Concern over communicative English

It is apprehended by many that if this Communicative English is upheld, there will be doldrums for tomorrow's pass/Hons students at degree level where compulsory functional English demands a sound base in English. This may incapacitate many to seek higher/research pursuit at home and abroad. It is already alleged that many brilliant products of our varsities are failing to obtain foreign degree for their lagging in English.

Communicative English -- English for Today -- has been introduced at HSC level by NCIB. It has been intended for fostering language skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing in the students. More emphasis has been given on practising language activities than on knowing the rules of the language. In place of making grammar a set of rules for memorization, lessons have been integrated therewith perhaps for turning it more effective and meaningful to the students in language learning.

As a teacher I like to discuss some of my experiences and observations. I confide vast majority of students will fall under the purview of my discussion.

The book 'English For Today' for class 11-12 is a voluminous one containing 24 units and 160 lessons all included in the syllabus along with paragraph/letter/story building/writing from imagination etc. The enormous size and bloated syllabus have appalled most of the students from the very beginning. They seem to have been taken aback and as if they groan under it. Never before such a gigantic syllabus was prescribed for students at intermediate level. Guardians are worried about their children. A negative attitude has sunk in the minds of tender aged students. The lessons are based on good themes no doubt but they fail to appeal to them as they are not like short stories and poems with themes of love, romance, thrill, humour, satire and the like. The dull and dreary subjects fall short of evoking attraction and eagerness. While reading they feel more drudgery and more imposition getting less satiety and spontaneity.

Many are of opinion that we don't want to make our children Shakespeare. Agreed. But we cannot agree with them that our children won't be built up in the way to read and understand Shakespeare. Won't they know the names of Shelley, Byron, Keats, Wordworth -- the diamonds of the richest treasure on earth --English literature? The realm of gold will remain unknown to them. All, including the intellectuals, literates, guardians, teachers, are very much scared about it. Our children must not have such bliss of ignorance.

Let's see how far the four skills are working and workable in the students. At the outset of every lesson the students have been asked to work in pairs to inculcate a habit of conversation in English in them. The idea is grand. But we must think how far it is possible to practice such exercise in a classroom which is full of minimum 50/60 students in a class time of 40-45 minutes. Moreover, beyond class hours they don't feel doing like so. We the teachers cannot compel. There being no vantages of language lab/workshop, developing this skill is simply unfeasible.

Listening skill also presents like experiences. Most of the students cannot follow lectures in English. They cry out, "please speak in Bengali, sir, we do not understand." Teachers condescend to their demand and they are satisfied. So speaking/conversation in English with the students by the teachers and by the students among themselves also stands bleak because of their basic deficiency in English along with complexes of shyness. At home and at school level they were not used to it. So they are introverts. Even, in spite of repeated instructions they are apathetic to watch BTV/ETV/CNN/BBC news. It is very difficult to remove their coldness overnight through a prescription in the class. To develop such practice at family level also seems grotesque and bizarre as there are hardly 5 per cent families which are stuffed with members of required qualities and qualifications in our country. So it is evident that fostering of speaking and listening skill in the students must go frustrated in spite of best intentions. Many are of opinion that had it been so easy and silky the youngsters prone to English film and English music might have turned good listeners and speakers in English then.

In the book, two ways have been referred to as ways of acquiring communicative competence. One is acquisition through subconscious process as the mother-tongue users require; the other is learning it consciously through the knowledge of knowing the rules of language (U-3, L-1...) Obviously English not being native language to our children, they have to learn it through the rules of grammar otherwise it would not be possible for them to write and speak correct English. In this respect the citation of a story of riding a bicycle also sounds strange (U-3, L-3). Learning riding a bicycle and learning a language cannot be same as the former can be done by mere practice but the latter needs basic rules as it is a foreign language. Even the former also cannot start and succeed without some rules and guidance.

