Communicative English Language Teaching ,

The content specifications of learner-centered pedagogy are a clear and qualitative extension of

those pertaining to language-centered pedagogy, an extension that can make a huge difference in the

instructional design.

But from a classroom procedural point of view, there is no fundamental difference between

language-centered pedagogy and learner-centered pedagogy. The rationale behind this rather brisk

observation will become apparent as we take a closer look at the input modifications and

interactional activities recommended by learner-centered pedagogists.

Input Modifications
Unlike the language-centered pedagogists, who adopted an almost exclusive form-based

approach to input modifications, learner-centered pedagogists pursued a form- and meaning-based

approach. Recognizing that successful L2 entails more than structures, they attempted

to connect form and meaning. In a sense, this connection is indeed the underlying practice of any

method of L2 language teaching for, as Brumfit and Johnson (1979) correctly pointed out, no teacher

introduces “shall” and “will” (for example) without relating recourse to the concepts of

countableness and uncountableness. (p. 1)

What learner-centered pedagogists did, and did successfully, was to make this connection

explicit at the levels of syllabus design, textbook production, and classroom input and interaction.

Notice how, for example, the mini curriculum cited (section 6.1.4) focuses on the communicative

function of “apologizing,” while at the same time, identifying English grammatical structures and
vocabulary items needed to perform that function.

In trying to make the form-function connection explicit, language centered pedagogists assumed

that contextual meaning can be analyzed sufficiently and language input can be modified suitably so

as to present the learner with a useable and useful set of form- and meaning-based learning

materials. Such an assumption would have been beneficial if there is a one-to-one correspondence

between grammatical forms and communicative functions. We know that a single form can express

several functions just as a single function can be expressed through several forms. To use an

example given by Littlewood (1981) the speaker who wants somebody to close the door has many

linguistic options, including “Close the door, please,” “Could you please close the door?,” “Would
you mind closing the door?,” or “Excuse me, could I trouble you to close the door?” Some forms

might only perform this directive function in the context of certain social relationships—for

example, “You’ve left the door open!” could serve as a directive from teacher to pupil, but not from

teacher to principal. Other forms would depend strongly on shared situational knowledge for their

correct interpretation, and could easily be misunderstood (e.g. “Brrr! its cold, isn’t it?”). (p. 2)

Similarly, a single expression, “I’ve got a headache” can perform the functions of a warning, a

request, or an apology depending on the communicative contex

Language input in learner-centered pedagogy, then, can only provide the learner with

standardized functions embedded in stereotypical contexts. It is almost impossible to present

language functions in a wide range of contexts in which they usually occur. It is, therefore, left to the

learner to figure out how the sample utterances are actually realized and reformulated to meet

interpretive norms governing effective communication in a given situation. Whether the learner is

able to meet this challenge or not depends to a large extent on the way in which interactional

activities are carried out in the classroom.

Interactional Activities
To operationalize their input modifications in the classroom, learner-centered pedagogists

followed the same presentation–practice–production sequence popularized by language-centered

pedagogists but with one important distinction: Whereas the language-centered pedagogists

presented and helped learners practice and produce grammatical items, learner-centered pedagogists

presented and helped learners practice and produce grammatical as well as notional/functional

categories of language. It must, however, be acknowledged that learner-centered pedagogists came

out with a wide variety of innovative classroom procedures such as pair work, group work, role-play,

simulation games, scenarios and debates that ensured a communicative flavor to their interactional

activities.

One of the sources of communicative activities widely used by English language teachers during

the1980s is Communicative Language Teaching—An Introduction, by Littlewood (1981). In it, he

presents what he calls a “methodological framework,” consisting of pre-communicative activities

and communicative activities diagrammatically represented as:

Pre-communicative Activities:

• Structural activities

• Quasi-communicative activities

Communicative Activities:

• Functional communicative activities

• Social interaction activities

Stating that these categories and subcategories represent differences of emphasis and orientation

rather than distinct divisions, Littlewood explains that through pre-communicative activities, the

teacher provides the learners with specific knowledge of linguistic forms, and gives them

opportunities to practice. Through communicative activities, the learner is helped to activate and

integrate those forms for meaningful communication. The teacher also provides corrective feedback

at all stages of activities, because error correction, unlike in the language-centered pedagogy, is not

frowned upon. Littlewood suggests several classroom activities that are typical of a learner-centered

pedagogy. For example, consider the following activity: Discovering Missing Information

Learner A has information represented in tabular form. For example, he may have a table

showing distances between various towns or a football league table showing a summary of each

team’s results so far (how many games they have played/won/lost/drawn, how many goals they have

scored, etc.). However, some items of information have been deleted from the table. Learner B has

an identical table except that different items of information have been deleted. Each learner can

therefore complete his own tale by asking his partner for the information that he lacks.

