Abstract

The purpose of this work was to investigate learners’ perceptions about the role of the English language curriculum set in boosting the communicative competence of the students of South Punjab. The present research was planned to use a mixed method. Most of the students showed that the curriculum designed for L2 learners causes negative effects in the process of L2 learning as it does not satisfy the communicative needs of the students. To make sure the effective use of textbooks or curriculum for L2 learning, there are certain steps that English teachers and learners can take to make better use of the English curriculum to improve learners’ communicative competence. To make sure better language learning through textbooks and other teaching materials, teachers must play a vital role in the selection of textbooks and helping material. English textbooks with good teaching/learning materials can encourage L2 learning, improve communicative competence and can persuade learners so that they can achieve understandable feedback from their teachers and feel attentiveness towards the target language through textbooks or curriculum.

Key Words

Learners, English Curriculum, Boosting, Communicative, Competence, EFL

Introduction

According to Allen (1984) curriculum actually is an instructive and educational sketch or outline which includes organizational features subsidizing the development of a comprehensive program. It can also be demarcated as the complete justification for an instructive package of an institute. A curriculum contains preparation and measures for the execution of the strategy and learners’ considerations during the educational process (Kelly, 1989). Additional to the previous descriptions, a curriculum can be systematically well-defined as a scholastic database that states the objectives and salient features of the program, the core contents, teaching methodology, and learning proficiencies to accomplish the indispensable objective and means for evaluating the program (Richards, Platt, & Platt, 1992). The enhancement and up-gradation of a language syllabus have been prejudiced by the growth of the language theories, and these theories were instigated with the commencement of the civilization of the Chinese peninsula and the booming of the traditional grammar projected and offered by Plato and his disciple Aristotle in 10.000-400 BC. After Bloomfield, an American linguist and Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, sustained the theories by consolidating the traditional grammar in 1930. These theories of traditional grammar are, at that moment, disapproved by Fries, Harris, and Lado with their opinions of modern grammar in the 1950s, and these were also criticized by Noam Chomsky, who offered a theory of transformational generative grammar (TGG) in 1960s. At the present time, the modern theory of linguistics, which is known as lexical and pragmatic linguistics (LPL), is actually originally anticipated by Halliday (1994) altered with their interpretations as of the functional grammar or pragmatic syntax. Nation & Macalister (2010) defined the curriculum of language as a wide-ranging linguistic program which comprises of teaching aims, description of learning to stuff, learning events that determined to realize the objectives, techniques to calculate learning considerations, and assessment of each and every characteristic of the syllabus. A language curriculum scheme can be regarded as a type of writing activity, and as such, it can practically be calculated as a process. The distinctive sub-processes of the writing procedure, such as accumulating notions, unifying these concepts, and reviewing and editing, can be applied to the curriculum plan.




L2 Communicative Curriculu

Richards (2001) explained the communicative approach as an extensive way to language learning and teaching that have the emphasis on message as the associating principle for learning and teaching rather than a focus on the cramming of the grammatical rules of the language. The occurrence of English for Specific Purposes with its reputation on need analysis as a preliminary idea in a language program scheme is an imperative aspect in the expansion of this present method to language curriculum improvement. The second effect is the communicative approach to language teaching that occurs in the late 60s and 70s as a replacement for the structural-situational method. Communicative English language teaching is a reaction to the variations in the area of English linguistics in the 1970s; similarly, it was a reaction to the prerequisite for new methodologies to language learning and teaching. In this scenario, English linguistics shifted its concentration on grammar as the principal constituent of language proficiencies to a meditation of how language is used by learners in miscellaneous circumstances of communication and this communicative attitude is associated with communicative competence, which signifies the aptitude to use language appropriately in the communication-based situation, the roles of the participants of the communication, and similarly the nature of the matter. 

