IMPROVING THE METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING FIELD-SPECIFIC VOCABULARY TO ENHANCE COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE OF FUTURE OFFICERS

Authors

  • Kurbanova Munisa Akbaraliyevna Senior Researcher, Scientific-Practical Research Center, University of Public Security, Uzbekistan

Keywords:

field-specific vocabulary; communicative competence; future officers; English for Specific Purposes; military education; task-based learning; professional communication

Abstract

This study investigates methodological approaches to improving the teaching of field-specific vocabulary in order to enhance the communicative competence of future military officers in English language instruction. In modern military education, effective professional communication is essential for operational coordination, international cooperation, and participation in multinational missions. However, traditional vocabulary instruction often emphasizes memorization rather than functional and communicative use.

The research adopts a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design conducted over a twelve-week English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course at a military higher education institution. Sixty cadets were divided into an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group received instruction based on communicative-task methodology, situational simulations, and discourse-based vocabulary integration, while the control group was taught through traditional translation and definition-based methods. Quantitative measures included vocabulary retention tests, role-play performance scores, and communicative interaction assessments. Qualitative analysis examined discourse fluency, pragmatic appropriateness, and professional terminology usage in simulated operational contexts.

The results indicate that cadets exposed to communicative and context-based vocabulary instruction demonstrated significantly higher levels of lexical retention, interactive fluency, and professional communicative confidence. The study concludes that methodological refinement in teaching field-specific vocabulary—emphasizing contextualization, task-based interaction, and scenario-based communication—can substantially enhance the communicative competence of future officers.

References

Akbaraliyevna, K. M. (2025). THE LINGUODIDACTIC FEATURES OF TEACHING MILITARY TERMINOLOGY. SHOKH LIBRARY, 1(10).

Akbaraliyevna, K. M. (2025). THE PECULIARITIES OF TEACHING MILITARY TERMINOLOGY. PROSPECTS OF TEACHING ENGLISH FOR PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES IN NON–PHILOLOGICAL HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, 486-493.

Arntz, R., Picht, H., & Mayer, F. (2014). Introduction to Terminology Work and Terminography. John Benjamins.

Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(Special Issue), 63–92.

Cabré, M. T. (1999). Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications. John Benjamins.

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Say more and be more coherent: How text elaboration and cohesion can increase writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 14–29.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Felbab-Brown, V. (2017). The Limits of Punishment: Assessing the Use of Targeted Security Measures. Brookings Institution Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2017). ISO 704: Terminology Work — Principles and Methods. ISO.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in second language development. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619.

Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Polity Press.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, I., & Mackintosh, K. (2000). When terms move into our everyday lives: An overview of de-terminologization. Terminology, 6(1), 111–138.

Ranalli, J. (2021). Automated feedback in second language writing: A review of the field. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5–6), 1–25.

Salter, M. B. (2008). When the exception becomes the rule: Borders, sovereignty, and security. Citizenship Studies, 12(4), 365–380.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.

Ware, P. (2018). Feedback and learner autonomy in computer-mediated writing contexts. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15.

Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press.

Zedner, L. (2009). Security. Routledge.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-08

How to Cite

Kurbanova Munisa Akbaraliyevna. (2026). IMPROVING THE METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING FIELD-SPECIFIC VOCABULARY TO ENHANCE COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE OF FUTURE OFFICERS. Ethiopian International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 13(03), 114–121. Retrieved from https://www.eijmr.org/index.php/eijmr/article/view/5470

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 03 (2026): Volume 13 Issue 03

Section

Articles