As with several previous activities, the teacher may (if he wishes) specify what language forms

are to be used. For example, the distances table would require forms such as “How far is . . . from . .

. ?” “Which town is . . . miles from . . . ?,” while the league table would require forms such as “How

many games have . . . played?” and “How many goals have . . . scored?.” (Littlewood, 1981, p. 26)

Pooling Information to Solve a Problem

Learner A has a train timetable showing the times of trains from X to Y. Learner B has a timetable

of trains from Y to Z. For example:

Learner A’s information:

Newtown dep. : 11.34 13.31 15.18 16.45

Shrewsbury arr. : 12.22 14.18 16.08 18.25

Learner B’s information:

Shrewsbury dep. : 13.02 15.41 16.39 18.46

Swansea arr. : 17.02 19.19 20.37 22.32

Together, the learners must work out the quickest possible journey from Newtown to Swansea.

Again, of course, it is important that they should not be able to see each other’s information.

(Littlewood, 1981, pp. 34–35)

These two examples illustrate functional communication activities. The idea behind them is that

“the teacher structures the situation so that learners have to overcome an information gap or solve a

problem. Both the stimulus for communication and the yardstick for success are thus contained

within the situation itself: learners must work towards a definite solution or decision” (Littlewood,

1981, p. 22). The activities are intended to help the learner find the language necessary to convey an

intended message effectively in a specific context. The two sample activities show how two learners

in a paired-activity are required to interact with each other, ask questions, seek information, and pool

the information together in order to carry out the activities successfully.

Topic-090: A Critical Assessment & Conclusion of Communicative Language Teaching

Approach

Perhaps the greatest achievement of learner-centered pedagogists is that they successfully

directed the attention of the language-teaching profession to aspects of language other than

grammatical structures. By treating language as discourse, not merely as system, they tried to move

classroom teaching away from a largely systemic orientation that relied upon a mechanical rendering

of pattern practices and more toward a largely communicative orientation that relied upon a partial

simulation of meaningful exchanges that take place outside the classroom. By considering the
characteristics of language communication with all earnestness, they bestowed legitimacy to the

basic concepts of negotiation, interpretation, and expression. They highlighted the fact that language

is a means of conveying and receiving ideas and information as well as a tool for expressing

personal needs, wants, beliefs, and desires. They also underscored the creative, unpredictable, and

purposeful character of language communication.

Of course, the nature of communication that learner-centered pedagogists assiduously espoused

is nothing new. It has long been practiced in other disciplines in social sciences such as

communication studies. But what is noteworthy is that learner-centered pedagogists explored and

exploited it seriously and systematically for the specific purpose of learning and teaching second and

foreign languages. It is to their credit that, although being critical of language-centered pedagogy,

they did not do away with its explicit focus on grammar but actually extended it to include

functional features as well. In doing so, they anticipated some of the later research findings in

second-language acquisition, which generally supported the view that form-focused instruction and

corrective feedback provided within the context of a communicative program are more effective in

promoting second language learning than programs which are limited to an exclusive emphasis on

accuracy on the one hand or an exclusive emphasis on fluency on the other. (Lightbown & Spada,

1993, p. 105)

The explicit focus on grammar is not the only teaching principle that learner-centered

pedagogists retained from the discredited tradition of audio-lingualism. They also retained, this time

to ill-effect, its cardinal belief in a linear and additive way of language learning as well as its

presentation– practice–production sequence of language teaching. In spite of their interest in the

cognitive–psychological principles of holistic learning, learner-centered pedagogists preselected and

pre-sequenced grammatical, lexical, and functional items, and presented to the learners one cluster of

items at a time hoping that the learners would learn the discrete items in a linear and additive

manner, and then put them together in some logical fashion in order get at the totality of the

English language as communicative language

As Widdowson (2003) recently reiterated, although there are differences of view about the English

language learning process, there is a general acceptance that whatever else it might be, it is not

simply additive.

The acquisition of competence is not accumulative but adaptive: learners proceed not by adding

items of knowledge or ability, but by a process of continual revision and reconstruction. In other

words, learning is necessarily a process of recurrent unlearning and relearning, whereby encoding

rules and conventions for their use are modified, extended, realigned, or abandoned altogether to

accommodate new language data.” (pp. 140–141)

As mentioned earlier, from a classroom methodological point of view, there are no fundamental
differences between language-centered and learning-centered pedagogies. They adhere to different

versions of the familiar linear and additive view of language learning and the equally familiar

presentation–practice–production vision of language teaching. For some, this is too difficult and

disappointing an interpretation to digest because for a considerable length of time, it has been

propagated with almost evangelical zeal and clock-work regularity that communicative Language

teaching marked a revolutionary step in the methodological aspects of language teaching. The term,

communicative revolution, one often comes across in the professional literature is clearly an

overstatement.

