Main Directions of Development of the Methodology of Teaching Foreign Languages in Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

The article presents an analysis of modern domestic and foreign studies devoted to the study of directions for improving the methodology of teaching foreign languages in higher education. The trends of domestic foreign language education are: modernization of the methodology of teaching foreign languages in a non-linguistic university with a focus on international educational standards; co-study of the language and culture of the people; lifelong education; professional orientation of a foreign language course in a non-linguistic university; increasing the share of independent work of students; differentiation and individualization in teaching foreign languages. Foreign researchers view the personality quality we are interested in differently: in Western countries with a predominance of individualism, independence, autonomy, and personal active participation are of greater importance, while in Eastern countries with their inherent collectivism, special attention is paid to the rules and norms adopted in a particular society. This paradigm is of particular interest to us, since the studied category of students from among the indigenous inhabitants of Yakutia belong, rather, to the eastern mental group, while being members of the Russian nation, located at the junction of the West and the East. Consideration of these trends allowed us to move on to the theoretical substantiation, construction and implementation in practice of the author\'s methodology for the development of educational independence of students from among the indigenous inhabitants of Yakutia, represented by strategies, techniques, a set of forms, methods, tools and exercises aimed at forming the desired personality quality.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

The aim of our research is the theoretical justification, construction and practical implementation of the methodological concept of developing the educational independence of students of a non-linguistic university by means of a foreign language. Experimental work was carried out at the North-Eastern Federal University named after M. K. Ammosov, located in Yakutsk. One of the initial prerequisites for creating the concept of the process under study is the understanding of the directions of development of domestic methodological science in the field of teaching foreign languages in universities. To this end, we have studied texts "National Doctrine of Education of the Russian Federation" [6], "Concepts for the period up to 2010/2025" [5], federal state educational standards of the new generation [12], and also analyzed studies on the modernization of the Russian system of higher education.

We state that today there is a situation when non-linguistic universities implement an unprecedented number of foreign language courses in bachelor's, specialist's, master's and postgraduate studies. At the same time, many universities offer programs of additional professionally oriented training in a foreign language. There is a trend in the need for foreign language teaching of the teaching staff of universities for subsequent lectures, practical classes and seminars in a foreign language. Disciplines related to the study of a foreign language may be included in different cycles of curricula and be presented in the basic / optional part, a cycle of disciplines to choose from for study. At the same time, the academic disciplines declared in the working curriculum differ in name based on differences in their content. Courses with the same name, but for different specialties, may have a different total amount of hours allocated to a particular educational unit, as well as a form of intermediate / final assessment of students. Analyzing the changes taking place in the Russian education system, the author of the theory of contextual teaching of foreign languages, A. A. Verbitsky, writes that it has received a "powerful impetus for transformation." According to the author, “... in fact, we are not talking about modernization, but about a deep reform of education ...” [2, p. 76]. He singles out the external and internal “contours” of domestic education, referring to the external the results of decisions from above, that is, from the state authorities and management, and to the internal - the educational process itself in the university.

N. Solovova, a well-known Russian scientist in the field of teaching foreign languages, defines the following prospects for its development: 1) organization of a complex of modular programs by levels in order to build differentiated learning trajectories for students; 2) increasing the efficiency of managing the educational activities of students in the framework of full-time, part-time, part-time and distance learning; 3) constant professional growth of teachers of foreign languages at universities, the creation of a specially organized certification system [10]. Comparing the methodology of teaching foreign languages at the university and school levels, the researcher points out the need for careful attention to the first for a number of reasons: firstly, there is a situation where, in the presence of a significant amount of research, there is no single systematic scientific school in the field of teaching foreign languages in a university setting , and historically it was given a smaller place in comparison with school; secondly, according to the Federal State Educational Standard of secondary education, a foreign language is fixed as compulsory for studying at all its levels, however, the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education does not provide for its mandatory study in a master's program, and the number of credits varies throughout the country depending on a specific university; thirdly, an exemplary program in foreign languages in non-linguistic universities was created before the adoption of the Federal State Educational Standard and the development of a new generation of OEP and, therefore, needs to be “finished”; fourthly, there are no developed programs for non-linguistic universities / specialties depending on their profile (humanitarian, technical, natural sciences); fifthly, there is no unified state final exam accepted by all, by analogy with the Unified State Examination and the OGE. Another domestic linguist S. G. Ter-Minasova, describing innovations in the field of teaching foreign languages, points to the need for “co-studying the language and culture of the people who use it as a means of communication” [11, p. 5]. The author refers to the number of promising changes in the field of linguodidactics the active use of new information technologies and distance (online) learning, as well as the promotion of a self-learning system, when the teacher motivates and, if necessary, advises the student to learn a foreign language on his own.

