The implementation of trilingual policy in the CLIL classroom

Main Article Content

Kamila Dossymbekova

Abstract

Kazakhstan's educational system has undergone several adjustments and revisions in the recent decade. One of the most significant changes entitled “The Trinity of Languages”, focuses on the study of three languages: Kazakh, Russian, and English. They are used as languages of teaching for STEM subjects as a means of the learning process. Furthermore, the new reform supports the equal treatment of all three languages as well as their balanced use. The key dilemma that comes from these implications is whether instructors use all three languages during the classes or strive to stick to the principal language of instruction for that particular field. By reviewing the literature, this annotative study believes to learn about teachers’ perspectives on language usage in light of the trilingual policy and their language choices for instruction.


Google Scholar

Article Details


How to Cite
Dossymbekova, K. (2023). The implementation of trilingual policy in the CLIL classroom. Scientific Collection «InterConf», (153), 77–83. Retrieved from https://archive.interconf.center/index.php/conference-proceeding/article/view/3237

References

AEO NIS (Autonomous Educational Organisation Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools). (2013). The Trilingual Implementation Guidelines for the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools. Astana: AEO NIS.

AEO NIS (Autonomous Educational Organisation Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools). (2013c). 2020 Development Strategy. Astana: AEO NIS

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402

Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. London: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781849209922

Dave, B. (2007). Kazakhstan: Ethnicity, language and power. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

David, M. (2006). Language policies- impact on language maintenance and teaching: Focus on Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines. The Linguistics Journal, Sep. 2009, 155-191

García, O. (2009). Chapter 3: Bilingualism and translanguaging. In O. García (Ed.), Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective (pp. 42-51). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and Social Interaction in Two Communities. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 137–153.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman.

Macaro, E. (2000). Issues in target language teaching. In K. Field (Ed.,). Issues in Modern Foreign Language Teaching, 171-189

Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531- 548. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00124

MoES (Ministry of Education and Science) (2010). State program for education and science in the republic of Kazakhstan for 2011-2020. Astana: Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific Region, TESOL quarterly, 37(4), 589-613. doi.org/10.2307/3588214

Shamshidinova, K., Ayubayeva, N., & Bridges, D. (2014). Implementing radical change: Nazarbayev intellectual schools as agents of change. In D. Bridges (Ed.), Educational reform and internationalisation: The case of school reform in Kazakhstan (pp. 71-82). Cambridge University Press.

State Program of Education and Science Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2016-2019 (SPESD, 2016).

Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 36- 43.