According to Savignon (2002), the communicative approach is an uninterrupted procedure of expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meanings in various situations. Further, this approach is subject to the mediation of meanings between two or more people who share something regarding any event. Moreover, it is strictly connected with competence and performance, the concepts which were given by Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, where competence is a supposed fundamental ability or knowledge and performance is the obvious expression of that knowledge. In this perspective, we can deduce that ‘competence’ means ‘what one knows’ or knowledge, whereas ‘performance’ is viewed as what ‘one does’ or the practical use of that knowledge; in this line of action Paulston (1974), who put emphasis on the communicative approach as of the opinion that the communication-based methodology is in point of fact the social rule of language use. It is asserted by her that outgoing events, especially in EFL classroom, usually lack social meanings, and it is incredible to involve the students effectively in interactive activities with no information of the rules of the social use. Another dissimilar viewpoint regarding the communicative approach is put forward by Widdowson (1978); he is of the view that the communicative approach in language teaching and learning the capability of interpreting speech. The focus of the EFL study should be on the understanding and clarification of discourse, and this understanding of discourse must relate in a straight line to the requirements and prevailing understanding of the learners. Wei, L. (2011) also adds to the preceding point that foreign language learning will be utmost operational where the students may depend on their remaining knowledge of the world, that is, to understand discourse or meanings.




Proficiency Centered Curriculum 

According to Kern (1990), a conventional proficiency-based curriculum, in which the learners’ proficiencies are compulsory for the specific course as well as aptitudes to be established during the course are defined and clarified, gave rise to amplified student performance. This type of curriculum is taken into consideration to be an applicable approach to identifying the objectives of a syllabus or curriculum of English Language Teaching (ELT). This approach in Pakistani universities is, although too late compared to the developed countries.

The aforementioned principles of fundamental communicative language learning and teaching are pertinent to the competency-based syllabus, and these principles are as under: 

a. students learn L2 through using it to communicate. 

b. reliable and meaningful communication should be the goal of EFL classroom activities. 

c. in this context, fluency is an important aspect of communication. 

d. L2 communication actually the mixture of different language skills, i.e., reading, writing, listening and speaking 

e. Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error.




Difference between Linguistic Competence and Communicative Competence

Linguistic competence is assumed and concerned with the implied knowledge of language arrangement (Chomsky, 1965). He perceives that an individual who has acquired a language has actually acquired a system of rules and guidelines that connected sounds and meanings in a definite, precise manner. It can be said that a person has, in other words, developed a well-founded competence that he puts to use in producing and understanding speech (Munby, 1978). Similarly, Hymes (1979) expresses linguistic competence as the proficiency to produce grammatical sentences or words through knowledge of linguistic rules instructions. Other scholars also gave a number of definitions of linguistic competence, referring to it as mastery of the rules of the language. Munby (1985) goes further and is of the view that the perfect knowledge denoted here is the mastery of the non-concrete system of rules and regulations which an individual is able to comprehend and produce any and all of the well-formed sentences of his language, with the help of his linguistic competence. What this conception didn't cover, though, was the communicative competence and skills compulsory for a native speaker to be great acting in particular interaction circumstances. That is why due to this motive that intellectuals in applied linguistics have been giving more consideration to the notion of communicative competence. According to Hymes (1967), communicative competence is the speaker's general ability to take part in a society not only as a speaking participant but also as a communicative fellow. This term ‘communicative competence’ has been originally employed by sociolinguists to take account of both knowing a language, i.e. linguistic competence and knowing how to use this linguistic competence; despite grammaticality, the conception of competence should contain contextual preciseness or knowledge of sociolinguistic programs and rules. In Hymes' (1972) opinion, there are rules without which the rules of grammar would be inadequate. Talking about English language learning and language teaching, it is equally important to mention that in this context, Chomsky's views of linguistic competence paved the way for two main speculative developments, i.e. communicative competence and communicative language teaching and learning. The students who are studying English as a foreign language more or less one hundred percent assert that the five or six lectures of studying L2 language at college or university and offering zero results it means it is a total waste of time. Students claim that English language courses they have been introduced to do not even prepare them with the compulsory tools that should empower them to take part in a two-way dialogue in English. They are also of the view that they frequently find themselves somewhat incompetent in expressing their attitudes, emotions, feelings, their agreements, disagreements, likes, dislikes in an English social context. They also repeatedly recognize their trouble with English as ‘not knowing enough vocabulary. On the other hand, the real problem, however, is that they don't distinguish the right words to use in a sentence or utterance so that they converse in a successful manner. This is absolute because of the real fact that instead of acquiring ways of using the language in meaningful situations to produce significant acts of communication, they have only learnt or crammed the formation rules of the target language. In short, they have become skilled at the one language procedure, without the other language use. Contrary to it, according to Light (1997), communicative competence must gain four main purposes, i.e. expressing wants and needs, increasing social intimacy, substituting facts and figures, and satisfying social politeness in routines. From the aforementioned discussion, it looks that students learning English as a foreign language in L2 classrooms are still being wide-open to the problems of not being able to essentially use the language in normal communicative situations in both the spoken and the written approaches. This situation certainly is the result of the insufficiency of the traditional teaching methods and techniques and learning strategies being employed by the students and which have dominated the teaching of English as a foreign language in many chunks of the OC and EC Circles of the world throughout the years. Allen & Widdowson (1974) argue that the purpose of the L2 classroom teacher, however, does not basically indicate mobilizing his learners with implicit knowledge of language structures, but it also involves teaching them through the ways that enable them to use language in real-life situations.  The rationale behind this work was to analyze learners’ perception of the English curriculum designed to teach them in the EFL classroom to improve their communicative competence and to investigate the role of teachers and students in making better use of the English curriculum to improve learners’ communicative competence.




