31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Pedagogies for Linguistic and Cultural Diversity and Social Justice: a Comparative Study of Language Teachers’ Identity Visual Narratives
Ana Sofia Pinho1, Maria de Lurdes Gonçalves2
1University of Lisbon, Portugal; 2Camões, EPE, Instituto da Cooperação e da Língua
Presenting Author: Pinho, Ana Sofia
Linguistic and cultural diversity in schools and classrooms ‘call[s] into question the language education policies and practices of teachers and schools and their capacity to respond effectively to the challenges of an increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse school population’ (Young, 2018, p. 23). Indeed, schools may be experienced as a process of othering (Szelei, Tinoca & Pinho, 2021) and linguistic injustice, of identity silencing and hierarchisation (Spotti & Kroon, 2015; Vervaet et al. 2018). Such processes endanger the materialisation of an inclusive school and the living of a full multilingual citizenship (Stroud, 2018). Piller (2016) problematises the mainstream curriculum regarding issues of linguistic justice, which emphasises that schools and teachers are asked to counter-act processes of linguistic subordination and invisibility of plural identities.
Against this background, social justice, equity, and inclusion continue to be critical topics in the field of initial teacher education and teacher professional development, in the context of which scholars advocate the adoption of social justice perspectives with transformative approaches regarding diversity in education (McDonald and Zeichner, 2009; Pantić & Florian, 2015). It is believed that this may be a route to foster future and experienced teachers’ critical awareness of sociocultural and sociolinguistic oppressive teaching structures and mindsets alongside an educational engagement against such structures (Pijanowski & Brady, 2021). García (2017) underlines the importance of all teachers to question how the concept of language is being legitimised in schools and to develop a critical multilingual awareness, which comprises, on the one hand, the awareness of plurilingualism, and on the other hand, the awareness of how plurilingualism in society may be a result of histories of colonial and imperialistic oppression, and of how language use has been naturalised.
Particularly, language teachers are asked to develop new professional landscapes, in the core of which is the need to interpret the socio-linguistic and cultural complexity of educational contexts, and to envisage the role of languages and pedagogy therein. It is not new that teacher cognition (Borg, 2018; Haukås, 2016; Paulsrud, Juvonen & Schalley, 2023) is pointed out as a driving force to understand teachers’ language awareness and conceptualizations of language teaching. Discussing the link between social justice pedagogy and cultural diversity, Pijanowski and Brady (2021), point out the importance of intellectual and dispositional work to support teachers in the adoption of equity and inclusion. Due to principles of social justice and human rights, pedagogies for linguistic and cultural diversity, such as plurilingual and intercultural education, may be disruptive in how pre-service and experience teachers understand their role and language teaching (Piccardo et al., 2022). According to Boylan and Woolsey (2015), referring to teachers’ identity space and social justice, it is important to involve teachers in the discomforting position of confronting their beliefs and dispositions. It is, therefore, important to understand pre-service and experienced language teachers’ authoring and identity work and representations of language teaching, to discuss the place of competing discourses in their identity construction and in professional learning initiatives.
In this paper presentation, we seek to analyse a set of visual narratives produced by two groups of language teachers in different national settings (Portugal and Switzerland) in order to answer the following questions:
- RQ1: What are pre-service and in-service teachers’ representations of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and of Portuguese as a Heritage Language (PHL) regarding linguistic and cultural diversity, and how do such representations compare to each other?
- RQ2: What professional identity is in the making regarding pedagogy for linguistic and cultural diversity through the lens of social justice?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe participants of the study were 13 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) student teachers enrolled on a professionalising master’s degree for teaching in a Portuguese higher education institution (Group 1), and 53 Portuguese as a Heritage Language (PHL) experienced teachers involved in the Portuguese Teaching Abroad (PTA) network in Switzerland (Group 2).
