Sharban Maigeldiyeva, Integrative approach to teaching multi-system languages

· Yearbook 2019

Integrative approach to teaching multi-system languages

Sharban M. Maigeldiyeva


Abstract: In the article, the integrative approach to teaching different languages is presented as a strategic direction in the professional training of philology students. The author proposes a method of teaching diverse languages developed by her based on the use of an integrative approach to learning, integrating the knowledge of native and non-native languages.

Keywords: integrative teaching approach, multi-system languages, integration, mother tongue, non-native language


Against the background of the increasing integrative processes in society, the professional preparation of teachers, including the Russian language teacher for the national school, retains a substantive differentiation. Obviously, the subject system of training contributes to the formation of a knowledge system for students in each individual subject, but at the same time dissects the unity and integrity of the concepts of many phenomena and processes in the surrounding reality and   in the upcoming professional activity. The problem of integrating knowledge in various disciplines at the Faculty of Philology is particularly relevant due to the complex nature of the professional activities of the Russian language teacher in the national school, which also has certain requirements for the preparation of students of this faculty. This is the formation of the students of general educational skills of integrated, integrated application of the obtained subject knowledge, contributing to the further development of the foundations of a holistic worldview among non-Russian schoolchildren. The theory of pedagogical integration is pre- sented in the works of N.S. Antonov, V.A. Baidak, G.I.Baturina, V.S. Bezrukova, M.N.Berulavy, V.A.Dalinger, V.I. Zagvyazinsky, K. N.Kuryndina, V.N.Fedorova, V.T.Fomenko, N.K.Chapaev, Pavlenko V.K., Kabdolova K., Kasymova R.T. and others. The methodological basis of an integrative approach to learning languages is dialectical method of knowledge, which in pedagogy and psychology is considered in terms of the optimal combination of abstract and concrete knowledge. Researchers V.V.Davydov, I.Ya. Halperin, D.B. Elkonin and others recognize the priority of the “initial abstractions” of generalized ideas in teaching. The dialectical unity of the abstract and concrete finds its manifestation in the integrative learning, which allows to cover all aspects of the studied subject to the greatest degree (completeness). An integrative approach to learning reveals a common, special and individual in the object under study. This enhances the interaction of analysis and synthesis, synthesis and specification, and contributes to the development of students’ mental abilities, because shows the path of the individual to the general and from the general to the particular. Integrative approach to learning is a direction that involves the process of mastering students of general universal rules, characteristics, features inherent in several disciplines. At the heart of such training in the study of each adjacent academic discipline, new components of knowledge should be formed into more complex, hierarchically constructed systems.


Currently, the pedagogical literature is in the process of forming a conceptual and terminological support for an integrative problem. Apparently, therefore, the majority of researchers in their works focus on the disclosure of the essence of the integrative approach to learning, describing the mechanism of its implementation, while not giving a specific definition to the concept itself. It seems to us expedient in the framework of this study to review the existing integrative paradigms identified by the scientist N.K. Chapaev (1995) in the work “Categorical field of the organic paradigm of integration: the personalistic-pedagogical aspect”. The author in his work draws attention to the fact that “the central point determining the specifics of a particular paradigm is the nature of the relationship between the whole and its parts” (Chapaev, 1995, p. 65). On this basis, N.K. Chapaev distinguishes two paradigms: system-engineering and organic. In the systems engineering paradigm, the leading positions are occupied by the methodological and conceptual values of the systems approach, in which relatively independent parts play the role of the active principle, the whole acts as their product. A systemic paradigm essentially reduces integration to the interaction of parts, where individual parts perform the functions of a factor, independent variable; integer-productive, dependent variable; interactions – some constant. In this paradigm, the integer is represented as a passive result. In this case, it is implied that the process of interaction of the parts necessarily leads to the formation of a whole, i.e. to integrate. The system-technical paradigm integration in pedagogy defines as “the process and the result of the interaction of the structural elements of the content of education, accompanied by the growth of systematic and knowledge density” (Chapaev, 1995, p. 66). The structural units that make up the content system of each academic subject are called didactic units and educational elements.


