Әлеуметтік желілердегі коммуникация жоғары оқу орнын алға
бастыру құралы ретінде (Павлодар облысының ЖОО-ның тәлімінде)
Иннновациялық Еуразия университеті, Павлодар қ.
28.12.15 баспаға түсті.
A. V. Aliyassova
Communication in social networks as a tool of higher institutions (on
the base of Pavlodar region higher education institutions)
Innovative University of Eurasia, Pavlodar.
Received on 28.12.15.
Осы мақаланың мақсаты жоғары оқу орындарын алға бастыру
құралы болып табылатын, әлеуметтік желілерде коммуникацияларды
зертеуде тұжырымдалады. Мақалада әлеуметтік желілердің
жоғары оқу орнының имиджін қалыптастырудағы олардың әсер
ету ұстанымындағы зерттеулері ұсынылған. Павлодар облысы
университеттерінің коммуникативті қызметі үлгі ретінде болып
табылады, нақтырақ айтқанда ЖОО-ның түрлі әлеуметтік
желілердегі маркетингтік ұсынылуы мен тиімділігі.
The purpose of this article is to study communication in social
networks, which is a tool for promoting higher education. The paper
presents the study of social networks in terms of their influence on the
formation of higher education institution image. The example is the
communicative activity of universities of Pavlodar region, and a marketing
representation and effectiveness of higher education institutions in a variety
of social networks.
UDC 378.147:81.243
A. V. Aliyassova
candidate of philological sciences, acting assistant professor, Innovative University
of Eurasia, Pavlodar
e-mail: beibarys@mail.ru
INTEGRATING READING AND WRITING
INTO THE CONTEXT OF CLIL CLASSROOM:
SOME PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS
The aim of this article is to explore the potential of integrated reading
and writing activities within the CLIL classroom from the perspective of
the students’ linguistic achievements. The paper presents a case study of 1
semester-long project involving 19 undergraduate students of Economics,
who were offered CLIL classes as an alternative to a traditional EFL course.
These CLIL students were learning Organization of promotional activities
through English as an instructional medium. More importantly, systematic
text-responsible writing assignments were incorporated into the framework
of the CLIL formula, and it is assumed that such a variable contributed to the
effectiveness of this course in terms of foreign language competence growth.
Keywords: reading, text-responsible writing, compare, contrast,
effectiveness.
Promoting reading comprehension and focusing on writing are considered
highly significant in CLIL methodology (Wolff, 2005, 16). In this article we
Вестник ПГУ, ISSN: 1811-1823. Серия филологическая. №1. 2016
ПМУ Хабаршысы
40
41
concentrate on the integration of reading and writing, as this approach has major
implications for the CLIL classroom.
Integrated reading and writing activities brings benefits to the learner with
respect to both content learning and language learning processes. The advantages
of integrated reading and writing activities in reference to content learning are as
follows: reading texts from a given discipline provides information that can be later
used in written production, and therefore contributes to revision and consolidation
of content material. Additionally, the necessity of selecting information in the
writing practice helps students develop critical thinking skills.
There is also one important quality of these kind of activities – writing
becomes text-responsible. Carson and Leki (1997, 41) define this category of
a writing task as a task in which “the writers are responsible for demonstrating
an understanding of the source text […], they must produce text-responsible
prose based on content acquired primarly from text”. The sources from which
the students are expected to gain and possibly demonstrate knowledge include
books, articles, lectures, etc. The fact that content correctness of the produced text
becomes evaluated is absolutely crucial for content learning – text-responsible
writing not only helps to adjust material, but it also requires accuracy, precision
and correctness. Carson and Leki (1997, 51) furthermore stress that there are
disappointing consequences if writing is separated from text responsibility,
especially on English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses where content is
treated only as a material for practising some rhetorical skills, reasoning skills or
problem-solving skills. In the CLIL classroom this situation can be easily fulfilled
as there is a double focus on both language and content learning, and as CLIL
teachers usually have both content and language competences.
To sum up: text-responsible writing is beneficial for students in reference to
content learning as well as language learning processes, and it may be understood
that the CLIL classroom provides excellent opportunities for such an integration
of reading and writing tasks.
One of the realistic solutions of integrating reading and writing activities
presented here is constructing comparison/contrast essays. Comparing and
contrasting is a typical academic task and one of the popular rhetorical techniques
found in academic texts. An ability to compare and contrast ideas or topics is a
vital part of students’ conceptual and metacognitive knowledge.
A typical task of writing a comparison/contrast essay starts with students
reading two descriptive source texts, then selecting the main ideas along with
supporting details, and finally, comparing and contrasting those two topics with
attention paid to similarities and differences. Usually five basic qualities of a
comparison/contrast essay are defined: comparing and contrasting two ideas;
explaining the similarities between ideas; explaining the differences between
ideas; using such expressions as: alike, different, but etc. within the text; adjusting
the text to the rhetorical structure of comparison/contrast essay (introduction,
similarities, differences, conclusion, applying the rule of parallel construction).