The matter of writing skill appears all the more painful for the obvious. In the question papers there is a comprehensive reading test of 40 marks to be answered in MCQ method where students have to write in correct English in some places. In addition, there are paragraph/letter/summarising/continuing passage etc which require proficiency in English. The students are expected to have the practice of writing all these free hand. But as they didn't/don't learn grammar, they do not know rules of grammar. They are not also in the practice of doing translation of Bengali into English. Naturally they lack primary and preparatory knowledge regarding producing anything in English. In this situation how should we expect a creation structure from them? It is absurd to make one a fighter without giving him training and necessary arms.

Immediate after the introduction of communicative English, many communicative grammar books written by eminent writers have been published as accessories. But the real picture is that students are least interested to procure them for learning grammar. Though some do on pressure, they are not inclined to work with it voluntarily. Most of the students think it unwise to spend a big amount for least benefit of only filling in the blank purpose. They seem reluctant to cudgel their brain with spending and reading things not carrying compulsory marks. For this reason, discussion on the focus on grammatical structure at the end of each lesson seems hazardous to them.

The size of question papers is also horrible to the students. So many questions/exercises/tests are set in it which need a good deal of concentration for reading /comprehending/matching etc step by step. It is a Herculean task for them to cope with the time of three hours in answering all questions. As a result maximum students leave some questions untouched risking pass marks.

The above analysis unfolds the fact that the purposes of communicative English are threatened with frustrations for practical reasons. Three skills out of four plus the motive of non-teaching formal grammar and translation fall flat. It becomes fraught with problems to reach the desired goal of materialisation of the project. Only reading skill remains positive which is not also effective for comprehension without grammar and translation knowledge. As intermediate students don't talk with teachers/friends in English/listen TV/Radio/watch English film/read news papers/magazines/write letters/read grammar/do translation/memorise conversational English, so, the high sounding plan of communicative English flops and flops miserably. Reading test enables student to secure pass mark and more. Apparently it appears that it is a blessing for them but actually it looks like a gimmick (as it does not make them really sound in writing) causing far-reaching consequences in disguise. In getting into and going on in practical fields of profession many may ask whether it is a shadow under a shade or a chicanery to the nation favouring the privileged and depriving the underprivileged from enjoying the benefits of learning English in the race of grabbing power and position.

The writing of communicative text book by a team of writers trained in UK under ELTP was tremendous, but it is proved tedious for our children as they do not belong to families getting education in the English medium posh institutions and as they do not live in societies where all primary/secondary schools have overnight turned into English medium ones. It's an exotic idea in indigenous society -- a square peg in a round hole!

In the perspective of above deliberations, some proposals may be considered:

• Confounding burden of lessons and question setting should be lessened to ease the students limiting the syllabus to maximum 50 selected lessons including works of English writers/poets (plus unseen topics).
• A vocabulary bank of 300-400 words selected from the books catering to the functional fields should be evolved with provision of usage of different forms of the same word.
• Traditional grammar and translation should be made compulsory at least for 30 marks in each paper. Specially part-C of question Paper I No-11&12 may be recast in this perspective.
• Dialogue writing should be compulsory in both papers.
• Audio-visual language lab should be set up for practical practice of skills.
• Teachers should be trained accordingly.

We hear a general outcry from all quarters that the quality of our education has gone/going down to a great extent. It obviously refers to the deficiency of our students in English. It goes without saying that because of shortcoming in teaching English, right learning of it is staggering -- making quality education a far-cry putting us to shame all over at home and abroad.

It is apprehended by many that if this Communicative English is upheld, there will be doldrums for tomorrow's pass/Hons students at degree level where compulsory functional English demands a sound base in English. This may incapacitate many to seek higher/research pursuit at home and abroad. It is already alleged that many brilliant products of our varsities are failing to obtain foreign degree for their lagging in English. We should produce worthies, not worries.

Md Abdus Salam teaches English at Uttara Town College and AIUMT, BD, Campus.