Adopting and arts-based research methodology, the current study took advantage of visual narratives (Kalaja & Melo-Pfeifer, 2019; Pinho, 2023), particularly drawings, as a mediating tool to capture participants’ subjective positionings and identities, particularly as regards plurilingualism and language education. As such, the dataset comprises 39 drawings and written explanations of group 1, gathered in the context of two subject courses – one in the first and the other in the third and last semesters of the degree, between 2016 to 2021 (totalising four cohorts of pre-service teachers); and 64 visual narratives and written explanations of group 2, collected in the context of a three-year professional development project. Regardless of the differences in the timeline, the data collection aimed at gathering the pre- and in-service teachers’ thinking both at the beginning and end of the professional learning situations. Therefore, similar instructions were given to both groups of participants, thus allowing some comparability.
Data analysis followed an interpretative approach, according to which we tried to infer and give meaning to the participants’ multimodal discourses. Our main analytical focus was on the content of the visual narratives, which was then complemented by the corresponding written explanations. A first step was to code for themes and then dived in category grouping. Given the purpose of the study, we identified the drawings that explicitly addressed the theme ‘Linguistic and cultural diversity in language education’ in both groups: 16 in group 1 (EFL student teachers) and 8 in group 2 (PHL experienced teachers).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsRegarding RQ1, EFL student teacher’s drawings display co-existing, conflicting representations, such as (i) monolingual/-cultural view of classroom communication; (ii) (inter)cultural dimension of foreign language teaching, and (iii) pluri/multilingualism in the classroom. As for the PHL teachers, the drawings’ analysis signals two main representations: (i) oneself as a curator of the Portuguese culture; and (ii) PHL as a site for shared intercultural knowledge construction.
About RQ2, teachers’ visual narratives reflect a teacher identity based on ingrained representations of EFL and PHL teaching. While EFL student teachers unveil polarised views and negotiate conflicting subject positions of EFL teaching and themselves as teachers, triggered by learning about plurilingualism and plurilingual education, experienced PHL teachers display a solid representations of language teaching and of their professional identity, resulting from the close interaction with the (social, cultural institutional) contextual professional landscapes and the nature of the learner population.
These results will be discussed through the lens of social justice and the role of pedagogies for linguistic and cultural diversity in the promotion of teachers’ plurilingual awareness and identity, and inclusive language teaching practices.
ReferencesBorg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
García, O. (2017). Critical multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 263-280). Springer.
Haukås, Å. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and a multilingual pedagogical approach. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 1-18.
Kalaja, P., & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (eds.) (2019). Visualising multilingual lives: More than words. Multilingual Matters.
McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Social justice teacher education. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp.595-610). Routledge.
Pantić, N, & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Education Inquiry, 6(3), 333-351.
Paulsrud, B., Juvonen, P., & Schalley, A.C. (2023). Attitudes and beliefs on multilingualism in education: Voices from Sweden. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-18.
Piccardo, E., Germain-Rutherford, A., & Lawrence, G. (2022). An introduction to plurilingualism and this handbook. In E. Piccardo, A. Germain-Rutherford, & G. Lawrence (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of plurilingual education (pp. 1–15). Routledge.
Pijanowski, J. C., & Brady, K. (2021). Defining social justice in education. In C. A. Mullen (Ed.), Handbook of social justice interventions in education (pp.59-82). Springer.
Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. Oxford.
Pinho, A. S. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ professional identity and representations of EFL: Toward a Dominant Language (Teaching) Constellation? In L. Aronin & S. Melo-Pfeifer (ed.), Language Awareness and Identity (pp.219-245). Springer.
Szelei, N., Pinho, A. S., & Tonoca, L. (2021) ‘Foreigners in our schools’: cultural diversity, Othering and the desire for just schooling. Urban Education, 23, 1-31.
Spotti, M., & Kroon, S. (2017). Multilingual classrooms in times of superdiversity. In S. Wortham, D. Kim & S. May (eds), Discourse and education (pp.97-109). Dortrecht: Springer.
