CC BY
60RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND STEAM LEARNING
FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS
U. Irgasheva
Abstract. The article proves the relationship between language and STEAM learning for English learners. English learners (ELs) develop science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM) knowledge and language proficiency when they are engaged in meaningful interaction in the classroom and participate in the kinds of activities in which STEAM experts and professionals regularly engage. This article provides the views of the inextricable relationship between language and content. It articulates the ways in which ELs can be afforded opportunities in the lesson using STEAM technologies to draw on language and other meaning-making resources while engaging in disciplinary content. The role of language and culture in STEAM learning is explained in the article.
The purpose of the article is to provide some recommendations for using STEAM technology in teaching English as a foreign language. Learning STEAM technology involves extending students' meaning-making potential through language. To engage effectively with disciplinary learning, students expand their repertoires of language skills developed during the early years of schooling and learn to recognize how language is used to make meaning, discuss ideas, present knowledge, construe value, and create specialized texts across disciplines. This expansion of students' language repertoires is observed in the science, mathematics, and engineering classroom as ELs use language purposefully in the service of "doing" and communicating ideas about science, engineering, and mathematics. Just as each discipline requires that students engage with a specialized body of knowledge and practices, each also requires that students engage with the specialized language through which the knowledge and practices are presented.
Key words: conceptualizing, evaluating, engaging, engagement, encourage, multicompetence, content, structure.
INGLIZ TILINI O'RGANUVCHILAR UCHUN TIL VA STEAM O'RGANISH O'RTASIDAGI BOG'LIQLIK
Irgasheva U. R.
Annotatsiya. Maqolada ingliz tilini o'rganuvchilar uchun til va STEAM o'rganish o'rtasidagi bog'liqlik isbotlangan. Ingliz tilini o'rganuvchilar fan, texnologiya, muhandislik, san'at va matematika (STEAM) bo'yicha bilim va tilni bilish darajasini, ular sinfda mazmunli o'zaro aloqada bo'lganda va STEAM
mutaxassislari muntazam qatnashadigan tadbirlarda qatnashganda rivojlanadi. Ushbu maqolada til va mazmun o'rtasidagi uzviy bog'liqlik haqidagi qarashlar keltirilgan. U intizom mazmuni bilan shug'ullanayotganda til va boshqa ma'no yaratuvchi resurslardan foydalanish uchun STEAM texnologiyalaridan foydalangan holda darsda ingliz tilini o'rganuvchilarga qanday imkoniyatlarni taqdim etish usullarini bayon qiladi. STEAM o'rganishda til va madaniyatning roli maqolada tushuntirilgan.
Maqolaning maqsadi ingliz tilini chet tili sifatida o'qitishda STEAM texnologiyasidan foydalanish bo'yicha ba'zi tavsiyalar berishdir. STEAM texnologiyasini o'rganish talabalarning til orqali ma'no yaratish salohiyatini kengaytirishni o'z ichiga oladi. Intizomiy ta'lim bilan samarali shug'ullanish uchun talabalar maktabning dastlabki yillarida shakllangan til ko'nikmalari repertuarini kengaytiradilar va tildan qanday ma'no yaratish, g'oyalarni muhokama qilish, bilimlarni taqdim etish, qiymatni shakllantirish va fanlar bo'yicha maxsus matnlarni yaratish uchun qanday foydalanilishini tushunishni o'rganadilar. Talabalar til repertuarining bu tarzda kengayishi tabiatshunoslik, matematika va muhandislik sinflarida kuzatiladi, chunki ingliz tilini o'rganuvchilar fan, muhandislik va matematika haqidagi fikrlarni "bajarish" va yetkazish xizmatida tildan maqsadli foydalanadilar. Har bir fan o'quvchilarning maxsus bilim va amaliyotlar majmuasi bilan shug'ullanishini talab qilganidek, har biri ham talabalardan bilim va amaliyotlar taqdim etiladigan maxsus til bilan shug 'ullanishni talab qiladi.
