In the context of Kazakhstan's transition to learning and teaching of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in English in secondary schools, the issue of both the linguistic approach and academic subject language is still acute. It is important that graduates of teacher training universities are able to integrate content and language teaching and become language-sensitive in their approach (Busse, 2012). Despite some positive changes in development of English in Kazakhstani schools, preparing pre-service teachers ready to deliver STEM subjects in English, including Chemistry, is still a thorny issue.

We believe that the integration of IBL (inquiry-based learning) and CLIL will help support students in developing their skills in teaching chemistry in English for several reasons:

First, inquiry-based learning will help motivate the pre-service teachers to teach chemistry in English because this approach allows students to adapt part of their learning experience to their interests (Saunders-Stewart et al., 2012). This is confirmed by the studies conducted by (Aksela & Boström, 2012; Anthonissen, 2018; Bayram et al., 2013; Pilcher et al., 2015).

Secondly, IBL will ensure the involvement of pre-service chemistry teachers in a dialogue learning in the subject-pedagogical field, while implementing the ‘inquiry cycle’ (Pedaste et al., 2015).  Saunders-Stewart et al. (Saunders-Stewart et al., 2012) believe that "Learning is optimal when people interact through dialogue, ask questions, and actively build their own knowledge." 

Thirdly, IBL aims to develop metacognitive skills and a deep academic understanding of the subject by students, which is inextricably linked to the development of CLIL academic language and classroom discourse. According to Meyer et al. (Meyer et al., 2015), deep academic understanding cannot happen without the proper use of academic language. By involving students in intellectually demanding work, the teacher creates a genuine need for students to master the relevant language (Smith & Paterson, 1998) in natural integration with the content.

  The 4C Model proposed by Coyle (1999), a holistic conceptual framework for CLIL, combines various aspects related to learning by CLIL: content (subject), communication (language for learning and application), cognition (learning and thinking) and culture (social awareness of oneself and others). This model allows to support novice CLIL teachers in organizing and planning lessons in the required language, to create CLIL classrooms (Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2006). 

A battery of researches has shown that directives are the most common types of speech acts in the classrooms (Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2006; Fadhil, 2018; He, 2000; Manke, 1997). In accordance with Searle's taxonomy of speech acts (Ellis, 1992; Searle, 1969), directives guide the listener either to take action or to finish action. Directive speech actions occur in the classroom between teacher and students, and among students in a regulatory or learning (instructive) register. 

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of the integration of CLIL and IBL on the number and purpose of the directives used in English by pre-service chemistry teachers and their students. Since questions are an integral part of the directives as requests for information (Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2006), for the present study, the cognitive level of asking questions by pre-service teachers and their students using Bloom's taxonomy was considered.

The study focused on the following research questions:

Does the integration of CLIL and IBL methods in teaching pre-service chemistry teachers affect the number, purpose of directives and cognitive level of their questions asked in the classroom?

Does the integration of CLIL and IBL methods applied by pre-service teachers in the classroom affect the number, purpose of directives and the cognitive level of questions that their students ask?

The study was aimed at exploring the impact of CLIL and IBL integration on the number and purpose of the directives used by the 27 pre-service chemistry teachers from local pedagogical university and their 132 students in English. The study was conducted during the internship of pre-service teachers at school in two groups: teachers taught students by the integration of CLIL and IBL (group 1) and teachers taught students only by the CLIL methodology (group 2). The integration of CLIL and IBL was carried out in the process of teaching the course “Learning and Teaching Chemistry in English”. The training was carried out for 10 months. The predicted result of this course was the development of students' readiness to design a lesson and communicate with students and teachers using academic English. The teaching in the class took place over a two-month period of practice at school. Pre-service teachers taught Chemistry in English to 132 eleven grade students (aged 16-17). All pre-service teachers and students were native speakers of the Kazakh or Russian languages. The English language proficiency level of the future teachers and students was measured at the beginning of the teaching apprenticeship at school. Pre-service teachers taught 11 grades in 12 mini groups, where chemistry is delivered in English. The teaching of chemistry by the future teachers during the period of practice at school was carried out on three topics: Bonding, Energetics, and Kinetics. These topics involve 12 laboratory and practical work. The study applied an integrated qualitative and quantitative methods. During the study, 54 lessons were observed and recorded on audio tape and analyzed: 28 chemistry lessons in the first group and 26 chemistry lessons in the second group of the pre-service teachers. The analysis of the lessons was carried out by four experts in English and Chemistry. Each recorded lesson was reviewed and analyzed by at least two experts - a language and subject teacher. Differing views about the classification of directives or whether the speech acts were directive or not were discussed and a consensus was arrived at. The analysis of the collected data was carried out by using the program for statistical information processing IBM SPSS Statistics 26 and Microsoft Excel. To identify the differences in English levels and to test the significant relationship between two groups of the pre-service teachers taught by different methods, the chi-square Pearson test was used.