According to I.Ya. Lerner, the didactic unit is adequate to the object of study, which must be learned holistically with all the interrelationships. The didactic unit includes the following components: a certain number of facts and concepts; basic laws; fundamental and particular theories and their consequences. The constituent parts of a didactic unit are represented by learning elements. V.  Bespalko (1989) defines the educational element (УЭ) as an object, phenomenon and method of activity selected from science and included in the curriculum of the subject for studying. If the structural elements of the curriculum content are presented in the form of interdisciplinary educational elements (УЭ) and their connections (C), then the system-engineering paradigm of integration in education, in our opinion, can be generally reflected by the scheme (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Systematic paradigm of integration in learning

Chapaev at the same time notes that the interaction of individual parts (for example, training elements and their connections) does not necessarily lead to the formation of an integrative whole (the content of the school subject). The system-technical paradigm is preferable when studying the external “phenomenal” sides of integration, but not essential ones. The organic paradigm recognizes the priority role of the whole over parts. This makes it possible to present the whole as a living, developing organism, managing its parts, which simultaneously have both specific specialization and functional interdependence. The nature of the specialization of interdependence is given by the whole, and not by the interaction of its parts. In this case, the integer plays the role not of the resulting variable, but of the initial constant. As a result, organic integration is understood as a process and result of the unfolding of a whole, not through the interaction of parts, but through the disclosure of all its capabilities and potencies. The essence of an organic whole is that each of its components performs its inherent functions that are not comparable with other components, and sometimes contrasted with others, but as a result all parts of the whole are equally necessary for its existence. The core of an organic whole is integral quality, reflecting the general “cooperative integrity properties, representing so-called supraindividual certainty” (Chapaev, 1995, p. 75). Integral quality expresses the essential, organic side of the integrative process. The difference of this approach from the above system-based integration paradigm is that integration is understood as a process where the interaction of parts is determined by the characteristics of the whole, the idea of the whole, (Fig. 2)

Figure 2. Organic Paradigm of Integration in Learning

As can be seen from Figures 1 and 2, the systems-based paradigm reflects the phenomenological level of integration, in turn, the organic paradigm is deductive and reflects the essential point of integration. N.K. Chapaev indicates the existence of their mutual permeability and possible synthesis. On this basis, he singled out a number of invariant concepts of the categorical field of integration: the integral potential, the integral information and the integral part, which are applicable to both formulated paradigms. Integral potential “expresses the limits of the possibility of a phenomenon, object, process to perform well-known integrative functions” (Chapaev, 1995, p. 75). The author distinguishes three levels of integrative capabilities or integral potential in constructing the content of an academic subject:

  • interrelation – when presenting the content of a school subject, random, fragmentary information from various disciplines is given;
  • interdisciplinary communication – alien subject matter is selected in advance and joins the main one, taking into account the requirements of harmony, necessity and sufficiency;
  • integration – involves the creation of a course, discipline, subject, section, program, , in which there is a merger of facts, ideas, concepts, principles, laws, theories of various sciences and types of human activity.

As part of our study, the field of integration in language learning, consisting of an integral potential, an integral part and integral information, can be represented as follows:

Figure 3. Integrative approach to teaching native and non-native languages

Linguistic identity

Integral information “expresses the properties of the cooperating parts to enter into integration relations” (Bespalko, 1989, p. 76). The organic equivalent of this concept is “integrative readiness”. The integral part is defined as an essential component of the whole, without which it is inconceivable as such. Based on these invariant concepts, we believe that an integrative approach to learning can be defined as the realization of the integral potential of an academic subject, which involves the separation of an integral part as a connecting rod and integral information defining the direction of integration. The integral possibilities of the content of the subjects “The Practical Course of the Russian Language” and the “Practical Course of the Kazakh Language” are embedded in the very objectives of the training, provided for by the Gosstandart and Programs of these disciplines. Integral potential – the general goals of teaching non-native Russian and native Kazakh languages – requires the selection of an integral part in the content of educational disciplines as a linking rod. In this connection, it is necessary to single out the integral core of concepts based on similar theoretical material, create a single “through” system (native-Russian) of studying this material and forming educational and cognitive skills, which is characterized by:

  • the organization of the transfer of knowledge and skills in the process of studying similar theoretical material;
  • a reasonable approach to the choice of methods and methods of work in the study of similar and dissimilar language material;
  • -the creation of a typology of educational and language tasks, providing, on the one hand, the organization of transposition at the level of linguistic and communicative competence, and on the other hand, the work on preventing and overcoming speech interference. The assimilation of the integral part, i.e. content of learning Russian and native languages will contribute to the formation and improvement of the integrative information obtained in the learning process. Ultimately, students acquire competences – communicative, linguistic, linguistic, cultural studies, and in general the process of formation of bilingual competence of a language personality is completed.