Research Questions 

i. What do the students think about the English curriculum designed to teach them in the EFL classroom to improve their communicative competence?

ii. How can teachers and students make better use of the English curriculum to improve learners’ communicative competence? 




Design of the Current Study

The current research was scheduled to use the mixed-method technique, which is a research strategy that employs both approaches, i.e., qualitative and qualitative data, to respond to a definite question and set of questions. The nominated locations of this study were public sector colleges where BS in English is running, and the universities and their sub-campuses located in the South Punjab region. 200 respondents returned the questionnaire. The students (male & female on equal ratio) who were selected for the current study and were of the age group of 17 to 21 from BS English program of the selected public sector colleges, universities and their sub-campuses in the 2020 academic year. Learners were requested to point out their level of endorsement or discrepancy on a four-point rating scale, including “1= Yes, 2= No, 3= No Idea, 4= No Comments. Students’ questionnaire was developed from the studies by Fang, F. (2010), Ellis, R. (2007), Ellis, R. (2003), Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001), and Ellis, R. (1995).

Students Responses Analysis

Table 1. Textbooks Material is Sufficient for me to Express my Ideas Orally in the EFL Classroom

Four-point rating scale	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Yes	60	30.0	30.0	30.0
No	115	57.5	57.5	87.5
No Idea	15	07.5	07.5	95.0
No Comments	10	05.0	05.0	100.0
Total	200	100.0	100.0

Note: Numerical statistics in columns refer to the analyzed account and their percentage about “textbooks material is sufficient for me to express my ideas orally in EFL classroom.”

 




In response to the statement “textbooks material is sufficient for me to express my ideas orally in EFL classroom” only 60 students out of 200 which were 30.0% of the total number of the students who were motivated to learn and improve their communicative competence with the help of reading material taught in EFL classroom and they were of the opinion that textbooks material is sufficient for them to express their ideas verbally in EFL classroom. The valid and cumulative percentage of the first scale is the same as 30.0. On the other hand, 115 out of 200 students, which were 57.5% who were of the believed that textbooks’ learning material is inadequate for them to explain their ideas vocally in the EFL classroom. This second category of the students had 57.5 valid and 87.5 cumulative percentage. On the contrary to the previous two main points of the four-point rating scale only 15 students out of 200, which were 07.5% of the whole number, the valid percentage remains same as 07.5 while cumulative reached to 95.0 and they were of the comment that they do not have any idea whether the textbooks material is sufficient for them to express their ideas orally in EFL classroom or not. 10 out of 200 students said that they do not have any comment on the issue, and it was 05.0% of the total number; the valid percentage was also 05.0 while the cumulative percentage reached 100.0.




