IMPROVING ACADEMIC WRITING SKILLS OF NON-PHILOLOGICAL STUDENTS THROUGH INTERACTIVE AND TRADITIONAL TEACHING METHODS
Abstract
This article investigates the comparative effectiveness of interactive and traditional teaching methods in improving the academic writing skills of non-philological students in Uzbekistan’s higher education system. Academic writing remains one of the most challenging competencies for students whose primary disciplines lie outside the humanities, yet it is increasingly demanded by employers, graduate programs, and the international research community. The study employs a quasi-experimental research design involving 280 students from three faculties at Tashkent State University of Economics, divided into experimental (interactive methods) and control (traditional methods) groups over a 14-week semester. Pre-test and post-test writing assessments, rubric-based scoring, student satisfaction surveys, and semi-structured faculty interviews were used to collect data. Results indicate that students exposed to interactive methods — including peer review workshops, collaborative digital writing, process-based portfolios, and gamified feedback — demonstrated statistically significant improvements in coherence, argumentation, citation accuracy, and overall writing quality compared to students taught through lecture-based grammar-translation approaches. The study concludes by proposing a blended pedagogical framework that integrates the most effective elements of both methodologies and offers practical recommendations for curriculum design in non-philological faculties.
References
1. Hyland, K. (2018). Second Language Writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
2. Karimova, N. R. (2020). Teaching academic English in Uzbekistan: Challenges and prospects. Central Asian Journal of Education, 5(2), 34–49.
3. Presidential Decree No. PF-5812 of September 6, 2019. “On approval of the Concept of Development of the Higher Education System of the Republic of Uzbekistan until 2030.”
4. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. Routledge.
5. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English. Routledge.
6. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
9. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
10. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
11. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
12. Hasanova, D. (2021). Academic writing needs of non-philological students in Uzbekistan: A survey-based study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(3), 501–514.
13. Rakhimov, M. (2022). Process-portfolio approach to academic writing in Uzbek higher education. Asian EFL Journal, 24(1), 89–108.
14. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.
15. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Newbury House.
16. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158.
19. Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning. BCcampus Open Education.
