Tilshunoslikdagi zamonaviy yo
‘
nalishlar: muammo va yechimlar
338
2005; Alwadai, 2014; Gashan, 2015; Anyachebelu, 2012; Adams, 2013; Polat, 2015;
Rodrigues, 2006; Pilten, 2010;Sardare & Saad, 2013, Shahini, G., & Riazi, A. M.
(2011). Salmon, A. K. (2010), Sanavi, R. V., & Tarighat, S. (2014); Sardare, S. A.,
& Saad, M. R. M. (2013), Senior, Rose (2005), Sokol, A., Oget, D., Sonntag, M., &
Khomenko, N. (2008), Waters, A. (2006), White J. Cynthia (1989), Yang, Y. T. C.,
Chuang, Y. C., Li, L. Y., & Tseng, S. S. (2013), Yücel, M. (2008), etc.), to say almost
nothing of understanding skills) and there arises, naturally, an urgent need for further
fruitful work on learners’ synthesis, analysis, and interpretation skills, in addition,
teachers of English language require practical ideas to improve learners’ thinking
and understanding skills, especially in the ESL/EFL contexts.
As teaching practice shows, developing skillful thinking and understanding
together contributes to language learners’ strong and firm language skills and is a
fundamental goal in educating any language learners in general and in teaching
English to young learners in particular. By systematic and consistant fostering and
developing thinking and understanding skills in foreign language teacher can
develop learner’s linguocognitive, linguopragmatic and linguoculturological skills
and abilities which leads to positive curricular learning outcomes in continuous
language learning and acquisition
. However, despite the role of thinking and
understanding skills in foreign language learning and teachers’ permanent interest in
such skills especially at the level of primary school and onwards, the practice of
teaching thinking and understanding skills at schools is still lacking, challenging
language methodologists to work out effective methods of developing and teaching
the mentioned two language skills no less important and demanded than the four well
known ones.
As is known, at present a continuous quality teaching is almost impossible
without modern interactive methods and carefully chosen “interaction patterns”
(White 1989; Medgyes, 1986; Senior 2005, 2005a, etc.) because indeed they are the
reliable means of guaranteeing a desired success in “communicative teaching”
(Hoshimov U., Hoshimov G., Accurt F. 2002; Senior, 2005, 2005a, Medgyesr
(1986); Senior 2005, etc.)).
In such a teaching all the traditional four skills (speaking, reading, listening
and writing) seem to be shadowed by or blended in with two more skills known as