Stroud, C. (2018). Linguistic citizenship. In L. Lim, C. Stroud & L. Wee (eds), The multilingual citizen. Towards a politics of language for agency and change (pp.17-39). Multilingual Matters.
Vervaet, R., Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. (2018). Multicultural school leadership, multicultural teacher culture and the ethnic prejudice of Flemish pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 68-77.
Young, A. (2018). Language awareness, language diversity and migrant languages in the primary school. In P. Garret & J. M. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language awareness (pp. 23-39). London: Routledge.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Linguistically Responsive Teaching in Teacher Education – Innovative Approaches to Analyzing and Improving Pre-service Teachers’ Beliefs about Multilingualism
Lotta Kardel, Timo Ehmke, Svenja Lemmrich
Leuphana University, Germany
Presenting Author: Kardel, Lotta
Theoretical background
Globalization and immigration worldwide have led to a culturally and linguistically heterogeneous society. More than a quarter of the German population has a migrant background, and many students grow up with knowledge of more than one family language (Berkel-Otto et al., 2021). However, German is the dominant language in school, and teachers lack competencies in Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT) (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). Despite the educational disadvantages of multilingual learners (Schroedler & Grommes, 2019), university courses on LRT are still not a systematic part of German teacher education (Ehmke & Lemmrich, 2018). In many countries current teacher training curricula remain unchanged regarding multilingualism and multiculturalism in school (Iwuanyamwu, 2023). To create an appropriate course offering, teachers’ beliefs should be considered as a part of professional competency affecting the actions of future teachers (Blömeke, 2017). Prospective teachers who value and include students’ multilingual identity in teaching could contribute to reduce educational disparities and support students’ acceptance and respect for themselves and others (Prasad & Lory, 2020).
Teachers’ beliefs are defined as perceptions and assumptions regarding school- and class-related phenomena, such as teaching, learning, learners, subject matter, and their role as teachers (Borg, 2001). Teachers’ beliefs guide the teachers’ actions in a professional context and can influence the quality of teaching (Buehl & Beck, 2014). To date, there have been few, mostly cross-sectional studies on professional beliefs regarding multilingualism in schools. In summary, the following influencing variables were identified: gender, individual multilingualism, teaching experience, and academic background (e.g. Martí & Portolés 2021). From a psychological perspective, the changeability of teachers’ beliefs is controversial (e.g. Nespor 1987). However, some longitudinal studies showed that the systematic influence of knowledge from academic LRT-relevant opportunities to learn (OTL) can cause positive changes in teachers’ beliefs (e.g. Schroedler et al., 2022). In the US region, studies showed that educational experiences like training in cultural diversity or teaching linguistically diverse learners had the ability to reshape teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism (e.g. Fitzsimmons-Doolan et al., 2017). As research has shown that teachers’ beliefs can improve due to OTL, this paper aims to evaluate if participants can move between those belief-based profiles by conducting a Latent Transition Analysis (LTA). To the best of our knowledge, this combination of person- and transition-centering represents an innovative approach to analyzing pre-service teachers’ beliefs on multilingualism. Filling this research gap, our study aims to evaluate and improve LRT-relevant OTL in teacher education.
Research questions
- What professional beliefs do pre-service teachers hold about multilingualism before and after attending an LRT-relevant OTL?
- Which characteristics regarding the pre-service teachers’ personal and academic backgrounds correlate with or predict their beliefs about multilingualism?
- Which different profiles exist among the pre-service teachers based on their beliefs about multilingualism?
- Are there transitions between the pre-service teachers’ profiles after they participated in an LRT-relevant OTL?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethod
This study was conducted with pre-service teachers (N=312) at nine teacher-education universities across Germany in 2020 and 2021. All participants provided informed consent and the study was conducted according to the German Research Foundation guidelines. Data were collected during LRT-relevant teacher training in a pre-post design, which means that we evaluated pre-service teachers’ beliefs in all semesters before and after OTL, focusing on multilingualism and LRT. As mentioned above, the structural and content-related framework of teacher education varies depending on the university. Consequently, there were courses in German as a second language, linguistic diversity in schools, language in subject teaching or multilingualism, and language awareness in general.
