English Speaking Skill Teaching at Intermediate Level in Rural Bangladesh

English Speaking Skill Teaching at Intermediate Level in Rural Bangladesh

Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan 1

Abstract:
This qualitative study tried to explore what methods and approaches the teachers at HSC (Higher
Secondary Certificate) level employed to teach English; what training the teachers had to teach
communicative English; the reasons why students could not communicate orally in English; what
challenges teachers faced in teaching speaking English; and how the challenges could be
minimized. Three colleges where HSC curriculum is implemented were selected for the study
from Narayangonj district. One English teacher and 10 second-year HSC students from each
college were selected for the study. The teachers were interviewed with a semi-structured
interview schedule and three FGDs (Focus Group Discussion) were conducted with the students
of each college using an FGD guide. Moreover, three teaching sessions of the three teacher
respondents were observed using an observation protocol. Collected data were transcribed,
coded and then categorized based on the themes of the research questions. The major findings of
the study revealed that teachers used GTM (Grammar Translation Method) in teaching English;
the teachers did not have any training to teach communicative English; teachers did not engage
students in speaking practices; teachers conducted English classes in Bangla, and teacher
training and inclusion of speaking in assessment might improve the situation.
Keywords: intermediate level, CLT, teaching method, speaking skill, curriculum, rural
Bangladesh.
1.0 Introduction
Speaking is considered the most important skill of the English language as it demonstrates the
language competence of a person. English has become the most important language all over the world
(Rao, 2019). Bangladesh curriculum also puts emphasis on English language skills development and has
made English compulsory from primary to HSC levels of education. English is given more importance for
its worldwide demand as the medium of communication (Patel, 2015). English is truly a global language
due to a number of factors such as participation in world economy, information exchange, travel and
popular culture Harmer(2002). Among the four skills, only reading and writing skills are practiced in
schools and colleges in Bangladesh, while there is not much scope for practicing speaking skill. In EFL
(English as a Foreign Language) learning situation in Bangladesh, speaking and listening skills do not get
much attention at primary and secondary level (Shurovi, 2014). Imam (2005) reported in a study that the
level of English of the university students was equivalent to the level set by the government for the
students of class seven.

1 Advocate, Appellate division , Supreme Court of Bangladesh

The immediate past curriculum (NCTB, 1995) also attached importance to four English language
skills development of the students including the HSC (Higher Secondary Certificate) level students.
Communicative language teaching approach was introduced in our country in 1997(Ahmed, 2003).
Although speaking is an important skill, it has not been yet included in our public examinations such as
SSC (Secondary School Certificate) and HSC (Higher Secondary Certificate) level. The study tried to
investigate the existing problems for which a large number of students fail to speak English fluently in
Bangladesh. The study also explored approaches English teachers used at the intermediate level in
teaching English speaking skill in Bangladeshi classrooms. Although English is taught as a compulsory
subject at primary, secondary, and higher secondary levels in Bangladesh, the performance of the
school and the college (11 & 12 classes) leavers is not satisfactory (Imam, 2005).
1.1 Background of the Study
With the advancement of science and technology, the communication system developed and a big
number of people have to communicate with people from different parts of the world for various
purposes. Therefore, they need a common language to communicate with people speaking different
languages. English plays the role of that lingua franca. The English language is taught as a compulsory
subject in 11 and 12 classes like in other grades of primary and secondary levels but the performance of
the students seemed poor. Therefore, it is urgent to investigate why the intermediate students fail to
achieve speaking skills in English.
1.2 Rationale of the Study
The exploration of the actual scenario of English speaking skill teaching and learning at the
intermediate level of education in Bangladeshi colleges would benefit the NCTB (National Curriculum
and Textbook Board) and the Ministry of Education (MoE) in taking policy decisions regarding the
English speaking skill development of the students studying at the intermediate level. The researcher
hoped that this study would help better implement the English curriculum at the intermediate level of
education in Bangladesh.
1.3 Research Questions
The current study tried to find answers to the following questions:
i) What methods or approaches do the teachers employ to teach English at the HSC level?
ii) What training do the teachers have to teach communicative English?
iii) Why cannot students communicate orally in English?
iv) What are the challenges teachers faced in teaching English?
v) How can the challenges be minimized?
1.4 Scope and Limitations
The teachers whom I chose for collecting data were familiar to me as we teach in the neighboring
colleges. They sincerely helped me by giving answers of my questions and allowed me for observing their
classes. As all the participants were previously known to me, they could easily be accessed. That was a
scope for the study. The research, however, had some limitations. Only three colleges from
Narayangonjdistrict were selected for the study. The researcher could not include more colleges from
other districts of the country. That small number of colleges including small number of English teachers
and the small number of students were the limitations of the study. However, as the study was qualitative
andit was conducted rigorously, the findings of the study can be considered trustworthy.
1.5 The Concept of Communicative English in Bangladesh