Kalit so'zlar: kontseptsiyalash, baholash, jalb qilish, jalb qilmoq, rag'batlantirish, ko'p kompetentsiya, mazmun, tuzilma.
Introduction
All children grow up in communities that use language to engage in cultural practices that have developed historically and are shaped in ongoing ways to achieve the goals and values of the communities. Each community has particular ways of conceptualizing, representing, evaluating, and engaging with the world, and initially children are socialized into the language and ways of being in their families and local communities. Over time, however, each person becomes a member of a larger set of communities and engages in new cultural practices that are sometimes complementary but may sometimes conflict with the practices of their home communities. For most children, these new communities include both in-school and extracurricular affiliations through which they engage in new cultural practices. Any particular student coming from a home community into a school context may present herself or himself in a variety of ways, including ways that may or may not be consistent with stereotypes of the home communities or different cultural groups. Expecting individuals to act or think in particular ways
because of their group memberships limits those individuals' opportunities to learn and constrains their opportunity to thrive in educational settings. Schools are enriched through the diverse experiences and perspectives of children and families from different cultural communities, and ELs simultaneously bring unique experiences as individuals and as knowledgeable members of the communities to which they belong. All of these experiences, individual and collective, can provide resources for learning STEAM.
Once they enter preschool, children encounter communities of academic disciplines, and they leverage their existing linguistic and cultural resources as they begin to engage in this context. The STEAM disciplines constitute communities in which language and other ways of making sense of the world have evolved to enable participants to accomplish their functional goals. STEAM subjects offer the potential for membership in the communities of mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and other technical experts—communities with their own ways of conceptualizing, representing, evaluating, and engaging with the world. In turn, STEAM students from a wide range of backgrounds bring the potential to contribute to shaping STEAM fields in critical ways that transform and remake focal topics, practices, and contributions. Language is simultaneously a cognitive ability and a cultural resource that children first learn to draw on in their homes and communities. As they interact with caregivers in the early years, the language they develop enables them to participate in the community's cultural practices and learn its ways of being, as well as to organize and make sense of their complex worlds. For example, children begin to learn about cause and effect in everyday contexts as they experience and talk about conditions, purposes, and reasons. Their understanding of cause and effect develops along with the language through which causal relationships are expressed (e.g., through language such as if you see a snake, don't touch it because it may be dangerous). Through many such interactions, they learn both the language and values of their culture and are introduced to concepts relevant for later STEAM learning. For some children, this development occurs in more than one language. When children enter school, they begin to use language in new ways and encounter new cultural practices through talk, text, and other systems for sharing meaning (e.g., gesture, visual display) and making sense of the world. These new ways of using language can build upon and enhance children's experiences, as well as encourage new ideas and knowledge. Across school subjects, as children learn new concepts, they also learn new discourse patterns, new ways of using language to interact with all of their meaning-making resources to share their perspectives as they engage with the concepts. In other words, language development and concept development occur simultaneously; in humans, language development and concept development are inextricable. As learners add concepts and language, adding new concepts through
language becomes progressively easier as the linguistic skills and abilities of the learner increase. The learner possesses a broader and deeper foundation upon which to layer new concepts and language. Concept development is made more challenging for ELs to the extent that educators rely exclusively on the English language to develop concepts and may not recognize the added challenge of learning new concepts in a language that one is also learning.
To learn STEAM subjects, students will learn the requisite new patterns of language and expression only through opportunity for and engagement in STEAM disciplinary practices. The developmental pathways available to individual learners in STEAM classrooms are influenced by the opportunities they are offered to participate in the practices and discourses of STEAM fields. Participation in these practices and discourses increases learners' capacities to generalize and express abstract ideas, develop disciplinary habits of mind and dispositions, and achieve success in STEAM learning. Learning STEM subjects requires support for learning to use the discourse patterns through which the knowledge in each subject area is presented and engaged with. All children require such support, including those learning in their mother tongues or first language (also referred to as L1). For ELs, success often hinges on engaging in classroom and out-of-school experiences that encourage them to draw on the languages and multicompetences they already control and to connect new concepts with the knowledge they bring from their homes and communities. When allowed to interact in varied ways to build from what they already know and to develop new technical knowledge at school, ELs can learn STEAM content and practices while simultaneously building their proficiency in English beyond STEAM.