 

Table 2. Textbooks Lack Words that can be used in everyday Conversation

Four-point rating scale	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Yes	126	63.0	63.0	63.0
No	66	33.0	33.0	96.0
No Idea	03	01.5	01.5	97.5
No Comments	05	02.5	02.5	100.0
Total	200	100.0	100.0

Note: Numerical statistics in columns refer to the analyzed account and their percentage about “textbooks lack words that can be used in everyday conversation.”

 




In table 2, the results were emphasized about the textbooks, which lack words that can be used in everyday conversation. A large number of the selected sample of the students indicated that the fore mentioned statement hampers their verbal interaction inside and outside of the class. 126 students out of 200, which were 63.0% of the total number of the students who were carefully picked up for this research project and they were passionate and excited to learn verbal English language in L2 situation, but they were of the thought that the textbooks provided to the EFL students lack words that can be used in everyday conversation and it becomes a barrier in learning communicative English properly. The valid and cumulative percentage of the first scale is also 63.0. On the contrary, 66 out of 200 students, which were 33.0% of the total number of the learners and they were of the opinion that textbooks do not lack words that can be used in everyday conversation and was not a hurdle for them in learning and speaking English as they can achieve this communicative efficiency with different other sources such as at home with the help of parents, elders and friends. This second category of learners has only 33.0 valid and 96.0 cumulative percentage. On the contrary to the previous two points of the four-point rating scale 03 students out of 200 which were 01.5% of the whole number, the valid percentage remains same as 01.5 while cumulative reached to 97.5 and they were of the thought that they have no idea about the issue that textbooks lack words that can be used in everyday conversation or not. 05 out of 200 students said that they do not want to comment on the problem, and it was 02.5% of the total number; the valid percentage was also 02.5 while the cumulative percentage stretched to 100.0.




 

Table 3. The Vocabulary used in the Books does not Support me in Speaking with Friends

Four-point rating scale	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Yes	180	90.0	90.0	90.0
No	08	04.0	04.0	94.0
No Idea	10	05.0	05.0	99.0
No Comments	02	01.0	01.0	100.0
Total	200	100.0	100.0

Note: Numerical statistics in columns refer to the analyzed account and their percentage about “the vocabulary used in the books does not support me in speaking with friends.”

 




Another important barrier to increasing communicative competence the statement “the vocabulary used in the books does not support me in speaking with friends” majority of the respondents responded that the vocabulary used in the books does not support the learners in speaking with friends. 180 out of 200 students, which were 90.0% of the total number of the students who contributed to this project, were invigorated to learn and improve their spoken English in the L2 classroom, but they cannot do that as they were of the opinion that the vocabulary used in the books does not support them in speaking with friends inside and outside L2 classroom and it is a big communicative barrier in this context. The valid and cumulative percentage of the first scale is also 90.0. Similarly, only 08 out of 200 students who were 04.0% of the total number of the learners who were of the remark that the vocabulary used in the books support them in speaking with friends and it causes no hurdle for them during a verbal speech in EFL classroom. This second category of students has 04.0 valid and 94.0 cumulative percentage. On the contrary to the previous two points of the four-point rating scale, only ten students out of 200 which were merely 05.0% of the whole number, the valid percentage remains same as 05.0 while cumulative reached 99.0 and they were of the view that they do not have an idea whether the vocabulary used in the books support them in speaking with friends or not. In respect of the above-mentioned comment, only 02 out of 200 students said that they do not have any remark on the issue and it was 01.0% of the total number, the valid percentage was also 01.0 while cumulative percentage reached to 100.0.




 

Table 4. Textbooks are Written in Difficult Language that cannot be used for Casual Interaction    

Four-point rating scale	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Yes	167	83.5	83.5	83.5
No	13	06.5	06.5	90.0
No Idea	11	05.5	05.5	95.5
No Comments	09	04.5	04.5	100.0
Total	200	100.0	100.0

Note: Numerical statistics in columns refer to the analyzed account and their percentage about “textbooks are written in difficult language that cannot be used for casual interaction.”

