Teachers' perception on teaching science and mathematics in English

Author(s):

Ainur Seitinbetova(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 03 B, Exploring Beliefs, Perceptions and Attitudes

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

17:15-18:45

Room:

NM-Theatre N

Chair:

Pete Boyd

Contribution

The aim of the paper was to research the multilingual programme (MP) that some schools in Kazakhstan have provided since 1992. Specifically, it tried to identify the teachers’ perspective on the programme of teaching subjects like mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics and computer science in English. The issue that was raised in the paper is actual in Kazakhstan due to the educational reforms, specifically the implementation of trilingual education, and lack of scientific studies that can help to assist in implementing the trilingual education policy in the country.

The third language, in addition to Kazakh and Russian, was chosen to be English (MESRK, 20). Smagulova (2008) notes that the English language is the most studied language in Kazakhstan, which is believed to assist people to be economically successful and socially mobile. Accordingly, trilingual education is one of the educational reforms that is planned to lead the country to be competitive in the world arena (MESRK, 2007). The global trend of educating competitive citizens who will be highly employable in the job market (Baker & Wiseman, 2005) has also influenced Kazakhstan. This objective serves as a baseline for almost all educational reforms in the country (Smagulova, 2008).

As a help for the practitioners of MP Cummins (2000) proposed some concepts of learning and teaching a second language. One of them is his framework that helps to identify situations and dose of language and support for students who study in a second language. It is a diagram which consists of two axes: cognition and context. The vertical axe represents cognition which has two continua: cognitively undemanding and cognitively demanding, whereas the horizontal is called context that also has two continua: context embedded and context reduced. The diagram gives an overview for teaching in a foreign language. Researchers state (May, Hill, Tiakiwai,2004) that teachers in the MP have to acquire such knowledge in order to regulate their teaching.

Although the MPs have almost always existed since Kazakhstan became independent, the authorities in educational reforms of the country. Indeed, international studies show that studying issues in a local context can contribute to a successful application of innovations related to ME (Baker, 2001). Turner (2013) reports that after observing successful MPs, the European commission decided to adapt the existing practices. For instance, the commission looked for ways to make the Canadian version successful but in the context of Europe (Eurodyce, 2006). After some researches, the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programme was chosen to guide European countries (Coyle, 2005).

Nevertheless, Turner (2013) argues that there is a lot of work that needs to be done in order to make CLIL work effectively. Turner (2013) focuses on teachers’ preparation and development issues for MP. According to this author, the teachers of CLIL are still trying to learn what MP and CLIL are ‘on the job’ (Turner, 2012, p.5). On the other hand, Meiere (2010) reports that there are some universities in Germany that prepare teachers for working in MPs. In addition, it is critical to learn what teachers' views are of their practice in order to evaluate a programme (Kong, Hoare, Chi, 2012). As a researcher, the task was to identify to what extent the teachers of the target schools felt ready for teaching chemistry, biology, physics and math in English. Consequently, the research questions of my study were

1.To what extent are the teachers of the target schools prepared for teaching natural science and mathematics in English?

2. How does the teachers’ practice progress? That is, what kinds of challenges do they face in their practice and what types of strategies do they use?

3. Do the teachers focus on both language and content?

Method

The sample is composed of teachers who work in the target schools. The participants of the study are teachers of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology, who teach their subjects in English. For this research, an internet-based survey was adopted and official documents of the Ministry of Education of Kazakhstan and the target schools were analyzed. Regarding the questionnaire for the survey, it is acknowledged that the higher the quality of questions, the higher the quality of responses appears to be (Campbell, McNamara and Gilroy, 2004). The questionnaire by Kong and colleagues was chosen because it was designed from a wide range of relevant resources (Kong, Hoare ad Chi, 2011) including international literature in multilingual education programmes (MEP) and findings of Chinese training courses of MEP teachers. Secondly, apart from some examples of schools which apply multilingual education in the United States (Polat, 2010) where English is taught for the minority children, Kong, Hoare and Chi's (2011) study took place in schools where Chinese students received English language instruction. This case of a foreign language being taught to a majority population is analogous too. Finally, the appropriateness of the questions was discussed and decided with the help of a knowledgeable and professional person in the field of educational research. The questions of the survey were translated into the Kazakh language in case the respondents would have problems comprehending them in English. The first group of questions asked participants for demographic information. For instance, the teacher’s subject of teaching, gender, age, teaching experience in general and in MEP, a teaching qualification related to MEP, and certificates of English proficiency were sought. In the second subgroup of the questionnaire, the teachers shared their views about the objectives of multilingual education in their schools as well as their success in achieving those objectives. The third subgroup of items was considered to identify opinions about teachers' preparedness for teaching their subject content in English. The items in the fourth subgroup were related to the difficulties that teachers face while working in the MEP. The fifth and sixth subgroups of items were devoted to learning strategies that the teachers use in teaching their subjects in English and to support the teachers received from their administration, respectively.

Expected Outcomes

The results showed more teachers believe that they are not successful in teaching both goals of the MEP, which are teaching content and the language. The study also revealed that slightly more than half of the participants viewed their ability to teach their subjects in English as insufficient. Another issue of concern which came from the participants is the lack of a curricular guide. A considerable number of replies were related to the need for guidance for teaching their subjects in English. Concerning the challenges the teachers face, it can be concluded that most participants are struggling in integrating both content and language in their lessons as well as in using English all the time. From the number of strategies provided for rating their usefulness, most of the teachers found speaking slowly, clearly and in simple English, as well as using visual aids to teach their subjects in English useful. More than half of the participants found that the supports that their schools provide are useful. They also added some means of support that were not mentioned in the questionnaire like the examination of teachers’ content and language knowledge in order to keep the knowledge fresh. It was also interesting to find that some teachers, in the schools where the participants work, help other schools that plan to apply similar multilingual programmes. The majority of the participants did not have a special preparation for working in this programme. Namely, most of the teachers did not have English language competency certificates and appropriate professional education of teaching a non-language subject in a foreign language. But it is important to mention that the central office of the schools supports the teachers with the required knowledge in the courses that are presented.

References

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.Multilingual Matters. Coyle, D. (2005). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. Internationaljournalofbilingualeducationandbilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. Campbell, A., McNamara, O. and Gilroy, P., (2004). Practitioner Research Professional Development in Education. London. Kong, S., Hoare, P. and Chi, Y., 2011. Immersion education in China: Teachers’perspectives. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(1), pp.68–91. Meier, G. S. (2010). Two-way immersion education in Germany: bridging the linguistic gap. InternationalJournalofBilingualEducationand Bilingualism,13(4), 419-437. Ng, B. C., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007).Bilingualism: An advanced resource book. Taylor & Francis or Routledge. Polat, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of pre-and in-service teacher beliefs about readiness and self-competency: Revisiting teacher education for ELLs. System, 38(2), 228–244. Turner, M. (2013). CLIL in Australia: the importance of context. InternationalJournalofBilingualEducationandBilingualism, 16(4), 395-410.

Author Information

Ainur Seitinbetova (presenting / submitting)

State school

The English language

Taraz

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.