Those who make such a claim do so based more on the array of innovative classroom procedures

recommended to be followed in the communicative classroom (and they indeed are innovative and

impressive) than on their conceptual underpinnings.

Here, we use the phrase, “recommended to be followed,” advisedly because a communicative

learning/teaching agenda, however well-conceived, cannot by itself guarantee a communicative

classroom because communication “is what may or may not be achieved through classroom activity;

it cannot be embodied in an abstract specification” (Widdowson, 1990, p. 130). Data- based

classroom-oriented investigations conducted in various contexts by various researchers such as

Kumaravadivelu (1993a), Legutke and Thomas (1991), Nunan (1987), and Thornbury (1996)

revealed without any doubt that the so-called communicative classrooms are anything but

communicative. Nunan observed that, in the classes he studied, form was more prominent in that

function and grammatical accuracy activities dominated communicative fluency ones. He concluded,

“there is growing evidence that, in communicative class, interactions may, in fact, not be very

communicative after all” (p. 144). Legutke and Thomas (1991) were even more forthright:

“In spite of trendy jargon in textbooks and teachers’ manuals, very little is actually

communicated in the L2 classroom. The way it is structured does not seem to stimulate the wish of

learners to say something, nor does it tap what they might have to say . . .” (pp. 8–9). The research

confirmed these findings, when they analyzed lessons taught by those claiming to follow

communicative language teaching, and reached the conclusion: “Even teachers who are committed

to CLT can fail to create opportunities for genuine interaction in their classroom” (Kumaravadivelu,

1993a, p. 113).
Yet another serious drawback that deserves mention is what Swan (1985) dubbed the “tabula

rasa attitude” of the learner-centered pedagogists. That is, they firmly and falsely believed that adult

L2 learners do not possess normal pragmatic skills, nor can they transfer them, from their mother

tongue.

They summarily dismissed the L1 pragmatic knowledge/ability L2 learners bring with them to

the L2 classroom. Swan (1985) draws attention to the fact that adult second-language learners know

how to negotiate meaning, convey information, and perform speech acts. “What they do not know”

he declares rightly, “is what words are used to do it in a foreign language. They need lexical items,

not skills . . .” (p. 9) In other words, L2 learners, by virtue of being members of their L1 speech

community, know the basic rules of communicative use. All we need to do is to tap the linguistic and

cultural resources they bring with them. This view has been very well supported by research.

Summarizing nearly two decades of studies on pragmatics in second language learning and teaching,

Rose and Kasper (2001) stated unequivocally, “adult learners get a considerable amount of L2

pragmatic knowledge for free. This is because some pragmatic knowledge is universal . . . and other

aspects may be successfully transferred from the learners’ L1.” (p. 4) In a similar vein, focusing

enerally on the non-useage of L1 in the L2 classroom, Vivian Cook (2002) has all along questioned

the belief that learners would fare better if they kept to the second language, and has recently

recommended that teachers “develop the systematic use of the L1 in the classroom alongside the L2

as a reflection of the realities of the classroom situation, as an aid to learning and as a model for the

world outside” (p. 332).

Is it the way to teach language the way we teach

language? English language teaching in

Pakistan?
INTRODUCTION
The growing need and importance of English language at the present day has made the
acquisition of

this language as an important requirement for today’s student. As English is perceived as an

indispensable tool in order to survive in the global economy, the demands for English language
have
grown (Paik, 2008). Despite the importance and need of English language, it has generally been

observed in the developing context especially in context of Pakistan that students having strong
language competencies easily get entry into higher institutions while such entry is denied to
those who
have poor background in English language. The importance of English language is even more
intense
at secondary level as this transitional stage prepares learners either to be an earning member
for the
family through joining various trades or enter higher institutions with sound background. As
Jimenez
and Rose (2010) believe, “Without a sustained and systematic effort, students in the process of
learning English have almost no hope of acquiring the kinds and amounts of cultural, social, and
academic capital that they need to moveinto higher education ormeaningful work” (p.411). As a
result,

English language has been a means of either success or failure. Support for this interpretation
comes
from Zeegers(2005) who argues that it is the language which facilitates all other learning and all
learning failure is language failure.