A similar idea of co-studying languages and cultures is shared by the well-known Russian methodologist V. V. Safonova [8], who, when analyzing the results of the theory and practice of teaching a foreign language abroad, highlights a number of positive directions on the way to the standardization of language education in general. Multiculturalism is recognized as one of the most important components in the life of an individual, and, therefore, the need for the development of "language pedagogy" and the search for effective ways to implement it becomes obvious. She advocates the principle of didactic linguistic pluralism and the expansion of the zone of foreign language learning, where the second and third foreign languages studied in parallel have equal rights and status in various fields of knowledge and activity. The researcher considers the multi-level and multi-level nature to be another positive trend in modern foreign language education. Recognition and resolution of the contradiction between the search for ways of standardization and ways of individualization of language education should be aimed at intercultural interaction and cooperation with the active participation of an individual and various kinds of communities in a single language space. The Russian educator A. N. Shamov also states that "... methodological science has entered a new round of development" [14, p. 201]. The trends in the development of modern methodological science are dictated by "... the specifics of the current stage of the socio-cultural development of society and, in particular, the requirements for the quality of teaching foreign languages" [81, p. 201]. The author explains this by the functionality that a foreign language carries in the life of a person: 1) language is a means of communication, the growth of various kinds of contacts, the disclosure of the student's capabilities, his subsequent implementation in the profession; 2) a foreign language contributes to familiarization with world experience, culture, contributing to the spiritual growth of the individual. According to A. N. Utekhina, the goal of modern language education should be to achieve a balance of “... cognitive mastering of curricula and standards and mastery of competencies in the field of social and professional communication, creative and critical analysis of the use of educational technologies in higher education” [13, p. 126]. Pedagogical technology, according to the author, should be focused on the student's future profession, that is, to form an important set of competencies for the future professional: personal qualities, knowledge, values and attitudes. The author believes that in modern conditions, the classification of technologies is promising, taking into account the priority areas for the development of higher education and the tasks solved within the framework of continuity.

Next, we turn to the analysis of foreign experience in the field of methods of teaching foreign languages at the university. According to the Bologna agreements, the goal of the educational process is the training and education of a competent person [4; 7]. The study of international documents that consider the processes of integration of the educational systems of European states, the practical experience of foreign methodologists on teaching English for general (English for general purposes), special (English for specific purposes), academic purposes (English for academic purposes), as well as concerning educational autonomy (learning autonomy), learning independence (learning independence), self-directed learning (self-directed learning) indicates that a lot of didactic work is being done abroad in the area of interest to us (P. Benson [16], M. Gremmo [17], H. Holec [19], M. Knowles [20], D. Little [21], P. Voller [22] and others).

So, back in the 70s of the XX century, M. Knowles wrote that the ability to learn independently is an important human competence, since it is an important tool for the survival of both an individual and the human race as a whole [20]. The formation of the independence of the individual, its autonomy is considered by foreign researchers from different positions. Thus, in Western countries, for example, they adhere to the vector of independence in learning, while in Eastern countries the educational process is focused on discipline, readiness and the ability to clearly reproduce information. The Dutch scientist G. Hofstede in his work “The Consequences of Culture” identified a number of parameters for its description – the Hofstede measurements [18], which have become a popular paradigm of intercultural psychology. He believed that in our perception of reality lies some kind of "programmed" predetermination. This perception is typical for representatives of one nation/region and differs from others. Despite the fact that the reality has changed and the activities characteristic of a certain group of people may be lost (cattle breeding, crop production), the genetic message has been preserved. There are traditions and customs that have an impact on the forms and methods of education, methods of communication, specific differences in cultural self-identification, which is relevant for modern reality when building vectors of cultural interaction. The scientist grouped countries depending on their socio-psychological characteristics and identified five indicators of culture: ndividualism/collectivism; power distance index; uncertainty aversion; masculinity/femininity; short-term / long-term orientation to the future.