 




In reply to the statement “textbooks are written in difficult language that cannot be used for casual interaction” a major number of students responded that textbooks are written in difficult language that cannot be used for casual interaction with parents, elders and friends. 167 students out of 200, which were 83.5% of the total number of the students who were motivated to learn and improve their communicative competence with the help of reading material taught in EFL classroom, and they were of the opinion that textbooks are written in difficult language that cannot be used for casual interaction in everyday conversation. The valid and cumulative percentage of the first scale is the same as 83.5. On the other hand, only13 out of 200 students, which were 06.5% of the total number of the students who were of the belief that textbooks are not written in difficult language that can be used for casual interaction easily. This second category of the students had 06.5 valid and 90.0 cumulative percentage. On the contrary to the previous two main points of the four-point rating scale, only 11 students out of 200 which were 05.5% of the whole number, the valid percentage remains same as 05.5 while cumulative reached to 95.5 and they were of the comment that they do not have any idea whether the textbooks are written in difficult language that can be used for casual interaction or not. 09 out of 200 students said that they do not want to comment on the issue, and it was 04.5% of the total number, the valid percentage was also 04.5 while cumulative percentage reached 100.0.




 

Table 5. The Sentences in the Textbooks are too Lengthy to be used in everyday Talk

Four-point rating scale	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Yes	119	59.5	59.5	59.5
No	33	16.5	16.5	76.0
No Idea	21	10.5	10.5	86.5
No Comments	27	13.5	13.5	100.0
Total	200	100.0	100.0

Note: Numerical statistics in columns refer to the analyzed account and their percentage about “the sentences in the textbooks are too lengthy to be used in everyday talk.”

 




In table 5 the results were highlighted about the sentences in the textbooks that are too lengthy to be used in everyday talk. A large number of the selected sample of the students indicated that the fore mentioned statement obstructs their verbal interaction inside and outside of the class. 119 students out of 200, which were 59.5% of the total number of the students who were cautiously picked up for this research scheme, and they were fervent and excited to learn verbal English language in L2 situation, but they were of the thought that the sentences in the textbooks that are too lengthy to be used in everyday talk and it becomes a barrier in learning casual communicative English properly. The valid and cumulative percentage of the first scale is also 59.5. On the contrary, 33 out of 200 students, which were 16.5% of the total number of the learners and they were of the opinion that the sentences in the textbooks that are too lengthy to be used in everyday talk do not hamper their everyday talk and was not a hurdle for them in learning and speaking English as they can achieve this communicative efficacy with different other sources such as at home with the help of parents, elders and friends. This second category of learners has only 16.5 valid and 76.0 cumulative percentage. On the contrary to the previous two points of the four-point rating scale 21 students out of 200 which were 10.5% of the whole number, the valid percentage remains same as 10.5 while cumulative reached 88.5 and they were of the view that they have no idea about the subject that the sentences in the textbooks that are too lengthy to be used in everyday talk or not. 27 out of 200 students refused to give their opinion on the problem, and it was 13.5% of the total number; the valid percentage was also 13.5 while cumulative percentage stretched to 100.0.




 

Table 6. Current Curriculum does not help the Learners in Speaking English as it is Written in Literary Language

Four-point rating scale	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Yes	120	60.0	60.0	60.0
No	50	25.0	25.0	85.0
No Idea	28	14.0	14.0	99.0
No Comments	02	01.0	01.0	100.0
Total	200	100.0	100.0

Note: Numerical statistics in columns refer to the analyzed account and their percentage about “current curriculum does not help the learners in speaking English as it is written in literary language.”

 




In reply to the statement “current curriculum does not help the learners in speaking English as it is written in literary language” most of the students responded that the existing curriculum does not help them in speaking English because it is written in literary language that cannot be used for casual interaction with parents, elders and friends. 120 students out of 200, which were 60.0% of the total number of the students who were interested to learn and improve their communicative capability with the help of curriculum taught in the EFL classroom, and they were of the opinion that the current curriculum does not help the learners in speaking English as it is written in literary language. The valid and cumulative percentage of the first scale is the same as 60.0. On the other hand, 50 out of 200 students, which were 25.0% who were of the belief that the current curriculum helps the learners in speaking English as though it is written in literary language. This second category of the students had 25.0 valid and 85.0 cumulative percentage. On the contrary to the previous two main points of the four-point rating scale 28 students out of 200 which were 14.0% of the whole number, the valid percentage remains same as 14.0 while cumulative reached 99.0 and they were of the comment that they do not have any idea whether the current curriculum help the learners in speaking English as it is written in a literary language or not. 02 out of 200 students said that they do not want to comment on the issue, and it was 01.0% of the total number; the valid percentage was also 01.0 while the cumulative percentage reached 100.0. The relationship between the students who verified that the current curriculum does not help the learners in speaking English as it is written in literary language was around 120 out of 200 students, which were 60.0 %. Contrary to it, 25.0% of learners opposed this idea and were of the view that the current curriculum helps the learners in speaking English as though it is written in literary language, and they were 50 students out of 200. From the foregoing discussion, it is obvious that there is a gigantic contradiction between the students who approved and disapproved the curriculum provided to the learners in the L2 classroom to enhance their communicative collaboration.

Discussions on the Findings

The major objective of this work was to identify the ‘learners’ perceptions about the role of the English curriculum set in boosting communicative competence of the students in different public sector colleges, universities and their sub-campuses situated in South Punjab. First of all, the factors causing the vocabulary barrier while learning English at the university level are offered. 




Research Question 1:

What do the students think about the English

curriculum designed to teach them in EFL Classroom to improve their communicative competence?

The present study relates the learners’ perceptions about the role of the English curriculum set in boosting communicative proficiency of the learners that were studying in BS English in different public sector colleges, universities and sub-campuses located in the South Punjab (Pakistan). The majority of the students showed that the curriculum and textbooks designed for L2 learners cause negative effects in the process of L2 learning as it doesn’t satisfy the communicative necessities of the learners. The findings of the research questions of the students’ questionnaire revealed that in response to the statement “textbooks material is sufficient for me to express my ideas orally in EFL classroom” only 60 students out of 200 which were 30.0% of the total number of the students who were motivated to learn and improve their communicative competence with the help of reading material taught in EFL classroom and they were of the opinion that textbooks material is sufficient for them to express their ideas verbally in EFL classroom. Majority of the students considered that the curriculum set in L2 classroom was insufficient and it did not satisfy the communicative needs of the learners; 126 students out of 200 which were 63.0% who were of the thought that the textbooks provided to the EFL students lack words that can be used in everyday conversation and it becomes a barrier in learning communicative English properly; 139 out of 200 students which were 69.5% of the total number of the students, were of the opinion that the curriculum used in EFL classroom is outdated and it must be revised and it is a big communicative barrier in this context; 120 students out of 200 which were 60.0% who were of the opinion that current curriculum does not help the learners in speaking English as it is written in literary language; 133 out of 200 students which were 66.5% who contributed in this plan were exhilarated to learn and improve their off-topic conversation and playful talk in L2 classroom but they cannot do that as they were of the opinion that the curriculum that does not engage students in off-topic conversation and playful talk in L2 classroom must be revisited and it is a big communicative barrier in this context. For the improvement of the communicative competence of the students’ speaking and listening skills are to be given one and the same significance. In this perspective, this study is very similar to the study conducted by Chien, C. W. (2018) regarding Taiwanese EFL undergraduates’ self-correction of pronunciation problems and their strategies. As he also concludes that speaking and listening skills carry weight for the enhancement of communicative competence. Reading and writing skills are formally judged; these two skills, i.e. listening and speaking, are also to be officially evaluated in the local examination system of the universities with equal weightage. Students, instead of imitating the static parameters, are required to be exhilarated to investigate with the language in real-life situations. In Pakistani EFL classrooms where BS in English is in vogue, it is an area that needs extraordinary consideration of the concerned stakeholders, i.e. English teachers and students. It is the first and foremost duty of both sections to encourage and support the target language practice at all levels, especially to improve learners’ communication skill, starting from the very first semester to the eighth semester. The preceding views are also supported by the study of Atma, N. (2018), as this research also relies on teachers utmost role in reducing students’ speaking anxiety.




