Conference Agenda

Research has persistently indicated that multilingual pupils thrive academically and socio-affectively when their home languages are included in education (e.g., García & Baetens Beardsmore 2009; Sierens & Van Avermaet 2014). As teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are seen as the basis of their pedagogical actions (Biesta et al. 2015), it is necessary to examine teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and the practical skills surrounding multilingualism (Barros et al. 2020). Since teachers are in a crucial position to influence the enactment of language policies in their classrooms (Haukås 2016) and overcoming the achievement gap between linguistically diverse pupils and their peers (OECD, 2020), it is vital they have multilingual competences, show positive attitudes towards home languages, and implement multilingual pedagogies (Barros et al., 2020).

Although teachers indicate enthusiasm for the concept of multilingualism, pupils’ home languages are often considered an obstacle for learning school languages (Pulinx et al. 2017). However, research has shown that teachers’ attitudes towards and understanding of multilingual pupils improve when they participate in opportunities to learn about the benefits of multilingualism (Markos, 2012). Similarly, teachers who have participated in teacher professional development (TPD) with a focus on bi- or multilingualism appear to be more likely to view multilingualism as an asset in teaching and learning (Lee & Oxelson, 2006). However, an implementation of inclusive multilingual practices, for example practices based on “pedagogical translanguaging” (Cenoz & Gorter 2021) requires additional teacher TPD to provide resources and knowledge needed to support teaching in linguistically diverse settings (Kirsch et al., 2020).

In this symposium, we will approach recent developments in the field of language attitudes and multilingual practices in education. We will focus on the practices of teachers who have participated in TPD in order to implement sustainable multilingual pedagogies and view their attitudes and their classroom interaction. With this symposium, researchers working in the context of Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands convene to critically appraise the implications that their research has for teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms across European countries.

The first paper will discuss the use of linguistically responsive teaching practices in Finland. The paper covers four types of teacher’s self-reported linguistically responsive practices five years after the introduction of linguistically responsive teaching in the country’s core curriculum, and examines the link between background factors and reported linguistically responsive practices.

The second paper will present Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education as a viable model for TPD for teachers working with linguistically and culturally diverse learners. The paper will provide a research-based rationale for the model and illustrate how it can be implemented in TPD to help teachers examine their language attitudes and undergo a shift from monolingual ideologies to multilingual teaching practices.

the last paper will focus on attitudes towards the use of multilingualism expressed through classroom interaction. The paper will take a longitudinal view of the quality and quantity of interaction in primary schools in multilingual Friesland, the Netherlands. Hereby, we will show the development of translanguaging practices alongside a TPD program.

The current Finnish core curriculum (EDUFI, 2014) requires all teachers in basic education to be linguistically responsive. However, studies conducted during the previous curricula show that linguistically responsive practices are still scarce (Author 1 et al., 20XX). In this study, we analyze what kind of practices teachers report using after the curriculum has been in use for five years. The data for the study was collected via an online survey in fall 2021. In this study, we analyze teachers’ responses (N = 1030) to 28 Likert scale statements regarding the use of linguistically responsive practices (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = once a week, 4 = 2–3 times a week). The preliminary results indicate that the three most used practices are: I use visual aids (M=3.69, SD=.64) I give instructions on paper or on the board (M=3.55, SD=.72) I give instructions both orally and in writing (M=3.74, SD=.58). These results are in line with previous research regarding the use of linguistically responsive practices (Author 1 et al., 20XX) with teachers being most comfortable in using semiotic scaffolding to support multilingual learners in their classrooms. Data will also be analyzed using factors previously found in a similar study conducted before the current core curricula (Author 1 et al., 20XX). We investigate how teachers’ report using four types of linguistically responsive practices, namely, identifying language demands, linguistic scaffolding, explicit attention to language, and additional semiotic systems scaffolding. In addition, we will examine whether teachers’ background factors are linked to their reported practices. The results will be discussed more extensively during the presentation, as well as the need for more training in linguistically responsive teaching practices for in-service teachers. Although the current Finnish national core curriculum (EDUFI, 2014) requires all teachers to be linguistically responsive, Finnish teachers’ reported practices seem not to have changed in the 5 years after the curriculum came into force. The teachers still report using easily accessible pedagogical practices, with no special focus on taking multilingualism into consideration. The results of this study benefits teacher educators in the European context in understanding the need for development for both pre-service and in-service teachers’ professional development in order to optimally develop their linguistically responsive practices.and maximize teachers’ skills in supporting their linguistically diverse students’ learning.

