CC BY
48
A.Temirbekova, G. Toguzbaeva. CLIL programme management in multilingual education
// Электронный научно-методический журнал Омского ГАУ. - 2019. - № 3 (18) июль - сентябрь. - URL http://e-journal.omgau.ru/images/issues/2019/3/00768.pdf. - ISSN 2413-4066
УДК 372.881.1.
Assel Temirbekova
Master of Multilingual Education
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nursultan, Kazakhstan Asseltemirbekova2017@gmail. com
Guldraykhan Toguzbaeva
Master of Humanitarian Sciences
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nursultan, Kazakhstan Guldraihan_62@mail.ru
CLIL Programme Management in Multilingual Education
Abstract. The present article investigates the aspects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), which nowadays is an important issue of implementation of multilingual education all over the world.
Keywords: CLIL, multilingual policy, means of international communication, communicative competence, socio-cultural competence.
The Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) program is an important and ubiquitous issue in the implementation of multilingual education around the world today. The implementation of this program has introduced a new set of challenges for students in secondary schools. This paper aims to discuss the implementation of CLIL program as a part of multilingual education policy and challenges students face in the development of cognitive and communicative skills in the framework of CLIL program in Kazakhstan and other countries.
The multilingual education policy has shifted from just learning a second language as an additive language in secondary schools to studying subjects through a second/third language today. Kazakhstani educational policy has indicated a long-term goal which will develop citizens' knowledge in Kazakh, Russian and English in the frame of trilingual education initiated by the President Nazarbayev (2012) since 2007. Kazakh language is considered to be a national language and "a consolidating factor of all ethnicities"; Russian is a language of interethnic communication and "a historical advantage of the nation"; and English is a tool for international cooperation and it "opens new infinite resources for every citizen" (p. 28). Since current globalized world needs the transformation with the society, these three languages may contribute to this goal. So, trilingual education policy has become one of the important aims in educational system in Kazakhstan (MoES, 2013).
Students study English as a component of CLIL approach in secondary schools in which trilingual education is piloted. As Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010) and Juan-Garau and Jacob (2015) stated subject content and language teaching function together. CLIL approach is widely used in Europe (Marsh, 2002); however, Kazakhstan is still being implementing it. British Council (2016) points out that learning subject content through an additional language is a challenging thing for
students. Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2014) add that students have to make additional effort to understand the content. The majority of Kazakhstani students grow up speaking Kazakh and Russian since early childhood. We can assume that they might experience less difficulty in studying subjects in these languages in comparison with English. Having learned English only in classroom environment, this language is the most challenging in realization of trilingual policy. Therefore, this approach needs thorough analysis and strategies for further development (Ortega, 2015; Oskolkova, 2014; Irsaliev, Karabassova, Mukhametzhanova, Adil, Bekova&Nurlanov, 2017). Moreover, Smagulova (2006; 2008) highlights that more studies should be done to investigate how the policy is worked out in piloting schools and prevent further discrepancies in other schools. She also adds that those students who studied Kazakh first, then Russian and travelled to learn English abroad, consequently cannot be proficient in any of these three languages without proper teaching methodology and strategies to be able to use them in education and work in the future. Thus, students' communicative proficiency in three languages should be organized and developed well in CLIL classrooms.
To understand the subject matters of CLIL implementation, it is worth to precede its general concept which "encompasses all the different varieties of teaching core subjects through a foreign language" (Marsh, as cited in Roiha, 2014, p. 2) as well as its specific point of "a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language" (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010, p. 1). The notion of additional language is defined as a language other than a mother tongue or a second/third language. Russian and English are supposed to be additional languages for Kazakhstani students in secondary schools. In addition, CLIL is considered as an innovative approach in teaching foreign languages in multilingual education. Henn-Reinke (2012) defines its successful development in Europe and Coyle (2007) argues that the implementation in countries differs according to their specific challenges within the particular country. While Irsaliyev et al. (2017) highlights Kazakhstani purpose to implement in trilingual education policy framework.
Conceptual framework
The Coyle's 4C conceptual framework exemplifies a brilliant focus on interrelation of content, communication, cognition and culture (Coyle, 2007; Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010). This framework was nicely developed for CLIL teachers to organize their classes based on subject matter, language learning and language usage, learning and thinking processes as well as developing culture and global citizenship. Thus, students study subject content in a particular target language in CLIL classes. It also demands teachers' awareness to pay attention linguistic peculiarities of the language and engage students' cognitive thinking development in the assignments. The empirical studies mentioned before define the necessity of identifying how students develop their cognitive and communicative abilities in CLIL classroom (Jappinen, 2005) and what benefits and challenges they experience in Kazakhstan and other countries in Coyle's 4C framework.