Methods
Language is experienced as sounds and wordings (words/phrases), but the primary function of language is to make sense of the world and share meanings with others. The use of language is to "make meanings" that fulfill goals in the social contexts where people interact. The meanings vary not only according to what is being done (the "content"), but also according to with whom the interactions take place (e.g., how many people are present, the status of the relationships, the roles taken on in the discourse, etc.) And it is not just in language that people interact. Along with language, nonlinguistic modalities—including gesture, visual displays (e.g., symbols, diagrams, graphs, tables), and other multimodal representations (e.g., in everyday life, maps, emojis, pictures, etc.; in STEAM subjects, artifacts of engineering design, computational modeling, etc.)— offer different affordances and limitations, potentials, and constraints for meaning-making.
It is important to recognize that the content taught in STEAM subjects is not separable from the language through which the content is presented. There is no
language-free content; language use always presents some content, and most representations of content require some language use, even with multimodal resources for meaning-making. This understanding of language means that to learn the language of STEM subjects, students must participate in STEM contexts and activities. For ELs, this means that they must be encouraged to draw on all of their multicompetences, which include all of their languages and their different varieties, as well as gesture, drawing, and other modalities for meaning-making.
Language is used in different ways depending on what is being done— making different language choices in doing mathematics than in doing science, for example—and who is being spoken to (e.g., a friend or family member versus a stranger) and the mode of communication (e.g., talking on the phone or writing a letter). Linguists use the term register to refer to this kind of variation in the ways that meaning making resources are drawn upon. Register refers to the different ways people draw on linguistic and nonlinguistic resources as they engage in different kinds of activities, with different kinds of people, through different modes of communication. Students use multiple registers as they engage in classroom activities in the same ways, they use multiple registers as they engage in activities outside of school. Different words are used in mathematics than in science. But consider how different modalities present and enact meaning; for example, by writing rather than speaking, and how different wordings depending on the relationship of the speakers, for example, whether speaking one-on-one or with a small group. The registers used respond to the contexts participated in, so shaping contexts to enable students to expand their linguistic repertoires is an important goal of instruction in all subjects; adding new registers and developing existing registers is a main goal of schooling. The notion of register helps point out how teachers can engage learners in activities that build from everyday ways of interacting toward more formal ways of presenting disciplinary meanings, as well as how learners can unpack disciplinary meanings into language that connects with the language and meanings they bring to the classroom. The notion of register also helps teachers recognize students' subject-matter understandings even as their proficiency in English is still developing. Within the same classroom, different activities offer learners different affordances for drawing on language and the multicompetences they already are comfortable with and for learning new ways of making meaning that are subject-specific.
"Content" can be held constant as students who are learning English engage with the same concept in different ways across a set of activities designed to involve them in sense-making as they learn STEAM subjects. Els who are less proficient in English may be most confident in participating when encouraged to use a range of modalities and work in a small group setting with peers, while those
with greater proficiency may participate in imperfect but comprehensible English and interact in whole class settings.
While different participation structures present different challenges and affordances to particular students, language will develop as students have multiple opportunities to engage with the same content and concepts over a unit of study. The particular ways to talk and write (discourse patterns) about the content will not be the same across the unit. Introducing and working with a concept initially, students may use everyday language and informal vocabulary and sentence structure. As they become more familiar with the technical aspects of the STEAM concepts they are learning and the STEAM practices they are engaging in, they move toward more disciplinary ways of talking about what they are learning, using technical language, sentence structure, and arguments more typical of written or formal discourse. This is how students develop new academic registers at the same time they learn new concepts, and teachers' awareness of the affordances of this register development over time can enable them to challenge ELs.
