Foreign languages faculty

Teachers’ attitudes and perspectives towards multilingual education and migrant languages.
Polylingual education has often been viewed as negative and there is a view in some polylingual speech communities that bilingualism negatively impacts on intellectual achievement (Hélot and Young 2002). Although attitudes to multilingual education are changing, there is still a misconception that non-native speakers are somehow disadvantaged or linguistically deficient (Cenoz and Gorter 2011). However, the research surveyed suggests that linguistic knowledge and skills acquired in the home can be transferred to the knowledge and development of skills in other languages, particularly the language of schooling. Incorporating home languages into lessons and the curriculum is key to the successful implementation of a framework for holistic polylingual teaching (Duarte and Günther-van der Meij 2018; Little and Kirwan 2019). An effective polylingual school environment allows space for each student’s own language to be deployed as a resource for linguistic and cognitive development (Little and Kirwan 2019, Wedin 2010). An effective polylingual -education programme that supports the recognition of the importance of the first language leads to significant benefits in the cognitive and linguistic development of children. Two of the studies report on the successful implementation of such an approach in Ireland that is informing best practice for educational inclusion at primary level (Kirwan 2016; Little and Kirwan 2019).
Teacher Training for Successful Multilingual Education.
The studies suggest that of the main challenges to the provision of polylingual education in primary schools is that teachers often feel unprepared, particularly in managing the balance between home languages and languages of schooling. Teachers express a need for further training, support and materials for language teaching to support their competence in delivering multilingual activities (Duarte and Günthervan der Meij 2018; European Commission 2015; Hickey 2011; Kirwan 2016; Kourieos 2014; Massler, Stotz and Queisser 2014; Little and Kirwan 2019; Serra 2007; Wedin 2010). This feeling of a lack of preparedness was reported as the main barrier to the implementation of polylingual curricula in the literature surveyed. Duarte and Günther-van der Meij (2018, 4) found that teachers often felt ‘ashamed’ of their attitudes towards children’s use of home languages at school. During their research, however, the teaching practices of the teacher participants involved in their study evolved and began to reflect a more inclusive attitude which valued the languages of each child as a resource in their classrooms. A more holistic language environment was created, allowing children to express themselves in the languages of their choosing (Duarte and Günther-van der Meij 2018).
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).
Studies included in this scoping review examined Content and Language Integrated Learning as a method of polylingual education. This approach involves the teaching and learning of subject content through the medium of a foreign language, hence integrating language learning and delivery of the content subject (Serra 2007). The benefits of this method of language teaching were widely discussed (Coral and Lleixà 2016; Department of Education and Skills 2017; European Commission 2015; Hickey 2011; Kourieos 2014; Massler, Stotz and Queisser 2014; Ruiz de Zarobe and Zenotz 2015; Serra 2007; Sierra 2008; Tragant et al. 2016). The reported benefits of CLIL included offering pupils more opportunities for interaction and communication in the foreign language than traditionally structured language lessons (Massler, Stotz and Queisser 2014; Coral and Llexià 2016), allowing additional time for language learning without putting additional strain on the curriculum (Department of Education and Skills 2017), exposing students to more abstract vocabulary and extended language exposure (Tragant et al. 2016), exposure to a greater variety of genres, texts and literature (Hickey 2011), increased motivation for language learning among students, increased ultimate linguistic achievement and metacognitive skills (European Commission 2015). The intervention studies described by Ruiz de Zarobe and Zenotz (2015) and Serra (2007) highlighted the positive learning effects of the successful implementation of a Content and Language Integrated Learning programme. Ruiz de Zarobe and Zenotz (2015) reported in their study that the students in the experimental group progressed more than the students in the comparison group, in terms of metacognitive reading skills. Serra (2007) reported that the students who were exposed to a Content and Language Integrated Learning programme achieved higher scores in L2 assessment, in the domains of oral and written comprehension, when compared to the control group. Several articles outlined the challenges associated with Content and Language Integrated Learning (Kourieos 2014; Massler, Stotz and Queisser 2014; Ruiz de Zarobe and Zenotz 2015). These included an increased workload associated with the implementation of CLIL (Massler, Stotz and Queisser 2014), lack of teacher training and lack of instructor competence (Kourieos 2014). Ruiz de Zarobe and Zenotz (2015) also outlined a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of CLIL amongst young language learners. Frameworks to guide multilingual education and assessment practices. Acknowledging the vital role that language learning plays in children’s development is the first step to incorporating language awareness into teaching methods and to supporting the language of schooling and home languages (Kirwan 2016). Duarte and Günther-van der Meij (2018) identify a need for a more flexible and holistic approach to the integration of migrant languages in primary school curricula in Europe. The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture published a policy document (2015) that outlined their vision and goals for the inclusion of home languages in educational contexts. This document proposed the following three steps as key to achieving successful intercultural education:

1. 
   provision of home language learning in schools; 2
   
2. 
   ) formal recognition of the first language of migrant students;
   
3. 
   encouragement for pupils to use their home languages in the polylingual classroom, in the school community and in the general environment.
   

