Termiz state university foreign philology faculty the department of methodolgy of teaching english language

1.2. Harold Palmer's methods
Thus, H.Palmer’s method is based on rationalisation of teaching process and systematic selection of material. Teaching speaking features prominently in Harold. Palmer’s method, hence its name oral method. In 1914 Palmer had to leave Belgium, where he had set up his own language school, in a departure from the German intrusion. He thusly moved to London, where he acquired work as an auxiliary school French instructor³.
Daniel Jones, who had already met and related with Palmer, also welcomed him to give three public talks at College London in the pre-winter term of 1915, on methods of language teaching.[5]Following two further short courses of talks in 1915-16, Palmer was at that point welcomed to get ready and convey an entire year of talks on a similar topic for 1916-17, as part of the timetable of classes offered inside the department of phonetics. SSTL is significant for its focus on general principles, but it extends Sweet‘s call for a rational basis for language teaching using an overall argument in favor of the establishment of a new science of linguistic pedagogy based on insights from philologists, phoneticians, grammarians, lexicologists, modern pedagogy and psychologists, with these insights placed in such order and with such observance of proportion that the inevitable conclusions will suggest themselves. Two initial points relating to the the originality of Palmer‘s thinking is worth the making here. Firstly, Palmer‘s conception of the linguistic foundations of language teaching and learning appear broader than Sweet‘s, whose appears firmly on phonetics as the indispensable foundation of language study, with considerations relating to phonetics and pronunciation taking up five of the first six chapters of Sweet‘s book. Secondly, the sources of insight indicated as relevant in SSTL are not confined even to this wider conception of language-study involving insights from philologists, phoneticians, grammarians, and lexicologists. Palmer‘s willingness to admit insights from modern pedagogy‘ and psychologists makes his conception broader than that of Sweet with his attachment to phonetics, and broader than that of the American linguists who were concerned above all to apply the insights of structural linguistics to language teaching during World War II and the immediate post-war era.⁴ Indeed, Palmer‘s conception could be seen as relatively close to the multidisciplinary, autonomous, and problem-focused rather than a linguistics-driven view of applied linguistics which evolved in the fourth quarter of the 20th century, largely under the joint inspiration of Brumfit and Widdowson.
SSTL begins with a discussion of the nature of language, and does not in fact delve much into psychology or learning theory, however, the factors and principles of linguistic pedagogy which form the basis for the second half of the book itself consisting of a series of quite practical suggestions concerning course design, teacher competences, and student characteristics appear to be only informed, not governed by linguistic considerations, with theorized and systematized practical experience also figuring quite strongly as a major source of insight.
With the later publication of PLS, Palmer was to show more comprehensively how insights from the psychology of language learning could inform language teaching theory, while as we shall see the Memorandum was to marry to this observation from the field of speech psychology.
In accordance with the scientific method, which is to collect isolated facts and factors in such numbers as to cover the whole field of inquiry,to classify, examine, and correlate them. To draw from them certain conclusions upon which the fundamental principles may be established and stated in categoric terms.
To confirm and justify these principles by putting them to the test of actual and continual practice. SSTL might be effected in practice by considering, in turn, the nature of language‘ and preliminary factors and principles of linguistic pedagogy, and then proceeding to show how these insights can be utilized in the design not only of an ideal standard program but also special programs for specific types of learner with different learning purposes.
A form of principled pluralism was thus an important aspect of Palmer‘s approach, although not expounded explicitly as an important principle at this stage. As it will be further emphasized below, practical experimentation was an additional, important aspect of Palmer‘s overall conception of scientific work which has been largely neglected in previous studies.
In this connection, tenet above is worthy of note, although this was not to be as fully implemented in practice during Palmer‘s London years as it had been during his time as a language teacher in Verviers and as it was to be again with teachers in Japan from around 1924 onwards.
In SSTL Palmer does, however, hint that organization is needed not only conceptually but also materially, the plowing of lonely furrows‖ should be replaced by coordinated efforts to discover the best means and to adapt these means to the right end.
The need for conceptual and material cooperation and co-ordination is repeated in Palmer‘s concluding exhortation, if you hold with us that the future of language-teaching and study should be based on organized and unified thought, then collaborate in the work which so far has barely commenced. Institutionalization, Palmer seems to suggest, needs to go hand in hand with his theoretical pleas for a science of language-teaching to be established⁵.
Another later advancement that merits featuring at this stage was that in Japan Palmer obviously updated his recently expressed view in regards to the absence of a need to make new disclosures, seeing his work there rather unquestionably as contributing new experiences, not simply integrating existing wellsprings of understanding.
Communicative language teaching (CLT), or the communicative approach, is an approach to language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of study.
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).
Learners in environments using CLT techniques learn and practice the target language by interactions with one another and the instructor, the study of "authentic texts" (those written in the target language for purposes other than language learning), and the use of the language both in class and outside of class.
Learners converse about personal experiences with partners, and instructors teach topics outside of the realm of traditional grammar to promote language skills in all types of situations. That method also claims to encourage learners to incorporate their personal experiences into their language learning environment and to focus on the learning experience, in addition to the learning of the target language.⁶
According to CLT, the goal of language education is the ability to communicate in the target language. This is in contrast to previous views in which grammatical competence was commonly given top priority.
CLT also focuses on the teacher being a facilitator, rather than an instructor. Furthermore, the approach is a non-methodical system that does not use a textbook series to teach the target language but works on developing sound oral and verbal skills prior to reading and writing.
It has been noticed that the goal of the most of the methods is to make the students able to communicate in the target language. But in the 1970s, the educators tried to find out whether they were going to meet the goal of the students in a right way or not. It had been observed that students were able to write and read the sentences in target language correctly. But when it came to communicate in the target language, they failed to do so. It made clear to the observer that to make the students able to communicate in the target language, it required more than mastering only the linguistic structures. It had been accepted by the educators that to be able to communicate in the target language, communicative competence is required with linguistic competence.
There had been a shift from the linguistic structure centered approach to communicative approach in the late 1970s and 80s. CLT is an approach to teach foreign or second language which emphasizes on communicative competence. It also emphasizes on interaction as a means to teach language. Communicative Language Teaching replaced the Situation Language Teaching which had been used to teach English as a second or foreign language. It had been considered as the major British approach.
The focus of CLT approach was on to teach the basic structures of language. But in the 1960s, the educators realized that language taught on the basis of situational learning would have been of no use. Because to teach the meaning, carried out from the utterances was more required as it expressed the intentions of the speaker or writer. In the mid of 1970s, the scope of Communicative Language Teaching has extended. Both American and British proponents now see it as an approach that aim to make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and develop procedure for the teaching of four language skill that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication. At the level of language theory, Communicative Language Teaching has a rich, if somewhat eclectic, theoretical base.
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.
The CLT approach first entered the curriculum in Uzbekistan at the end of 1990s, when the Ministry of Public Education developed State Educational Standards. 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.
Characteristics of CLT
It aims to make learners to attain communicative competence so the learners can use language accurately and appropriately.
The major focus while using CLT approach is on the learners. The teacher is just the facilitator. The teacher is a person who manages the environment and helps the learners to become autonomous.
The syllabus emphasizes the functional use of language. The syllabus is relying on the authentic materials. The tasks which are assigned to the learners have purposes and meanings.
Communicative activities enable the learners to attain communicative objectives of the curriculum, engage learners in communication, and require the use of such communicative processes as information sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction.