Түйіндеме қазақ тілінде: Мақалада үштілді білім беру саясатының іс жүзіндегі жүзеге асыруы сын тұрғысынан талданады. Ресми түрде көп тілділік қолдауға ие болса да, мектеп сыныптарында әлі күнге дейін бір тілдік ойлау үстем болып келеді. Автор оқу тәжірибесі мен оқулықтарды талдау арқылы қазақ, орыс және ағылшын тілдерінің бір-бірінен оқшауланып, пәнаралық білімге енбей қалуын көрсетеді. Хорнбергер (2005) мен Дуарте (2017) ұсынған теориялық тұжырымдар негізінде мақалада тілдерді салыстыру, тілдік сана, түсіну негізіндегі көп тілділік сияқты күнделікті практикалар арқылы идеологиялық және іс жүзіндегі көп тілділік кеңістіктерін кеңейту ұсынылады. Бұндай жүйелі тәсіл оқушылардың тілдік қорын нығайтып, ағылшын тілі арқылы оқыту (EMI) ортасына дайындайды, сонымен қатар оқытуды инклюзивті әрі тиімді етеді. Бұл бағыт оқу бағдарламаларын өзгертпей-ақ қазіргі үштілді білім беру қағидатына сай жүзеге асырылуы мүмкін.

Аннотация на русском языке: В статье автор критически анализирует реализацию казахстанской трёхъязычной образовательной политики, показывая, что, несмотря на официальную поддержку мультилингвизма, школьные классы по-прежнему функционируют в рамках моноязычного мышления. На примере школьного опыта и анализа учебников автор демонстрирует, как казахский, русский и английский языки остаются изолированными друг от друга и не интегрируются в межпредметное обучение. Опираясь на концепции Хорнбергер (2005) и Дуарте (2017), статья предлагает расширить как идеологические, так и практические пространства для мультилингвизма через повседневные практики — такие как сопоставление языков, языковая осведомлённость и реципиентский мультилингвизм. Такой целостный подход укрепит языковые репертуары учащихся, подготовит их к обучению в среде English Medium Instruction (EMI) и сделает обучение более инклюзивным и эффективным, не требуя при этом изменения учебных программ.

I want to start my position paper with a personal story. In the Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy, former President Nursultan Nazarbayev emphasized the crucial role of education and language learning in fostering national development (Nazarbayev, 2012, [12]). This vision is reflected in the state’s trilingual education policy, which promotes proficiency in Kazakh, Russian, and English to equip the population with the language skills necessary for global competitiveness and national unity (Ministry of Education, 2018, [10]). My son Danial started his school journey in 2021 within this trilingual program. His medium of instruction is Russian, while Kazakh and English have been taught as separate subjects since the first grade. Now, in the 5th grade, Danial has more than ten language lessons per week, and from an outsider’s perspective this seems like a true triumph of multilingual education.

But is it really so? Despite these visible efforts to promote multilingualism, classrooms in Kazakhstan often reflect a predominantly monolingual mindset. These languages rarely leave the walls of their assigned classrooms and remain isolated from each other and from other subjects, such as history or biology. I examined Danial’s textbooks and found only one example that hinted at multilingualism. Figure 1 displays a page from his science book where lessons begin with key vocabulary presented in three languages. Unfortunately, even this initiative is not supported by his science teacher, as Danial says they never pay attention to these words.

You might assume that at least one language should appear almost everywhere - the medium of instruction, which in our case is Russian. This is largely true for subject lessons, yet the situation changes in English and Kazakh classes, where Russian is treated as an intruder that threatens the authenticity of the target language. In practice, Russian is still spoken during these lessons, but it is entirely absent from the textbooks. After reviewing them carefully, I did not find a single instance where Russian was included, even in places where a brief thematic glossary would have been genuinely useful.

To sum up my example, languages continue to be kept strictly separate in Kazakhstani classrooms, and ideological spaces that value multilingual practices remain limited. Drawing on Hornberger's (2005, [7]) concept of implementational and ideological spaces, I argue that although Kazakhstan officially supports trilingual education, the current context reflects a closed implementational space combined with a weak ideological space. In practice, this means that even though the policy exists, schools offer very little opportunity for languages to interact in meaningful or authentic ways.

In what follows, I argue that Kazakhstan’s school curriculum needs to adopt a holistic multilingual approach that embeds small, everyday multilingual practices across subjects and grade levels. Drawing on Duarte’s (2017, [5]) holistic model and Duarte and Van der Meij’s (2018, [6]) study, I propose expanding both ideological and implementational spaces by integrating early-level multilingual practices such as language awareness, language comparison, and receptive multilingualism. I suggest implementing these practices in both content subjects and language classes. Examples include presenting key vocabulary in several languages, noticing similarities between terms, or briefly discussing how concepts appear across Kazakh, Russian, and English. Such small but meaningful adjustments can challenge monolingual classroom ideologies, normalize cross-linguistic thinking, and gradually strengthen students’ multilingual repertoires.

