Normuminov Murod Page |1

LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY PROPOSAL

Introduction

English has been recognized as the global language in recent decades, allowing different nations

to connect with one another in a variety of aspects of life. As a result, several attempts have been

made in numerous nations to properly teach English. English is taught at Uzbekistan’s

universities for four years alongside other subjects, and it has begun to exhibit certain drawbacks

in students’ learning processes. According to Stroud and Heugh (2003), “while micro-language

planning can apply to many different areas of language planning, language-ineducational

planning is one of the significant sites for such work.” That is, the majority of language planning

and proposals are created or designed with the goal of education in mind.

Settings. When it comes to the settings of LPP, the primary changes in language policy planning

are intended to satisfy the development needs of Samarkand state institute of foreign languages.

Indeed, while tackling this issue may appear impractical, it may have fairly remarkable effects on

university educational settings. The organization selected to be updated in terms of language

planning strategy existing in our actual world, in Uzbekistan, Samarkand city. The current state

of its foreign language teaching approach requires significant improvement as a result of an

ineffective teaching strategy. Taking a look at its administrative structure reveals several flaws in

the existing system: Instructors rarely keep to the right implementation of lessons; they are so

overburdened with needless paperwork that it is only infrequently feasible to find additional time

for effective lesson preparation; assistant and even professor teachers continue to struggle with

curriculum utilization. Additionally, the amount of technical equipment available for conducting

lessons is insufficient for all teachers: classes have been scheduled sequentially (not all the

classrooms have projectors). Finally, just a few teachers apply the CLT technique in English
Normuminov Murod Page |2

lessons; the majority continue to use the grammar-translation method. Modification is always a

necessary and practical choice for enhancing the growth of any current system. As a result, the

final LPP plan will explicitly define some adjustments to the university’s present approach.

These changes may be seen in the following:

Administrative structure / level of language proficiency

Sources of information / technological equipment

Teachers and their instructional strategies

Assignments

Actors

Methods & Practices

Recommendations. Instructors can simply differentiate and choose appropriate instructional

methods based on learners’ needs. There is no such thing as a perfect strategy. As a result,

instructors employ a variety of strategies while instructing students on certain subjects.

Educators who participate in in-service training will get an understanding of task-based, content-

based, and communicative techniques.

To improve the administrative structure, several new and current ways will be implemented

throughout the process. To begin, the amount of paperwork (completed by instructors) will be

greatly reduced, and teachers will be obliged to manage the majority of papers via online

management. Second, new positions for qualified mentors and assistant teachers will be created

to improve the proficiency of teachings. Finally, the number of instructional hours will be

increased rather than certain redundant subjects. The government has always taken proactive

measures to provide current technology equipment to the classrooms. However, some

foundations continue to lack sufficient technical gadgets in classrooms, which may inhibit
Normuminov Murod Page |3

teachers from performing contemporary teachings. Almost every classroom should be packed

with projectors, and students should have access to Wi-Fi and personal computers. Moving on to

the source literature, each term will have the same identical books, articles, and authentic

materials (teachers do not have clear comprehension about choosing sources, so they search the

web to find materials before lessons). The majority of work is anticipated to be done by

instructors and their techniques. Initially, practically all instructors will be obliged to employ

CLT methods in class, and they will receive additional training to improve their ability to

conduct lessons effectively utilizing technology. The critical change here is to instruct teachers to

adopt online evaluation platforms such as Canvas, which may significantly reduce instances of

plagiarism. There are few requirements for modifying the evaluation process and the role of

actors in LPP. Nonetheless, the revised evaluation standards will incorporate all five testing and

assessment principles, and teachers will have the option of assessing pupils over the internet. The

performers’ roles will remain same, but with certain educational-related political initiatives. The

LPP proposal’s objectives are to be very viable and flexible for execution. To begin, the four-

year study duration will be reduced to three years, as the four-year period is too long for students

to deal with foreign language acquisition. Indeed, candidates to universities are expected to have

B1 and B2 levels (if their major is English), thus there is little purpose in studying four years if

they already possess a B2 level in their first year. Will they be able to go from B2 to C1 within

four academic years? If so, that is incompatible with the period in which science and technology

advance at a breakneck pace. As a result, students will split their academic year into three

phases: Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3. Students are required to enhance their four skills and achieve

B2+ level in year 1; in year 2, they will work on translating journals, articles (from leading

media), and novels, as well as being prepared to achieve C1 level by the conclusion of the
Normuminov Murod Page |4

semester. Finally, by the third year, students should be able to communicate effectively in

English in all fields of science and education.

