’s research (2008), in 2005 out of 107 majors offered by different institutions and universities of the country, 37 tested students on their knowledge of foreign languages. However, according to the decree from 2013, starting from 2015 all candidates wishing to enter any of the public universities will be obliged to pass an English entrance exam. Furthermore, English is a compulsory subject for all sciences in three out of the four years of education at university, and students at many universities has to pass a state exam on English upon graduation. If students wish to apply for graduate studies, the exams will include a special subject according to their field, and oral and written exams in English.
The CLT approach to language teaching presumes negotiation of meaning between speaker and listener, as meaning is the centre of all communicative exchanges. However, this approach does not assume only speaking, but all the linguistic aspects of a language, thus, it can also involve negotiation of meaning between author and reader. The conception of CLT can be traced back to Hymes (1972) and his theory of learning a language for the sake of communication.
An important point about CLT is that at its all levels, students need a great deal of exposure to the English language presented in contexts that are linguistically accurate and culturally appropriate. Therefore, language instructors’ responsibility and challenge is to create learning conditions that offer students opportunities to use English in a wide variety of realistic, communicative situations (Hendrickson, 1991). This can be accomplished in many ways, including the use of audio and video materials, newspapers and magazines, and the Internet. While CLT may not necessarily include more discussion than traditional grammar-based approaches, its main purpose is to teach students to express their ideas meaningfully, and most certainly with appropriate linguistic precision.
The CLT approach first entered the curriculum in Uzbekistan at the end of 1990s, when the Ministry of Public Education developed State Educational Standards (ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ 1). The purpose of the new curriculum was to promote communicative fluency and move away from grammar-based and audio-lingual approaches. The role of the approach increased even more in the last decade and a half, and it started being promoted in teaching conferences, workshops and in-service teacher education by both local and international English educators. However, there still remain some issues that are hampering the effective use of CLT in some Uzbek classrooms, first of which is instructors’ insufficient or wrong understanding of what this method is and how to implement it.
The Role of Teachers
More than 15 years passed before English teachers in Uzbekistan were introduced to CLT, and although, most teachers have received some training on the concept of CLT, many still adhere to grammar-based and teacher-fronted methodologies. Hasanova (2007) mentions in her research that through her personal communication and interviews, she has discovered that 89.6% of the people she interviewed maintained that CLT’s purpose was to help students improve their speaking and communication skills. While this ideology partly holds to the truth, the main principle of CLT is to improve students’ overall communicative competence in all the skills of a foreign language.
Some factors may be influencing their misconception of or hesitation to use CLT. The first of these may be the lack of financial support and a highly bureaucratic system teachers face, while attempting to implement new ideas and approaches that they are introduced to. This compels teachers to resort to more traditional methods of teaching that they are already comfortable with, which are, according to Huttova and Silova (2002), more knowledge- and content-centred practices. Second, being involved in private businesses and private tutorship to better support their lives also sometimes leaves them with little time to prepare for new methods. On the other hand, the ones who have no choice feel less passionate, about dealing with these new methodologies and approaches (Hasanova, 2007).
Notwithstanding these shortcomings, teachers are responsible for the success of their students in their classrooms, and at the moment it seems that the most appropriate approach to be used in Uzbek classrooms is CLT. There are many ways EFL teachers in Uzbekistan can utilize the CLT approach in their instruction. One of the ways is the use of communicative activities and exercises that use real-life situations and focus on meaning rather than form. By using these activities teachers can encourage students to have opportunities to use English meaningfully, negotiate and express meaning (Savignon, 1987). For these activities to work, however, a student should get at least some sort of feedback from the instructor to “evaluate whether or not his purpose has been achieved. If the listener does not have an opportunity to provide the speaker with such feedback, then the exchange is not really communicative.” (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p.129) Among the two most popular activities used in Uzbek EFL classes, according to Hasanova’s (2007) research, are Sinkvein and Find the Author, both of which focus on communicative skills and the improvement of critical thinking. However, more activities need to be implemented and teachers must be aware of what these activities preclude, i.e. their communicative importance.
The role of textbooks and resources
The hesitation to implement CLT approach does not only ensue from instructors or administrators. The other major impediment is the insufficiency of textbooks and teaching materials such as workbooks, teaching manuals, educational games, maps, and audio- and video materials. Although the reforms made by the government have encouraged the use up-to-date textbooks, many regions of the country do not still have enough materials that incorporate the CLT approach and student-centred methodology. The use of computers and modern technology is also limited. Nevertheless, the situation is improving. Many English teachers are resorting to free teaching materials available on the various websites devoted to the improvement of English in both ESL and EFL contexts. With the right application of these materials, teachers can considerably improve the utilization of CLT in their classes.
The role of students
Another major issue preventing the CLT approach from being effectively integrated in the education system is student’s perception of what it represents. There are a few reasons why most Uzbek students may not be ready for the implementation of CLT in their EFL classes. First may be their lack of motivation in learning English. Second, they already have clear expectations as to how a class should be conducted. These two reasons, which will be discussed in more detail, have a detrimental effect not only on the use of CLT, but learning English in general.
Motivation of a language learner according to Saville-Troike (2012) can be of two types: integrative and instrumental. Thus, the lack of motivation to learn English in Uzbek students can also be explained by two reasons. Students do not always possess integrative motivation, as, first of all, it sometimes contradicts their identity, social norms and culture, and secondly, there is limited opportunity for students to communicate with native speakers of English. Although, the contradiction of identities and norms is decreasing through the globalization process now, the lack of communication with native speakers is still a problem. On the other hand, the instrumental motivation is also rather weak, because not all professions require good command of English, and consequently not all students see the use of learning it, if they are probably not going to need it in future. EFL students in Uzbekistan share the same mother tongue and do not have the immediate need to use English in the classroom. Nor do many of them have this need outside the classroom. Students’ motivation is further reduced by the shortage of exciting study materials, and sometimes by the myriad tutors that offer private lessons with better results. The last reason especially affects the ideology of those willing to learn English, as these private lessons are taught by the best instructors in the cities, thus, the results are usually very conspicuous.
