Migrant’s linguodidactic modelling: effectiveness and educational capacity

Full Text

Introduction Language training is essential for successful adaptation of migrants in a new society: without knowing the language spoken in the host country, migrants will not be able to work within their specialities or solve common social and domestic problems; they will find themselves culturally and informationally isolated, being forced to communicate only in a narrow circle of their compatriots. This factor is very important for the host community: while communicating with its members, migrants discover the values of a new culture learning to be tolerant to accept new norms and rules of social interaction, which as a whole creates prerequisites to form the basis of inter-ethnic harmony in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural space of the host country. In this regard, training courses aimed at language training and linguocultural adaptation of migrants should be clearly target-focused, i.e. designed to address their communication needs and requirements, relevant communicative areas, situations and topics, scope of competence in speech activities (the four basic skills) necessary and sufficient for solving communicative problems. Factors providing the targeted orientation (and as a consequence, the intensity) of an educational course for migrants can be identified and methodically interpreted based on pedagogical modelling of a foreign language learner personality. In the Russian pedagogical science, two concepts are the most widely used which provide efficient methodical and metrical tools, i.e. the European Language Portfolio (ELP) and the theory of language personality. However, our experience in teaching Russian to migrants and linguodidactic testing shows that their specific objectives, needs, personal and other significant characteristics do not allow the problem of their language proficiency to be solved based only on the principles of the ELP and the theory of language personality. A new methodical and metrical tool is required to consider all the specific features of this enrolment. It is the authors’ opinion that this tool is migrant linguodidactic profiling. Our experience confirms its high educational potential which we will try to prove in this article. For this purpose, we shall analyse the pedagogical modelling strategies based on the theories which are now widely used in the Russian methods of teaching foreign languages (including Russian as a foreign language), i.e. the ELP and the theory of language personality. We shall also consider the state of scientific knowledge of the concept of linguodidactic profile in the modern literature. The aim of the study is to determine and verify the educational capacity of linguodidactic modelling as an effective instrument of pedagogical portraiting of different migrant categories in lunguocultural development of migrants. Literature review The ELP is a document which records data on the study of a foreign language by individuals and their experiences in intercultural dialogue1 (Little, 2009). The ELP is composed of three parts: (1) the Language Passport which contains data on the foreign language proficiency level; (2) the Language Biography which describes the owner’s experiences and further planning in learning a foreign language; and (3) the Dossier where materials are kept to illustrate the owner’s language competences. The ELP is an effective tool for measuring the level of language proficiency and planning the language learning route which motivates the owner to further, deeper study of a foreign language and the culture of country where this language is spoken. The term language personality was introduced into pedagogical practice by Yu.N. Karaulov (Karaulov, 2007) and G.I. Bogin (Bogin, 1984). Based on the principles of this theory, it is possible to model a person as a speaker of a certain language: “Language personality is a personality expressed in language (texts) and via language, a personality reconstructed in his or her general terms on the basis of language means” (Karaulov, 2007: 38). There are three levels in a structural model of the language personality: (1) a verbal-semantic (verbal-grammatical or lexical-grammatical) level; (2) a cognitive (linguistic-cognitive) level; and (3) a motivational level (Karaulov, 2007: 6). As we can see, the ELP and the theory of language personality provide methodologists and teachers with efficient tools to identify personality features directly related to the communicative competence and communicative (or in a broader sense, discursive) activities. However, in order to develop and organize a training course, create textbooks and manuals, the specialists will also need other addressee-related data which are not considered in the above-mentioned theories. These are data related to specific communicative needs, preferred foreign language learning strategies, etc. The authors of this article think that a learner linguodidactic profile can help to answer to these questions. The term ‘profile’ is quite widely used in modern literature: in pedagogics, it