In the globalized world, communicative competence in English has been enjoying the higher
status from the beginning of the 21st century. In this reality, there have been paradigm shift in the English
language instructional strategies. Interactive strategies have been introduced instead of teacher-centred
Grammar Translation Method (GTM). CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) started to get
popularity from the beginning of the 80s (Littlewood, 1981) and Bangladesh adopted it in the curriculum
of 1995 (NCTB, 1995). CLT is a student-centered method for language learning where students actively
participate in language learning through continuous practices. Littlewood (1981) claims that ‘meaning’ is
more important than ‘form’ in the CLT. That is, communication is more important than grammatical
accuracy. Learners achieve accuracy through continuous practices and their language is naturally
corrected. In CLT, students do almost all the activities in pairs and groups and thus they learn the target
language.
2.0 Literature Review
National education policy (2010) emphasizes learning English as an international language for
communicating locally and globally. Many international organizations have no other option but to use
English in communications (Borzykowski, 2020).Communication through English is the prime demand of
the employers at present time (Pandey, 2014). Sensing the demand of English in the global market, the
government of Bangladesh made it compulsory for the students of primary and secondary levels.
Although CLT was introduced to class six in 1996, it was introduced to HSC classes in 2001(NCTB,
2001). CLT puts emphasis on the four skills development of the students through continuous practice.
Meaning of the language is more important than form in CLT (Littlewood, 1981). Through continuous
practice, students achieve the skills of the language. For example, if one wants to learn English speaking,
they must practice it orally. Through practising speaking in pairs and groups for a longer period of time,
one can be fluent and can gain accuracy in the long run. Many studies highlight the principal problems of
learning communicative English in countries like Bangladesh, China, Japan and Korea where English is
taught as a foreign language and where the grammar-translation method is prevalent. In Bangladesh,
learning English language means learning grammar, not learning to communicate (Farooqui, 2007). As a
result, developing communication skills is ignored in English teaching and assessment.
Since people are monolingual in Bangladesh, students do not need to use English outside the class
(Paul, 2012). Paul (2012) claimed that students did not have anyone to practice English with outside the
school and if someone tried to speak English, others used to laugh at them. Because of this social
negativity, the practice of English language speaking among young Bangladeshi students was decreasing
(Jabeen, 2013). However, Brown (1994)has alleged that communication is likely to occur in the
classroom when a significant amount of pair work and group work is conducted; authentic language input
in real life context is provided; students are encouraged to produce language for genuine, meaningful
communication; and classroom tasks are conducted to prepare students for actual language use outside the
classroom. What happens in eleven and twelve classes in Bangladesh? Do the teachers engage students in
speaking? If not, what are the challenges?
3. Research Methodology
The study was conducted by using qualitative research methodology as it is possible to go deep
into the research problem through qualitative approach (Bogdan & Biklen,2003). The researcher used
semi-structured interview method, FGDs (Focus Group Discussion) and class observation method to
collect data. Three teachers and 30 students from three rural colleges of Narayangonj district were
selected for the research. Firstly, the researcher invited the teachers by mobile phone to take part in the
study and they gladly agreed. Students who participated in the study were selected according to their
merit. Ten students from each college were selected who acquired highest marks in English in the year
final year examinations. All the selected students belonged to HSC 2 nd year Science Department. To
collect data transparently and authentically, teachers’ interviews were conducted face to face. Three
teaching sessions of the three teacher participants from three different colleges were also observed. Three