Analysis of the obtained data showed a fairly frequent use of directives in the classroom. On average, a teacher expressed 51 directives per lesson and students 28 times. The intensity of instructional directives for students and teachers per lesson was 38, and that of regulatory directives was 40. Students and teachers in the second group expressed fewer learning and regulatory directives as compared to teachers and students in the first group. Of the 4229 directives that were recorded in the analysis of 52 lessons, only 22.4% of the directives belonged to teachers and 14.7% to students of the second group. The percentage of higher and lower order questions from all learning directives for pre-service teachers of the first group was 88.6%, and for teachers of the second group was 85.8%. This means that, in addition to questions, the pre-service teachers used other speech acts in the lesson, such as advice, requests, warnings. A high percentage of questions among all learning directives suggests that when designing and delivering lessons, the pre-service teachers of groups 1 and 2 were focused on developing students' cognitive skills at various levels. Pre-service teachers, who learnt the integration of CLIL and IBL, used these skills in their teaching practice and built lessons around these two innovative approaches using instructional inquiry. Thus, the results of the study confirmed that the integration of two innovative approaches CLIL and IBL in teaching the pre-service teachers contributes to an increase in the number of directives in the classrooms, the speech activity of teachers themselves and their students, and the cognitive depth of the formulated questions. So, in the context of transition to teaching science subjects in English, an effective way of training the future specialists can be the integration of CLIL and IBL in the content, language and methodological areas.

Aksela, M. K., & Boström, M. (2012). Supporting Students’ Interest through Inquiry-Based Learning in the Context of Fuel Cells. International Journal of Education, 2, 53–61. Anthonissen, B. (2018). Supporting student teachers in designing IBL-lessons Supporting student teachers in designing IBL-lessons. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1573–1774, 1–38. Bayram, Z., Oskay, Ö. Ö., Erdem, E., Özgür, S. D., & Şen, Ş. (2013). Effect of Inquiry based Learning Method on Students’ Motivation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 988–996. Busse, V. (2012). Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. System, 40(2), 316–318. Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. Learning through a Foreign Language, 46–62. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of Content-based Instruction: Teacher and Student Directives in Finnish and Austrian Classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 241–267. Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to Communicate in the Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1–23. Fadhil, A. (2018). A Pragmatic Study of Speech Acts in School Speeches. Manke, M. (1997). Classroom Power Relations. Routledge. Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Slater, T. (2010). Assessing Language and Content: A Functional Perspective. In Testing the untestable in language education (pp. 219–242). Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. Pilcher, L. A., Riley, D. L., Mathabathe, K. C., & Potgieter, M. (2015). An inquiry-based practical curriculum for organic chemistry as preparation for industry and postgraduate research. South African Journal of Chemistry, 68, 236–244. Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student Outcomes in Inquiry Instruction. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 5–31. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. In The Philosophical Quarterly (Vol. 20, Issue 79). Cambridge University Press. Smith, J., & Paterson, F. (1998). Positiveli Bilingual: Classroom Strategies to Promote the Achievement of Bilingual Learners. Nottingham Education Authority.