Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 7–26
UDC: 
378.096

Research of readiness of pedagogical specialties students to teach in English [In English]

Andreyeva O. A. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan), Tleuzhanova G. K. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan), Sarzhanova G. B. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan), Kitibayeva A. K. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan), Kostina E. A. 2 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation)
1 E.A. Buketov Karaganda University
2 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The research is devoted to the problem of the trilingual education system formation in the context of educational modernization in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The purpose of the research: to determine the features of forming the readiness of pedagogical specialties students to teach in English in their professional activities.
Materials and Methods. The methodological basis of the research was a system-activity approach. In the course of the research, scientific and theoretical sources on the problem of forming the readiness of pedagogical specialties students to teach in English in their professional activities were systematized, the empirical material was obtained from the results of questioning and testing of graduate pedagogical specialties students of Academician E. A. Buketov Karaganda University. The analysis of the research results was carried out using the methods of mathematical statistics.
Results. The authors of the research singled out the criteria and indicators of the formation of the readiness of pedagogical specialties students for teaching in English in their professional activity based on its component structure. According to the cognitive component of readiness, the levels of knowledge and proficiency in the English of pedagogical specialties students have been determined. In accordance with the praxeological component, indicators of the formation of graduates’ readiness to teach in English in their professional activities have been determined. According to the motivational component, the degree of stable interest, the attitude nature and the correspondence degree of the motivation types of graduates to teaching in English have been determined.
Conclusions. The analysis of the research results made it possible to identify the features and the readiness degree of pedagogical specialties graduate students to teach in English. The readiness level of pedagogical specialties graduate students to teach in English is defined as insufficient, in terms of components: cognitive – from secondary to higher; praxeological – mostly low; motivational – low to medium. The feature of forming the readiness of pedagogical specialties graduate students to teach in English is low motivation and insufficient professional and methodological readiness to teach in English in professional activities with a sufficient level of English proficiency.

Keywords: 

Trilingual education system; Pedagogical specialties students; Professional activity; Willingness to teach in English; Professional readiness; Readiness components; Readiness indicators.

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85092465145&origin=...

Research of readiness of pedagogical specialties students to teach in English

For citation:
Andreyeva O. A., Tleuzhanova G. K., Sarzhanova G. B., Kitibayeva A. K., Kostina E. A. Research of readiness of pedagogical specialties students to teach in English [In English]. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 7–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2004.01
References: 
  1. Nevinnova E. A., Onoprienko N. A., Ayazbekova B. K. Languages and trilingual education: On the problem of the development of trilingual education in Kazakhstan. Topical Issues of Philology and Methods of Foreign Language Teaching, 2017, vol. 11, pp. 219–222. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29196768
  2. Zhetpisbaeva B. A., Syrymbetova L. S., Kubeeva A. E. On the issue of training teachers for multilingual education in Kazakhstan. Topical Issues of Philology and Methods of Foreign Language Teaching, 2017, vol. 11, pp. 168–172. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29196750
  3. Jeon M. Native-English speaking teachers’ experiences in East-Asian language programs. System, 2020, vol. 88, pp. 102178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102178
  4. Melezhik K. A. Language policy and language reality of internationalisation in the university community. Political Linguistics, 2016, no. 1, pр. 151–158. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25718842
  5. Christiansen P. V. Language policy in the European Union: European /English/Elite/Equal /Esperanto Union? Language Problems and Language Planning, 2006, vol. 30 (1), pp. 21–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.30.1.03chr
  6. Vega-Mendoza M., West H., Sorace A., Bak T. H. The impact of late, non-balanced bilingualism on cognitive performance. Cognition, 2015, vol. 137, pp. 40–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.008
  7. Kolos E. A. Problems of implementation in the system of education of Kazakhstan by the program of polyazation. Economic Development of the Region: Management, Innovation, Training, 2017, no. 4, pp. 150–155. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30459816
  8. Lee H. H., Lin Kim G. M., Chan L. L. Good teaching: What matters to university students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 2015, vol. 35 (1), pp. 98–110.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860008
  9. Banos R., Baena-Extremera A., Ortiz-Camacho M. del M. Prediction of the satisfaction with the student life, based on teaching competence and satisfaction with the school. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, vol. 10, pp. 2506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02506
  10. Ertmer P. A. Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 2005, vol. 53, pp. 25–39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
  11. Constantino G. D. Educational technology and teacher education: Barriers and gates in South America. Creative Education, 2014, vol. 5 (12), pp. 1080–1085. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.512122
  12. Ahmad A. Globalization of science and technology through research and development. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2014, vol. 2 (4), pp. 283–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2014.24031
  13. Abukhattala I. The use of technology in language classrooms in Libya. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2016, vol. 6 (4), pp. 262–267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.655
  14. Hashmi N. A. Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the EFL classroom and its impact on effective teaching-learning process in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2016, vol. 5 (2), pp. 202–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.2p.202
  15. Padmavathi M. A Study of student-teachers' readiness to use computers in teaching: An empirical study. Journal on School Educational Technology, 2016, vol. 11 (3), pp. 29–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.11.3.4788
  16. Shin S.-J.Chang K. Integrating technology to facilitate critical reflection and creativity in pre-service teacher development. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 2016, vol. 11 (2/3), pp. 166–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKL.2016.079756
  17. Vezirov T. G. Preparation of masters of education using the internet and web 2.0 services in teaching foreign languages. Topical Issues of Philology and Methods of Foreign Language Teaching, 2020, vol. 14, pр. 134–137. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42690232
  18. Mingazheva E. A. Interactive briefing as one of the forms of control of mastering communicative foreign language competence of students at the university by means of self education. Topical Issues of Philology and Methods of Foreign Language Teaching, 2020, vol. 14, pр. 178–182. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42690242
  19. Cai M. Professional self-development based on informal learning: A case study of foreign language teachers in a university of China. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2019, vol. 7 (12), pp. 26–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.712003
  20. Zhankina B. Z., Kostina E. A., Zhetpisbayeva B. A., Kargin S. T. Basic factors of developing learner autonomy in foreign language education (with the main focus on Kazakhstan). Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9 (2), pp. 126–139. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1902.09
  21. Oliveira Santos R. R., Nunes Vieira J., Souza Ribeiro M. S., Lourenço da Silva C. M., Lasalvia V. C., de Santana Padilha Neto A. A Professional teacher work agenda teaching in higher education. Creative Education, 2019, vol. 10 (7), pp. 1383–1399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.107103
  22. Sozer E. M.Zeybekoglu Z.Alayli A. Examining graduate teaching assistants’ conceptions of and readiness for effective teaching in a non-profit Turkish university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2019, vol. 56 (3), pp. 373–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1453369
  23. Tazhigulova G. O., Assanova D. N., Uteubaeva E. A., Mekezhanova A. B., Tleuzhanova G. K. Conditions of English language teaching to prospective biology teachers in Kazakhstan. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8 (6), pp. 23–40. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1806.02
  24. Boei F., Dengerink J., Geursen J., Kools Q., Koster B., Lunenberg M., Willemse M. Supporting the professional development of teacher educators in a productive way. Journal of Education for Teaching, 2015, vol. 41 (4), pp. 351–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1080403
Date of the publication 31.08.2020