Using Two-Way Immersion Program in Teaching English in Kazakhstan: Teachers’ View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Program of Two-way immersion is a form of integration students from two different groups and contemporary studying of two languages and subjects on these languages. The method as a method was appeared in Canada in the early 1960s. The program of TWI adherence to the following criteria: 1. The number of students is the same in two group; 2) groups gathered into one group according to the main subjects; 3) all main subjects are taught in two languages simultaneously. Two types of TWI program: 50\50; 90\10. This qualitative study aims to examine teachers’ views on the implementation the bilingual program into educational process of Kazakhstan. The literature review showed that Two-way immersion program is one of the innovative methods within the trilingual education of Kazakhstan, that not sufficiently studied and approved. It was hypothesized that TWI program makes an effect on trilingualism of Kazakhstan. For checking the awareness of this program, it was conducted an experimental work in Karaganda Buketov University, Kazakhstan. (103 teachers from the faculty of foreign languages, within five departments: Department of foreign philology; Foreign languages department; Department of translation theory and practice; Department of the theory and practice of foreign language training; Department of the practical foreign language course)The results demonstrate that this program is not sufficiently studied, becomes relevant in the educational process and informative, as well as to create the necessary methodological recommendations. The usage of TWI program improves the system of bilingual education in Kazakhstan, expands the level of professional readiness of teachers and students, develops high levels of academic competence and motivation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".