Advertisement

Kazakh Transnational Multiliteracies: Building Intergenerational Communities of Learning

  • Nettie BoivinEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

Kazakhstan language policy is evolving from one of revitalization of Kazakh to one of trilingualism including Kazakh, Russian, and English. This shift in policy poses new questions regarding Kazakh preschool children’s language and literacy learning. Preschool children learn best through active social interaction, and the home sphere is the most influential for learning prior to entering formal education. With global access to technology, home learning practices have expanded knowledge-sharing. However, in the rural context, access to digital technology and global practices is limited. This study investigates the types of learning interaction that are occurring in remote areas of Kazakhstan and how they differ from more urban areas. The first stage of the 2-year study involved observation in public spaces during the work week. Over 400 observations in 20 towns, villages, and urban centers were collected. This initial assessment stage of the study included 200 h of nonparticipatory observation. The factors investigated were frequency and length of learning interaction, where the interactions occur (urban vs. rural area), with whom (parent vs. caregiver), and what modality (mobile phones, action figures), types of practices (verbal vs. gestures vs. both), purpose (knowledge-sharing, entertainment), and whether technology was used as a part of parental social interaction. These observations address the questions: (1) What types of practices are being engaged at the preschool age, with whom, and using what modality? and (2) In addition to parents, can other community stakeholders facilitate communities of learning through digital technology? The results reveal that in knowledge-sharing, the types of learning practices and interactions among elderly caregivers differ from those of young caregivers. Additionally, variations were identified in types of learning practices between elderly parents and community members in rural and their urban counterparts.

The second phase of implementation included four 5-h pilot awareness sessions performed on a weekend. Awareness sessions covered themes such as active learning, multiliteracies, ethnic storytelling, and story construction. Pre- and post-session questionnaire data were collected. Preliminary results revealed that participants created preschool resources and a community of learning through digital technology. This occurred through the organic participant-created videos on their smartphones. These videos captured extra peripheral learning practices. Additionally, these videos were shared among the participants. Thus, they collectively created a digital community of multilingual learning resources. These findings from the pilot stage address challenges for rural communities through intergenerational participation in preschool learning.

Keywords

Transnational multiliteracies Communities of learning Preschool Elderly vs. young caregivers Rural vs. urban knowledge-sharing 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by funding from the Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.

References

  1. Abbott-Chapman, J., & Robertson, M. (2015). Youth leisure, places, spaces and identity. In Landscapes of leisure (pp. 123–134). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken, J. (2011). Kazakhstan: Surprises and stereotypes after 20 years of independence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. H., Pomfret, R., & Usseinova, N. (2004). Education in Central Asia during the transition to a market economy. In S. P. Heyneman & A. J. DeYoung (Eds.), Challenges to education in Central Asia (pp. 131–152). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, B. (2010). The transfer of cultural knowledge in the early childhood: Social and ethnic disparities and the mediating role of familial activities. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775–786.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boivin, N. (2016). Multiliteracies of transnational and immigrant pre-teens: Meditating intercultural meaning. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45(6), 470–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boivin, N., Noraini Albakri, R., Yunus, Z., Mohammad, H., & Muniandy, N. (2014). Assessing emergent, social, and multiliteracy practices in urban Malaysian homes. Malaysian English Language Research Journal, 10(2), 34–54.Google Scholar
  8. Burkhalter, N., & Shegebayev, M. R. (2012). Critical thinking as culture: Teaching post-Soviet teachers in Kazakhstan. International Review of Education, 58(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2007). Reasoning about artifacts at 24 months: The developing teleo-functional stance. Cognition, 103(1), 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cercone, J. (2010). Learning English in new times: The participatory design spaces of the new literacies classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  11. Chiswick, B. R., Lee, Y. L., & Miller, P. W. (2005). Family matters: The role of the family in immigrants’ destination language acquisition. Journal of Population Economics, 18(4), 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cristancho, S., & Vining, J. (2009). Perceived intergenerational differences in the transmission of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in two indigenous groups from Colombia and Guatemala. Culture and Psychology, 15(2), 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummings, S. N. (2013). Symbolism and power in Central Asia: Politics of the spectacular. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darieva, T., Kaschuba, W., & Krebs, M. (2011). Urban spaces after socialism: Ethnographies of public places in Eurasian cities (Vol. 22). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  15. Dave, B. (2007). Kazakhstan – Ethnicity, language and power. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deniz, D. (2010). Nationality policies in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Unpublished MA dissertation, Middle Eastern Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  17. Duman, G., Orhon, G., & Gedik, N. (2015). Research trends in mobile assisted language learning from 2000 to 2012. ReCALL, 27(2), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117–138). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Farver, J. A. M., Kim, Y. K., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2000). Within cultural differences examining individual differences in Korean American and European American preschoolers’ social pretend play. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fierman, W. (1998). Language and identity in Kazakhstan: Formulations in policy documents, 1987–1997. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 31(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fierman, W. (2000). Changing urban demography and the prospects of nationalism in Kazakhstan. Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, XXVII(1–2), 7–20.Google Scholar
  22. Galindo, C., & Sheldon, S. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gregory, E., & Williams, A. (2000). City literacies: Learning to read across generations and cultures. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Gregory, E., Lytra, V., Choudhury, H., Ilankuberan, A., Kwapong, A., & Woodham, M. (2012). Syncretism as a creative act of mind: The narratives of children from four faith communities in London. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaeger, M. M. (2012). The extended family and children’s educational success. American Sociological Review, 77, 903.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412464040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kress, G. (2004). Literacy in the new media age. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Laurent, A., Nicoladis, E., & Marentette, P. (2015). The development of storytelling in two languages with words and gestures. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(1), 56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowrey, K. (2008). Incommensurability and new economic strategies among indigenous and traditional peoples. Journal of Political Ecology, 15(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marsh, J. (2004). The techno-literacy practices of young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Minahan, J. (2013). Miniature empires: A historical dictionary of the newly independent states. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Møllegaard, S., & Jæger, M. M. (2015). The effect of grandparents’ economic, cultural, and social capital on grandchildren’s educational success. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 42, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piaget, J. (2013). The construction of reality in the child (Vol. 82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Purcell-Gates, V. E. (2007). Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy, social practice, and power. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Roberts, J., Jergens, J., & Burchinal, M. (2005). The role of home literacy practices in preschool children’s language and emergent literacy skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(2), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robson, S., & Quinn, S. F. (2014). The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimodality: Rethinking literacy in a digital age, Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2007). Creativity, communication and collaboration: The identification of pedagogic progression in sustained shared thinking. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 3–23.Google Scholar
  42. Suny, R. G. (1998). The soviet experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the successor states. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. UNICEF. (2015). Annual Report – Kazakhstan. Paris: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  44. Van Steensel, R. (2006). Relations between socio-cultural factors, the home literacy environment and children’s literacy development in the first years of primary education. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and Communication Studies, Centre for Applied Language StudiesUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Nazarbayev UniversityAstanaKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations