Research Article

Content and Language Integrated Learning Practices in Kazakhstan Secondary Schools During COVID-19 Pandemic

Gulzhana Kuzembayeva 1 * , Akmaral Umarova 2 , Zhumagul Maydangalieva 3 , Olga Gorbatenko 4 , Elena Kalashnikova 4 , Nadezhda Kalmazova 5 , Oksana Chigisheva 6 7
More Detail
1 Department of English and German Languages, K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan2 Department of Russian Language and Literature, Institute of Philology and Multilingual Education, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan3 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Baishev University, Aktobe, Kazakhstan4 Law Institute, Department of Foreign Languages, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia5 Department of Foreign Languages, Law Institute, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia6 Department of Education and Pedagogical Sciences, Academy of Psychology and Pedagogy, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia7 Chair on Global Education, Institute for Strategy of Education Development of the Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(2), April 2022, ep362, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11733
Published: 11 February 2022
OPEN ACCESS   2663 Views   1646 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

A case study was initiated from the perspective of three research questions: 1) CLIL teachers’ practices at secondary schools of Aktobe during COVID-19 pandemic; 2) challenges for the teachers; 3) support provided for the teachers. The research methodology combined face-to-face personal interviews, and non-participant observation. Data analysis was conducted in line with Mayring’s (2020) approach to content analysis and by means of categorization into specific themes that emerge from teachers’ conceptualization of their CLIL practices. The analysis of teachers’ reflections on their experiences and challenges of using the CLIL approach during the pandemic, support provided to them and teachers’ attitudes towards the approach is presented in the paper. Research data on the secondary schools Science teachers’ CLIL practices in a remote learning setting was categorized related preparation to teaching, resources used by the teachers, students’ interaction during the lessons, and stakeholders’ attitudes and perceptions of the approach. The obtained data enables to understand Science teachers’ practices in terms of using the CLIL approach in Kazakhstani secondary schools in the period of COVID-19 pandemic, and will contribute to teacher development and preparation for successful CLIL realization in a non-traditional classroom.
Keywords: EFL, CLIL, science classroom, Kazakhstan, language policy, secondary school, pandemic, COVID-19, remote learning

CITATION (APA)

Kuzembayeva, G., Umarova, A., Maydangalieva, Z., Gorbatenko, O., Kalashnikova, E., Kalmazova, N., & Chigisheva, O. (2022). Content and Language Integrated Learning Practices in Kazakhstan Secondary Schools During COVID-19 Pandemic. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(2), ep362. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11733