References

[1] Baydenko V. I. Novye standarty vysshego obrazovaniya: metodologicheskie aspekty // Vysshee obra- zovanie segodnya. – 2007. – ? 5. – S. 4–9. [2] Verbitskiy A. A. Effektivnoe upravlenie i organizatsiya obrazovatel\'nogo protsessa v sovremennom med- itsinskom vuze // Vuzovskaya pedagogika : materialy konf. / gl. red. S. Yu. Nikulina. – Krasnoyarsk : Izd-vo KrasGMU, 2014. – 597 p. [3] Grebnev L. S. Bolonskiy protsess i «chetvertoe pokolenie» obrazovatel\'nykh standartov // Vysshee obra- zovanie v Rossii. – 2011. – ? 11. – C. 29–41. [4] Zona evropeyskogo vysshego obrazovaniya: Sovmestnoe zayavlenie evropeyskikh ministrov obrazovaniya, g. Bolon\'ya, 19 iyunya 1999 g. // Budushchee evropeyskogo obrazovaniya: Bolonskiy protsess (Sorbonna- Bolon\'ya-Salamanka-Praga) / sost. E. V. Shevchenko. – SPb. : Izd-vo SPbGTU, 2002. – 76 p. [5] Kontseptsiya modernizatsii Rossiyskogo obrazovaniya na period do 2010/2025 gg.[Elektronnyy resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: http://www.edu.ru/db/mo/Data/d_02/393.html (data obrashcheniya: 11.12.2016). [6] Natsional\'naya doktrina obrazovaniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Byulleten\' Minobrazovaniya RF. – 2000. – ? 11. – p. 4–13. [7] Obshcheevropeyskie kompetentsii vladeniya inostrannym yazykom: izuchenie, prepodavanie, otsenka: Sovet Evropy. – Strasburg – M. : MGLU, 2003. – 256 p. [8] Safonova V. V. Soizuchenie yazykov i kul\'tur v zerkale mirovykh tendentsiy razvitiya sovremennogo yazy- kovogo obrazovaniya // Yazyk i kul\'tura. – 2014. – ? 1 (25). – S. 123–141. [9] Sergeeva N. N. Inoyazychnaya kommunikativnaya kompetentsiya v sfere professional\'noy deyatel\'nosti: model\' i metodika razvitiya // Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v Rossii. – 2014. – ? 6. – S. 147–150. [10] Solovova E. N. Perspektivnye napravleniya razvitiya vuzovskoy metodiki prepodavaniya inostrannykh yazykov // Vestnik MGIMO. – 2013. –? 6 (33). – S. 67–70. [11] Ter-Minasova S. G. Prepodavanie inostrannykh yazykov v sovremennoy Rossii: proshloe, nastoyashchee i budushchee // Molodoy uchenyy. – 2015. – ?15.2. – S. 1–7. [12] Federal\'nye gosudarstvennye obrazovatel\'nye standarty vysshego obrazovaniya po napravleniyam ba- kalavriata [Elektronnyy resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: http://www.fgosvo.ru/fgosvo/92/91/4 (data obrashcheniya: 11.12.2016). [13] Utekhina A. N., Brim N. E., Golubkova O. N., Kozlitina O. K., Milyutinskaya N. Yu., Troynikova E. V., Khasanova L .I. Professional\'no-orientirovannye tekhnologii v yazykovom obrazovanii : kollektivnaya monografi- ya. – 2-e izdanie, stereotipnoe. – M. : FLINTA. – 2012. – 222 s. [14] Shamov A. N. Shkol\'noe lingvoobrazovanie v novykh usloviyakh // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo gosu- darstvennogo lingivticheskogo universiteta. – 2012. – Vyp. 19. – S. 200–209. [15] Byram M. The Common (European) CEFR of Reference – teaching foreign languages, mediation and in- tercultural competence // Annual Review of English Learning and Teaching. –2011. – ? 16. – Pp. 63–70. [16] Benson P. Autonomy in language teaching and learning. State of the art article // Language Teaching. – 2007. – ? 40. – Pp. 21–40. [17] Gremmo M.-J. & Riley P. Autonomy, self-direction and self-access in language teaching and learning: the history of an idea // System. – 1995. – ? 23(2). – Pp. 151–164. [18] Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations // Thousand Oaks CA : Sage, 2001. – 616 p. [19] Holec H. On autonomy: some elementary concepts // P. Riley (ed.) Discourse and Learning. – L. : Long- man, 1995. – Pp. 173–190. [20] Knowles M. Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs : Prentice Hall. – Cambridge, 1975. – 135 p. [21] Little D. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy // System. – 1995. – 23 (2). – Pp. 175–182.. [22] Voller P. Does the teacher have a role in autonomous learning // P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. – London : Longman, 1997. – Pp. 98–113. [23] Ruzimurodova, Z., & Aslonov, S. (2020). WHAT TO TEACH TO THE STUDENTS? TO TEACH STANDARD ENGLISH OR WORLD ENGLISHES?. In ??????? ?????????????: ?????? ? ??????????? (pp. 367-369). [24] Sherzodovich, A. S. (2020). The r?le ?f ?nline teaching and inn?vative meth?ds. Science and education, 1(3), 524-528. [25] ???????, ?. ?. (2020). ???????????? ??????????? ? ?????????: ???????? ? ???????. ???????????? ???????, (84), 17-19.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Muzropov Kholmukhamat Fayzulloevich . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.