Since teaching has the major role in facilitating the acquisition of English language, teaching
English
has been a point of concern for academicians and practitioners. Teaching English is not merely
transmitting information to the learners rather it is to enable them speak, read and write
fluently (Patil,
2008). However, the common observations in Pakistan especially in rural contexts reveal that
the
graduates coming out of schools have hardly any command on the language skills. It has
generally
been believed that the learners could gain command over the language skills if they are
exposed to
language development activities (Watkins, 2007). This raises the question whether the teachers
in
developing context especially in rural Pakistan aim at a balanced and integrated development
of all the
basic skills of English language. This paper aims at exploring the instructional techniques of
English
teachers at secondary level to understand their approach towards teaching of English and the
extent
they expose learners to various language skills.
Teaching of English
A generally believed fact is that without being aware of the aims of any task, its desired result
cannot
be achieved. To make learning much effective and systematic,teachers should be clear about
the long
term goals and specific aims of teaching English (James, 2001). The aims of teaching English at
secondary level are manifolds, such as to equip learners with the four language skills; listening,

reading, speaking and writing. Listening is considered to be the very basic and important skill of
any
language. Listening provides base for the other language skills. According to Shahid, (2002, p.
210),

“Listening is a process which involves perceiving that there is a systematic message, in a

continuous
stream of sound and then apprehending and identifying within this stream bounded elements
the

listener has never heard in exactly this form before”. It suggests that listening skill requires
profound
knowledge of phonology or sound system of the language. If we follow the natural approach of
language-learning, listening is to be the first step in language acquisition. Listening exercises
must be
constructed carefully and step-by-step (Brown and Yule, 1999).There is a strong argument for
spending more time training pupils’ listening skills before we introduce them to more complex
oral
exercises (Barton, 2006). The teacher should also ensure that the learners know the words
happening
in the listening activity. The students should be told about the reason or the purpose of the
activity i.e.
what they are supposed to do after listening and why they are given this training.

According to the natural approach to language acquisition, speaking is the next language skill
after
listening. The speaking skill requires the correct use of vocabulary items, the ability to recall
words

spontaneously and grammatical accuracy. Moreover, speaking also demands correct

pronunciation,
fluency in producing rhythm, stress and intonation. Overcoming all these aspects makes
learning
spoken language as the most difficult task for both teachers and students (Brown and Yule,
1999).
Speaking serves the main purpose of language that is to communicate and to establish social
relationship. If a language is to be acquired for the communicative purpose, speaking is the
foremost

means of communication. Therefore, the most important skill that the learner requires is the
oral skill
or the speaking skill and the main goal in teaching the productive skill of speaking is oral
fluency.

According to Wyse and Jones (2001, p. 190), “It is important that teachers recognize their own
histories and status as language users, and resist the temptation to impose their own social
criteria on
the child’s ongoing language development”. Therefore, the teacher should know the process of

language learning especially regarding speaking and try to follow the same process in the
classroom.
The obvious function of a teacher is to direct and control learners activities; what they are to
do, how
to do and when to do (Mercer, 1998). Students should be encouraged to speak and their errors
have to
be ignored. As Baker andWestrup (2000, p. 80) opine, “Students are learning when they make

mistakes or help to correct other students’ mistakes”.

All new learning comes through reading, so reading is very important language skill. The
education of
a child is imperfect unless he is equipped with the ability of reading to interpret and understand
the
contents of a reading material. Therefore, Dr. West gives more emphasis upon the reading skill.
In
reading, the reader’s goal is to understand and absorb the writer’s purpose. Students need a
reason to
read which can be achieved by setting a meaningful task (Watkins, 2007). The second language
learners cannot be made effective readers unless they are taught the skill of reading. Teachers
have to
use different techniques to teach reading and provide students with practice opportunities.
Reading
should gradually move from simple to difficult. Kropp (1993) states, “Some children have
literally
never heard the words or ideas they are being asked to read in books. As a result, reading
becomes
more frustrating” (p.28). The words related to the experience of the learners and those that
have been known to them by listening and conversation must come first. It should start with
blackboard and

flash cards not with textbook. Then gradually introducing the techniques of skimming, scanning,
predicting, guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words etc. will be helpful to acquire fluency in
reading.
Writing is translating thoughts into language. As there is no personal contact between the
writer and
reader, writing should be very neat, simple and clear so that a reader will understand it without
any
help. The mistakes go unnoticed in speaking that is not so in writing. The learners may gradually
be
acquainted with the writing techniques. Developing writing skill needs proper guidance by the
teacher
and constant practice by the students. According to Potts and Nicholas, (1958, p. 17), “… to
write well
you must be willing to rewrite often, to take your time in writing, and never to be satisfied with
less
you’re your best work”. One cannot produce an effective writing until the writing devices are
taught
and made into use. Since the system of writing differ from language to language, a teacher has
to be
clear about such differences and train students accordingly (Czerniewska, 1998). Moreover,
teachers
familiarize students not only with the textual features that are characteristic of genres in
different