Students' benefits
The majority of scholars report on students' improvement of general foreign language proficiency in CLIL classrooms (Coyle, 2013; Lancaster, 2016; Doiz, Lasagabaster& Sierra, 2014; Lasagabaster&Doiz, 2016; Mehisto, Kambatyrova, &Nurseitova, 2014; Pladevall- Ballester, 2015). Other researchers dwell on students' writing and speaking skills (Cross &Gearon, 2013; Ikeda, 2013) as well as translation skills (Coyle, 2013). The valuable improvement is emphasized by Lasagabaster and Doiz (2016) who reported students' English proficiency improved more in CLIL practices than it had done in English as a subject classes.
Another important point of non-linguistic benefits is students' knowledge of a subject content accompanied by communicative competence (Juan-Garau& Jacob, 2015; Ikeda, 2013). And Pladevall-Ballester (2015) highlights students' awareness and increased motivation to learn English in CLIL classes. In addition to increasing awareness, Coyle's research (2013) elicited that content subjects taught in French, Spanish and German have developed students' English proficiency (their mother-tongue). Being a future multilingual and content knowledgeable professional is also one of
the benefits for students. Therefore, it is significant to mention these advantages to see clearly what students understand as well as struggle with in CLIL classrooms.
Students' challenges
We cannot exclude that students might understand advantages, but simultaneously challenge the development of language proficiency in combination with content subject and vice versa. Students' difficulty in learning and using vocabulary in subjects results primarily from a limited vocabulary in a particular language (Finardi, Silveira& de Alencar, 2016; Wegner, 2012; Herrera, 2015). This tends to harden the subject learning process. According to Finardi, Silveira and de Alencar students may be inspired to check the words in the dictionaries, find synonyms, guess the meaning in the context or, finally, ask their teacher for help. However, Herrera warns about students' less understanding misinterpretation of the content and information which leads to further consequences of subject knowledge and students' activity overall. Students' challenged to learn the History of Mexico in English because English was difficult itself. Pladevall- Ballester (2015) mentioned that students reported on language usage activities including speaking tasks to be challenging for them. Thus, educational process in the classroom may experience difficulties due to these challenges in a particular language of instruction.
The content-based challenges are another important factor which defines students' quality of knowledge and education overall. According to Finardi, Silveira and de Alencar (2016) and Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter (2013), students' difficulties in attaining subjects varied based on the content subject itself. The authors differentiated Physics and the First Aid subjects as to having more or less difficulties to learn in English. For instance, students experienced more challenges with Physics terminology rather than the First Aid subject. Consequently, the authors propose the implementation of CLIL program should gradually begin with the subjects which require less cognitive thinking. Overall, these studies exemplify students' benefits and challenges of studying in the framework of CLIL program which help us understand how to prevent difficulties of implementation in Kazakhstani context.
The implementation of CLIL in Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan, being a young state, is trying to implement trilingual policy since 2007 and provide multilingual environment and knowledge in three languages for future generation. The fulfillment and regulation of the multilingual policy in the country is accompanied by main policy documents:
• The Framework of language policy (Nazarbayev, 1996);
• The Law on Languages (1997);
• The State Program of Development and Functioning of Languages of Kazakhstan for 20112020 (2010);
• The Roadmap of Trilingual Education Development for 2015-2020 (MoES, 2015);
• The State Program of Education and Science Development (MoES, 2016).
These documents primarily appeared to discuss dominant (Kazakh and Russian) and all minority languages in the country. Further on, state documents provided inclusion of English language as one of the goals in the development of the country. The approximate percentage of population who would be able to speak three languages by 2014, 2020 were set in the State programs. For instance, the State program for 2011-2020 prioritizes the following proportions for citizens of Kazakhstan: speakers of Kazakh language are planned to be about 95%, Russian - 90%, and English - 20%. These state programs aim to prepare qualified specialist in different fields like education, science and industry competitive in the international arena that is why it is significant to mention secondary schools in which the CLIL program is implemented as well. In addition to the state programs, another strategic document, the Roadmap of Trilingual Education Development, appeared to be descriptive planning of key indicators for introducing trilingual education in all educational levels including teacher development programs, methodological resource, and research support to be done. The 2016 state program considers the current condition analysis of the implementation and sets further goals and tasks.
Today 33 schools are being piloted in teaching subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics- STEM) in English, and over a hundred secondary schools are operating within trilingual policy (MoES, 2015). Physics, Mathematics, Biology and ICT subjects are expected to be taught in English in all types of school including mainstream schools with Kazakh, Russian medium of instruction starting from this year. According to MoES (2016), lowers secondary grades (5-6) are supposed to study necessary terminology of two subjects. Gradually, students will study four STEM subjects in the 7-8th grades. Finally, only one STEM subjects will be elected to study in English in the grade 9. Thus, it is necessary to dwell on the empirical studies of CLIL approach within Kazakhstani context.
CLIL approach has been researched in different perspectives including teachers' perceptions, students' perceptions in higher education, advantages and disadvantages of CLIL from teachers and students' perspectives (Bekenova, 2016; Zharkynbekova, Aimoldina, Akynova, Abaidilda, &Kuzar, 2014; Shegenova, 2016; Van Gorp& Van den Branden; 2015) which, similarly reminds Mehisto and Asser (2007) who looked though the lenses of stakeholders' attitudes in Estonia. Although trilingual education and CLIL program implementation appeared to be very challenging for stakeholders, these research studies have revealed their general positive views about it. Zharkynbekova et al., studying about 700 students' responses, elicited that students' care about their mother-tongue development which is endangered in learning English intensively. Shegenova's study revealed that teachers and students experience difficulties in learning the subject content through the language because language proficiency affects the memorization of the content.
In comparison with the international studies, Kazakhstani scholars have lots of space to explore CLIL implementation in Kazakhstan.
Implications of discussion
The significant contribution to understanding of CLIL implementation in the frame work of multilingual education brings the sense how secondary school and educators use their pedagogies and techniques to involve students in active learning as well as help to struggle the difficulties students endure during classroom practices.
As for the implementation of CLIL and trilingual policy in Kazakhstan, stakeholders' attitudes and their challenges should be thoroughly investigated as well as discussed in the national level of education. Thus, the process of transition to non-traditional way of teaching (CLIL) will be effective to students' future learning and successful career development.
Since CLIL classes are at developing stage of being implemented rightly in Kazakhstan, we can assume that only 2C of Coyle's framework works for the moment, i.e. the integration of content and communication function in the classroom. However, other 2C components are left behind the educational process. The cognition and culture integration are expected to be involved in students' learning in order to insure their personal self-esteem and cultural affiliation in school environment. Therefore, teachers should be taught how to foster these approaches in the classrooms and make smooth, but stable educational contribution the development and implementation of CLIL and trilingual policy.
Policy makers are expected to make necessary guidelines and provide educators with resources and extended trainings. Although students currently feel positive about trilingual policy and CLIL implementation in Kazakhstan, they might have lots of other struggles after transition period which is characterized by learning terminology in STEM subjects, as it was mentioned in research studies above. Additional support from educators may be demanded to support students in further stages. Teachers will have to consider the usage of Coyle's 4C framework to enhance the content, communicative, cognitive, and cultural components in CLIL classrooms.
Conclusions
The effort made to implement the multilingual policy and CLIL program are worth to develop educators' teaching methodologies, taking into account students' linguistic and cultural peculiarities further. The extensive communication between educators is needed to be practiced in this respect. Davison (2006) and Geng and Ferguson (2013) mention teachers' collegial collaboration in discussing curricula and teaching pedagogies that could contradict to Baudinova's (2016) point of
view who reveals teachers' age, learning skills and unwillingness to teach in English. Teacher development activities and programs are useful for all educators in implementing the strategies in educational institutions throughout the country because they might be one of the key features in educators and students brilliant achievements in CLIL classroom practices and successful development of educational system overall.