Actors. This study proposal contains a number of actors. Zhao (2011) identifies four LPP actors:

individuals with authority; individuals with expertise; individuals with influence; and individuals

with an interest. According to Tsui (2004), “language policy studies should contextualize

individuals’ language habits within their social, cultural, and political contexts”. Educators and

students are the primary and most critical players, as they are the primary stakeholders in

microlanguage planning.

After completing in-service training, the teacher will apply their expertise to CLT teaching.

Additionally, planning for macro-languages is considered. Other stakeholders, such as rectors,

deans, syllabus designers, and ministry officers, are also significant and invaluable participants

in our research proposal.

Timeline. Learning a second language is difficult and cannot be accomplished in a short amount

of time. Age, gender, social influences, and other internal and external aspects should all be

considered. As a result, we’ll provide a hypothetical timetable with multiple stages. Three years,

in my opinion, would be sufficient to attain the desired results. A “timeline should be linked to

the suggestions and can also serve to help select recommendations,” according to Kaiser (2018).

Teachers will receive in-service training in the first step; the textbook will be created to meet the

needs of stakeholders in the second stage; and successful educators will be financially rewarded

in the third stage. Educators will take placement examinations before beginning in-service

training to determine their present level. Teachers will participate in at least three to five months

of in-service training. Stakeholders will discover the demands and levels of this language

planning, as well as the proposal’s players, in the second stage (teachers and students).
Normuminov Murod Page |5

Teaching materials will be produced and released in accordance with their requirements. Finally,

institute teachers will take achievement or proficiency tests (based on IELTS) and the Ministry

of Higher Education would pay salary bonuses to high achievers.

Results & Discussion

Inventory & Funding. One of the primary concerns that prevents the institute from

implementing English as a medium of instruction is a lack of necessary resources. Even during

the English speaking discipline, teachers frequently use Uzbek. The institute library has a

sufficient number of computers and e-books (excluding books provided by The British Council

or other non-governmental organizations), but the majority of them are not in English or are

outdated. As a result, stakeholders will create new teaching materials based on the needs and

levels of learners. Firstly, required textbooks will be designed and printed. Providing necessary

tools and things to design new teaching materials will be under the control of the institute

officials. Secondly, another part of the money will be spent on in-service training and

encouraging teachers financially. For this, the Ministry of Higher Education will be responsible.

Conclusion. After conducting needs analysis, if any cases of insufficient practice are detected,

then the program is expected to extend to certain timeframe to meet the goals and objectives of

the training program as well as to provide qualitative education. Taking into account the

foregoing elements, concerns, and proposed solutions to current problems, it is strongly felt that

if this language planning strategy and proposal are implemented appropriately, anticipated goals

and outcomes will be realized.

Normuminov Murod Page |6

References

1. Chua Siew Kheng, C. & Baldauf, Jr., R.B. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume 2 (936-951).

New York: Routledge.

2. Haryanto, E. (2013). Language policy: Administrators and teachers’ view on English as media

of instruction implementation in Indonesia. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(2), 48-56.

3. Kaiser, D. (2018). Growing your own onion. Teachers as Writers of Language Planning and

Policy Proposals. The USA.

4. Kaplan, R.B. (2011). Macro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in

second language teaching and learning: Volume 2 (924-935). New York: Routledge.

5. Linton, A. (2009). Language politics and policy in the United States: Implications for the

immigration debate. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 199, 9-37.

6. Zhao, S. (2011). Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in

second language teaching and learning: Volume 2 (905-923). New York: Routledge.