Vestnik of Samara State Technical University Psychological and Pedagogical SciencesVestnik of Samara State Technical University Psychological and Pedagogical SciencesВестник Самарского государственного технического университета. Серия: Психолого-педагогические науки1991-85692712-892XSamara State Technical University5242610.17673/vsgtu-pps.2020.3.1ArticlesСтатьиResearch ArticleDesigning multilingual and multicultural curriculumРазработка полилингвальной и поликультурной учебной программыGilmetdinovaAlsu M.ГильметдиноваАлсу Махмутовна

PhD, Associate Professor of Foreign Languages, Russian and Russian as a Foreign Language Department.

PhD, доцент кафедры «Иностранные языки, русский и русский как иностранный»

alsu.gilmetdinova@kai.ruKazan National Research Technical University named after A.N. Tupolev-KAIКазанский национальный исследовательский технический университет имени А.Н. Туполева - КАИ (КНИТУ-КАИ)15092020173NO3 (2020)№3 (2020)62325112020Copyright ©; 2020, Gilmetdinova A.M.Copyright ©; 2020, Гильметдинова А.М.2020Gilmetdinova A.M.Гильметдинова А.М.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0https://vestnik-pp.samgtu.ru/1991-8569/article/view/52426

What is the relationship between language and culture? What role do language and culture play in designing curriculum that is inclusive of the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students? What does multicultural and multilingual curriculum development look like? Scholarship on multicultural education acknowledges a strong interactive relationship between language, culture and learning and includes the benefits of bilingual instruction for multilingual students [10]; yet, often the assumption is that “coming to voice takes place in English only” [22]. Similarly, curriculum development for multicultural education is mainly done in the English language. The purpose of this article is to integrate both culture and language into the review of curriculum development that embraces both linguistic and cultural needs of diverse students. Using Sleeter’s [37] Un-Standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom this targeted review encloses relevant scholarship in the fields of multilingual and multicultural education rooted in 4 central questions of curriculum theory: Question 1: What purposes should the curriculum serve? Question 2: How should knowledge be selected, who decides what knowledge is most worth teaching and learning, and what is the relationship between those in the classroom and the knowledge selection process? Question 3: What is the nature of students and the learning process, and how does it suggest organizing learning experiences and relationships? Question 4: How should curriculum be evaluated? How should learning be evaluated? To whom is curriculum evaluation accountable? [37] The results of the review provide educators and curriculum developers with much needed guidelines for developing comprehensive, culture and language sensitive curriculum.

Какова связь между языком и культурой? Какую роль язык и культура играют в разработке учебной программы, учитывающей потребности обучающихся из разных культур и говорящих на разных родных языках? Как выглядит разработка полилингвальной и поликультурной учебной программы? Научные данные по поликультурному образованию указывают на тесную интерактивную связь между языком, культурой и обучением, в основе которой лежит интеграция преимуществ двуязычного обучения для многоязычных студентов [10]. Тем не менее часто предполагается, что «озвучивание происходит только на английском языке» [22]. Точно так же разработка учебных программ для поликультурного образования в основном осуществляется на английском языке. Цель этой статьи - сделать обзор научных исследований в сфере разработки учебных программ, учитывающих лингвистические и культурные потребности обучающихся и взаимосвязь языков обучения с содержанием учебных планов. Опираясь на книгу Sleeter [37] “Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom”, автор делает обзор научной литературы по данной тематике, основанный на четырех центральных вопросах теории и методики разработки учебных программ. Вопрос 1: Каким целям должна служить учебная программа? Вопрос 2: Как следует выбирать те знания, которым обучать, кто решает, какие знания наиболее целесообразно преподавать и изучать, и какова взаимосвязь между теми, кто находится в классе, и тем, кто создает программы обучения? Вопрос 3: Каковы особенности обучающихся и процесса обучения, как это влияет на организацию учебного процесса и на взаимоотношения всех заинтересованных сторон? Вопрос 4: Как следует оценивать учебный план? Как следует оценивать обучение? Кому подотчетна оценка учебной программы? Результаты обзора представляют собой рекомендации преподавателям и авторам учебных программ по разработке комплексных учебных программ, учитывающих особенности культуры и языка обучающихся.