For example, in a unit of instruction about division with fractions, the activities that students can engage in move from hands-on interaction to reporting on the interaction and then writing about what was learned. In moving across these different activities, students work in different participation structures and use different modalities, even while the underlying "content," understanding and using the concept of division by a fraction in a word problem involving the measurement meaning of division (not the partitive meaning used in "fair share" problems), remains the same. A textbook represents yet another register with which students must engage; this register presents a mathematical generalization about the meaning of division by fractions in a sentence that distills several concepts into technical language accompanied by an equation in mathematical symbolic language. To understand this technical language, teacher and students are likely to engage in further talk and interaction that "unpacks" the technicality and uses more everyday register features to help learners see meaning in what is represented through mathematical symbols.
Through opportunities to engage with language in all these different forms of interactions, none of which is inherently "better" or "more appropriate" than any others in the abstract, learners are enabled to move between the language(s) and registers they bring to the classroom and the new registers they are learning to engage with as they participate in STEAM learning. With textbooks, through which students are exposed to the written language of the disciplines, stylistic differences in language are also well-documented. This understanding of language suggests important implications for providing instruction and supports that will engage and challenge ELs and enable their success in learning STEAM content, concepts, and practices. The committee reports on what is known about how best to support high-
quality instruction for ELs; with more evidence in science and mathematics than in technology and engineering. This understanding of language is also fundamental to preparing teachers to create learning environments and design STEAM instruction that is effective with diverse learners, including ELs. Chapter 6 reports on research that shows how teachers' knowledge about language and STEAM can be developed in preservice and in-service contexts. It is the committee's stance that through participation in such STEAM learning contexts that engage all learners in using all of their meaning-making capacities, ELs will develop English language proficiency along with subject area knowledge, understanding, and practices.
Recent years have witnessed parallel shifts toward promoting the social and sense-making nature of both science learning and second language development. In science education, whereas traditional views focused on individual learners' mastery of discrete elements of science content, contemporary views emphasize that students engage in science and engineering practices (e.g., developing models, arguing from evidence, constructing explanations) to make sense of the world around them.
The new vision of science education expects students to engage in science and engineering as scientists and engineers carry out their work. In the science classroom, students make sense of phenomena or design solutions to problems by engaging in three-dimensional learning. In doing so, they build their science understanding with more sophistication over the course of instruction. The Framework recommends organizing science learning around three dimensions: scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas.
The first dimension of scientific and engineering practices includes the following:
1. Ask questions (for science) and define problems (for engineering)
2. Develop and use models
3. Plan and carry out investigations
4. Analyze and interpret data
5. Use mathematics and computational thinking
6. Construct explanations (for science) and design solutions (for engineering)
7. Engage in argument from evidence
8. Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information
The second dimension of crosscutting concepts, which unify the study of science and engineering through their common application across fields include patterns; cause and effect; scale, proportion, and quantity; systems and system models; energy and matter; structure and function; and stability and change. The third dimension includes disciplinary core ideas in four areas: physical sciences; life sciences; earth and space sciences; and engineering, technology, and
applications of science. The Next Generation Science Standards, written as performance expectations, blend these three dimensions to express what students should be able to do at the end of a grade band or grade level.
Results
As lessons fit together coherently and build on each other over the course of instruction, students develop deeper and more sophisticated understanding of science to make sense of the anchoring phenomenon for the unit of science instruction. As ELs develop deeper and more sophisticated science understanding over time, their language use becomes more sophisticated. To communicate the sophistication of their ideas, ELs use modalities more strategically (e.g., they may use dots to represent particles of smell, arrows to represent movement of smell particles, and different shapes or colors to distinguish between smell particles and air particles that are intermingled) and more specialized registers (e.g., they progress from "it stinks" to "smell is a gas made of particles too small to see that are moving freely in space and reaching my nose").