The “Less Languages, More Learning” Argument. Some people may argue that maintaining multilingual practices during different subject lessons could reduce the time available for teaching core content. This concern often stems from the belief that introducing several languages into a lesson may distract students, slow down instruction, or create confusion, especially for learners who already struggle with the material. These worries are closely tied to long-standing assumptions that content and language learning must be kept strictly separate in order to protect academic achievement. As Cenoz and Gorter (2020, [1]) note, traditional approaches are “based on the isolation of the target language” and maintain “hard boundaries between languages” in educational settings, which reinforces the perception that multilingual practices are risky or undesirable (pp. 302-303). Moreover, the implementation of multilingual practices is often viewed with skepticism by teachers themselves, as they perceive it as additional work that will only increase their workload.

However, research by Duarte and Van der Meij (2018, [6]) challenges these assumptions. Their findings demonstrate that integrating multilingual language learning with content knowledge across the curriculum does not hinder academic progress. On the contrary, multilingual practices promote high cognitive engagement by encouraging students to compare concepts across languages, activate prior knowledge, and use all linguistic resources available to them (Cummins, 2005, [4]; Pacheco & Miller, 2016, [13]). Rather than being a distraction, multilingual approaches deepen understanding, strengthen metalinguistic awareness, and support the learning of complex subject matter. Taken together, this evidence suggests that multilingual practices offer tangible learning benefits rather than obstacles. In other words, multilingual practices have real strengths that deserve attention. In the following section, I discuss one of these strengths in more detail and show how multilingual approaches can support broader educational goals in Kazakhstan.

The Base for EMI. One critical area where these strengths become especially relevant is English Medium Instruction (EMI). The current monolingual mindset in Kazakhstani schools does not create the conditions needed for students to succeed in EMI in higher grades. When languages are kept strictly separate and used only within their assigned lessons, students do not build the cross-linguistic skills or subject-specific terminology that EMI requires. As a result, the transition to learning subjects in English becomes extremely challenging, as demonstrated by Kazakhstani research on EMI implementation (Manan, 2025, [8]; Manan et al., 2023, [9]).

Duarte’s (2017, [5]) holistic framework, which you can see on Figure 2, makes this gap particularly visible. On her continuum of multilingual educational approaches, EMI and immersion are positioned at the far right, representing the most demanding and linguistically intensive forms of multilingual education. At the opposite end of the continuum are the foundational steps: language awareness and language comparison, which involve simply noticing how languages relate to one another and acknowledging all languages present in the classroom. These early stages are essential, because they allow students to gradually develop the linguistic flexibility they will eventually need for content and language integrated learning (CLIL) or full EMI.

Everyday multilingual practices directly support these foundational stages. Regular exposure to key terms in several languages, brief cross-linguistic comparisons, and opportunities to notice similarities across Kazakh, Russian, and English help students build the flexible strategies expected at the higher end of Duarte’s continuum. Research shows that successful CLIL and EMI depend not only on content knowledge but also on students’ ability to draw on their full linguistic repertoire to understand new material (Coyle et al., 2010 [3]). These practices also support teachers by normalizing multilingual routines and reducing the pressure to rely on English alone. In this way, small multilingual steps in primary and secondary school create the linguistic foundation needed for students to meet the demands of EMI in higher grades. Beyond preparing students for EMI, multilingual practices also contribute to broader pedagogical goals related to inclusion and effective learning.

Multilingual practices foster inclusive and effective learning. Building on the previous argument, the implementation of multilingual practices can foster more inclusive and effective learning environments. Everyday multilingual activities can help students build meaningful connections between linguistic systems and strengthen their comprehension. Research shows that when learners are encouraged to draw on all their languages, they activate prior knowledge, understand new concepts more easily, and participate more confidently in classroom discussions ( Duarte, 2017 [5]).

Multilingual practices also make classrooms more inclusive. Students who may struggle with the target language can use their stronger languages as bridges to access content, reducing anxiety and increasing engagement. Studies demonstrate that such approaches promote equitable participation by validating students’ linguistic resources rather than treating them as obstacles (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017, [1]). Even small steps, like offering a multilingual glossary or allowing students to check meaning in another language, can create learning environments where more students can succeed. In this way, multilingual practices support both comprehension and inclusion, showing that language diversity can be a resource rather than a barrier in everyday teaching.

Implementing Multilingual Practices Through a Holistic Approach. While these benefits are clear, a further question emerges: how can teachers incorporate multilingual practices in a manageable and sustainable way? Duarte’s (2017, [5]) holistic model provides a clear roadmap for how this can be done within existing school structures. The model shows that multilingual education does not begin with demanding approaches like CLIL or EMI; rather, it starts with small, accessible practices situated at the early stages of the continuum. These include language awareness, where students are encouraged to notice and acknowledge the presence of multiple languages, and language comparison, where similarities and differences between Kazakh, Russian, and English are briefly explored during classroom activities.