FGDs with 10 students in each slot were also conducted. Collected data were read several times and were
developed. Then the data were transcribed and thoroughly examined. Data collected through semi-
structured interviews, FGDs, and observation were coded, categorized as coding and categorizing enables
a researcher to sift out what the data are saying (Coffey &Atkinson,1996).It is worth mentioning that the
teachers were named as T1, T2, and T3 to avoid any possible threat to them. On the other hand, The three
FGDs were named as FGD-1, FGD-2, and FGD-3.
4. Findings of the Study
The findings of the study came to the surface during data processing. The major findings of the
study were: teachers used GTM in teaching English; teachers did not have any training; teachers did not
engage students in speaking practice; teachers taught English in Bangla; and teacher training and
inclusion of speaking in assessment might improve the situation. The findings have been presented in
details in the following sections:
4.1 Teachers use GTM in Teaching English
During classroom observation, it was noticed that teachers were using GTM method in teaching
English. They did not warm up their students to get ready for the lesson. They started their classes
abruptly. All the three teachers were seen reading the text and clarifying in Bangla. Moreover, all the
activities were solved by the teachers. The teachers were not seen to engage the students in any kinds of
activities including speaking. Instead of engaging learners in speaking practice, teachers were observed to
teach grammatical rules explicitly. In traditional method of teaching English, the main focus is only on
providing knowledge to the students, not developing their language skills. That is, the target language
skills achievement remains ignored. T1 asserted that GTM did not consume much time to complete the
syllabus. Moreover, they did not have to take any prior preparation for the class. T1 further claimed that
he taught using GTM as it helped students to pass their examinations. Similarly, T2 asserted that there
was no instruction in the curriculum to engage students in speaking practice. Therefore, the teachers did
not pay much attention on students’ speaking skill development. In the similar way, T3 alleged:
There is a gap between curriculum guidelines and the implementation. As the assessment system
does not include the four skills of English language, we do not engage students in speaking. And I
am not sure what the curriculum says regarding the speaking practice.
The students in FGD-1 claimed that their teacher did not have any pre-plan regarding the teaching
of the textbook lessons. The students claimed that their teacher always taught them in Bangla and focused
on grammar even in English first paper classes. The teacher did never put emphasis on speaking
English.The students in FGD-2 claimed:
Our teacher never motivates us to speak English. The teacher always speaks Bangla in the
classroom. He reads the text and tells the Bangla meaning for our understanding. He always
gives us lessons such as dialogues, letters, applications, paragraphs, and stories for memorizing
at home.
However, the participants in FGD-3 asserted that their teachers sometimes engage them in
solving the textbook exercises but in most cases, the teacher helps them to find the right answers. It is
clear from the data presented above that the teachers use GTM in teaching English. None of the teachers
were found to be aware of the strategies employed in CLT. It might be that teachers are not properly
trained on CLT. The following section deals with the training of the English teachers.
4.2. Teachers did not have any training