Research Question 2:

How can teachers and students make better use of the English curriculum to improve learners’ communicative competence? 

English language learning is the most problematic process in an L2 classroom, and to make this process simplified, a number of teaching/ learning resources play an imperative role regarding the target language learning. However, well-designed curriculum and textbooks are such types of material that can be easily accepted and acknowledged by the learners and their educators. To make sure the effective use of textbooks or curriculum for L2 teaching/learning, this study produces certain steps that English teachers and learners can take to make better use of the English curriculum to improve learners’ communicative competence. To make sure better language learning through textbooks and other teaching materials, teachers must play a vital role in the selection of textbooks and helping material. These views are supported by the research of Noom-ura, S. (2008) as he claims that the L2 teacher’s role is decisive in the selection of curriculum and improving learners’ communicative competence. English textbooks with good teaching/learning materials can encourage L2 learning, improve communicative competence and can persuade learners so that they can achieve understandable feedback from their teachers and also feel attentiveness towards the target language through textbooks or curriculum. But in the selection of textbooks, it is not compulsory that English teachers requisite to follow particular textbooks firmly. Teachers can adjust the textbooks or other materials according to the needs of the students. In this context, findings, if this study very similar to Tài, P.T. (2016) as the study conducted by Tai also stresses the significance of teacher in relation to the choice of L2 books. In addition, variation in textbooks can wipe out the uninteresting teaching and coaching system, and in this way, L2 learners can also achieve the simplified information of the target language. In this sense, adjusting textbooks and other helping materials can help a lot to engage learners with textbooks regarding l2 learning. If English teachers have particular information regarding some specific area of study, they can revise or adopt textbooks and other informative materials to make sure the actual and concrete use of textbooks in learning the target language. English teachers may possibly connect the various language skills such as writing, reading, and listening together because these skills typically occur so in the existent world. In the same line of action syllabus, designers may include English teachers, and with their assistance, they should revise the syllabus of English language and related textbooks to help English language teachers in developing the communicative competence of the learners.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

The majority of the respondents of this study showed that the curriculum and textbooks designed for L2 learners cause negative effects in the process of L2 learning as they do not satisfy the communicative needs of the students. To make sure the effective use of textbooks or curriculum for L2 teaching/learning, there are certain steps that English teachers and learners can take to make better use of the English curriculum to improve learners’ communicative competence. To make sure better language learning through textbooks and other teaching materials, teachers must play a vital role in the selection of textbooks and helping material. English textbooks with good teaching/learning materials can encourage L2 learning, improve communicative competence and can persuade learners so that they can achieve understandable feedback from their teachers and also feel attentiveness towards the target language through textbooks or curriculum. But in the selection of textbooks, it is not compulsory that English teachers requisite to follow particular textbooks firmly. Teachers can adjust the textbooks or other materials according to the needs of the students. In addition, variation in textbooks can wipe out the uninteresting teaching and coaching system, and in this way, L2 learners can also achieve the simplified information of the target language. In this sense, adjusting textbooks and other helping materials can help a lot to engage learners with textbooks regarding l2 learning. If English teachers have particular information regarding some specific area of study, they can revise or adopt textbooks and other informative materials to make sure the actual and concrete use of textbooks in learning the target language. English teachers may possibly connect the various language skills such as writing, reading, and listening together because these skills typically occur so in the existent world. In the same line of action syllabus, designers may include English teachers, and with their assistance, they should revise the English language syllabus and relevant English textbooks to facilitate L2 coaches in mounting communicative aptitude of the learners.