The report’s authors emphasize two changes that would positively impact polylingual education at primary level: early teacher training programmes to prepare teachers for management of multilingual classrooms and the allocation of adequate funding for training and support to be made available for all teachers who are instructing students from migrant backgrounds who do not speak the language of instruction (European Commission 2015).

CONCLUSION

Polylingual education is considered to be an effective way of learning a new language and in many countries of the world, it represents an increasingly popular pedagogic approach. In Europe, polylingual education using predominantly the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology has evolved as a response to the commonly recognized need for the development of plurilingual competence. In this paper, we tried to present forms of polylingual education that are recognized according to worldwide research as well as varying purposes behind using different languages as the medium of instruction in schools.
Based on the fact that about 75 per cent of the world is polylingual, a polylingual education has become a widespread approach used throughout the world. It may be implemented in different ways, with different educational goals in different countries. Polylingual education has been an issue in education for a long time. Lack of motivation and interest in the taught subject are common phenomenon in many classrooms, thus making traditional target language teaching is not as successful as it might be expected by teachers. Students do not seem to see any use in learning a foreign language, the situation being very similar in content teaching. As recent research indicates, it is CLIL that offers opportunities how to improve this situation, with below-average and above-average students benefiting from exposure to it. Moreover, demographic situation in many countries of the world shows evidence that in the near future, there will be a greater need for polylingual education.
This paper shows the basic types of polylingual education that are recognized according to worldwide research. Polylingual education is briefly introduced as well as the different purposes behind using different languages as the medium of instructions in schools. Research on polylingualism suggests that some purposes for choosing languages used in education may be better than the other ones in terms of ethics as well as pedagogy. Analyzing the diverse purposes for the choice of languages that appear in schools can improve the understanding of polylingual educational systems, and possibly suggest improvements in terms of bilingual educational process.

SUMMARY
I hope that all given information and ideas are useful for the practical lessons in the theoretical use of teaching language for us, future English teachers, who do our best. My course work embraces introduction, two chapters, conclusion, summary, list literature.

Introduction of the work includes aims, objectives, subject, structure and theoretical, practical values of the course paper.
The first chapter includes two items. This chapter is about theoretical foundation for teaching English in polylinguism terms. The first item deals with polylingualism in Foreign Language Teaching. The second item investigates an overwiev models of polylingual education.
The second chapter about managing polylingual education in primary schools. The first item analyzes the use of innovative technologies in teching English in polylingualism.
The second one is dedicated to teaching strategies in polylinguism terms in primary education.
At the end of my course work embraces conclusion, the list of literatures for this research.

USED LITERATURE

1. 
   O‘zbekiston Respublikasi 1- Prezidenti Islom Karimovning “Chet tillarni o‘rganish tizimini yanada takomillashtirish chora-tadbirlari to‘g‘risida” qarori/ “Xalq so‘zi” gazetasi, 11.12.2012-y., 240 (5660)-son.
   
2. 
   Arksey, Hilary, and Lisa O’Malley. 2005. “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8, no. 1: 19-32.
   
3. 
   Baker, Colin. 2001. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77-101.
   
4. 
   Bim, I. L. (1997). Some peculiarities of teaching German as a second foreign language on the basis of English. Foreign Languages at School, 4, 5-12.
   
5. 
   Bim, I. L. (2001). The concept of teaching a second foreign language. Obninsk: Titul, 48 p.
   
6. 
   Cenoz, Jasone, and Durk Gorter. 2011. “A Holistic Approach to Multilingual Education: Introduction.” The Modern Language Journal 95, no. 3: 339-343.
   
7. 
   Cenoz, Jasone. 2013. “Defining Multilingualism.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33: 3-18.
   
8. 
   Coral, Josep, and Teresa Lleixà. 2016. “Physical eEducation in Content and Language Integrated Learning: Successful Interaction between Physical Education and English as a Foreign Language.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19, no. 1: 108-126.
   
9. 
   Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   
10. 
    De Angelis, Gessica. 2007. Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Department of Education and Skills. 2017. Languages Connect: Ireland’s Strategy for Foreign Languages in Education 2017-2026. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.
    
11. 
    Duarte, Joana, and Mirjam Günther-van der Meij. 2018. “A holistic model for multilingualism in education.” EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 5, no. 2: 24-43.
    
12. 
    European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. 2015. Language Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
    
13. 
    Galskova, N. D. & Gez, N. I. (2006). The theory of teaching foreign languages. Moscow: Academia. 336 p. Gulyaeva, V. S. & Mingalieva, V. R. (2015). Implementing obligatory learning a second foreign language at school: fashion or norm? Сol. of scien. and method. works, 18, 15-20.
    