is common practice to profile educational systems, training trends and specialities (Azimov, Shchyukin, 2009), students2; in testology, profiles of testing systems and testees are analysed3; in migration sociology, studies are made on migration profiles of countries, migrations as a whole, migration flows and processes as well as individual profiles of migrants4. As the literature analysis shows, this term is used to develop models of human personalities or spheres of human activities taking into account the properties and characteristics which are important for any science or practice. Many authors write about a great scientific and practical potential of this concept5,6. However, despite its great practical relevance, it has scarcely been developed at a scientific level. There are no scientific studies of this phenomenon, its content is not determined, its structure is not identified either. Calculation The data findings are given in this section. To arrange the linguodidactic profiling of migrants based on the scientific researchers of some scholars (Dolzhikova et al., 2018) it’s necessary to give the brief definition of the ‘linguodidactic profile’ first. It is a pedagogic model of the personalities the structure of which includes characteristics that are important for learning a foreign language. To find out these personality characteristics the data analysis was conducted on the example of citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan that make up the main migration flow contributor to the Russian Federation. The authors of the article analyzed the migrants’ documents: passports, diplomas, certificates of language proficiency. The migrants also took part in the interviews with them. The main difficulties of the Russian Language as foreign in comparison with Uzbek language were found out. The theoretical analysis of cultural peculiarities helped to single out the specific features of Uzbek nationality to which it is necessary to attract the attention while teaching them foreign languages. Linguodidactic profile of migrants in theory and practice of teaching Russian as a foreign language 1. Citizenship, country of residence: The Republic of Uzbekistan (the Appendix 1, question 1). 2. Average age of trainees. To determine the average age of the enrolment of our interest, we have analysed the questionnaire (the Appendix 1, question 2) filled by foreign citizens in 2018-2019 (52 migrants), who learned and passed the comprehensive exam in Russian as a foreign language at the test center of the RUDN University. The number of migrants per each group of age are presented in the table below (Table 1). As can be seen, the vast majority of migrants from Uzbekistan that came to the Russian Language center to learn the foreign language are people aged 22-35 years (80.7%) (figure 1). This characteristic served to the developers of the training course in Russian as a guide to determine the thematic repertoire of texts, forms and means of operation, and types of exercises. 3. Cultural background. This characteristic is required for determining the subject matter of the course and selecting linguistic realities concerned in the educational materials. The Russian linguistic culture includes a large number of phenomena that are new to the Uzbeks. As the questionnaire survey shows there are some lacunas (linguistic and cultural gaps) that should be filled in while training the migrants (See the Appendix 2, part 1 and part 2). It should be corrected in the course of language training and the Russian realities which are not understood by the trainees should be included into the educational materials. On the contrary, they can and must be involved into the training course but accompanied by accessible and meaningful comments. 4. Level of education. In Table 2 you can see the obtained data that was received (the Appendix 1, question 3). As can be seen in Figure 2, the average level of education of migrants from Uzbekistan is rather low. Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the number of migrants with linguodidactic profile’s component “age” Migrant ٢١ and younger ٢٢-٢٦ ٢٧-٣٥ ٣٦-٤٥ ٤٦-٥٥ ٥٦ and older 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 + 37 + 38 + 39 + 40 + 41 + 42 + 43 + 44 + 45 + 46 + 47 + 48 + 49 + 50 + 51 + 52 + Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the number of migrants with linguodidactic profile’s component “level of education” Migrant Higher Incomplete higher Secondary Professional Secondary Incomplete secondary Primary None 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 + 37 38 + 39 + 40 + 41 + 42 + 43 + 44 + 45 + 46 + 47 + 48 + 49 + 50 + 51 + 52 + Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Figure 1. Age characteristics of migrants from the Republic of Uzbekistan Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Figure 2. Education levels of migrants from the Republic of Uzbekistan Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. The data shown in the bar chart indicate insufficiently formed general learning skills in migrants from Uzbekistan which necessitated increasing the number of training exercises, grammar explanations and comments in the Russian Language training course. 