CC BY
73
Uzbekistan has introduced the idea of modular education in the 21st century, exactly by 2030, at least 10 higher education institutions in Uzbekistan should be included in the first 1000 entries of the list of higher education institutions in the ranking of internationally recognized organizations. There are plans for a step-by-step transition of the educational process to a credit-module system and the transformation of the Uzbek higher education system into a hub for the implementation of international educational programmes in Central Asia.
A decree issued by the President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoev in October 9, 2019 approved the concept for the development of higher education in Uzbekistan until 2030. The Concept provides for the development of higher education in Uzbekistan:
• development of public-private partnerships in higher education, increasing the level of coverage of higher education by more than 50 per cent through the organization in the regions of the activities of State and non-State higher education institutions, and creating a healthy competitive environment;
• inclusion of at least 10 higher education institutions in the first 1,000 entries of the list of higher education institutions in the ranking of internationally recognized organizations, including the National University of Uzbekistan and Samarkand State University in the first 500 entries of the list;
• gradual transfer of the educational process of higher education institutions to a credit-module
system;
• raising the content of higher education to a qualitatively new level, establishing a system for training highly qualified personnel capable of finding their place in the labour market and making a worthy contribution to the stable development of the social sphere and economic sectors;
• ensuring the academic independence of higher education institutions;
• gradual introduction of the "University 3.0" concept, providing for the interconnection of activities for the commercialization of the results of education, science, innovation and scientific research in higher education institutions;
• creation of technoparks, foresight centres, transfer technology centres, start-ups and accelerators in higher education institutions through the wide attraction of foreign investment, the expansion of paid services and other extra-budgetary funds, bringing them to the level of scientific and practical institutions for the forecasting and research of socio-economic development of the relevant industries, spheres and regions.
References / Список литературы
1. Gareev V.M., Kulikov S.I., Durko E.M. Principles of Modular Training // Vestnik higher school,
1987. № 8. P.p. 56-59.
2. Tretyakov P.I., Sennovsky I.B. Technology of modular learning at school: Practical-oriented
monograph / edited by Tretyakov. Moscow: New School, 1997.
CODE-SWITCHING IN TEACHING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE Tashmatova G.R. Email: [email protected]
Tashmatova Gulnara Rafailovna — Teacher, ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT, FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY, FERGHANA STATE UNIVERSITY, FERGHANA, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: the article under discussion is devoted to the questions of educational bilingualism in a foreign language teaching. The author of the article believes that linguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic researches of recent years prove not only the inevitability but also the validity and usefulness of educational bilingualism, i.e. the use of native language as a method of pedagogical support and development of students' language skills in foreign language lessons. Educational bilingualism is considered in this article in its main form: as a code switching, as well as inter-linguistic teaching.
Keywords: educational bilingualism; intercultural teaching; educational support; cultural self-determination; national identity; switching of codes.
УЧЕБНЫЙ БИЛИНГВИЗМ В ПРЕПОДАВАНИИ ИНОСТРАННОГО
ЯЗЫКА Ташматова Г.Р.
Ташматова Гулнара Рафаиловна — преподаватель, кафедра английского языка, факультет иностранных языков, Ферганский государственный университет, г. Фергана, Республика Узбекистан
Аннотация: данная статья посвящена вопросам учебного билингвизма при обучении иностранному языку. Автор статьи считает, что лингвистические, психолингвистические и социолингвистические исследования последних лет с нарастающей убедительностью доказывают не только неизбежность, но и правомерность, а также полезность учебного билингвизма, т.е. использования родного языка как способа педагогического сопровождения и развития учащихся на уроках иностранного языка. Учебный билингвизм рассматривается в данной публикации в своей основной форме: как переключение кодов, а также как межъязыковое обучение.
Ключевые слова: учебный билингвизм; переключение кодов; межъязыковое обучение; билингвальная среда; педагогическое сопровождение; культурное самоопределение; национальное самосознание.
UDC 372.881.1
The traditional approach to foreign language teaching involves creating a monolingual language environment in the classroom. This methodical tradition has its roots in innovations at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries, when the grammar translation method was replaced by the direct method of teaching English. Followers of this method opposed any form of native language appearance in the classroom, as it, in their opinion, contradicted the natural mastery of the language. The psycholinguistic science that emerged in the middle of the 20th century showed the naivety of a century old statement [1].
Linguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic studies of recent years with increasing persuasion prove not only the inevitability, but also the validity and usefulness of educational bilingualism, i.e. the use of the mother tongue as a method of pedagogical support and development of students' language skills in foreign language lessons. Educational bilingualism is considered in this publication in its main form: as a code switching, as well as inter-linguistic teaching. It provides scientific evidence that instructional bilingualism and inter-linguistic instruction have a beneficial effect on speech and intellectual development, promote cultural self-determination, relieve cognitive difficulties, and enhance interpersonal interaction in the classroom. Bilingualism in foreign language classes becomes natural in the context of a multicultural and bilingual learning environment in which language and content learning is integrated and social factors for the migration of cultures act [2].
Educational bilingualism is the functioning of two language and cultural codes in the language consciousness to perform cognitive tasks and communicate with the teacher or peers in the classroom, solving communicative tasks outside the classroom, independent activity of cognitive and entertaining character. The term "educational bilingualism" is "code switching" when participants in the educational process occasionally switch from a foreign language to their native one. Another form of educational bilingualism can be considered inter-linguistic (translanguage) teaching, in which literature in both foreign and native languages is used to develop students and broaden their horizons in a particular field. The key to educational bilingualism for professionals is the choice between the isolation (bracketing) of the mother tongue of students in the classroom, up to its complete prohibition, or the inclusion of mother tongue speech in the system of pedagogical scaffolding.
The belief that bilingualism in a foreign language lesson has a devastating effect on learning outcomes and students is usually reinforced by traditional arguments that the mother tongue in a foreign language lesson reinforces inter-linguistic interference and causes an increase in lexicographical and grammatical errors among students. Students are expected to choose to speak to each other and to a foreign language teacher in their mother tongue, rather than prohibit them from using their mother tongue in a foreign language lesson. It is also claimed that if the mother tongue is used in the lesson, the time for practicing in the foreign language is reduced and the language skills of the students will not remain strong enough. Such arguments are usually made by foreign language teachers.
Studies have noted that supporters of monolingual foreign language teaching are steadfastly defended by those who ignore the natural interaction between native and foreign languages in the language consciousness of students, such teachers prefer not to notice the facts of constant and regular switching of codes in their own speech at their lessons. It should be noted that the arguments made by the followers of the direct method of teaching foreign languages contradict modern trends, when new data on the mechanisms of developing the communicative competence of students accumulate, the migration of cultures creates a multicultural and multi-linguistic environment both in society and in the classroom, students welcome the practice in which the teacher, in addition to a foreign language, uses the "own language" of students to support them in case of difficulties, to expand their horizons, to achieve interpersonality.
It is believed that the time has come to learn more about the bilingual approach to teaching foreign languages. Such research is particularly relevant in the following socio-pedagogical circumstances:
- the modern social environment is becoming more multicultural, and language code shifting is being used as a convenient strategy for interpersonal communication in the family, school and informal society [2];
- in the conditions of direct contact between languages and cultures, the processes of cultural self-determination of an individual are inevitably activated, which are always accompanied by the preservation of his or her "self', awareness of his or her national identity and the manifestation of his or her cultural identity in a foreign language lesson;
- language pedagogy is increasingly focused on language and language integrated learning (CLIL -Content and Language Integrated Learning), which makes it necessary to switch codes in the learning process;
- code switching in a foreign language lesson is beginning to be considered as a methodological resource for improving learning efficiency, recognized both by teachers and students.
Some scientists have suggested grounds for the hypothesis about the positive role of educational bilingualism. The basis for the hypothesis that educational bilingualism is a natural success factor and plays a positive role in achieving the learning result is the research of the process of learning a foreign language, which began in the second half of the last century and continues to this day. The latest publications shed light on the role of bilingual foreign language teaching in the intellectual development of students, in particular, in improving the effectiveness of problem solving [1]. According to statistics, school leavers who study bilingualism in integration with valuable information in their native and foreign languages achieve higher economic status in their life. The study concludes that in order to improve the economic status of students who demonstrate language learning success, it is necessary to fill the language course with trans-subject/ translanguage knowledge and provide bilingual education in the lesson [2].
With respect to all points mentioned above, it may be suggested that code switching in language classroom is not always a blockage or deficiency in learning a language, but may be considered as a useful strategy in classroom interaction, if the aim is to make meaning clear and to transfer the knowledge to students in an efficient way. Yet, it should be kept in mind that in long term, when the students experience interaction with the native speakers of the target language; code switching may be a barrier which prevents mutual intelligibility. Accordingly, the teacher has a vital role for preventing its long-term damages on foreign language learning process.
References / Список литературы
1. Cole S. The Use of L1 in Communicative English Classrooms. The Language Teacher, 1998. P.p.
11-13.
2. Mattsson, A. and Burenhult-Mattsson N. Code-switching in second language teaching of French,
2001. P.p. 59-72.
