Reconceptualizing language teaching: an in-service teacher education course in uzbekistan

SECTION 2.2
Communicative Language Teaching
“Language is not a collection of rules and target forms 
to be acquired, but rather a by-product of communicative 
processes” (Ellis, 2007, p. 7).
GOALS
Communicative Language Teaching’s (CLT) relevancy to the language 
curriculums in Uzbekistan is paramount. The pedagogical track and English 
for Specific Purposes directions were created from the Common European 
Framework of Reference (CEFR), which utilizes CLT principles and features. 
Although we are in a post-method era (see Section 2.4), we find it important 
for Uzbek university language teachers to be cognizant of CLT’s relevancy 
and practicality to the creation of each curriculum, so that Uzbek teachers 
can make educated decisions about how they want to proceed with their 
classes. Thus, we are not saying one should always adhere to all aspects of 
CLT; instead, it is the teacher’s decision about what aspects of CLT are most 
relevant and pertinent for their individualized context.
By the end of this section, you will be able to …
A) define main features and principles of CLT;
B) identify CLTs features and principles from a CLT lesson plan; and,
C) discuss relevancy of CLT within the current post-method era.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In this section, we will look at specific features and principles underpin-
ning CLT and its role in the current post-method era. CLT shifted the focus 
from grammar mastery to a communicative one, which implies change in 
approaches and attitudes towards goals of teaching, the teacher and learn-
er roles, and the nature of interaction amongst learners.
UZBEK VIGNETTE 
There is a disagreement between two professors from Uzbekistan 
about language teaching. Please read the following vignette and think 
about whose position you concur with.

---

73
CHAPTER TWO: LANGUAGE TEACHING
Two respected professors participated in the seminar where new 
approaches to teaching young adults were introduced and discussed. 
After a while, Professor X went to the stage and said angrily: “I don’t like 
all these new methods you are discussing now. They are not effective 
or useful for our students. They are alien and don’t work in our country. 
Old traditional methods [Grammar-Translation Method] worked perfectly 
and we must use them! They are much better!” Professor Y stood up and 
replied: “Every year we have graduates who go to work and teach others. 
It’s not easy ... it’s a pain for us to admit the fact that our graduates know 
English grammar, can read well, but ... they cannot communicate in En-
glish! That’s why nowadays we’re looking for new ways of teaching, such 
as communicative language teaching” 
REFLECTION
Think of the two professors and the viewpoints they presented. 
Whose opinion would you, your colleagues, and your administration sup-
port and why? 
KEY CONCEPTS
Uzbekistan university English teachers, as other English language teach-
ers in the world, were exposed to a variety of language teaching methods 
(e.g., Grammar Translation) until the discussion of the Communicative 
Language Teaching Approach, which is “an approach (not a method) that 
aims to (a) make communicative competence the goal of language teach-
ing and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills 
that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication” 
(Richards and Rogers, 2001, p. 66). 
Richards (2006) makes the point that to understand what CLT is we 
must look at “the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a lan-
guage, the kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and 
the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom” (p. 24). We can employ 
analysis of the differences between Audiolingual Method and Communi-
cative Approach done by Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) for this purpose. 
They noted 24 differences in the contrast analysis of the two. We can look 
at some of them grouped around main features: (i) goals of the language 
teaching, (ii) language areas emphasized, (iii) the teacher and learner roles, 
(iv) nature of interaction, and (v) learner motivation. (p. 91-3).

---

74
RECONCEPTUALIZING LANGUAGE TEACHING