5. Academic background, learning style. In the Russian academic tradition, one of the leading places belongs to the principle of consciousness, i.e., in the educational process, Russian teachers are based on analytical and synthetical skills of students, cognitive skills of communication and argumentation, etc. Uzbekistan has retained fairly strong traditions of the Soviet school; for this reason, there are no essential contradictions between the learning technologies accepted in Russia and learning styles typical of Uzbekistan. 6. Native language of migrants, its main characteristics. Differences between the Russian and Uzbek languages are quite significant. The Uzbek language belongs to the eastern subgroup of the Turkic language group. The most important features of this language include the agglutinative structure, absence of vowel harmony, specificity of consonantism, vocalism and morphological categories, etc. To arrange the training system and find out these peculiarities the interview was conducted (Appendix 2, part 2). These characteristics were taken into account by the course developers in order to allocate the overall amount of time for training and explanation of grammatical phenomena and units: grammar material missing in the native language was learnt more thoroughly in class. 7. Initial level of the foreign (Russian) language proficiency. To check the starting level of Russian Language proficiency a placement test was given to the students. It contained 32 tasks of different level (Biryukova et al., 2020). The data of the entry (placement) test are presented in Table 3. Entry testing shows that the average starting level of Russian proficiency of migrants from Uzbekistan is below A1 (Figure 3). These data defined the selection of the training content which was presented in the textbooks and manuals developed by the teachers. Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the number of migrants with linguodidactic profile’s component “initial language level” Migrant Lower than A١ A١ level A٢ level B١ level B٢ level C١ level C٢ level ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 + 37 + 38 + 39 + 40 + 41 + 42 + 43 + 44 + 45 + 46 + 47 + 48 + 49 + 50 + 51 + 52 + Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Figure 3. Initial language level of migrants from the Republic of Uzbekistan Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. 8. Purpose and motives of learning a foreign (Russian) language. Motivational and target component of a typical linguodidactic profile of migrants from Uzbekistan is fairly uniform, i.e. the majority of them learn the language to be able to perform their professional activities and solve domestic, socio-cultural, and administrative problems (table 4). The data was obtained using a questionnaire (the Appendix 1, question 4). Summary data are given here (Figure 4). Table 4 Descriptive statistics of the number of migrants with linguodidactic profile’s component “purpose and motives of learning a foreign language” Migrant - to perform the professional activities - to solve domestic, socio-cultural, and administrative problems - to use the language to travel - to learn the language for pleasure ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ 1 + 2 + + 3 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 + 30 + 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 + 37 + 38 + 39 + 40 + 41 + 42 + 43 + 44 + 45 + 46 + 47 + 48 + 49 + 50 + 51 + 52 + Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Figure 4. Purpose and motives of learning a foreign language Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. 9. Planned scope of use of the Russian Language, basic communicative needs. Surveys have shown that the professional, domestic, socio-cultural, and administrative spheres of communication are the most essential for this enrolment (Appendix 1, question 4, Table 4, Figure 4). 10. Essential social communicative roles are determined by the planned objectives of learning the Russian Language and areas of its intended use. The nomenclature of roles identified in the surveys coincides with the data of the RFL regulatory documents (Klobukova et al., 2015a; Klobukova et al., 2015b). 11. Target level of Russian proficiency. The regulatory documents (Klobukova et al., 2015a; Klobukova et al., 2015b) determine the target level as A2. As shown by our analysis, this level is sufficient to solve the current problems of communication and implement the necessary intentions. To check if the migrants achieved the target level, the final testing was conducted (Biryukova et al., 2020). 