multilingual educationmulticultural educationcurriculum developmentмногоязычное образованиеполикультурное образованиеразработка учебных программAnyon J. Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education. 1980. No. 162 (1). Pp. 67-92.Beauchamp E.R. Reform traditions in the United States and Japan. Educational Policies in Crisis. 1986. No. 3-22.Bernstein B., Solomon J. 'Pedagogy, identity and the construction of a theory of symbolic control': Basil Bernstein questioned by Joseph Solomon. British journal of sociology of education. 1999. No. 20 (2). Pp. 265-279.Cowell A. Bilingual curriculum among the Northern Arapaho: oral tradition, literacy, and performance. The American Indian Quarterly. 2002. No. 26 (1). Pp. 24-43.Cummins J. Dilemmas of inclusion: Integrating English language learners in standards-based reform. In J. Cummins (Ed.) Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. 2000. Vol. 23. Channel View Books. Pp. 140-167.DeFazio A. Language awareness at the international high school. Knowledge about language. 1997. No. 6. Pp. 99-107.Edwards J. Bilingualism and multilingualism: some central concepts. In T.K. Bhatia& W.C. Ritchie (Eds.). The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed.).2013. Pp. 5-25. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Ellsworth E. Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review. 1989. No. 59(3). Pp. 297-324.Fishman J.A., Gertner M.H., Lowy E.G., Milan W., Fishman J.A. Ethnicity in action: The community resources of ethnic languages in the United States. The rise and fall of the ethnic revival: Perspectives on language and ethnicity. 1985. Pp. 195-282.Gay G. Culturally responsive teaching (2nd ed). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2010.Gilmetdinova A., Burdick J. Many mansions: Conceptualizing translingual curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal. 2016. No. 10(2). Pp. 77-88.Gottlieb M.H. Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2006.Grumet M., Stone L. Feminism and curriculum: Getting our act together, Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2000. No. 32(2). Pp. 18-197.Heugh K. Contesting the monolingual practices of a bilingual to multilingual policy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 2009. No. 8(2). Pp. 96-113.Holmes J., Roberts M., Verivaki M. Language maintenance and shift in three New Zealand speech communities. Applied linguistics. 1993. No. 14(1). Pp. 1-24.Hornberger N.H. (Ed.). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. 2003. Vol. 41. Multilingual Matters.Hornberger N.H., King K.A. Authenticity and unification in Quechua language planning. Language Culture and Curriculum. 1998. No. 11(3). Pp. 390-410.Hornberger N.H., Link H. Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2012. No. 15(3). Pp. 261-278.Kaomea J. A curriculum of Aloha? Colonialism and tourism in Hawai'i's elementary textbooks. Curriculum Inquiry. 2000. No. 30(3). Pp. 319-344.Kliebard H.M. The rise of scientific curriculum making and its aftermath. Curriculum Theory Network. 1975. Pp. 27-38.Kramsch C. The cultural component of language teaching. Language, culture and curriculum. 1995. No. 8(2). Pp. 83-92.Macedo D., Bartolomé L.I. Multiculturalism permitted in English only. International Multilingual Research Journal. 2014. No. 8(1). Pp. 24-37.Malone D.L. Developing curriculum materials for endangered language education: Lessons from the field. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2003. No. 6(5). Pp. 332-348.Mason D., Ewoldt C. Whole Language and Deal Bilingual-Bicultural Education-Naturally! American annals of the deaf. 1996. No. 141. Pp. 293-298.May S. Language education, pluralism and citizenship. In S. May & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language policy and political issues in education (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 15-29). New York, NY: Springer, 2008.McLaughlin D. Power and the politics of knowledge: Transformative leadership and curriculum development for minority language learners. Peabody Journal of Education. 1989. No. 66(3). Pp. 41-60.Menken K. English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. 2008. Vol. 65. Multilingual Matters.Menken K., García O. (Eds.). Negotiating language education policies: Educators as policymakers. Routledge. 2010.Mitchell R., Brumfit C. The national curriculum experience of bilingual pupils. Educational Review. 1997. No. 49(2). Pp. 159-80.Moll L.C. Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent trends. Educational researcher. 1992. No. 21(2). Pp. 20-24.O'Malley J.M., Pierce L.V. Authentic Assessment For English Language Learners: Practical Approaches For Teachers Author: J. Michael O'Malley, Lorrain. 1996.Oviedo A. Development and counter development, in rural basic education in Ecuador. Unpublished paper. CADES, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium. 2004.Oviedo A., Wildemeersch D. Intercultural education and curricular diversification: the case of the Ecuadorian Intercultural Bilingual Education Model (MOSEIB). Compare. 2008. No. 38(4). Pp. 455-470.Rex J. Equality of opportunity, multiliculturalism, anti-racism and ‘Education for All’. In G. Verma (Ed.) Education for All: A Landmark in pluralism. Lewes: Falmer, 1989.Schwab J.J. The practical: A language for curriculum. The school review. 1969. No. 78(1). Pp. 1-23.Schwab J. The practical: A language for curriculum. In D.J. Flinders & S.J. Thornton, Eds., The curriculum studies reader. Pp. 103-118. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004.Sleeter C.E. Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. Teachers College Press. 2005.Sleeter C., Stillman J. Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. Curriculum Inquiry. 2005. No. 35(1). Pp. 27-46.United States. Dept. of Education. A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. 2010.Villegas A.M., Lucas T. Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of teacher education. 2002. No. 53(1). Pp. 20-32.Watkins W.H. Black curriculum orientations: A preliminary inquiry. Harvard Educational Review. 1993. No. 63(3). Pp. 321-338.Webster J.P., Yanez E. Qanemcikarluni Tekitnarqelartuq [One must arrive with a story to tell]: Traditional Alaska Native Yup’ik Eskimo Stories in a Culturally Based Math Curriculum. Journal of American Indian Education. 2007. No. 46(3). Pp. 116-131.