The specialized register allows ELs to be more precise as their science understanding becomes more sophisticated. Precision goes beyond science vocabulary (e.g., "particles") and privileges disciplinary meaning by focusing on how ELs use language to engage in science and engineering practices. For example, in constructing a scientific explanation of how smell travels across the room, ELs can communicate precise disciplinary meaning about the scale at which gas particles can be observed ("too small to see") and the movement of the particles ("move freely around in space") with less sophisticated language. As ELs use language in a variety of settings—individually, in pairs, small-groups, and whole-class settings—they learn to adapt their language to meet the communicative demands of different interactions ("check this out" in one to-one interaction when there is a shared frame of reference, "the food materials are decomposing and producing smell" in one-to-many interaction when language needs to be explicit). Overall, the science classroom presents a rich science learning environment that also promotes language learning for all students, including ELs, who benefit from sustained opportunities to use language to do science [5]. The science classroom may be particularly beneficial to ELs when their contributions are valued for the merit of their ideas regardless of social status or linguistic accuracy. They communicate their ideas using a wide range of semiotic resources, including home languages, linguistic and nonlinguistic modalities of science disciplines, and registers starting from every day to specialized language to meet the communicative demands of different types of interactions in the science classroom. Language is a product of doing science, not a precursor or prerequisite for doing science and ELs need ample opportunities to do science. and applying knowledge for a particular purpose, it has been referred to as knowledge-in-use. In second-
language development, whereas earlier theories saw it as the accumulation of discrete elements of vocabulary (lexicon) and grammar (syntax) to be internalized by learners, more recent thinking has taken a sociocultural turn, viewing language as a set of dynamic meaning-making practices learned through participation in social contexts [8]. Because this approach to language learning involves using language for a particular purpose, it has been referred to as language-in-use. Knowledge-in-use in science education and language-in-use in second-language development complement each other, such that science instructional shifts promote language learning with ELs, while language instructional shifts promote science learning with ELs.
Discussion
The importance of discourse processes in science education builds from longstanding research examining the multiple ways language supports the creation of knowledge. In particular, sociocultural approaches brought more focused attention to the role of cultural tools such as language in mediating the processes of individual learning and cultural production and change. This perspective offers an important opportunity to see how scientific knowledge accrues and changes over time as well as how knowledge is created and negotiated through social engagement and discussion in classroom settings. As will be further articulated in the Mathematical Practices section below, classroom activities should be constructed to be developmentally appropriate approximations of scientific practices. Research on science practices often focuses on the establishment and evaluation of knowledge claims. These epistemic practices are central to learning the disciplinary knowledge and ways of being for various science fields. Such practices vary across disciplinary communities, ways of knowing, and power dynamics that also operate in the presentation of cultures. Those epistemic practices leading to generalized knowledge claims about nature tend to be legitimized in disciplinary communities in science and engineering, drawing on work in the philosophy of science, suggested five focal areas: (1) epistemic aims and values, (2) structure of knowledge and other epistemic achievements, (3) sources of justification of knowledge, (4) epistemic virtues and vices, and (5) reliable and unreliable processes for achieving epistemic aims. These epistemic practices of science have been examined in a number of studies.
Studies of student uses of knowledge in problem solving also entail engagement in scientific practices. This focus on everyday knowledge construction practices forms students' practical epistemology that can serve to help make sense of phenomena, to develop conceptual knowledge, and to learn about the nature of science. In each of these cases, examining student engagement in epistemic or scientific practices relies on a methodological focus on discourse processes because
the ways that communities affiliate, build knowledge, and construct social practices are constructed in and through discourse [10].
Working in groups engages students in discourse through which they both construct knowledge and enact relationships, highlighting the social nature of science learning. By focusing on the ways that knowledge was constructed, negotiated, and valued, a number of studies identified key aspects of discourse for productive educational aims. For example, the interaction of the interpersonal and cognitive was made evident in Bianchini's study of student groupwork [1]. This study showed how students' perceived status influenced participation and science learning. A number of studies illustrated how access to scientific knowledge was negotiated through discourse processes and tied to the ongoing social practices and norms of the classrooms. An important development in the study of classroom discourse emerged from a focus on teachers' and students' uses of evidence. The alignment of evidence in disciplinary-specific and genre-specific forms of language has entered studies of science education as argumentation. Studies of argumentation have explored different contexts, have drawn from multiple argumentation analytics for analysis, and have focused on different dimensions of science from conceptual learning to socio scientific issue. Argumentation has been applied across multiple science subject areas and entered into teacher education to prepare teachers to orchestrate uses of evidence among students [11].
Education related to technology—the T in STEM—is interpreted in a variety of. One interpretation focuses on technological literacy, which is defined as the "ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology", and traditionally, career and technical education (CTE) programs of study have emphasized technological literacy as a goal.
A second interpretation focuses on educational, or instructional, technology as a central tool for teaching and learning (language and content) both in and out of the classroom. Some influential educational technologies to date are personal computers (as well as laptops, tablet computers, and smartphones), the Internet (including online resources and educational software), and cloud computing. A third interpretation focuses on the tools used by practitioners of science, mathematics, engineering, and beyond. These tools include computers, software, sensors, and other data collection instruments.
For all interpretations, there is limited research on technology and technology education with respect to ELs; nevertheless, we highlight what is known from the existing literature. The goal of technology education is to prepare students to make well-informed decisions about matters that influence technology or are influenced by technology. Typically, aspects of technology education are incorporated into multiple disciplines (e.g., mathematics aligned to the Common
Core State Standards, science and engineering aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS], and computer science aligned to the Computer Science Teachers Association [CSTA] standards), but many states have also developed separate technology education standards. Yet, no explicit recommendations for supporting linguistically diverse students in meeting these standards have been outlined.
Research describing teachers' conceptualization of the role of technology in teaching and learning highlights that the primary goal is for students to become skillful communicators of the language learned rather than simply learners of the language, maximizing student autonomy and empowerment in the classroom [6]. For example, students were found to write more via computer compared to when given pen and paper, and computer-based collaborative activities encouraged more attentiveness to listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Moreover, these activities help students integrate language and culture, which led students to converse in English in more meaningful ways.
These findings have implications for how technology could support ELs in engaging in meaningful discourse beyond learning a language. Likewise, educational technologies have also been shown to benefit Els in learning science content. These visualization technologies were embedded in Web-based inquiry instruction in science, and EL and non-EL students were randomly assigned to either a static or dynamic visualization condition. Compared to the students in the static group, ELs and non-ELs within the dynamic visualization group engaged in more discourse and used both text and visual representations to make sense of the scientific phenomena.
Additionally, these students more successfully evaluated the range of ideas presented in order to develop coherent scientific explanations based on evidence from the visualizations. These findings suggest that dynamic visualization technology can support the development of coherent scientific understanding for all students, including ELs. Related to the third interpretation, computational thinking is becoming increasingly essential for all students to become STEAM professionals or participants in an information society [9]. Thus, the definition of STEAM education has been formally expanded to include computer science. There has been an emergence of the importance of adding computational thinking to "every child's analytical ability as a vital ingredient of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEAM) learning". Computational thinking "involves solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science" and involves key aspects, such as abstraction, pattern generalization, representational competence, modularization, algorithmic notions of flow of control, and conditional logic.