Research Originality/Contribution

The study is original in the sense as it attempted to determine learners’ perceptions about the role of English curriculum set in boosting communicative competence of the students, its prominence condensed to the following concerns:

i. The current study is momentous since it explores classroom materials designed to expand learners’ communicative competency.

ii. Data from the current study reconnoitres the impact of the English curriculum on learners’ communicative competence.

iii. The recent study would contribute to curriculum designers in planning a suitable curriculum to make the target language learners more accommodating in the context of Pakistan and specifically for the students of Southern Punjab.

Limitations of the Study and Research Gaps

i. The present study was executed to investigate the perceptions of the students registered in BS in English about the role of the English curriculum set in boosting learners’ communicative proficiency. So, new studies to the relevant capacities on school-going L2 learners and on MPhil, PhD scholars can be showcased to get more all-encompassing indulgent about the point of view of the respondents.

ii. These students only belonged to public sector colleges, universities and their sub-campuses of South Punjab. On the contrary, in the approaching studies, private and public schools, private universities and colleges where BS in English and other BS, MA/MSc, MPhil and PhD programs are in progress can also be combined for enriched replication of the subject matter.

iii. Three Divisions such as Dera Ghazi Khan, Multan and Bahawalpur, were selected for the collection of research data. However, in future, this research can be overextended on provincial and even Pakistan level for wide-ranging reproduction of the topic.

References

• Allen, J. P. B. & Widdowson, H. G. (1974). Teaching the communicative use of English. Iral 12/1:1-21.
• Allen, J. P. B. (1984). General-Purpose Language Teaching: A Variable Focus Approach. In C. J. Brumfit. General English Syllabus Design (pp: 61-74). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Atma, N. (2018). Teachers' Role in Reducing Students' English-Speaking Anxiety Based on Students' Perspectives. The Asian EFL Journal July 2018 Volume 20, Issue 7, 20(7), 42-52. Retrieved from https://www.asian-efljournal.com/wp-content/
• Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press
• Chien, C. W. (2018). Taiwanese EFL undergraduates' self-correction of pronunciation problems and their strategies. Asian EFL Journal, 20(6), 261-292.
• Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. London: Oxford University Press
• Ellis, R. (2007). Educational settings and second language learning. 9(4). Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://asian-efl-journal.com.
• Fang, F. (2010). A discussion on developing students' communicative competence in college English teaching in China. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1, 111-116.
• Holliday, A. (1994). The house of TESEP and the communicative approach: The special needs of state English language education. ELT Journal, 48(1), 3-11.
• Hymes, D. H. (1967). The anthropology of communication. In FE Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory: Original essays. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269- 293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
• Hymes, D. H. (1979). On communicative competences (extracts). In C. J. Brumfit & K
• Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to Research in Second Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Kelly, A. V. (1989). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
• Kern, R. (1990). Use of Competency-Based Course Syllabus and Its Effects on Student Performance in Introductory Computer Courses. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 14: 115-122.
• Light, J. (1997). Communication is the essence of human life: Reflections on communicative competence. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 61-70
• Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Munby, J. (1985). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, I. S. P. and Macalister, J. (2010). Language Curriculum Design. New York: Taylor & Francis.
• Noom-ura, Sripathum. (2008). Teaching ListeningSpeaking Skills to Thai Students with Low English Proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4: 174 -192. Retrieved May 11, 2019 at https://www.asian-efljournal.com/1017/main-journals/teachinglistening-speaking-skills-to-thai-students-withlow-english-proficiency/
• Paulston, C. (1974). Linguistic and Communicative Competence. TESOL Quarterly 8:347-362.
• Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. London:Longman.
• Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Tài, P. T. (2016). An investigation into some factors influencing to student's motivation to learn speaking English of the first -year students at English department, University of Foreign Language Studies -Danang University - Vietnam. Asian EFL Journal, (4), p. 177-182. TESOL Indonesia International Conference Edition. Retrieved from https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/AEJSpecial-Edition-December-2016-TESOLIndonesia-Conference-Volume-4.pdf
• Wei, L. (2011). CLT in EFL context: not a universal medicine. IDIOM, 41, 3.
• Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.