Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) within the trilingual context in Kazakhstan: teachers’ conceptions and classroom practices

• In Event: Publication mentoring workshop session
  In Special Session: Language Pedagogy

Proposal

This paper reports on outcomes of a study which was carried out as doctoral research and defended in May, 2018. By means of semi-structured interviews and classroom observations, this study explored how subject teachers in Kazakhstan, the first Central Asian country to introduce CLIL, conceptualized and implemented this approach. Though CLIL is viewed as an approach to teaching content through a foreign language, this study extends the initial definition to teaching content through a second language, as it examines classes delivered in three different languages, Kazakh, Russian and English.
The research was approached as a qualitative multiple case study. The data were collected in one school in the network of 20 state-funded and highly-selected Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS), named after the President of Kazakhstan. NIS implement a model of CLIL which is different from its European CLIL counterparts. First, at NIS, CLIL is implemented as part of a top-down national policy of trilingual education which envisions enhancing students` competences in three languages. Moreover, NIS are expected to serve as a platform for testing multilingual education and scaling up its experience to mainstream schools in Kazakhstan. Second, CLIL is implemented within an enquiry-based curriculum of Sciences and Mathematics which aim at educating future STEM leaders in Kazakhstan.
Students enroll at NIS from Grade 7 (with an exception in 2 schools) in one of the main languages of instruction, Kazakh (L1) or Russian (L1). At the same time, they gradually shift to learning certain curriculum in their L2 (Kazakh or Russian) and L3 (English) while simultaneously learning Kazakh, Russian and English are taught as individual language subjects. Given the Mathematics and Science-oriented inquiry-based curriculum, NIS focus on accepting students with good mathematical and numerical skills, but underdeveloped skills in languages. Thus, it is important to help these L2 and L3 learners succeed academically, exacerbated by the demands of the curriculum.
The participants in this study consisted of five purposefully selected NIS content teachers who are referred to by pseudonyms: Ainur, Aisha, Zhadyra, Kuralay, and Paul. Four interviews and one lesson observation were conducted with each teacher. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, whereas observations were recorded by taking notes in an observation protocol. The interview and observation data were analyzed through thematic analysis, following stages, described by Braun and Clarke (2006). In addition, I kept a researcher journal as a source of data in conjunction with interviewing and observation and served as a check when writing my findings and conclusions.
In the present study, I used the “4Cs” Conceptual framework, developed by Coyle (1999) to investigate teachers` conceptions and practices of CLIL. The given framework integrates “content (subject matter), communication (language), cognition (learning and thinking) and culture (social awareness of self and ‘otherness’)” (Coyle, 2007, p. 550).
The analysis of teachers` conceptions and their classroom activities revealed that the subject teachers were mainly oriented on content as they were concerned about fulfilling content learning goals. The content prescribed by the curriculum and tasks drove the lesson development and implementation, and the general design of the observed L2 or L3 lessons, basically, did not differ from traditional non-CLIL classes. As to the communication aspect, the participating teachers did not see their role in explicit language instruction, but in the facilitation of students` language acquisition within their content. In fact, the teachers in the current study seemed to believe that language could be acquired naturalistically through content learning. Although the content of the NIS curriculum was demanding, the cognitive demand of tasks was not reduced for CLIL students because of language issues. To this end, teachers in this study implemented strategies and activities conductive to supporting students` comprehension. Culture was the component of the 4C framework which was less evident in the study. Although some attempts to increase intercultural awareness were evident during the observed classes, in interviews, teachers did not recall cultural aspect of CLIL as their focus of teaching.
Based on the analysis of the data, I can conclude that due to the low awareness of the theory, rationale, and pedagogical intentions behind CLIL, the participating teachers conceptualized it as using a second or third language as a medium of instruction which did not place any focus on the students’ language development. This implies that there is a need to effectively communicate the rationale for CLIL to the teachers, and to provide all teachers who deliver instruction in L2 and L3 with proper CLIL training.

Author

• Laura Karabassova, Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education