MANAGEMENT IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF TEACHING
FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Zhumatayeva B.K. Senior teacher
Eurasian National University named after L.N.Gumilev, Astana
Kazakhstan
A founder of management Anrie Fayol said: “To manage is to carry on the
enterprise to the aim deriving maximum possibilities from available resources”.
Modern school by its annual financial
rotation, by its size, by its costs of the principal subsistences, by its
structure doesn’t differ from the big enterprises of manufacture or the sphere
of service. A school which has not the system of management corresponding with
the most contemporary requirements of the world’s market is not able to create
new knowledge effectively and manage them.
One
criteria, which defines an importance to have modern management at school, is
its unification with the world’s requirements.
Naturally
that nowadays private school, gymnasium possesses scientific potential which
allows it to make its own management system.
However it’s important to use the most famous model of management
system. Universally recognized model is the Standard of International organization
by standardization ISO 9007:2000.
Contemporary
theory of management on knowledge shows that the product of school is knowledge
which was got by pupils, knowledge which is not documented in the form of
lecture’s conspect, but which is fixed by the results of exams, by tests, by
scientific projects and by Olympiads in which pupils took part.
So we can define the management
of knowledge through possessing valuable knowledge. Secondary school which
makes its system of gymnasium management should be guided by the results of the
real sector of economy.
In
the sphere of learning the management of education there are following main
problems:
1. Plan of methodology about the formation of processes;
2. Concentration of knowledge for solving new tasks.
3. Regular monitoring of the knowledge accepting
decisions on the base of the results of the monitoring.
What are the reasons and theoretical origin of the system of knowledge? Historical reasons
are :
1
globalization;
2
introduction
of information technologies.
Almost since the beginning time
the management of knowledge discovered the difference between close and
knowledge, between “how to know” and “what to know”. This difference was done
by Aristotle.
Psychology makes a valuable contribution to the management system
working up questions about how people study and earn. Here it is likely to pay
attention on that management system examines the questions about transmission
of knowledge from donors to recipients not mechanistically but complexly in the
co-ordination with making motivation and in the condition of transmission of
knowledge.
Modern information technologies become the base of making modern
management. It is considered that using IT precipitates the access to the
necessary information and decreases the time of the treatment of data,
exaggerates an exchange of information.
Most of specialists of knowledge management providing difference between
knowledge and information give the following definitions. Data in some
artificial bearer are the information; and data which are inside of the head of
the person are knowledge. One of the key tasks of the management system is to
choose brilliants of knowledge among much information.
Intellectual actives are divided into two groups:
2
Real information active is
knowledge which occurs in some bearers;
3
Close information active is not
documented knowledge which is on the head of teacher.
Our theme is about management in the educational system of teaching
foreign languages. It’s a one sphere of management of knowledge. Our main aim
is to improve pupils foreign languages and solve problems. So in country there
are a lot of schools which teach foreign languages to their pupils through
general subjects.
Shahlan high school has been leading the way in education with basic
principles and quality in Almaty for 12 years. It has new vision with its
modern classrooms, libraries, laboratories and technological opportunities.
Teaching by experiencing and practicing starts in kindergarten and continues at
every stage up to high school. The objectives of Shahlan high school to train
individuals who claim and protect national and spiritual values, who are
devoted to essential principles of humanity and respect the universal values,
who are able to speak at least two languages. The school provides opportunities
for their students to learn considering their own abilities, to become
well-informed, skillful and self-confident, to be able to establish good
relationships in the society, to increase skills to meet the developing
requirements of the time and to become co-operative and eager to take part in
team work.
MIRAS International school was established in 1999 under the Nursultan
Nazarbaev Educational Foundation. The goals of the foundation were to provide
the integrative curriculum of the best part from Kazakh national programs and
the international program. This school was started with 70 students. It also
has a kindergarten where children are separated according to their ages. At
school are taught French, German, and Spanish in addition to English for the
extra curriculum. According to the words of school’s director Irina V.Loginova
they spend money and send their teachers
abroad to attend different seminars and they pay more attention to the
student.