There are a number of benefits that students can get from writing comparison/
contrast essays. First of all, organizing information according to similarities and
differences may be one of the most effective learning strategies (Hammann, 2002). It
is due to the fact that a structural organization of a given text influences the amount
of information we remember after reading it. Similar results are provided by the
research made by Carrell (1987) in which she investigates the influence of various
text organizational patterns on the effectiveness of information encoding and recall.
We can also highlight some practical advantages from applying the
comparison-contrast rhetorical structure to the CLIL classroom. First, it is a fairly
general model that can be used with regard to various subjects, as well as a wide
choice of ideas, topics, documents.
Secondly, the comparison/contrast model allows the teacher to create some
fresh perspectives on subjects that may stimulate students’ interests and lead to
thought stimulating discussions and interesting conclusions. It thus enhances the
students’ inspiration and lowers the risk of acts of plagiarism.
Thirdly, the comparison/contrast model is very practical for the teacher
with respect to class materials accessibility – for comparing and contrasting, it is
sufficient to present the students with two descriptive passages.
And, finally, the comparison/contrast model is evaluated by researchers as the
most difficult rhetorical model with reference to its organizational requirement. It is
therefore a challenge for the students and helps them develop good writing habits.
Within the theoretical agenda outlined above the following research question
was posed: will the experimental (CLIL) group - characterized by systematic text-
responsible writing of comparison/contrast essays - make significant progress in
developing selected skills and grammatical competence in relation to the control
group attending a traditional EFL course?
Our research was conducted at Innovative University of Eurasia in Pavlodar,
Kazakhstan during the 2014/2015 academic year. The CLIL group (19 second-year
undergraduate students of Economics) was studying Organization of promotional
activities in English. The time exposure variable regarding classes taught through
English for the group was 150 minutes per week during 1 semester (45 hours in
total for the whole course).
The same number of contact hours was allocated to the control group
(28 second-year undergraduate students of Economics).
The participants from both experimental and control group were randomly
selected out of a larger population of all the students enrolled at the second year
of the studies. Both groups were comparable in terms of age and educational
background: the students were generally 19 – 20 years old. They mostly came
from one city and had attended the same secondary schools found in the local area.
Вестник ПГУ, ISSN: 1811-1823. Серия филологическая. №1. 2016
ПМУ Хабаршысы
42
43
Furthermore, we may assume that they were on a comparable level of English
language proficiency when starting their studies as they all had at least 7 years of
obligatory English language training at the lower and higher secondary school.
The CLIL group worked with a variety of course resources such as:
academic textbooks; Internet resources; handouts prepared by the teacher with
explicit instruction on academic writing (with reference to Leki, 1998); and
selected grammar exercises. Furthermore, the experimental students’ work was
organized into collaborative tasks and individual activities. Examples of students’
collaborative work would be the following: adapting texts from the Internet to
the form of reading exercises (i.e. gap-filling, true or false statements, completing
texts with missing words/paragraphs, comprehension questions); presenting
viewpoints; class debates and discussions; preparing vocabulary quizzes, etc.
The experimental students’ individual work included reading the texts assigned
for each class (4-6 pages on average); writing summaries of original documents;
and, as a systematic homework assignment, writing comparison/contrast essays
(approximately 400 words).
The CLIL group classes were generally organized according to the following
stages:
1. Feedback:
– discussing homework essays;
– grammatical or lexical instruction as feedback to students’ written
production.
2. Presentation of the new topic:
– presenting summaries of assigned reading passages by the students;
– explaining new vocabulary.
3. Practice of content and language elements:
– reading exercises (text linked with the content topic) along with language
exercises prepared by the teacher or by the students;
– practising new vocabulary in context.
4.Production:
– discussing examples of criteria for comparison/contrast in class; writing
essays based on texts from textbook and other sources – as homework.
At the beginning of the semester a few contact hours were devoted to explicit
teaching of some elements of academic writing as well as to explicit teaching of
the structure of comparison/contrast essays.
The control group students were following an obligatory foreign language
course, which was a part of their studies programme. In Kazakhstan, at BA level,
such a course generally involves 150 contact hours in total; it is usually a traditional
English as a Foreign Language (EFL), or – in fewer cases – an English for special
purposes (ESP) course, followed by a final exam. The course programme material
is usually individually selected by a teacher. The control group students were
attending an EFL course, which meant doing reading exercises such as gap-filling,
true or false statements, comprehension questions, multiple choice questions, etc.
Also there was a strong emphasis on practising grammatical structures, which
mostly involved working with tests, such as Use of English. There was also an
extended writing component. The control group students were expected to produce
a selection of 10 essays (mostly narratives or opinion essays on general topics)
during their course.