Author 1 et al. (20XX) EDUFI (2014). Perusopetuksen opetusuunnitelman perusteet. Available at: https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf (referred 29.1.2023)

With classrooms around the world becoming increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse, there is a clear need to support teachers in making a transition from monolingual ideologies and pedagogies to multilingual teaching practices (MTPs) that soften the boundaries between languages and draw on learners’ full linguistic repertoires as a valuable resource (Alisaari et al., 2019; Blommaert, 2010; Cenoz & Gorter, 2013). Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE) is a comprehensive, holistic instrument designed to aide teachers, teacher educators, and administrators in designing and implementing optimal pedagogical practices for linguistically and culturally diverse learners in multilingual contexts. The model consists of seven research-based indicators, each with a set of observable and measurable features: 1. Classrooms and Schools as Multilingual Spaces, 2. Developing and Using Teaching Materials, 3. Interaction and Grouping Configurations, 4. Language and Culture Attitudes, 5. Metacognition and Metalinguistic Awareness, 6. Multiliteracy, and 7. Teacher and Learner Language Use. This paper aims to give an overview of MADE and explain and illustrate how it can be implemented as a tool in teacher professional development (TPD). TPD plays a crucial role in supporting teachers in designing and implementing MTPs. It can help raise teachers’ awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of their teaching practices, provide opportunities for teachers to gain knowledge about multilingualism and the supportive role that learners’ existing linguistic repertoires can play in learning processes, allow teachers to assess and alter their attitudes towards multilingualism, and support teachers in the process of developing MTPs that are most suitable for their specific teaching context (Krulatz & Christison, forthcoming). In Norway, due to a rapid increase of linguistically and culturally diverse learners in schools, there have been calls and initiatives for TPD with a focus on multilingualism (e.g., Lorenz et al., 2021; Ministry of Children and Families, 2012-2013). The paper will first present an overview of MADE and provide a research-based rationale for each indicator and its features. Focusing on indicator 4. Language and Culture Attitudes, the presenters will then supply a concrete example of how the model was implemented in TPD for teachers at a multilingual, elementary school in Norway, and how it changed three EAL teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards leveraging their multilingual learners’ home languages in linguistically diverse classrooms. The paper will conclude with general implications for TPD in multilingual settings.

Alisaari, J., Heikkola, L. M., Commins, N., & Acquah, E. O. (2019). Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80(1), 48-58. Bloomaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2013). Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 591–599. Krulatz, A., & Christison, M.A. (Forthcoming). Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education: A methodology for linguistically and culturally diverse learners. Palgrave Macmillan. Lorenz, E., Krulatz, A., & Torgersen, E. N. (2021). Embracing linguistic and cultural diversity in multilingual EAL classrooms: The impact of professional development on teacher beliefs and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103428. Ministry of Children and Families. (2012-2013). Meld. St. 6. Melding til Stortinget. En helhetlig integreringspolitikk. Mangfold og felleskap [Report to the Parliament. A comprehensive integration policy. Diversity and community]. Det Kongelige Barne-, Likestillingsæ og Inkluderingsdepartementet.

In order to ascertain the success of implementing pedagogical translanguaging practices (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021), it is imperative to also examine specifically how the dialogue surrounding these activities is constructed in the classroom (Rabbidge, 2019). In situations wherein classroom interaction is primarily teacher-dominated (Mercer & Dawes, 2014; Walsweer 2015), pupils’ opportunities to participate and co-construct knowledge are often limited (Rabbidge, 2019). Similarly, Author 2 et al. (20XX) showed that translanguaging practices in classroom interaction are often restricted to the symbolic function of translanguaging (Duarte, 2020), such as asking for one-word translations into the home languages but not deepening the conversation based on pupils’ responses. In this paper, we will examine the actions of teachers surrounding the implementation of multilingual activities at the level of classroom interaction. Building on the work of Author 2 et al. (20XX), we examined case studies of three teachers following a TPD trajectory and measured eventual didactic changes based on increasing familiarization with multilingual pedagogies. The current study investigated what changes occur in the teachers’ implementation of translanguaging strategies in primary classrooms as a result of their participation in the 3M Project. It also examined to what extent the quantity and quality of the interaction and multilingual language use evolved, and the presence of dialogic empathy (Macagno et al. 2022). We measured the frequency and quality of translanguaging interactions throughout three measurement points. An in-depth analysis based of recorded video-data of several lessons per teacher (N=123:06 minutes) revealed how opportunities for dialogic interaction arose with symbolic translanguaging. Although these opportunities were not always seized, they provided opportunities for active pupil participation.

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. Duarte, J. (2020). Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(2), 232-247. Macagno, F., Rapanta, C., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Garcia-Milà, M. (2022). Coding empathy in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 192, 116–132. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430–445. Author 2 et al. (20XX). Rabbidge, M. (2019). The Effects of Translanguaging on Participation in EFL Classrooms. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 16(4), 1305–1322. Walsweer, A. P. (2015). Ruimte voor leren: Een etnografisch onderzoek naar het verloop van een interventie gericht op versterking van het taalgebruik in een knowledge building environment op kleine Friese basisscholen. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.