12. Main difficulties in learning the foreign (Russian) language. It is methodologically appropriate to measure this characteristic by the following two parameters: (1) language aspects (pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary); (2) types of speech activity, i.e. the four basic skills (listening, reading, speaking, and writing). A list of questions for interviewing see at Appendix 2. The data of monitoring as well as analysed written papers and oral responses of migrants from Uzbekistan revealed the main error-prone areas which were taken into account in the developed training course. According to the first parameter (language aspects), the most frequently recorded are the following errors: in grammar: incorrectly expressed (1) gender of adjectives and pronouns (такой большой (instead of такая большая) девочка (such a big girl)), past tense of verbs (Это она дал (instead of дала) мне адрес (It was she who gave me the address)); (2) verbs of motion (Я пришёл (instead of приехал) в Москву недавно (I came to Moscow not long ago); case of nouns (Продукты я покупаю «Ашан» (instead of в «Ашане») (I buy foods at Auchan)), case of adjectives (Мы живём маленькая (instead of в маленькой) квартире (We live in a small flat)), case of personal pronouns (Я дал его (instead of ему) телефон (I gave him the phone). Я его (instead of ему) позвонил (I have phoned him). Он мне (instead of меня) видел вчера (He saw me yesterday)). The degrees of comparison, categories of verbal aspects and animateness are also difficult to understand for Uzbek trainees. In addition to the common errors related to the fact that the Russian Language is characterized by reduction of vowels, as a result of which the letters are written not so as they are heard (памедор (correctly spelt: помидор), малако (correctly spelt: молоко), харашо (correctly spelt: хорошо)), in written papers of Uzbek trainees there appear mistakes related to vowel confusion (пешкум instead of пешком (on foot), ниделу, instead of неделю (for a week), мисо instead of мясо (meat), каждий instead of каждый (each), фрукти instead of фрукты (fruits)), omission of the soft sign “ь” (ден instead of день (day), нармално instead of нормально (all right, OK)), full reduction of sounds in word final position (кажды instead of каждый (each), сливочно instead of сливочное (milky), vowel insertion at the junction of consonants (хелеб instead of хлеб (bread), дуруга instead of друга (of a friend), зинал instead of знал (knew)). As for the second parameter, an analysis performed by the authors allows to see that the Uzbeks acquire the skills in understanding and reproducing written texts (i.e. reading and writing) with greater difficulties as compared to the skills required for perceiving and creating oral statements (i.e. speaking and listening). Formation of speaking skills causes the least difficulties as compared with those of listening since reading skills play a key role in forming listening comprehension skills. In the process of reading, the main problem for a migrant becomes the ability to isolate and differentiate the main and background (especially implicitly expressed) information. In this case, when answering questions related to the content of the text, the trainees begin to resort to their own knowledge of the subject of the narrative or description, ignoring the fact that the necessary information is contained in the text. In the case of written assignments, major difficulties are associated not so much with the solution of a communicative problem (the trainees usually understand what they are supposed to do) but with spelling words and their forms. 13. Preferred methods, strategies, techniques and means of training. As mentioned above, there are no significant differences between the academic traditions of the Russian and Uzbek schools. In this connection, methods, strategies, and technologies of teaching Russian as a foreign language (RFL) used in the Russian training and testing centre show good achievements in teaching the migrant population considered in this dataset. 14. Gender identification. It seems appropriate to focus the topics of speech training materials for Uzbek citizens primarily on males because, according to our data, about 92% of migrants from Uzbekistan are men. Therefore, the content of recommended texts for reading and discussion may reflect topics traditionally relevant to men, i.e. sports, politics, social relations, construction, transport, etc. (In contrast to such ‘female’ topics as child-rearing, fashion, cosmetics, shopping, cooking, etc.). Moreover, the method of teaching a foreign language to men (for example, in the process of mastering new words) requires to a greater extent establishing logical and conceptual relationships rather than emotional and associative ones (See the gender identification per each migrant at the Microsoft Excel table “Summary table” (Biryukova et al., 2020)). Total outcomes of gender differentiation can be seen at Figure 5. Figure 5. Gender identification of migrants Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Experimental Design, Materials and Methods The dataset was aimed at verifying the pedagogical capacity of linguodidactic profiling in the system of linguocultural education of migrants. Participants 3 groups of migrants from the Republic of Uzbekistan were made up to participate in the dataset. The investigation was conducted at the RUDN University International Migration Centre where the migrants were studying. The participants were informed that they were taking part in the