The aim of data collecting stage was to evaluate the students’ achievement
and progress in selected English language skills. The instruments used to measure
students’ academic reading and academic writing skills were the standard tests
from respective sections of Cambridge ESOL exam, IELTS. The development of
grammatical competence was evaluated through the results of the Use of English
test of Certificate of Advanced English. The testing was carried out in two sessions:
at the beginning and at the end of the course.
When comparing the pre-testing and post-testing results of the experimental
group and control group, the students achieved the following test results (see
Table 1).
Table 1 – Pre- and post-testing results: the experimental group and the control
group.
group
Academic
reading
pre-test
results
Academic
reading
post-test
results
Academic
writing
pre-test
results
Academic
writing
post-test
results
Use of
English
pre-test
results
Use of
English
post-test
results
The
experimental
CLIL group
56 %
77 %
59 %
83 %
34 %
52 %
The control
group
50 %
51 %
53 %
52 %
35 %
39 %
Progress made by the experimental group and the control group is seen in
Table 2.
Table 2 – Progress results of experimental and control groups
Group
Progress in
AR
Progress in
AW
Progress in Use of
English
The mean of experimental groups 21 %
24 %
18 %
The mean of control group
1 %
-1 %
4 %
The data collected suggests the following experiment results. The experimental
(CLIL) group has made considerable progress in the case of Academic Reading
test 21 %; in the Academic Writing test 24 % and finally, in the Use of English test
Вестник ПГУ, ISSN: 1811-1823. Серия филологическая. №1. 2016
ПМУ Хабаршысы
44
45
18 %. The control group’s results illustrate minimal progress as those students’
results seem to be very low: only 1 % in case of the Academic Reading test; -1 % in
case of the Academic Writing component and 4 % in case of the Use of English test.
One of the rationales behind the achievement of CLIL is to provide
opportunities for specific forms of target language usage and development.
One of the CLIL objectives viewed as leading to forms of added value is the
Language Dimension (see Marsh et al. 2001.) Here CLIL is aimed at improving
general English language competence. This results of the experiment propose
that systematic text-responsible writing contributed to the effectiveness of the
course attended by the experimental (CLIL) group in relation to target language
competence gains – the students who attended CLIL classes for 1 semester
(60 hours in total) made significant progress in development of academic reading
and writing skills, and grammatical competence.
It is highly probable that the following factors contributed to the effectiveness
of this method:
1. In-depth processing of information resulting from text-responsible writing:
To write an essay the students had to select and recap relevant information from
other texts, which may have supported the process of encoding of new lexical
items, grammatical structures, etc.
2. Organizing and restructuring information: The students had to categorize
the selected information according to the structural requirements of the new text.
Texts alteration processes may have helped the students obtain and observe new
lexical items and grammatical structures.
3. Efficiency in the written form: Concentrating upon written instead of
spoken production helped to make the classes more effective with regard to
the linguistic gains. Written production not only makes students process the
information both semantically and syntactically, but it also allows enough time
for better concentration and thus invites correctness, reflectivity and autonomy,
which supports effective learning.
4. Thematically-coherent writing and reading activities: important textual
content helped the students enlarge cognitive structures, accumulate knowledge
and engage in systematic practice which helped develop discourse skills and
acquire specific vocabulary.
Furthermore, when analyzing the outcome of our research, the results of the
control group students whose systematic writing was neither text-responsible nor
thematically coherent do not match the achievements made by the CLIL group.
The progress made by the control group is clearly lower in spite of the same time
exposure as well as comparable amount of written production (10 texts per the
whole course). We may assume that it is the writing of text-responsible essays
(based on textual transformations and in-depth processing) that particularly
contributes to the effective language learning.
To sum up, the results of our project suggest that incorporating regular
text-responsible writing practice into the CLIL programme may increase the
effectiveness of this innovative approach with regard to development of such
linguistic skills as reading and writing, as well as the development of grammatical
competence in the target language. We may stress that the CLIL principle provides
a very suitable educational context for a natural integration of thematically-
coherent and text-responsible writing.
Although we have not assessed the content learning results, we may assume
on the basis of the theoretical framework that the comparison/contrast model
facilitated content acquisition. We may also suggest other rhetorical models to
be incorporated in CLIL classroom.
REFERENCES
1 Carrell, P. Content and formal schemata in ESL reading, TESOL Quarterly
21(3), 1987. –P. 461-481.
2 Carson, J. & Leki, I. Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing
experiences of ESL students in university courses, TESOL Quarterly 31 (1),
1997. – P. 39-69.
3 Dutro, S., & Moran, C. Rethinking English language instruction: An
architectural approach, in G. Garcia (ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest
level of English literacy, International Reading Association. – Newark : DE, 2003.