REFERENCES

  1. Birdsell, B. J. (2020). A review of the critical literature on CLIL and steps to move Japan CLIL forward. The Journal of the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association, 2, 110-126.
  2. Birdsell, B. J. (2021). CLIL in the times of COVID-19: Content, communication, and creative cognition in remote learning. The Journal of the Japan CLIL Pedagogy Association, 3, 134-149.
  3. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in language acquisition. Edinburgh UP.
  4. Bonnet, A. (2009). Die dokumentarische methode in der empirishen unterrichtsforshung. Ein integratives forshungsinstrument fur strukturrekonstruktion und kompetenzanalyse [The documentary method in empirical educational research. An integrative research tool for structural reconstruction and competency analysis]. Zeitschrift fur qualitative Forschung, 10(2), 223-240.
  5. Breidbach, S., & Medina-Suárez, J. (2014). Teachers’ perspectives on CLIL and classroom innovation in a method based on drama games. Estudios Sobre Educación, 31, 97-116. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.31.97-116
  6. Capone, R., Del Sorbo, M. R., & Fiore, O. (2017). A flipped experience in physics education using CLIL methodology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 6579-6582. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/77044
  7. Chigisheva, O., Soltovets, E., Dmitrova, A., Akhtyan, A. G., Litvinova, S. N., & Chelysheva, Y. V. (2021). Digital literacy and its relevance to comparative education researchers: Outcomes of SciVal analytics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(10), em2017. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11183
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
  9. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20
  10. Demetriou, H. (2013). The case study (2nd ed.). In E. Wilson (Eds.), School-based research: A guide for education students. Sage.
  11. Goris, J. A. (2009). English in mainstream European secondary schools: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols-Martin, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 28-33). University of Jyväskylä.
  12. Heller, M., & Martin-Jones M. (2001). Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference. Ablex Publishing.
  13. Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
  14. Jimenez Catalan, R. M., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL. Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe. Multulingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691675-008
  15. Karabassova, L. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization of content and language integrated learning (CLIL): evidence from a trilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(7), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1550048
  16. Koopman, G. J., Skeet, J., & de Graaff, R. (2014). Exploring content teachers’ knowledge of language pedagogy: A report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889974
  17. Kuzembayeva, G., Karimsakova, A., & Kupenova, A. (2018). Trilingualism in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingual Education, 11, 87-90. https://doi.org/10.22333/ijme.2018.110013
  18. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key finding form Andalusian sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418-428. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp041
  19. Mahan, K. R., Brevik, L. M., & Ødegaard, M. (2018). Characterizing CLIL teaching: New insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206
  20. Martín Rojo, L. (2010). Constructing inequality in multilingual classrooms. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226645
  21. Massler, U. (2012). Primary CLIL and its stakeholders: What children, parents and teachers think of the potential merits and pitfalls of CLIL modules in primary teaching. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 36-46.
  22. Mayring, P. (2020). Qualitative content analysis: Demarcation, varieties, developments. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3343
  23. Mehisto, P., Kambatyrova, A., & Nurseitova, A. (2014). Three in one? Trilingualism in educational policy and practice. In D. Bridges (Eds.). Educational reform and internationalization: The case of school reform in Kazakhstan. Cambridge University Press.
  24. NIS. (2014). Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools: Godovoy otchet 2013. http://nis.edu.kz/ru/about/reports/?id=2815
  25. Oattes, H., Oostdam, R., de Graaff, R., Fukkink, R., & Wilschut, A. (2018). Content and Language Integrated Learning in Dutch bilingual education. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 156-176. https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18003.oat
  26. Patiño-Santos, A. (2016). Etnografía y sociolingüística [Ethnography and sociolinguistics]. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica [Encyclopedia of hispanic linguistics]. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713441-6
  27. Pavenkov, O., & Pavenkova, M. (2016). Discourse analysis based on Martin and Rose's taxonomy: a case of promoting student discourse on the CLIL PhD programme in religion philosophy. Revista Electrónica Espacio Teológico, 10(17), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.21710/rch.v17i0.288
  28. Pavenkova, M., Pavenkov, O., & Pavenkov, V. (2018). English, Russian and Russian English in Russia: CLIL and non-CLIL students’ opinion in St. Petersburg. Revista Científica Hermes, 20, 133-152. https://doi.org/10.21710/rch.v20i0.340
  29. Pladevall-Ballester, E. & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills. System, 58, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.009
  30. Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity. Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486722
  31. Riessman, C. K. (2005). Narrative analysis. In N. Kelly, C. Horrocks, K. Milnes, B. Roberts, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Narrative, memory & everyday life. University of Huddersfield.
  32. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2013). Qualitative research practice – A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.
  33. Sharipbayeva, А. К. (2017). Deficiency of the trilingual education reform in Kazakhstan: Problems and prospects. Molodoi uchenyi, 10.1(144.1), 102-105.
  34. Soltovets, E., Chigisheva, O., Dubover, D., & Dmitrova, A. (2021). Russian digital education landscape during the current pandemic: is the impact felt? E3S Web of Conferences, 273, 12026. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202127312026
  35. Tkáčová, H., Pavlíková, M., Tvrdoň, M., & Prokopyev, A.I. (2021). Existence and prevention of social exclusion of religious university students due to stereotyping. Bogoslovni Vestnik, 81(1),199-223. https://doi.org/10.34291/BV2021/01/Tkacova
  36. Tugun, V., Bayanova, A. R., Erdyneeva, K. G., Mashkin, N. A., Sakhipova, Z. M., & Zasova, L. V. (2020). The opinions of technology supported education of university students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(23), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i23.18779
  37. Van Kampen, E., Admiraal, W., & Berry, A. (2018). Content and language integrated learning in the Netherlands: Teachers’ self-reported pedagogical practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1154004
  38. Varghese, M. (2004). Professional development for bilingual teachers in the United States: A site for articulating and contesting professional roles. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2/3), 222-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050408667810
  39. Villabona, N., & Cenoz, J. (2021). The integration of content and language in CLIL: A challenge for content-driven and language-driven teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2021.1910703
  40. Wang, L., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2015). Trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools: An overview. Multilingual Education, 5, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13616-015-0023-8
  41. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.