experiment and gave their consent. Regarding the ethical consideration of the study, the research was approved by the local ethics committee of Medical Institute of RUDN University (Protocol Number: 4/ 20/12/2018). Each group included 14 language learners that were selected on the following characteristics: Age. We took the participants aged 22-35 years old because, on the one hand, this age group was in the majority for us to be able to present more accurate outcomes. On the other hand, we took into the consideration that fact that the age of migrants that come to Russian Federation is mostly between 22-35 years old as the statistics show. Level of language proficiency. The level of language proficiency of all 42 participants was much lower than A1. That let us to prepare the learning materials, forms and means of operation, types of exercises just for this particular language level. The motives of learning a foreign language. The migrants whose motives of learning a foreign language were not connected with the performing their professional activities were not included into the experiment. The reason for that is that fact that the content of the learning material should be specific and targeted for the migrants to solve the professional tasks using Russian Language as a means of communication. Taking into consideration the mentioned above characteristics it is necessary to state that the rest of 10 interviewed migrants (No 2, 4, 6, 8, 27, 34, 41, 42, 46, 50 in Table 4) were not included into the experiment on this or that reason. For the three groups of participants three types of the experimental training Russian Language as foreign course were conducted. The RFL training course for Group 1 was worked out with the consideration of the European language portfolio principles whereas the training course for Group 2 was based on the main ideas of the theory of language personality. The Russian as a foreign language training course presented to Group 3 was developed on the ground of the linguodidactic profiling technology. All the three courses were of equal duration, all the groups were taught by the certified instructors having 15-17 years of teaching RFL experience. Data sources and methods for data collection On completing the course, all the three groups passed a test in Russian as a foreign language according to the procedure prescribed in7 (Malushko, Maletina, Tsybanyova, 2018). The test consisted of five subtests: “Vocabulary and Grammar”, “Reading”, “Listening”, “Speaking”, and “Writing” (See the outcomes of each migrant in the Tables 5-7). Table 5 Descriptive statistics of the exam’s outcomes of Group 1 Aspect of the test Vocabulary and Grammar, ٪ Reading, ٪ Listening, ٪ Speaking, ٪ Writing, ٪ Total exam result , ٪ Correlation with ETC evaluation , ٪ Migrant 1 65 70 72 70 56 67 E Migrant 3 56 50 49 60 40 51 FX Migrant 5 88 92 94 93 81 90 B Migrant 7 69 78 75 80 71 75 D Migrant 9 60 58 55 63 48 57 FX Migrant 10 32 21 22 30 10 23 F Migrant 11 80 78 76 71 70 75 D Migrant 12 87 94 97 94 89 92 B Migrant 13 68 72 75 70 56 68 E Migrant 14 73 79 74 85 65 75 D Migrant 15 12 17 16 21 7 15 F Migrant 16 9 10 13 24 8 13 F Migrant17 76 77 75 72 71 74 D Migrant 18 70 76 75 70 60 70 E Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Table 6 Descriptive statistics of the exam’s outcomes of Group 2 Aspect of the test Vocabulary and Grammar, ٪ Reading, ٪ Listening, ٪ Speaking, ٪ Writing, ٪ Total result, ٪ Correlation with ETC evaluation, ٪ Migrant 19 65 57 55 50 56 57 FX Migrant 20 68 69 74 66 67 69 E Migrant 21 5 7 9 10 3 7 F Migrant 22 89 90 89 95 87 90 B Migrant 23 72 69 74 70 72 71 E Migrant 24 70 67 75 75 71 72 E Migrant 25 84 81 79 89 82 83 C Migrant 26 49 46 50 52 46 49 F Migrant 28 66 66 73 75 66 69 E Migrant 29 73 70 70 76 71 72 D Migrant 30 66 64 57 56 50 59 FX Migrant 31 82 90 84 86 84 85 C Migrant32 50 49 52 56 46 51 FX Migrant 33 19 16 9 9 7 10 F Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Table 7 Descriptive statistics of the exam’s outcomes of Group 3 Aspect of the test Vocabulary and Grammar, ٪ Reading, ٪ Listening, ٪ Speaking, ٪ Writing, ٪ Total result, ٪ Correlation with ETC evaluation, ٪ Migrant 35 97 98 95 95 96 96 A Migrant 36 70 72 67 70 66 69 E Migrant 37 95 96 95 92 90 94 B Migrant 38 76 79 72 80 76 77 D Migrant 39 95 98 99 96 97 97 A Migrant 40 92 90 91 96 94 93 B Migrant 43 72 75 80 80 76 77 D Migrant 44 98 99 95 99 95 97 A Migrant 45 90 90 89 98 97 93 B Migrant 47 73 74 80 84 80 78 D Migrant 48 100 100 99 99 95 99 A Migrant 49 89 88 90 88 89 89 C Migrant51 92 94 90 91 90 91 B Migrant 52 96 95 89 98 95 95 B Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. Oral responses were recorded on audio media, orthographically transcribed and analysed; operational matrices and written works of the testees were also analysed. Evaluations were made using the scale recommended by the above-mentioned regulatory documents in order to obtain a clear and detailed picture of the outcomes achieved by the migrants. The data obtained for each migrant was summed up and an arithmetic mean was calculated with the help of the online calculator. The percentage was