disciplines but also with the forms of thinking that give rise to these genres (Beck, 2009).
Therefore,
learners should be given opportunity to look at the various written formats because we need
different

strategies for writing different formats. Like speaking, fluency and correctness in writing comes
through regular practice. We should allow our students to write about their ideas, experiences
and
interests. Teacher should encourage students to write freely and appreciate their efforts. For
writing
skill, knowledge of grammar is essential. The students also feel difficulty with spellings that
discourages the writing skill. Extensive reading practice and constant writing practice will be
helpful

to solve the spelling problems. Most importantly, a teacher has to understand the typical stages
that
learners pass through in their writing (Wyse and Jones, 2001).
The literature on various language skills presented above suggests that language is not merely
assimilation of knowledge and information rather it is active acquisition of communicative
competencies. Such purpose of language has given rise to communicative approach which
could help

the students grasp how to use target language to communicate appropriately, fluently and
effectively
by being more concerned with students’ initiative and interaction rather than simply with
teacher-

centered direction (Demirezen, 2011). However, to facilitate language acquisition through

communicative approach, the teachers’ competency and students’ confidence as well as
motivation
play important role. The studies conducted in Asian contexts reveal that learners in most Asian

countries feel shy and nervous while using English (Patil, 2008). In order to overcome the
challenge of
learners’ shyness and enable them speak, read and write English fluently, Patil suggests to
create:
opportunities for them to use English in meaningful, realistic, relevant situations. Games, role
play activities,
information gap tasks, brain storming exercises, riddles, puzzles, cartoons, anecdotes, jokes,
songs, and other
low-cost and easily available teaching materials come handy. Learners enjoy toying with the
language,
experimenting with it and gradually but surely feel confident and comfortable with the
language. Once they have
got rid of fear complex, they try to use English creatively. Since they are not scared of making
mistakes, they try
to use as much language as they can and in due course of time pick up more vocabulary and
structures. (p.239)
However, the above mentioned strategies could be used by a competent and well trained
teacher.
Unfortunately, lack of trained teachers proficient in the English language has consistently
emerged as
a big challenge in Pakistan (Aslam, et al. 2010; Behloland Anwar, 2011;Shamim, 2008). In rural
context especially in the context of Chitral, English teachers hardly avail any in-service
professional
development opportunities as neither government nor any NGOs arrange such course for
English
teachers at secondary level. The pre-service courses have already been considered outdated
and instead
of practical teaching skills, the emphasis remains on theory (Siddiqui, 2010). Since the ground
realities
in the rural context differ from other context, there may be different approaches to the
teaching of
English as a teacher may adopt particular practices which are seen to be appropriate to the
specific
culture of the teaching situation (Hird, et al, 2000). Thus, it seems an interesting and timely
question to
explore the instructional practices of secondary level English teachers in Chitral; a rural and
mountainous district of Khyber PukhtunkhwaProvice, Pakistan. The study also investigates the
reason
behind the particular approaches of teachers towards teaching of English. RESEARCH METHOD
Since the purpose of the study was to understand the existing instructional practices as well as
to

reveal reasons behind those practices, a mixed method of research was used during the study.
Quantitative approach was required to identify the teaching practices using classroom
observation
checklist while qualitative approach was necessary to reveal the reasons behind the particular
approach
through interviews. Out of 100 high schools in the district, 25 schools were selected randomly.
While
selecting schools, it was kept in mind that the data should represent the whole population and
all
sectors. For this purpose, sample schools were selected from all sectors and all tehsils of the
district.
Through this sampling, the researcher visited 13 Pubic Schools, 5 each Private and Community
Based
Schools and two Aga Khan Schools in the district. One secondary class from each school and
their
English teachers were consulted to collect data. Data was collected by personal visit to schools,
observing teaching learning processes in the classrooms and interviewing English teachers at
Secondary Level.

During this research,classroom observation checklist and interview were used as tools to
generate
data.Two lessons of each research participants were observed followed by interview. The
classroom

observation checklist and interviews covered various areas of teaching and learning processes.
Questions or items about the techniques of teaching, nature of activities, language skills
development
areas and the reasons behind the use of different techniques and language skills were included
in the

checklist and interview tools.

The collected data were constantly arranged and analyzed to find patterns and themes. As a
result of
the final analysis, the findings are presented below.