There are two concepts of English proficiency: plurilingualism and
multilingualism. Multilinguals poccess a unique form of competence. A
plurilingual approach implies that people use different languages for different
purposes and do not need to achieve the same level of proficiency in each
language as there is no need to aim at native-like competence in each language.
Students may achieve multilingualism through instruction if schools offer a
range of languages as part of the curriculum, whilst plurilingualism goes
beyond this. It suggests that languages should be seen as complementary
interacting parts of a single system in which all knowledge and language
experience contributes to communicative competence. The achievement of
plurilingualism is a life-long experience.
Whilst
it may take quite a long time to establish a trilingual or quadrilingual system
of education nationwide as was successful, for instance, in Luxembourg,
Kazakh-Turkish High (KTH) schools have made a step forward operating a curriculum
taught through the medium of English, Kazakh and Turkish, with Russian taught
as a subject.
A
number of countries used the system of immersion in its various forms as an
educational response to social and political challenges. One may presuppose a
variety of underlying contexts and aims for programmes, which may differ from
those of the original programme because it is not quite possible for two
programmes to be identical: immersion in a foreign language (e.g. Hungary
English dual language programme), immersion for majority-language students in a
minority language (e.g. Canada –L2 enhancement programme), immersion for
language revival (e.g. Hawaii, the USA – reviving the indigenous language) and
language support (e.g. Spain – promoting Catalan and Basque among
Spanish-speaking children), and immersion in a language of power (e.g. Hong
Kong – facilitating English-medium education for Cantonese speakers).
KTH
Schools were opened after the agreement was signed between Nursultan Nazarbaev,
the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Turgut Ozal, the President of
Turkey, in 1991. The first schools were opened in 1992-1993 with some schools
opening later years, On 7November 2004, the Turkish newspaper Zaman reported on
the visit of Turkish Minister of Education Huseyin Celik to Kazakhstan. Celik
emphasized the contribution of the Katev and KTH Schools to the country’s
education. He recalled Nazarbaev’s statement at the opening of Parliament that
‘Every Kazakh citizen should speak at least three languages’, saying: “I think
these schools have reached Nazarbaev’s goal because they teach Turkish, Russian
and English at the same time. This is a very important opportunity”.
The
School operates a late partial immersion language content-based programme at a
secondary school level. The programme covers Grades 7-11 and students start it
at the age of 12-13. All students are selected on the basis of predicted
academic merit and language ability and have an extensive range of support from
the school. Such students have relatively low chances of academic failure. The
programme represents a mix-type of an immersion programme: immersion in Kazakh
for the purpose of revival and support, Turkish and English as foreign
languages.
Leila
Iyldyz, Mphil Ed, suggests that the following profile describes the current
practice in the School:
1
Instruction is given via three
languages: Kazakh, Turkish and English;
2
The curriculum content meets the
minimum National curriculum requirements and therefore covers the content
taught in other schools in the country plus content for Turkish; the content
for English is more extensive than in regular secondary in the country;
3
The School shows a positive
attitude towards Russian by teaching it as a subject and not excluding it from
a school aiming at the development of students’ Kazakh. Russian is also
supported in everyday communication. The School does not aim to replace Russian
by other languages but rather to add to plurilingual competence;
4
Explosure to Kazakh is not
strictly confined to the classroom because it is spoken in the community. By
contrast, exposure to Turkish and English is largely confined to the classroom
and intra-school communication;
5
Before entering the School, half
of the students are fluent while the other half limited proficiency in Kazakh;
students have limited proficiency in Turkish;
6
Local teachers are able to
communicate with students via Russian and Kazakh; all Turkish teachers are able
to communicate with students via Kazakh and Turkish and most of them via
English.
LITERATURE
1. //NILE March, 2006 Issue:20 Page7
2. //NILE November, 2006 Issue:22 Page1
3.
//NILE December, 2004 Issue:11 Page15
4.
// Àëü Ïàðè
«Ìåíåäæìåíò â ñôåðå îáðàçîâàíèÿ» 2006 ¹3-4 ñòð78-79
5. //Á³ë³ì. Îáðàçîâàíèå Àëìàòû 2006
¹1(25) ñòð. 109
6. //Á³ë³ì áåðóäåã³ ìåíåäæìåíò
2/2007 ñòð.3-6