counted with the help of Microsoft Excel. The outcomes were correlated with the evaluations of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). The migrants’ detailed evaluation lists are presented at (Biryukova et al., 2020). The final analysis of the examination outcomes of the members of all the three groups showed the following data (Figure 6). Figure 6. Outcomes of testing in Russian as a foreign language Source: compiled by V.B. Kurilenko, Y.N. Biryukova, A.T. Nurmanov. The data given in Figure 6 indicate that the percentage of migrants who received positive evaluations in Group 3 trained under the program developed on the basis of linguodidactic profiling is substantially higher. The percentage of highest marks (A-B) in this group also exceeds that of the other two groups. This suggests the possibility of using the proposed methodical and metrical tool in the system of language training of migrants. Conclusion The specifics of the system of language and linguocultural training of migrants calls for highly targeted training courses in Russian as a foreign language. This property of educational materials is provided based on an analysis of the characteristics of migrants which are relevant to the process of mastering a foreign (In our case, Russian) language. In theory and practice of teaching foreign languages, a number of concepts of trainee personality pedagogical modelling are used. However, it seems impossible to fully solve the problems of training migrants based on the generally accepted concepts only. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new methodical and metrical tool which will take into account all the relevant characteristics of this enrolment. This tool can be a linguodidactic profile of migrants which should be understood as a pedagogical model of their personalities consisting of characteristics which are important for learning a foreign language. The characteristics forming the structure of a linguodidactic profile of migrants were taken into account in the development of a training course in RFL. In order to test its efficiency, experiential learning of migrants from the Republic of Uzbekistan was conducted. The findings confirmed the efficiency of the proposed methodical and metrical tool and technology developed on its basis. All of the previously mentioned confirms the possibility of introducing linguodidactic profiling into language training practice of migrants as well as its further investigation in terms of the provisions of modern pedagogical theory and practice. Appendix 1 Questionnaire Answer the following questions: Questions Possible answers 1. Where are you from? 2. How old are you? 3. What school and university did you graduate from? 4. What are the reasons for learning Russian Language (to perform the professional activities (choose any)? 1. to perform the professional activities 2. to solve domestic, socio-cultural, and administrative problems 3. to use the language to travel 4. to learn the language for pleasure Appendix 2 Questions for interviewing the migrants to find out the most common speech mistakes. Part 1: About myself and usual routine 3. Where are you from? 4. How old are you? 5. Why did you come to Russian Federation? 6. Where do you buy food and clothes? 7. What do you like cooking? What is your favorite dish? 8. What time do you get up and go sleeping? 9. Where do you prefer working? Part 2: About Russia 1. Who is the president of Russian Federation? 2. How does the flag of Russian Federation look like? Enumerate the colors. 3. What documents has the foreigner to fill in? 4. What is the currency of Russian Federation? 5. Where are the marriages are registered in Russian Federation? 6. Has the foreigner to serve in the Army Forces? 7. Has the foreigner pay the taxes to Russian Federation? 8. Where is it allowed to smoke in Russian Federation? 9. How does the Ministry of internal Affairs of Russia stand for? 10. What documents does a police officer have the right to check with a migrant?

About the authors

Victoria B. Kurilenko

RUDN University

Email: kurilenko-vb@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3638-9954
SPIN-code: 1106-3582

Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Russian Language Department No. 5, Institute of Russian Language

10 Miklukho-Maklaya St., bldg. 2, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Yulia N. Biryukova

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: biryukova-yun@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5977-4081
SPIN-code: 2426-6209

Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Russian Language Department No. 5, Institute of Russian Language

10 Miklukho-Maklaya St., bldg. 2, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Abdinazar T. Nurmanov

Jizzakh State Pedagogical University named after A. Qadiri

Email: anurmanovjizzax@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1689-2571

Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Head of the Department of Russian Language and Methods of Teaching

4 Sharof Rashidov Street, Jizzakh, 130100, Uzbekistan

References

Supplementary files