CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING (CLIL) AND THE MULTILINGUAL TURN: A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON TRANSLANGUAGING IN MULTILINGUAL SCHOOLS IN KAZAKHSTAN

Abstract

Since the 1990s, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) shifted from a well-recognized construct for promoting language teaching into a language-diversity-oriented approach. The adaptation of CLIL to linguistically and culturally diverse contexts made CLIL teachers use flexible, different linguistic practices in the classrooms, which are affected by the multilingual turn and translanguaging. However, through the lens of the multilingual turn in education and the benefits of the translanguaging pedagogy, the trilingual policy in Kazakhstan prescribes a monolingual-oriented policy - one subject/one language. Hence, one subject/one language policy compartmentalizes three languages (Kazakh, Russian and English), and contradicts the multilingual turn phenomenon and translanguaging pedagogy, which has been prompted in language education in the last two decades. Guided by Coyle’s (2008) 4Cs (i.e., Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture). in the implementation of CLIL and Baker’s (2001) principles of translanguaging in language education, this qualitative study explored the extent to which translanguaging is incorporated at one of the Kazakhstani high selective schools for the gifted (Bilim Innovation Lyceums-BIL) in CLIL classrooms. More precisely, this study sought to answer the following research questions: RQ1. How do a group of secondary school STEM teachers conceptualize CLIL in multilingual schools? RQ2. What are the participants’ views on translanguaging? and RQ3. How do the participants implement translanguaging in their CLIL classes? The data were collected from 6 secondary school teachers using the following research methods: lesson observation, semi-structured individual interviews, and document analysis. Clarke and Braun’s (2013) guidelines for employing thematic analysis were used to analyze the data collected. The findings of this research revealed that in practice, almost all participants’ CLIL lessons were content driven in which they tended to practice good methods for successful content delivery. However, language focus seemed to be limited to multilingual glossaries. Regarding the participants’ views towards translanguaging, it was revealed that the views were ambiguous since the participants sometimes preferred to use L1 for meaning making but pursue the goal of one subject/one language. From this qualitative study, pedagogical implications and areas for ongoing research are suggested.