Such practices can be easily incorporated into daily lessons. Teachers can present key vocabulary in several languages and highlight cognates, which are words in different languages that share a similar form and meaning due to common origins (for example, information in English, информация in Russian, and информация in Kazakh). They can also allow students to check meaning in whichever language they know best. In addition, teachers can create short, purposeful translanguaging moments in which students use more than one language to reason through ideas, compare explanations, or help classmates understand a concept. Importantly, these small multilingual routines also support teacher agency. As Montgomery and De Costa (2024, [11) show, teachers in Kazakhstan often work within restrictive policy environments that limit their autonomy and flexibility, especially in EMI and CLIL settings. In this context, everyday multilingual practices can serve as agentive choices that teachers can realistically make within existing constraints.

By integrating these small multilingual moments across subjects and grade levels, schools can gradually expand the spaces where languages interact. Crucially, these practices do not require any policy change or curriculum redesign, they fit comfortably within Kazakhstan’s existing trilingual education framework, which already permits the use of Kazakh, Russian, and English in pedagogically meaningful ways. This approach strengthens students’ multilingual repertoires, empowers teachers to exercise professional agency, and brings the principles of the trilingual policy into everyday classroom practice.

Examples of multilingual practices

This appendix presents a set of simple multilingual activities that subject and language teachers can integrate into regular lessons without altering the medium of instruction or redesigning the curriculum. These routines take only a few minutes and can be used flexibly at different points in a lesson.

Multilingual routines for content subjects

Multilingual Keyword Slide. At the start of the lesson, the teacher displays 3–5 key terms in Kazakh, Russian, and English. Students read them aloud together, identify familiar words, and briefly note similarities.

Multilingual Matching Cards. The teacher prepares small sets of cards with processes or key terms (e.g., water cycle steps) in three languages. Students work in pairs to match the cards.

Multilingual Brainstorm. Before introducing new material, students brainstorm what they already know about the topic. They may use any language and record ideas in Kazakh, Russian, and English.

Explain It Your Way. After learning a new concept, the teacher asks: “Explain this idea in the language where it makes the most sense for you.” Students may explain in Kazakh, Russian, English, or in a mixed way while helping each other clarify meaning.

Multilingual awareness and comparison in language classes

Cognate Hunt. Students look for cognates or shared roots (e.g., photosynthesis – фотосинтез – фотосинтез). Pairs explain why the words look similar.

Cross-Linguistic Mini-Grammar Moments. The teacher shows a simple structure (e.g., the past tense, plural forms, question formation) and briefly asks students how the pattern works in Kazakh, Russian, and English. Students note similarities and differences.

Etymology Moments. The teacher briefly explains where a word comes from (e.g., Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian).Students check whether Kazakh or Russian shares the same root.

References

1. Cenoz J, & Gorter D. (2020) Teaching English through pedagogical translanguaging. World Englishes, 39, 300–311. https://doi-org.ezproxy.nu.edu.kz/10.1111/weng.12462
2. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
3. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
4. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585-592. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44002002
5. Duarte, J. (2017). Translanguaging in mainstream education: A sociocultural approach. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1316471
6. Duarte, J., & Günther-van der Meij, M. (2018). A holistic model for multilingualism in education. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(2, Special Issue), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.9.153
7. Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–609. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3588632
8. Manan, S. A. (2025). Implementing English Medium Instruction (EMI) policy: STEM content teachers’ emotion labour in Kazakhstan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2025.2562576
9. Manan, S. A., Mukhamediyeva, S., Kairatova, S., Tajik, M. A., & Hajar, A. (2023). Policy from below: STEM teachers’ response to EMI policy and policymaking in mainstream schools in Kazakhstan. Current Issues in Language Planning, 25(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2023.2243170
10. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2018, October 31). Ob utverzhdenii gosudarstvennykh obshcheobiazatel'nykh standartov obrazovaniya vsekh urovney obrazovaniya [On the approval of state compulsory education standards for all levels of education]. Retrieved July 8, 2025, from https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/archive/docs/V1800017669/20.07.2022
11. Montgomery, D. P., & De Costa, P. I. (2024). Leveraging relational agency: CLIL teacher collaboration in one Kazakhstani university. RELC Journal, 56(2), 412-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882241234756 
12. Nazarbayev, N. (2012, December 14). Kazakhstan 2050: Novyy politicheskiy kurs sostoyavshegosya gosudarstva [Kazakhstan 2050: A new course for the established state]. Retrieved July 8, 2025, from https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1200002050
13. Pacheco, M. B., & Miller, M. E. (2016). Making meaning through translanguaging in the literacy classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 533–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1390