14. 
    Gorter, Durk, and Jasone Cenoz. 2012. “Multilingual education for European minority languages: The Basque Country and Friesland.” International Review of Education 57, no. 5: 651-666.
    
15. 
    Hélot, Christine, and Andrea Young. 2002. “Bilingualism and language education in French primary schools: Why and how should migrant languages be valued?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5, no. 2: 96-112.
    
16. 
    Hickey, Tina M. 2011. “Reading in an endangered language in primary schools in Ireland.” In Béatrice Arend, Charles Max, and Jean-Jacques Weber, eds. Educating for Today's Multilingual Society: Festschrift for Professor Dominique Portante. Luxembourg: Editions Ph.
    
17. 
    Kirwan, Déirdre. 2016. Learning Outcomes in Plurilingual Environments: Reflections on Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
    
18. 
    Kitrosskaya, I. I. (1970). Some issues of the methods of teaching a second foreign language: PhD Thesis. Moscow, 227 p.
    
19. 
    Kourieos, Stella. 2014. “The Knowledge Base of Primary EFL Teachers: Pre-service and Inservice Teachers’ Perceptions.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5, no. 2: 291-300.
    
20. 
    Little, David, and Déirdre Kirwan. 2019. Engaging with Linguistic Diversity: A Study of Educational Inclusion in an Irish Primary School. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    
21. 
    Little, David. 2006. “The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, Purpose, Origin, Reception and Impact.” Language Teaching 39: 167-190.
    
22. 
    Lopareva, T. A. (2013). Multidimensionality and Typology of Bilingualism as a Particular Aspect of Multilingualism. Bulletin of Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod, 22, 73-79.
    
23. 
    Massler, Ute, Daniel Stotz, and Claudia Queisser. 2014. “Assessment Instruments for Primary CLIL: The Conceptualisation and Evaluation of Test Tasks.” The Language Learning Journal 42, no. 2: 137-150.
    
24. 
    Minyar-Beloruchev, R. K. (1991). The mechanism of bilingualism and the problem of the native language in teaching a foreign one. Foreign Languages at School, 5, 14–16.
    
25. 
    Okal, Benard Odoyo. 2014. “Benefits of Multilingualism in Education.” Universal Journal of Educational Research 2, no. 3: 223-229.
    
26. 
    Otwinowska, Agnieszka. 2014. “Does Multilingualism Influence Plurilingual Awareness of Polish Teachers of English?” International Journal of Multilingualism 11, no. 1: 97- 119.
    
27. 
    Paradis, Johanne, and Anna Kirova. 2014. “English second-language learners in preschool: Profile effects in their English abilities and the role of home language environment.” International Journal of Behavioural Development 38, no. 4: 342-349.
    
28. 
    Ruiz de Zarobe, Yolanda, and Victoria Zenotz. 2015. “Reading Strategies and CLIL: The Effect of Training in Formal Instruction.” The Language Learning Journal 43, no. 3: 319-333.
    
29. 
    Safonova, V. V. (1996). Studying of international communication languages within the framework of dialogue of cultures and civilizations. Voronezh: Istoki, 342p.
    
30. 
    Saville-Troike, Muriel, and Karen Barto. 2017. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    
31. 
    Serra, Cecilia. 2007. “Assessing CLIL at Primary School: A Longitudinal Study.” The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 582-602.
    
32. 
    Shchepilova, A. V. (2005). Theory and methods of teaching French as a second foreign language. Moscow: Vlados Publishing, 245 p.
    
33. 
    Shchepilova, A. V. (2006). Problems of teaching a second foreign language and issues of teacher training. Foreign Languages at School, 6, 15-22.
    
34. 
    Sierra, Josu. 2008. “Assessment of Bilingual Education in the Basque Country.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 21, no. 1: 39-47.
    
35. 
    Spada, Nina, and Patsy. M. Lightbown, 2019. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford Publishers. Taeschner, Traute. 2012. The Sun is Feminine: A Study on Language Acquisition in Bilingual children. Berlin: Springer.
    
36. 
    Todeva, Elka, and Jasone Cenoz. 2009. “Multilingualism: Emic and Etic Perspectives.” In Todeva, Elka, and Jasone Cenoz, eds. The Multiple Realities of Multilingualism: Personal Narratives and Researchers’ Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    
37. 
    Tragant, Elsa, Anna Marsol, Raquel Serrano, and Àngels Llanes. 2016. “Vocabulary learning at primary school: A comparison of EFL and CLIL.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19, no. 5: 579-591.
    
38. 
    Wedin, Åsa. 2010. “Narration in Swedish Pre- and Primary School: A Resource for Language Development and Multilingualism.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 23, no. 3: 219- 233.