While interviewing, the researcher asked teachers if they had any training to teach communicative
English. All the three teachers claimed that they did not have any training on CLT. Therefore, they were
not aware of the techniques used in teaching communicative English. T1 asserted that he did not have any
training. He further claimed that in his 10 years of teaching, he was never invited to take part in any
training session. There was no in-house training at the college, too. On the other hand, T2 asserted:
I have no training and I do not know how to engage students in speaking activities. I teach in the
way I was taught by my teacher in my college days. And I do not have skills for using technology
in teaching English speaking skill.
T3 confessed that training was essential for teaching English effectively. As he did not have any
training, he was not clear about using different techniques to develop English speaking skill. During class
observation, the researcher observed that teachers did not have much knowledge and skills of class
management. Teachers did not organize pair work, group work, or any other activities that enhance the
speaking skill of the learners. Teachers were teaching the texts and telling the meaning of the texts mostly
in Bangla. Sometimes, they were seen to focus on the grammatical items. The above data show that
teachers did not have training to teach English. It was also clear that teachers did not feel that they needed
training as they could not even arrange in-house training for their professional development. The situation
indicated that there should have been arrangement of in-service training for better implementation of the
English curriculum.
4.3 Teachers did not engage students in speaking practice
Literature shows that students’ unwillingness to speak English is a great barrier in the
development of language skills in Bangladesh (Hoque, 2008).But in the current study, it was revealed that
teachers did not engage students in speaking activities. During class observation, it was seen that students
remained inactive because of the style of teaching; teachers taught using the GTM where there was little
or no opportunity for learners to practise English. However, T1 blamed the students for not taking part in
the speaking activities. Although T1 talked about the students’ unwillingness at one stage of the
interview, at another place he (T1)talked about the mismatch between the planned curriculum and its
implementation. T1alleged:
The present examination system is one of the major challenges in teaching English speaking. The
present examination system focuses on memorization of answers. It does not test the linguistic
competence of the learners; it tests students’ grammatical competence. Speaking skill is not
valued that much in the current system of assessment.
T2 also possesses the similar opinions as T1. T2 alleged that students rarely spoke English in the
classrooms or in their everyday communications. “I do not teach them English through English. I have to
use Bangla during teaching as students do not understand if I speak English all the times”, alleged T2. It
was also observed during teaching observation that teachers were speaking Bangla often in the
classrooms. T3 alleged that most of the students felt shy and fear to speak English with teachers. He
claimed:
If one speaks English, others laugh at them. Actually, we could not make any English-speaking
environment inside and outside the classrooms. We never thought about the importance of
developing students’ speaking skills.
All the students in the FGDs, claimed that their teachers never tried to engage them in speaking
practice. Their teachers taught English mixed with Bangla. It was reveled in FGD-1 that teachers spoke
Bangla most of the class-time in English class. One of the participants alleged:
We do not speak English in the classrooms with teachers and friends; our teachers also speak
Bangla with us. We do not speak English as we cannot speak it. We are afraid of speaking
English as there many grammatical mistakes in our English.

All other participants in FGD-1 supported their friend who uttered the above quotation. Similar
data were provided by the participants of FGD-2 and FGD-3. All of them confessed that they did not
practise speaking with teachers and classmates; their teachers also did not ask them to speak English. It is
evident from the presented data that neither the students nor the English teachers are aware of the
importance of speaking skill development. It might be because they are not trained or because speaking
skill is tested neither in the colleges nor in the final examinations.
4.4 Teacher Training and Inclusion of Speaking in Assessment
It was revealed from the interviews and the teaching observations of the three English teachers
that they (teachers) badly needed training on teaching English. The way they were teaching English did
not commensurate with the NCTB-prescribed CLT (Communicative Language Teaching). The researcher
could very well understand the lacking of the teachers as he received an intensive training 24-days’
training organized by Teaching Quality Improvement in Secondary Education Project (TQI-SEP). All the
three teachers also felt and expressed the need for training to better teach English. T1 alleged:
I have been teaching in this college for long ten years but till now I was provided with any
training on teaching English. I feel the need of training as I cannot cope with the textbook
lessons. I am not sure about how to teach the lessons. I am teaching English in the way I believe
appropriate.
T2 and T3 were also teaching in the traditional way. During observation of their teaching
sessions, it was observed that they were reading out the text and explaining in Bangla. Moreover, they
were found solving the exercises on the black/white boards.When asked during interviews, they
maintained that they needed training to better implement the English curriculum. On the other hand, both
teachers and students alleged that as there was no speaking test, they never practised speaking skill. All
the three teachers, T1, T2, and T3 asserted that as students’ speaking skill was not tested; they did not
engage students in speaking practice.T1 asserted:
Marks should be allotted for speaking. If there are some marks, students will practise it
compulsorily. Why will we spend time on speaking practice when we know it will not be assessed
or tested? So, the NCTB should allot some marks for speaking and listening as speaking is
developed through active listening.
T2 put emphasis on providing training to teachers and and allotment of marks in speaking. They
claimed there should be provision of viva voce in English which would create a kind of pressure on the
students to practise speaking. According to T3, a lot of speaking activities could be done in the classroom
but he did not do almost any speaking because there were no marks allotted for speaking and speaking
was never assessed.
Role of a teacher is critical to teaching a language. In order to contribute to students’ learning of a
language, teachers must act proactively. They will have to speak English with learners to encourage the
students and engage them in speaking skill practice. Teachers’ traditional teaching approach which might
be the result of no or lack of training is thought to be the main cause of students’ incompetence in
speaking. Another reason might be the absence of speaking skill assessment in the colleges and in the
HSC final examinations.
5. Conclusion
From the above findings and discussions, it is evident that teachers are not trained and they do not
follow the NCTB prescribed approach in teaching English. Therefore, students’ English speaking skill is
not that developed. Therefore, the concerned authority needs to arrange training for proper
implementation of the English curriculum. Appropriate teacher training and inclusion of speaking in
assessment might improve the English-speaking situation at the HSC level of education in Bangladesh.

References
Ahmed, B . (2003). The communicative approach to English language teaching at the secondary and
higher secondary level. Stamford University Journal, 125-129.
Ainy, S. (2001). English Language Teaching in Bangladesh Open
University: Changing Scenario, Journal of Distant Education.
Brown, G. (1994). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Borzykowski, B. (2020). Retrieve from ttps://www.bbc.com
Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. ( 2007). Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Pearson.
Coffey, A.& Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data,
London: Sage
Farooqui, S. (2007). Developing speaking skills of adult learners in private
universities in Bangladesh.
Farooqui, S. (2014). The Struggle to Teach in English: A Case Study in
Bangladesh
Hoque, M. E. (2008). English Language Teaching and Learning at Alim
Level in Madrashas in Bangladesh: Problems and Possible Solution". Masters' of Philosophy
Thesis, Jahangirnagar University,
Dhaka.
Harmer, J. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England:
Pearson Education.
Hamid, M. O. &Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2008). Will CLT bail out the bogged
down ELT in Bangladesh? English Today, 24(3), 16–24.
Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a Global Language and the Question of
Nation-Building education in Bangladesh ,Comparative Education, 41(4) 471-156.
Jabeen, S. (2013). Analyzing Teaching Practices of English Language.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2010). National Education policy 2010. Dhaka,
Bangladesh.
National Curriculum Textbook Board. (2012). English For Today for
classes xi-xii and Alim, NCTB, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
NCTB, (1995). National Curriculum Textbook Board. Dhaka,
Bangladesh.
Paul, P. (2012). An Investigation on the Use of Meta cognitive Language
Learning Strategies
Podder, R. (2016). Challenges of implementing CLT at Secondary Level of
Education in Bangladesh. The EDRC Journal of Learning and
Teaching, 1 (1),31-41.
Pandey, M. &. Pandey, P. (2014). Better English for Better Employment
Opportunities.
Patel, N. (2015). Growing Demand of English Communication Competence
for Engineering students and Nature of Teaching Strategies. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net
Rao, S. P. Developing Speaking Skills in ESL or EFL Settings. International
Journal of English Language, Literature and Translation Studies, 5(2), Pp. 286-293. DOI
Number: https://doi.org/10.33329 /ijelr.52.286orhttp://www.ijelr.in, 2018. Online
Sadek, N. (2015). Dynamic Assessment (DA): Promoting Writing
Proficiency through Assessment December.

Shurovi, M. (2014). CLT and ELT in Bangladesh: Practice and Prospect of
Speaking and Listening.