Most classes in Uzbek schools and universities are still teacher-fronted and students are not always expected to participate actively during the class. The outcome of this approach is that students have certain expectations from their teachers in relation to their classes. Therefore, using CLT in an EFL class may cause confusion for students, as they consider this way of teaching as a discussion class or even a revision class. While this may not seem a serious problem, there are consequences pertinent to this issue: students’ involvement is not at a required level, as they do not take discussion classes seriously enough, or they may lack the skills or knowledge of how to participate in these types of classes. When Uzbek students are asked to use English to conduct a ‘real life’ game in pairs, the question raised is whether they are really engaged in genuine communication. As Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) point out, what is authentic in London might not be authentic in Hanoi.
Pedagogical implications
It seems that like many other countries, some English teachers are leaving their positions at schools and universities for better paid private companies and privative tutoring; second, some of the teachers who stay are losing their passion to devote more time and energy to their profession (Hasanova, 2008). Provided these situations do not improve, high quality language education will be mainly available for those who can afford to pay the fees of private teachers.
The solution to these problems and the ones that I mentioned above about teaching materials and students’ participation can take years of reformations and funding. However, basing my suggestions on Hasanova’s research (2008) and my own experience as a language teacher both in public and private sectors, I will attempt to give an outline of what could be done to improve the situation, at least at the initial level.
Uzbekistan attained its independence merely 20 years ago. Education in this country is free. In fact, the revenue comes only from universities, where tuition is only 3000-4000 US dollars per academic year at most, apart from the fact that students do receive stipend on a monthly basis. Furthermore, education sponsorship by individuals and alumni is not a popular topic in the country, thus, making the government almost the only provider of financing for universities. Devoting more fund to language teaching seems to be fundamental though. It seems logical to convince the Ministry of Education to devote more money to language teaching and also to seek funding from valid donor organizations for education in general and to language teaching in particular.
Second, teachers face need more time, to prepare for their classes and more opportunity to have some professional teacher time with other colleagues. The lack of opportunity to brainstorm and share class experience is extremely detrimental for younger professionals, as they cannot receive feedback from more qualified instructors. While teaching at an academic lyceum, I can remember an instructor who had classes only two hours per week, but her load of work was almost the same as other instructors who had 18 hours of classes a week. Noteworthy to mention that the instructor left her job for private tutoring within 4 months of her working. Therefore, paper-work should be reduced.
Third, the shortage of teaching materials in the classroom is long a thing of the past. There are a number of resources for teachers in Uzbekistan both online and offline: the internet resources include a wide variety of websites and forums, with ready-to-use lesson plans, teaching techniques and even workbooks for students, while foreign organizations such as American Embassy and British Council also provide access to their libraries devoted specifically to learning English. Teachers should be encouraged to use them.
As for the perception of teachers and students to CLT, transferring to more learner-centred classes in classes other than English could considerably simplify the process for the language teachers, as both instructors and learners would have a clearer idea of how to incorporate this approach and even how to improve their critical thinking.
An impressive amount of work has been done for the improvement of English teaching and learning in Uzbekistan in the last two decades. Nevertheless, there is still a shortage of research and the implementation of the modern and desired curriculum is in the process of incorporation. Implementing communicative language teaching approach still needs some essential elements before it can assertively take place in all EFL classrooms. The main factors that can contribute are: more financial support from government, more teaching materials, and most importantly the devotion of language teachers. As for the shortage of research, more hard quantitative and qualitative data should be sought, without which the analysis of sociolinguistic situation in relation to English in Uzbekistan is impossible.
To recapitulate the points given in the present study, three major areas were discussed in connection with the development of English and the use of CLT: the need for teachers to have a deeper understanding of CLT, the need for more up-to-date textbooks and other teaching materials that focus on CLT, and the need to change students’ expectation of EFL classes to match the modern language classes. Considering these issues, several suggestions were made, however, the research on the topic is in its early stage and definite conclusions cannot be drawn as yet.
Hasanova, D. (2007). Broadening the boundaries of the Expanding Circle: English in Uzbekistan. World Englishes, 26(3), 276-290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00509.x
Hasanova, D. (2008). Functional allocations of English in post-Soviet Uzbekistan: Pedagogical implications for English language teachers. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1991). On communicative language teaching. Hispania, 74(1), 197-198.
Huttova, J., & Silova, I. (2002). Education development in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan: Challenges and ways forward. Budapest, Hungary: Open Society Institute Education Support Program.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kramsch, C. and P. Sullivan (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal 50/3: 199–212.
Larsen-Freeman D. (2000). On the appropriateness of language teaching methods in J. Shaw, D. Lubeska, and M. Noullet (eds.). Language and Development: Partnership and Interaction. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.
Ornstein, J. (1958). Foreign language training in the SOVIET union-A qualitative view. The Modern Language Journal, 42(8), 382-392. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1958.tb01439.x
President says Uzbekistan needs English language for internet. (2013, Apr 17). BBC Monitoring Central Asia
Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Savignon, S. (1987). Communicative Language Teaching. Theory into Practice, 26(4), 235-242.
Please check the English Language Improvement for Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the English Language Improvement for Adults course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Creative Methodology for the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