4 Hammann, L. A. Teaching compare-contrast writing in the 21st century.
– Ohio Reading Teacher, 2002.
5 Hammann, L. A. & Stevens, R. J. Instructional approaches to improving
students’ writing of compare-contrast essays: an experimental study, Journal of
Literacy Research 35, 2003. – P. 731-756.
6 Marsh, D., Maljers, A. & Hartiala, A-K. (eds.) Profiling European
Classrooms. – University of Jyväskylä, 2001.
7 Wolff, D. Approaching CLIL, in Project D3 - CLIL Matrix - Central
workshop report 6/2005, Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages,
2005,. – P. 10-25. – Accessed [23.04. 2006] www.ecml.at
Received on 25.01.16.
А. В. Алиясова
CLIL оқыту тұрғысында оқу және жазу интеграциясы: кейбір
практикалық шешімдері
Инновациялық Еуразиялық университеті, Павлодар қ.
25.01.16 баспаға түсті.
Вестник ПГУ, ISSN: 1811-1823. Серия филологическая. №1. 2016
ПМУ Хабаршысы
46
47
А. В. Алиясова
Интеграция чтения и письма в контексте CLIL обучения: некоторые
практические решения
Инновационный Евразийский университет, г. Павлодар.
Поступило в редакцию 25.01.16.
Бұл мақаланың мақсаты болып интеграция оқыту және
жазудың CLIL сыныбы мен қатысушының лингвитсикалық жетістігі
көзқарасы негізінде қорытындылады. Мақала өзінің тақырыптық
өзектілігі қысқа мерзімде 1 семестр оқытылатын жобада экономика
CLIL мамандығында бакалаврда оқитын 19 студентке ұсынған
ағылшын тілін оқыту болып табылады. Студенттер ағылшын
тілінде «Жарнама қызметін ұйымдастыру» пәнін оқытады. Бұл
жүйемен мәтіндік тапсырмалардан басқа CLIL оқыту шеңберінде
шет тілінің жетістіктері мен оқу деңгейін де оқытады.
Цель этой статьи заключается в изучении потенциала
интегрированного обучения чтению и письму в классе CLIL с
точки зрения лингвистических достижений учащихся. Статья
представляет собой тематическое исследование долгосрочного
1 семестрового проекта с участием 19 студентов бакалавриата
по специальности Экономика, которым были предложены
занятия CLIL в качестве альтернативы традиционному обучению
иностранному языку. Студенты изучали дисциплину «Организация
рекламной деятельности» через английский язык. Кроме этого,
систематические текстовые письменные задания были включены
в рамках CLIL обучения, и предполагается, что такая переменная
способствовала эффективности этого курса в условиях роста
компетентности иностранного языка.
ӘОЖ 81-26
Н. К. Анафина
1
, Л. Н. Садыкова
2
, Д. Қ. Күнгозина
3
1
«Мәшһүртану» ҒПО, С. Торайгыров атындағы Павлодар мемлекеттік
университеті;
2
директор, К. Кеменгеров атындағы ЖОМ;
3
қазақ тілі мен
әдебиет мұғалімі, 21 ЖОМ, Павлодар қ.
e-mail: idewa@bk.ru
ҚАЗАҚ ПЕН ОРЫС ХАЛҚЫНЫҢ
МАҚАЛ-МӘТЕЛДЕРІН САЛЫСТЫРУ
Мақала авторлары қазақ және орыс тілдердегі мақал-
мәтелдерді салыстырады
Кілтті сөздер: мақалдар, фразеологизм, сәйкестену, аударма,
нақыш сөз.
Мақал-мәтелдер – халық даналығының, көрегендігінің айнасы,
тіл байлығының алтын қазынасы. Олардың көбісі өмір шындығының
қорытындысы. Астың дәмін тұз келтіретіні сияқты, сөздің дәмін мақал мен
мәтелдер келтіріп, олардың көбісі ондаған, тіпті жүздеген жылдар бойы
тіл құрамында бар. Көркемдеуіш мұндай пәлсапалық түйіндер арқылы біз
қалжын ойды да астарлы мағынаны да жеткізе аламыз. Қазақ пен орыс халқы
мақал-мәтелдерінің көп бөлігінде түпкі ойы тереңдетілмеген, оны жете
түсіну үшін бастапқы компонент-сөздер мағынасын жалпы негізгі ойымен
салыстырса болды.
Мақал мен мәтелдердің арасында еңбек тақырыбы негізгі болып
саналады. Ерінбеген арыстанның аузындағысын алады. Бұл мақалды Ғабиден
Мұстафин өзінің «Қарағанды» романында тілге тиек еткен. Және де қарама-
қарсы мақал: Ерінген аузындағысынан айрылады. Орыс халқының
мақалы қазақтікіне ұқсастығы бар: Еңбексіз тоған судан балықты да аулай
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |