Implementing Russian standards in the general education system of Laos: a linguodidactic model of teaching at a Russian‑Laotian school

The article is devoted to the development of a linguodidactic model that ensures the implementation of Russian educational standards in the general education system of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. The relevance of the study is due to the return of the Russian language to Lao public schools after nearly a thirty‑year break and the plans to open a Russian‑Lao school in Vientiane. The aim of the work is to create a scientifically grounded mechanism for the organic integration of Russian standards into Laos’s national educational tradition without disrupting established pedagogical practices. The article defines the object and subject of the study and formulates a hypothesis that includes five conditions for an effective model: thorough methodological and cultural adaptation of educational materials, a set of pedagogical technologies (subject‑language integrated learning, game‑based technologies, creation of a language environment), the formation of a language‑based educational and upbringing environment, and professional interaction between Russian and Lao educators, the system of monitoring and evaluating results. Based on the analysis of works on linguodidactic modeling, bilingual education, neuro‑linguodidactics, and the dialogue of cultures, the conceptual foundations of the model have been identified: acculturation and the dialogue of cultures, continuity, adaptability, and taking into account the specifics of bilingualism. The goal, objectives, methodological approaches (competence‑based, communicative‑activity‑based, intercultural, subject‑language integrated learning, logical‑structural) and the system of teaching principles, grouped into six areas, are described. The structure of the model is presented, including six interrelated blocks: methodological, content‑based, procedural, cultural, bilingual/communicative, and diagnostic/adaptive. Pedagogical technologies, methodological techniques of “soft inclusion”, organizational forms of work, criteria and methods for assessing effectiveness are identified. It is substantiated that the model ensures a balance between Russian standards and the ethnocultural specifics of Laos by relying on the principle of syncretism, bilingual, and ethno‑oriented approaches. The model has the potential to be scaled up to different age and professional groups and can serve as a methodological basis for developing training courses, teacher professional development programs, and teaching and methodological materials for teaching Russian as a foreign language to a Lao audience.

1. Radkov A. Russian-language books appear in Laos school libraries for the first time. Available at: https://rs.gov.ru/news/vpervye-v-shkolnyh-bibliotekah-laosa-poyavilis-knigi-na-russkom-yazyke/?ysclid=mto097lf8298386282 (accessed: 19 July 19 2026) (in Russian).

2. Zheleznyakova E.A., Vasilyeva A.V. Export of educational programs and practices in teaching Russian in preschool and secondary educational institutions in Laos. Teaching Russian as a Foreign Language; 2025:10(12). Available at: https://doi.org/10.30853/ped20250248 (accessed: 22 July 22 2026) (in Russian).

3. Mamaeva S.V., Shmulskaya L.S. (eds.). Methodology of Teaching Russian: Formation of Cultural Competence: Study Guide. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University; 2015:108 (in Russian).

4. Levushkina O.N. On culturological, culture-related, and linguoculturological concepts in the methodology of teaching Russian. The Educator of the 21st Century. 2012:(3):152–160. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-kulturologicheskih-kulturovedcheskih-i-lingvokulturologicheskih-ponyatiyahv-metodike-obucheniya-russkomu-yazyku?ysclid=msycbjlzd5483193646 (accessed: 20 July 2026) (in Russian).

5. Lysakova I.P., Li Boyu. Dialogue of Cultures as a Methodological Principle in the Linguoculturological Teaching of Russian to Chinese Students. Philology and Culture. 2022:2(68):162–167 (in Russian).

6. Shilin A.G. Bilingual Education in Domestic and Foreign Pedagogy. Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation (Pedagogy). Veliky Novgorod; 2007:54 (in Russian).

7. Korableva E.D. Methodology for Developing Multilingual Competence in Future Foreign Language Teachers. Abstract of Candidate Dissertation (Pedagogy). Nizhny Novgorod; 2023:25 (in Russian).

8. Bazhenova E.I., Kuzmina K.A., Tkacheva I.A. Linguodidactic Model for Developing a Secondary Linguistic Personality in Profession-Oriented Foreign Language Instruction for Non-Linguistic Majors. Pedagogy. Theory & Practice. 2022;7(3):304–312 (in Russian).

9. Khabuduasi M. Linguodidactic Modeling in Teaching Russian Vocabulary to Chinese Students. Philology and Culture. 2022;67(1):216–220 (in Russian).

10. Zinchenko Yu.P., Shaigerova L.A., Dolgikh A.G., Savelyeva O.A. Methodological Issues in Studying the Impact of Bilingualism on Cognitive Processes and Ethnocultural Identity. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin (Series 14. Psychology). 2019;(1):174–194 (in Russian). DOI: 10.11621/vsp.2019.01.174.

11. Khusanova Z. M., Sobirova Z. M. Neurolinguistic analysis of bilingualism: how linguistic activity affects cognitive functions. Bulletin of Science and Education. 2024;155(12):15–19 (in Russian).

12. Bialystok E., Craik F.I.M., Luk G. Cognitive Control and Lexical Access in Younger and Older Bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2008: 4): 59–873.

13. Bialystok E., Craik F.I.M., Freedman M. Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia; 2007:45(2):459–464.

14. Costa A., Hernández M., Costa-Faidella J., Sebastián-Gallés N. The source of enhanced cognitive control in bilinguals: Evidence from bimodal bilinguals. Bilingualism and the Brain. 2008:3:367–376:13– 30.

15. Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J., Sebastián-Gallés, N. On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition. 2009;13(2):135–149. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.001

16. Kroll J. F., Bialystok E. Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2013:389–406. DOI:10.1080/20445911.2013.799170.

17. Kroll J. F., Dussias P. E., Bice K., Perrotti L. Understanding the relationship between bilingualism and cognition. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Language. 2015:289–304.

18. Khamraeva E. A. Theory and methodology of teaching the Russian language to bilingual children. Monograph marking the 220th anniversary of Herzen University. St. Petersburg: Herzen University Press; 2017:155 (in Russian).

19. Khamraeva E.A. (ed.). Bilingual Education. St. Petersburg: Herzen University; 2023:300 (in Russian). 20. Khamraeva E.A. Linguodidactic foundations for measuring the communicative skills of bilinguals. Science and School. 2018;(3):29–39. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/lingvodidakticheskieosnovy-izmereniya-kommunikativnyh-umeniy-bilingvov/viewer (accessed: 13 July 2026) (in Russian).

20. Khamraeva E.A., Ignatyeva N.D., Karpechenkova Yu.G., et al. The meta-subject approach in education: the Russian language in school and university instruction across various subjects. Collection of articles from the IV All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference with International Participation. Moscow, April 23, 2021. Moscow: Sam Poligrafist LLC; 2021:298 (in Russian).

21. Khamraeva E.A., Khamraev F.I. Neurolinguodidactic techniques in teaching reading in Russian as a foreign language. Russian Language at School. 2025;(3): 45–52 (in Russian).