“The practitioners’ perceptions of curriculum internationalisation in a Kazakhstani secondary school”.

Yemini (2012) argues that with increasing globalisation and the demand of Higher Education internationalisation it seems inadequate to demand for internationalisation only in tertiary education. Internationalisation should be a logical flow starting from secondary education (or even earlier) gradually transiting into higher education. Schools have a big power and resources to promote international and intercultural education (Loveland, Miyakawa & Hirayama, 2004).

It can be argued that schools are supposed to educate patriots of their own country which contradicts the essence of international and global education. Moreover, student and staff mobility which is one of the main characteristics of international schools (Hayden & Wong, 1997) cannot be achieved in most of the public schools. Yemini (2014) argues that internationalisation of curriculum and activities is more important than students’ mobility in the context of secondary education.

Curriculum internationalisation is a significant aspect of “internationalisation at home” project (Nilsson, 2000, p.22).

The government of Kazakhstan invests big amounts of money into education development. The educational reforms in 2000s have been guided by the annual addresses of the President of Kazakhstan. In one of his addresses, Nazarbayev (2007) states that the educational reform can be claimed successful only when Kazakhstani graduates can find a job in any country in the world.

Kelly (1990) states that an internationalised curriculum is a total programme of the school, not just a syllabus. This means the planned academic curriculum, the hidden curriculum (social, cultural and political messages), the informal curriculum (extracurricular activities), and the actual/received curriculum.

This research aims at answering the question:

How is curriculum internationalisation perceived by the practitioners in a Kazakhstani secondary school?

For the purposes of this case study, I define internationalisation as the inclusion of global and intercultural dimensions into the curriculum (provision of international education) with the purpose of transforming a national school into an internationally-minded school. An internationalised curriculum is aimed at preparing the students to live and work in the multicultural and interconnected world. This definition is preliminary as I hope the definition of curriculum internationalisation will emerge from the data gathered at the school.

There are 2 global or intercultural dimensions which are considered to be prominent in curriculum internationalisation: multilingualism and intercultural competence (Rizvi, 2015; Hayden, Levy & Thompson, 2007, 2015; Carder, 2007; DiYanni, 2007; Byram & Grundy, 2002; Byram, 1997). They are 2 topics that I build the interviews around. I am also open to other emerging aspects of curriculum internationalisation suggested by the interviewees.

Talking about multilingualism, it is worthy to mention that according to the Law on languages (1997), Kazakh is the state language, whereas Russian is an official language used on a par with Kazakh. The Concept of Secondary Schools of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1996) requires each citizen of Kazakhstan to know Kazakh, Russian and a foreign language.

As for intercultural competence, it is defined as “the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioural orientations to the world” (Spitzberg and Changnon, 2009). We can conclude from this definition that intercultural competence is required not only between the people of different nationalities but it can also happen within the culture of the same nation. That is why, it can be argued that intercultural competence can be achieved even in a national school where there is not much national diversity in staff and students.

1. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2. Carder, M. (2007). Bilingualism in international schools: a model for enriching language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 3. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th edn.). London & New York: Routledge. 4. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among 5 approaches (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2008). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues (pp.1-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 6. Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2005). The interview: from neutral stance to political involvement In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.). Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp.695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 7. Hayden, M. & Wong, C. (1997). The International Baccalaureate: international education and cultural preservation. Educational Studies, 23 (3), pp.349-361. 8. Hayden, M., Levy, J. & Thompson, J. (Eds.). (2015). The SAGE handbook of research in international education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. 9. Kelly, A.V. (2004). The curriculum: theory and practice (5th edn). London: Sage Publications. 10. Kvale, S. (2008). Doing interviews. London: Sage Publications. 11. Loveland, T., Miyakawa, H., & Hirayama, Y. (2004). International collaboration in secondary level education. Journal of Technology Studies, 30 (3), 10-19. 12. Nazarbayev, N. (2007). New Kazakhstan in the new world. Retrieved from http://www.embkazjp.org/additionalpages/newkazakhstan.htm 13. Nilsson, B. (2000). Internationalising the curriculum In M., Joris, M., Otten, B., Nilsson, H., Teekens & B. Wächter (Eds.). Internationalisation at home: a position paper (pp. 21-26). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. 14. Rizvi, F. (2015). Internationalisation of curriculum: a critical perspective In M., Hayden, J. Levy, & J. Thompson, (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of research in international education (pp. 337-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. 15. Spitzberg, B.H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing multicultural competence In D.K. Deardorff (Ed.) Handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. 16. Yemini, M. (2012). Internationalization assessment in schools: theoretical contributions and practical implications. Journal of Research in International Education, 11(2), 152-164. 17. Yemini, M. (2014). Internationalization of Secondary Education—Lessons From Israeli Palestinian-Arab Schools in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Urban Education, 49 (5), 471-498. 18. Yin, R.K. (2009) Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: California: Sage Publications.