FINDINGS
As emerged from the analysis of the data, the results are discussed under the themes of lesson
planning, classroom activities, factors determining the specific approaches to teaching and
teachers’

professional backgroundof English teachers which emerged as a result of ongoing data analysis.
Preparing for the Daily Lessons
As observed during the data collection process, most of theEnglish teachers were not used to
lesson

planning. Only a small number of teachers were found with full or partial lesson plans. It was
interesting to note that some of the teachers were not familiar even with the format of lesson
planning.
These are the teachers who do not have any professional pre-service or in-service training.
Moreover,
some of the teachers claim that they prepare lessons but not necessarily put them into written
form. “I
am used to teaching, so everything is in my mind”, a teacher reported. Still there was no such
evidence
as their teaching depicts their preparation. In government and private schools, there was no
pressure on
teachers from either internal or external sources to prepare lesson plans. The external sources
of Aga
Khan Schools expect lesson planning from teachers but due to workload, teachers were not
fully used
to lesson planning. A teacher showed his concern saying, “How can I make lesson plans for the
six

classes which I have to teach on daily basis”. No planning results in no objectives and as during
lesson
there are no proper activities where it is difficult to relate objectives to activities and to
evaluate

learning against objectives.

The daily periods of English teachers at secondary level range from three to seven. In average,
English
teachers teach 5.5 periods daily. The more and less periods have also both positive and
negative effects
on the teaching practices of English teachers. The workload is a big reason behind the lack of
planning
and effective teaching. The teachers having fewer periods are mostly those who are involved in
overall
school management. Some of the headteachers told that since they had to be involved in the
managerial activities, they could not pay full attention on teaching. According to the
headteachers, in
some government schools, teachers’ absenteeism was also an issue. The present teachers were
supposed to teach or at least to engage the classes of absent teachers which further increased
their
work load and affect the quality of teaching.
Classroom Activities
As observed during the classroom teaching, the English teachers’ major activities in the
classroom are
reading the text, translating it into either Urdu or mother tongue.Besides translating the text,
the
teachers were also found exposing learners to the reading activities. The teachers finish reading
and
translating the text and then ask students to read. Moreover, they frequently expose learners
to loud
reading presuming it as an effective strategy to improve the pronunciation of the students.
However,

some teachers do not favor this approach. Such teachers believe that the need of the students
is not
only reading skill but other language skills are equally important. They opined that reading is
only a

way to collect ideas or materials while we collect ideas to present them elsewhere in written or
spoken
form.
The teachers also teach grammar and there were periods assigned for teaching English
grammar in the
studied schools. However, grammar is taught through deductive method i.e. telling or teaching
the
rules first and then giving examples. On the other hand, the English textbooks also contain
various
grammar exercises. Even these exercises are usually solved by the teachers and students note
the
correct answer in their textbooks or notebooks. Thus, wherever there are opportunities of
learning
grammar and practice language skills, students get ready made solutions instead of practicing
them
practically.
Since the teacher spend most of the classroom time in translation and reading, no other
language skills

development activities could be observed. Stress on translation and reading hinders in

providing room
for other language practice. Though the students usually listen to the teachers, it is not helpful
to

develop their listening skill as the teachers hardly use English language except reading the text.
Similarly, speaking skill is also a neglected area in the classroom. Teachers do not have habits of
exposing students to the speaking activities.On the other hand, as observed during teaching
and
learning process, as compare to listening and speaking skills, writing skill development has
enough
room. But as far as the independent practice of writing is concerned, it still needs further
consideration
from teachers that what is the best way to develop writing skills. The teachers were observed
to expose
learners to writing activities but any systematic procedure and guidance from teachers were
not found.
The Factors Determining the Specific Approach to Teaching

As presented above, the English teachers occasionally involve learners in language

development
activities and usually follow translation method. Why do the teachers still use this approach to
such

large extent? Teachers claim that this way is suitable keeping in view the exam system. “In the
exam,
the students are supposed to translate English text into Urdu”, a teacher made excuse for
translation
method. Similarly, the ultimate aim of teaching grammar, in the observed classes, was not
making the
students familiar with basic language structures and using them in real situation but just to
prepare
them to solve the expected grammar questions in the exam. Again teachers held exam pattern
responsible for this particular approach. “We look at the previous question papers and teach
grammar

accordingly”, a teacher commented.

Some teachers responded that they did not know how English could be taught in any other
way. A
teacher revealed, “This is how I have been taught and I follow that way to teach English”. Some

teachers told that they had workload which was a hindrance in planning for various language
development activities. They were also of the view that doing any other activity in the
overcrowded
classroom is not possible. Many teachers believed that due to the lack of resources, they did
not

involve students in different activities. “There are no charts or other resources to engage
students in”, a
teacher reported. They hardly think of other alternatives considering the ready-made sources
as the

only teaching aids.