Thus, an integrative approach to teaching students of the Faculty of Philology is expressed in the design of the content of school subjects, taking into account the considered integrative paradigms and the development of interdisciplinary, general philological knowledge and activities that contribute to the formation of a holistic world view. The quality of students’ preparation largely depends on the degree of provision of curricula with the disciplines, methods, means and forms of teaching dialectic interconnection and continuity of the studied subjects, as well as the ability of the teacher to support positive motivation of students to inde- pendently identify such interrelations. The integrative approach, in accordance with its methodological basis – the philosophical idea of the integrity of a person is intended to ensure the continuity and integrity of the professional and personal development of the future specialist teacher. This approach makes it possible to create conditions for students to choose a vital (pedagogical) position, for including their personality in the process of self-improvement in all areas of activity. “The integrative approach is a specific way to achieve integrity, internal unity, expediency of interaction between all subsystems and subject areas of the educational process.” (Galitsky, 2001, p. 52).

The foregoing proves once again the non-randomness of the choice of the term “integrative” for teaching two different system languages. First, it reflects the essence of understanding the object of learning – the language as a native and non-native. In either case, a language is a complex, multi-component, multi-level phenomenon, all of whose components are integrated into a whole in speech activity. Non-native language is a means of expression of thoughts and objective reality, the properties and laws of which are the subject of the native language.

This means that the content of the native language of instruction can be a subject for communication in a non-native language. In turn, a non-native language can help students acquire the necessary knowledge from any field, since this knowledge is recorded in words, sentences, and texts. This suggests that the limits of integration of a non-native language with the native language based on foreign language cultural themes are practically unlimited. Secondly, the integrative approach makes it possible to distinguish a method for dividing a given object of learning, the language, into highly integrated units, that is, units that combine the formal, procedural, level and content sides of the language. In our study, we will consider the lexical system of the Russian and Kazakh languages, in particular, its lexico-semantic fields of verbs. Thirdly, with the integrative approach to learning languages, we can observe a method of “recreating” or “education” (if I may say so) linguistic integrity based on the integration of units of low levels of speech statements (phrase, sentence) into higher ones (phrase, text). Fourthly, bilingual speech ability is being formed as a psycholinguistic basis of the process of using languages for communicative purposes based on the integration of speech skills developed and formed in speech skills of a different nature: the exchange of thoughts, paraphrasing, dialogue, speech situations, etc., in general speech communicating. And fifth, an integrative approach saves time and effort by removing repetitions and redundancy, thereby enhancing learning, enhancing the personal value of information for students, facilitating the transfer of knowledge and skills from one area of knowledge and field of activity to another.

Thus, in the most general way, an integrative approach can be defined as a strategic direction for coordinating and integrating student learning in languages, native and non-native, as a means of developing, shaping and improving communicative, linguistic competencies in the field of language education (Maygeldiyeva, 2014). The connection of the subject “Practical course of the Russian language” with another course of the native Kazakh language is one of the areas of integration in the bilingualism formation system, since the accounting and use of interdisciplinary connections is an important condition and incentive for the transfer of knowledge and skills acquired by students in another school subject. The interrelation of two languages – native and non-native – is the synthesis of similar elements of the languages being studied, based on coordination and integration. Coordination and integration is carried out on the basis of continuity of relations with previously studied topics and sections. The integrative approach as a strategic direction in education assumes the interrelation of the studied subjects, which are very close in their goals and objectives for the complete supply of educational material and the formation of a more complete mastering of it in students.

Interdisciplinary communication, coordination and integration should be the implementation forms of the concept of an integrative approach to the training of closely related subjects proposed by us. The integrative approach to teaching diverse systems at the present stage should be carried out in a specially organized and managed educational process based on a common selection of training materials that motivate the communicative competence of language – learning tasks of a speech-thinking nature and by stimulating consistently more complex speech-related educational activities.



Bespalko, V. P.  (1989). The components of educational technology. Moscow: Pedagogy.

Chapaev, N. K. (1995). The categorical field of the organic paradigm of integration: the personalistic-pedagogical aspect. In E.V. Tkachenko (Ed.), The conceptual apparatus of the pedagogy of education: Collection of scientific works. Issue 1. (pp. 61-77). Ekaterinburg.

Galitsky, E. O. (2001). Integrative approach to the professional-personal development of the future teacher. Standards and monitoring. № 4, 50-54.

Maygeldiyeva, Sh. M. (2014). Integrative approach to learning multi-language / reissued. Saarbrucken, Germany: Рalmarium-publishing.


Author Info:

Prof. Sharban M. Maigeldiyeva

Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences

Korkyt Ata  Kyzylorda State University