Bilingual Education in Tatarstan
https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.3.07
EDN: OSLLOW
Abstract
The relevance of the problem of bilingual education in Tatarstan is explained by the lack of anthropological methods, techniques, means of mastering a second language in the practice of teaching, the lack of analysis of anthropological reasons for the negative development of bilingualism towards a mixed type.
The paper sets out to substantiate the anthropological conditions for the development of bilingual education aimed at fluency in two state languages.
The methods of anthropological analysis and anthropological teaching of a second language became main research methods. These methods included personal, empathic, reflexive, unconscious, the method of the communicative core, synergistic, nature-like, attractive, text-centric, etc. With the help of these methods, the main types of linguistic personality were established - coordinative, subordinative, mixed; the reasons for the dominance of the mixed and subordinative ones were determined; anthropological attitudes are substantiated, the implementation of which makes it possible to ensure the development of a linguistic personality from a mixed type to a subordinate one and from a subordinate one to a coordinative one.
As a result of the study, it was proved that the formation of a linguistic personality of a coordinative type should be associated with transposition (that is, with reliance on the patterns of the native language), with the prevention and overcoming of linguistic interference, with the implementation of anthropological attitudes in the trajectory of movement from mixed bilingualism to subordinative and from subordinative to coordinative.
The novelty of the study lies in the implementation of anthropological attitudes in the process of developing the language personality of students, in obtaining data on the dominant types of language personality and the dynamics of their development in Tatarstan.
The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the material accumulated in the process of pedagogical experiments can be transformed into didactic and widely used in the practice of bilingual education.
References
1. Banks, J. A. (2003). Multicultural Education. In Characteristics and Goals. Multicultural Education. Issues and Perspectives (pp. 3–31). Wiley & Sons.
2. Baskom, W. (2001). Four Functions of Folklore. Journal of American Folklore, 54, 333–349.
3. Bhattacharji, P., & Kingdon, G. G. (2020). School Education and the Lack of Parent Information. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 13(1), 57–92.
4. Bulgakova, I. A. (2012). Anthropology of education in Russian culture. [Extended abstract of Cand. Sci. Dissertation (Philosophy), Tyumen]
5. Constitution (basic law) of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1925). https://k.rsfsr.su/1925/1.pdf
6. Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan (1992, November 6). Reference and legal system Consultant Plus: https://mert.tatarstan.ru/rus/file/pub/pub_261305.pdf
7. Desheriev, Yu. D. (1977). Social linguistics. Nauka.
8. Gabdulchakov, V. F., & Shishova, E. O. (2022). Psychology of Children’s Play, Imagination, Creativity and Playful Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education in Russia. In Play and STEM Education in the Early Years: International Policies and Practices (pp. 65-83). Springer International Publishing.
9. Gabdulkhakov, V. F., & Khisamova, V. N. (2012). Linguodidactics of multicultural education. Nacional'nyj knizhnyj centr.
10. Gabdulkhakov, V. F., & Zinnurova, A. F. (2023). Mankurtism in the ethnic consciousness of participants in the educational process. In M. P. Zhigalova (Ed.), Ethnicities and Destinies in Modern Society: Theory and Practice: collective monograph (pp. 162-172). BrGTU.
11. Glaesser, J. (2019). Competence in educational theory and practice: A critical discussion. Oxford Review of Education, 45(1), 70–85.
12. Karaulov, Yu. N. (1999). National images of consciousness in the associative structure of words. Nauka.
13. Kodzhaspirova, G. M. (2012). Pedagogical anthropology as a branch of knowledge. Vestnik Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Serija «Pedagogika i psihologija» – MCU Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology, 4(22), 8–20.
14. State program of the Republic of Tatarstan (2013). Preservation and development of the state languages of the Republic of Tatarstan and other languages in the Republic of Tatarstan for 2014-2022. https://mon.tatarstan.ru/gosudarstvennaya-programma-respubliki-tatarstan.htm
15. Ushinsky, K. D. (2015). Russian school (O. A. Planotov, Ed.). Institut russkoj civilizacii.
16. Vereshchagin, E. M. (2009). Psychological and methodological characteristics of bilingualism. DirektMedia.
17. Weinreich, U. (1972). Monolingualism and multilingualism. In New in linguistics. Issue IV. (pp. 25– 60). Moscow.
18. Zakiryanov, K. Z. (2011). Active bilingualism: Essence and functioning. Kitap.
19. Zhinkin, N. I. (1982). Speech as a conductor of information. Nauka.
20. Zubairaeva, M. U. (2016). On the issue of the formation of bilingual and multilingual linguistic personality. Modern Problems of Science and Education, 3. https://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=2479
21. Zverev, S. M., Leontovich, A. V., Ryabtsev, V. K., Ryashina, V. V., Slobodchikov, V. I., & Teplova, A. B. (2019). Anthropological approach in the development of education and socialization of children and youth. IIDSV RAO.
Review
For citations:
Gabdulkhakov V. Bilingual Education in Tatarstan. Education and Self-Development. 2023;18(3):100-115. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.3.07. EDN: OSLLOW
Views:
5
Email this article 