Besides, the teachers also show concern about the English textbooks of secondary level. In
response to
a question during interview as why do they not give language skill development practice to the

students, some of the teachers told that the textbooks had no exercises or materials to engage
students
in language development activities. Thus, they usually rely on translating and involving students
in

reading activities. In response to the question as why did they prefer this way, the teachers said
that
their students should be skillful reader as they have to study different literature throughout
their lives
to collect materials from. “Giving more and more reading practice to the students, we will be
able to
develop the reading skills of their learners”, a teacher commented.
Thus, as observed during the teaching learning process in the classroom, it is the teacher who
remains

active most of the time during the lesson. It is against the notion that teacher should be a
facilitator. In
this situation, one questions the professional background of the teachers as why do they teach
the way

they teach English. It leads us to the academic and professional background of English teachers
in the
studied context.
Academic and Professional Background of English Teachers
The qualifications of the teachers teaching English at secondary level in District Chitral range
from
simple SSC (Secondary School Certificate) to MA. M.Ed. Majority of the teachers among the
research
participants were BA with either B.Ed or CT qualifications. In response to the question as how
do they
improve their teaching, the English teachers told that they try to improve their teaching by self-
study
of available literature. Unfortunately, school based teacher development activities are also
lacking in
this context which could have provided the teachers with the opportunities of professional
growth. On
the other hand, according to the observation of the researcher and interview with teachers,
most of the
teachers were not interested to improve themselves professionally. They did not have habit of
peer
observation or consulting literature and other professionals to find out their areas for
improvement and
to overcome them. Moreover, they had hardly any access to in-service courses. According to
the
response of participants, almost half of them had studied “Teaching of English” in their B.Ed
course.
A very few English teachers were involved in Short Course Implementation Programme (SCIP)
from
Aga Khan Education Service, Pakistan (AKES, P).
DISCUSSION
The data presented above bring forth a number of facts for discussions and considerations. The
basic
aims of teaching English are to enable students to listen, speak, read and write English while the
best
English teaching is that where learners are exposed to the activities to achieve above
mentioned aims.

However, as revealed through this study, in the studied context, learners hardly get proper
language
development environment in the classroom. Training in listening skill is the most neglected
area.

Except listening to the teachers who read the text for translation, students do not get any
purposeful
listening practice. Since listening is the base for acquiring any language, less attention upon this
skill

affects acquisition of other language skills. On the other hand, reading skill of students is almost
satisfactory because they spend most of the class time in reading. However, reading with
purpose
where students would be able to fully grasp the idea of the text still needs improvement.
Moreover,
loud reading which most of the teachers expose their learners to should be replaced with other
strategies because in real life, students hardly practice or implement loud reading. Though the
teachers
want to improve pronunciation through loud reading, pronunciation is generally linked to
speaking not
reading (Watkins, 2007).

Speaking skill is the second neglected area. Since the teachers hardly design activities where
students
could be provided with opportunities to express them freely, they hesitate to speak English and
cannot

go beyond reproducing the notes which they have learnt by heart.If the learners are to be
motivated
towards speaking; we have to ensure that they have adequate opportunities to practice
speaking skills

(Barton, 2006). Similarly, writing skill which needs creativity, ideas and command over grammar
and
vocabulary is not fully satisfactory. Teachers do not give proper writing practice to students to
enable
them use their creativity and ideas whereas learning to write involves learning to use language
in a
particular context (Emmitt et al, 2003). Any language can best be learnt through practice. This
requires that the teacher should design
interesting activities and expose learners to language skill practices as much as
possible.Dobinson
(2001) believes that although learners can and do learn what teachers teach they also learn
simply by
exposure to language in lessons and the learning opportunities presented in such situations.
But
unfortunately, no activities are designed to practice language skills in the context of this study.
The
teacher transfers information and the learners listen passively. Nowhere students are observed
actively
involved in activities. Children are motivated in learning foreign language if they find classroom
activities and materials interesting and the teacher supportive (Nikolov, 1999). The studies in
Asian
countries reveal that most students question the traditional authority-based, transmission
mode of
learning. They wish to participate actively in exploring knowledge and have positive attitude
towards
working purposefully (Littlewood, 2001). However, they do not have any autonomy to initiate
some
topic of their interest which could have enhanced their participation as well as learning (Xie,
2009).
On the other hand, it has been a tradition in schools to teach English using translation method,
the
teachers are not innovative and risk taker to try something new as it will demand extra time
and
energy. They rely on an easy approach; translation method which lays little or no emphasis on
the
basic language skills (Stern, 1983).
Since the textbook is the most frequently used source in the classroom, the acquisition of
language
also depends upon the nature of the textbook. One of the important features of the textbook is
that the
exercises included in the textbook should cover the whole range of language skills (Sahu, 2004).
The
English textbook used at secondary level either lacks such exercise or the teachers do not
expose
learners to do those exercises independently. Moreover, there is no doubt that the text book of
English
at secondary level needs refinement but we should not totally blame the textbook. Text book is
only a
way or source to guide the teacher toward the objectives. If a teacher knows the aims and
techniques of
teaching English, s/he can use even the existing text in better way to achieve the desired
objectives.
The major hindrance in teaching of English through the latest techniques is the exam system. If
a
teacher goes beyond the text to make students practice language skills, he or she cannot get
reward for
them in the exam. The outdated exam system does not match the latest teaching techniques.
Keeping
in view the exam, the teachers totally focus the text and try to prepare students according to
the
expected questions in the exam. Passing through such situations, the students come out from
school
acquiring no language skills satisfactorily.

The academic and professional background of teachers determines the nature of their teaching.
As for
as the qualifications of English teachers in the study context are concerned, most of the
teachers are
qualified to teach English at secondary level but it seems that either they have not been trained

properly or they cannot implement the strategies of English teaching in the real situation.
English
teachers are hardly exposed to in-service courses that are very important to keep them abreast
with the

fresh ideas emerging in the field of English teaching. English is usually taught by those teachers
who
do not have competency in English language and these teachers teach through translation
method, the

way they were taught (Siddiqui, 2010). It is noteworthy that various governmental and NGOs
conduct
in-service trainings for the professional development of teachers in this context. However,
teaching of

English at secondary level is a neglected area and no effort has been taken by any organization
to train
the secondary level English teachers in teaching of English at this level. On the other hand,
English
teachers lack the habits of self-development through reflection, study of literature and getting
support
from colleagues. As a result s/he follows the trend; the traditional way of teaching English.
Similarly,
they come to the class without any plan. Teaching without plan is like traveling without being
familiar
with the way or destination. The teacher safely uses Translation Method as it is easy way and
does not
need any proper preparation or plan.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the existing approaches of the teachers are not satisfactory if teaching English is

developing the language skills of the students. However, the teachers may not be blamed in this
regard
as there are a number of flaws in the existing system. Without proper training, a teacher might
not be
familiar with the aims of teaching English. If teaching English is to focus on developing the four

language skills, the pre-service teacher education programs should integrate such contents
which will
enhance languages skills of teachers who have to teach English (TuzelandAkcan, 2009). It
necessitates

that the teacher education programmes have to re-evaluate the needs of the teachers and
paraprofessionals and to adequately support their training to better serve the needs of English
language
learners (Lucas et al, 2008;MistryandSood, 2010). Thus, the most important step would be
training the
English teachers separately, focusing on teaching English as a language and developing the four
language skills. Though there are a number of issues related to teaching English which may not
be

remedied at a time, effective teacher education would be a good strategy to enable teachers
teach
English as a skill and not as a subject (Siddiqui, 2010). However, such training should not be a
one
time show, rather English teachers should be provided with the opportunities of ongoing
professional
development through in-service courses and field based support to keep them abreast with
new
emerging techniques of teaching English.

Similarly, if we totally rely upon English teachers to develop the English competencies of
students, we
may not be able to get the desired objectives. For this purpose, both classroom and the whole
school

should provide supportive environment to students to practice English language without

hesitation. To
develop competency in a language, the learners must interact in the language (Siddiqui, 2010).
Teachers should encourage students to adopt the use of English as a habit as language learning
is the

process of habit formation (Richardson, 1983). Moreover, the English text book at secondary
level
should be revised. A book with language activities will be helpful in involving students in
learning.

The book should cover activities for all the four language skills (Sahu, 2004). Besides, the exam
system should be designed in such a way that there should be space to evaluate the four
language
skills. The inclusion of all language skills in the test papers would make teachers concentrate on
all
language skills. Lastly, teaching of English at primary level should be refined so that students
will
enter secondary stage with strong base.

FURTHER STUDIES
This study has gone some way towards understanding the existing instructional procedures as
well as
the influencing conditions of English teaching at secondary level schools of rural Pakistan. It has
been
found that the English teachers do not possess required skills and attitude to teach English as a

language. Since the teachers are prepared for the teaching profession through the pre-service
courses,
studying the curriculum and pedagogy of the pre-service courses would be helpful in finding out
how

these teachers are trained and what needs improvement in those pre-service courses.
Moreover, the
teachers claim that the pattern of secondary exam is a hindrance in providing language skill
development to the learners, studying teaching of English at middle level would be helpful to

understand whether exam is the reason behind the current approach to the teaching of English
or we
have the same approach to English teaching even in the levels where the teachers themselves
prepare
test and conduct exams.