References
1. Baudinova, I. (2016, May 26). Trilingualism: the problem is not in the essence, but in the terms. Apgazeta.kz. Retrieved from http://apgazeta.kz/2016/05/26/obrazovanie-triyazychie-problema-ne-v-suti-a-tolko-v-srokax-zhelannyj-no-pochemu-to-grustnyj-zvonok-chtoby-stala-vyshe-planka-odezhda-ot-yulii/
2. Bekenova, A. (2016). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as a response to the implementation of trilingual education: Teachers' perceptions, practices, and challenges [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://conferences.nis.edu.kz/?page_id=3306&lang=en
3. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., &Gorter, D. (2013). Critical Analysis of CLIL: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243-262. Retrieved from http://doi:10.1093/applin/amt011
4. Coyle, D. (2007). CLIL: towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0
5. Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into 'successful learning' across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 244-266. doi:10.1080/13670050.2013.777384
7. Cross, R. &Gearon, M. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach in teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. The University of Melbourne, Graduate school of education. Retrieved from www. education.unimelb. edu.au
8. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). Giving voice to the students: What (de)motivates them in CLIL classes? In D. Lasagabaster, A. Doiz, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice (pp. 117-138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9. Finardi, K., Silveira, N. & de Alencar, G. (2016). First aid and waves in English as a foreign language: Insights from CLIL in Brazil. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 11-30. Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu
10. Geng, X. & Ferguson, G. (2013). Strategic planning in task-based language teaching: The effects of participatory structure and task type. System, 41(4), 982-993. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.system.2013.09.005
11. Henn-Reinke, K. (2012). Considering trilingual education. Routledge Research in Education
12. Herrera, L.R. (2015). Mexican secondary school students' perception of learning the history of Mexico in English. Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 17(1), 105-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v17n1.44739
13. Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary schools? International CLIL Research Journal, 2 (1), 31-43. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/21/article3.html
14. Irsaliev, S., Karabassova, Ch., Mukhametzhanova, A., Adil, A., Bekova, M. &Nurlanov, Y. (2017). Teaching in three languages: International experience and recommendations for Kazakhstan. Retrieved from http://iac.kz/ru
15. Jappinen, A-K. (2005). Thinking and Content Learning of Mathematics and Science as Cognitional Development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching Through a Foreign Language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 148-169. Retrieved from http://www.multilingual-matters.net/le/019/2/default.htm
16. Juan-Garau, M. & Jacob, K. (2015).Developing English learners' transcultural skills through content- and task-based lessons. System, 54, 55-68. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.017
17. Lasagabaster, D. &Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students' perceptions of their language learning process: delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1-2), 110-126. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2015.1122019
18. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE: The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc491_en.pdf
19. Mehisto, P. & Asser, H. (2007). Stakeholder Perspectives: CLIL Programme Management in Estonia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 683-701. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb466.0
20. Mehisto P., Kambatyrova A., &Nurseitova K. (2014).Three in one? Trilingualism in educational policy and practice. In Bridges, D. et al. (eds), Educational reform and internationalisation: the case of school reform in Kazakhstan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. MoES.(2013). Orta mektepte okytu process in dekoptil diliktida mytumaseleleru. On developing multilingualism in secondary schools. Retrieved from http://icrov-pvl.gov.kz/loader/load/46
22. MoES. (2015). Dorozhnayakartarazvitiyatrekhyazychnogoobrazovaniyana 2015-2020. [Roadmap of Trilingual Education Development for 2015-2020]. Retrieved from http://umckrg.gov.kz/content/view/1/478
23. MoES. (2016). State Program of Education and Science Development for 2016- 2019. Retrieved April, 30, from http://www.edu.gov.kz/ru/gosudarstvennaya-programma-razvitiya-obrazovaniya-i-nauki-respubliki-kazahstan-na-2016-2019-gody
24. Nazarbayev, N. (1996). Concept of language policy in Kazakhstan. Retrieved from http://kazakhstan.news-city. info/docs/ sistemsl/dok_pegtfo. htm
25. Nazarbayev, N. (2012). The message of the president of the Republic of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev to the people of Kazakhstan. Strategy- 2050: the new political course of the established state, Astana. Retrieved from https://strategy2050.kz/ru
26. Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103-109. Retrieved from http://dx. doi.org/ 10.1016/j. system.2015.09.002
27. Oskolkova, A. (2014). The significance of content and language-integrated learning of the English language. The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal, 6. Retrieved from http://www.kafu-academic-j ournal.info/j ournal/6/180/
28. Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2015) Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: students', teachers' and parents' opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45-59. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.874972
29. Roiha, A.S. (2014) Teachers' views on differentiation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Languageand Education, 28(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2012.748061
30. Smagulova, J. (2006). Kazakhstan, Language, Identity and Conflict. Innovation - The European Journal of Social Science Research. 19(3-4). 303-320. Retrieved from http:// ezproxy. library. nu.edu.kz :2100/
31. Smagulova, J. (2008). Language policies of Kazakhization and their influence on language attitudes and use. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 11(3-4). 440475. http://ezproxy.library.nu.edu.kz:2101/10.2167/beb547.0
32. Shegenova, Z. (2016). Advantages and disadvantages in teaching History of Kazakhstan in Kazakh (L2) [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://conferences.nis.edu.kz/?page_id=3306&lang=en
33. Van Gorp, K. & Van den Branden, K. (2015). Teachers, pupils and tasks: The genesis of dynamic learning opportunities. System, 54, 28-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.018.
34. Wegner, A. (2012). Seeing the bigger picture: what students and teachers think about CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (4), 29-35. Retrieved from http://www.icrj. eu/12/article2. html
35. Zharkynbekova, S., Aimoldina, A., Akynova, D., Abaidilda, A. &Kuzar, Z. (2014).The Role of Multilingual Education in the Process of Kazakhstani Identity Formation. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 217-221. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.391