Despite the growing emphasis on computational thinking in STEAM education, incorporating computational thinking in the school curriculum faces challenges. One major challenge involves lack of an agreement on what constitutes computational thinking. One approach emphasizes computer literacy, which generally involves using tools to create newsletters, Web pages, or multimedia presentations. A second approach emphasizes computer science by teaching students about programming in particular languages as a way to process, analyze, and interpret information with an emphasis on key computer science concepts such as abstraction, modularization, loops, and conditionals. A third approach emphasizes programming applications, such as games, robots, and simulations, often with an emphasis on students' participation and identity in authentic communities and practices. A fourth approach emphasizes learning to think computationally as a fundamental analytical skill that everyone, not just computer scientists, can use to help solve problems, design systems, and understand human behavior. This approach mirrors the growing recognition that computational thinking (and not just computation) has begun to influence and shape thinking in STEAM disciplines and beyond. Few studies have examined instructional materials that enable teachers of STEAM subjects to support ELs in developing computational thinking.
References
1. Bianchini, J.A. From here to equity: The influence of status on student access to and understanding of science. Science Education, 1999, 83(5), Pp. 577-601.
2. Botirbekova G.A. The role of national Mentality and culture in learning language. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 2022, Volume 23, Pp. 173176.
3. Botirbekova G.A. The specific requirements of the electronic textbook - an important innovative technology in the educational process. Oriental Renaissance, 2022, Volume-2, Pp. 871-877.
4. Farmonov B.B. O'zbek tilidagi relyefonimlarning asar va qissalarda inglizcha tarjimasi. Uzbekistan language & culture. - Toshkent, 2021, Vol.1(4), P.128-139.
5. Irgasheva U.R. Interactive teaching methods in ESP. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 2022, Volume 23, Pp.168-172.
6. Irgasheva U.R. Talabalar kasbiy nutq kompetentsiyasini takomillashtirishning pedagogik aspektlari. Oriental renaissance: innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 2022, 2(2), Pp.937-944.
7. Irgasheva U.R. Formation of Professional Competencies of the Students in the Process of Studying the Educational Program "STEAM-Technologies in
Education". November, International Journal of Discoveries and Innovations in Applied Sciences 1, 2021, Volume-6, Pp.76-80.
8. Irgasheva U.R. Improving students' professional speech competence based on STEAM technologies in teaching English at technical universities. Journal of Central Asian Social Studies, 2021, 2(02), Pp.81-87.
9. Irgasheva U.R. Ingliz tili darslarida talabalar kasbiy nutq kompetentsiyasini takomillashtirishda STEAM texnologiyalar ahamiyati. Art word international journal 4 (1-1), 2021.
10.Jalolov J. Chet til o'qitish metodikasi. O'qituvchi -2012. Pp.79-118.
11. Mamataliyeva A.R. Impact of blended learning on student motivation and achievement in reading and writing. World bulletin of social sciences. (6) 2022, Pp. 11-16.
12.Mirzakarimova Z.D. The acquisition of a subjective color as a result of the meaning of the word. Academicia. An international Mutidisciplinary Research Journal, 11 (2), 2021, Pp.1429-1441.
13.National program of personnel training of the Republic of Uzbekistan //
Collection of normative documents of higher education. - T.: Sharq, 2001, P.19.
III. ОПЫТ РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ ПРОЕКТОВ ERASMUS+
АНАЛИЗ ФАКТОРОВ, ВЛИЯЮЩИХ НА УСПЕШНОЕ ВНЕДРЕНИЕ КРЕДИТНО-МОДУЛЬНОЙ СИСТЕМЫ В ВЫСШЕЕ ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
Турениязова А. И.
Аннотация: Современное образование основано на индивидуализации и дифференциации образования, альтернативности образовательных систем и учебных заведений, гибкости и динамичности учебно-программной документации, адаптивности к изменяющимся условиям социально-экономической среды. Как показывает практика, кредитная система обучения, распространенная в университетах большинства стран мира, является наиболее гибкой и эффективной. Она обеспечивает академическую мобильность и востребованность выпускников в стремительно меняющихся условиях рынка труда. Во многом это обеспечивается за счет гибкого планирования академических программ, ориентированных на запросы рынка труда, элективностью дисциплин учебного плана, повышением качества