We used a validated quantitative questionnaire (Fischer, 2020) that consisted of three parts: the pre-service teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism on three scales: (1) valuing family languages other than German, (2) feeling responsible for language teaching, and (3) valuing multilingualism in class (labeling based on Hammer et al. 2018), LRT-relevant OTL during participants’ studies, and their personal and academic background (gender, age, training courses, and teaching subjects). To quantify the pre-service teachers’ beliefs, participants were asked to rate 21 statements about multilingualism on a four-point Likert scale demonstrating their affirmation or disaffirmation: (0) strongly disagree, (1) rather disagree, (2) rather agree, and (3) strongly agree. The Cronbach’s Alpha-coefficients, which measure the internal consistency of the full-scale, present a reliability of αt1=0.836 for the first and a value of αt2=0.876 for the second measurement.
Data entry, descriptive analyses, and correlation as well as regression calculations were conducted using the SPSS software, and LTA was carried out in MPlus6. We identified three models that divided the participants into two, three, and four distinct, non-overlapping subgroups (profiles) based on their average responses to the items of the three scales clarified above. The distinct models were compared in terms of their fit indices and proportions of participants. To gain more information about the different profiles of the best model fit, the MPlus data were linked to the SPSS data. We conducted descriptive analyses and analyses of variance on the personal and academic backgrounds of each profile member. Moreover, the probabilities of different transition patterns from one profile to another were analyzed using MPlus and classified as movers or stayers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults
There was a highly significant increase in beliefs between the pre- and post-test (Mt1=2.03; SDt1=0.38; Mt2=2.2; SDt2=0.41; d=0.58).
Statistical analyses revealed positive correlations between the beliefs and the female gender, primary school as training course, and teaching language subjects. The most relevant factor was shown to be the pre-service teachers’ participation in LRT-relevant OTL, with high attendance leading to a more highly positive belief about multilingualism.
Our LTA showed differences between the beliefs, so that three profiles of student teachers were identified: the uninvolved criticals (t1=37%; t2=9%), the responsible controllers (t1=9%; t2 t2=30%), and the consistent supporters (t1=54%; t2=61%). Moreover, our LTA revealed that half of the participants (50.3%) changed their beliefs and moved between profiles after participating in the OTL. Two movement patterns were observed at high frequencies: 28.5% of the participants changed from uninvolved criticals to consistent supporters, and 21.2% moved from consistent supporters to responsible controllers. With 32.7% most of the pre-service teachers who stayed in one profile remained consistent supporters. Almost no movements to the uninvolved criticals (0.6%) occurred, and only a few participants stayed in this profile (8.3%).
Scientific significance of the study
First, we obtained new information regarding the changeability of teachers’ beliefs owing to LRT-relevant OTL by identifying significantly improved mean scores and movements between the different profiles. Second, the application of an innovative approach allowed further differentiation between distinct types of teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism. Third, this new approach highlighted the potential for further analysis of changes in teachers’ beliefs.
Since our findings highlight the positive change in teachers’ beliefs due to LRT-relevant OTL, we recommend designing academic OTL that enable more reflection on pre-service teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism to help them become linguistically and culturally responsive teachers.
ReferencesBerkel-Otto, L., Hammer, S., Hansen, A., Lemmrich, S., & Schroedler, T. (2021). Multilingualism and teacher education in Germany. In M. Wernicke, S. Hammer, A. Hansen, & T. Schroedler (Ed.), Preparing teachers to work with multilingual learners (pp. 82–103). Multilingual Matters.
Blömeke, S. (2017). Modelling teachers’ professional competence as a multi-dimensional construct. In S. Guerriero (Ed.), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession (pp. 119–135).OECD.
Borg, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55 (2), 186–188.
Buehl, M. M., & Beck, J. S. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices. In H. Fives, & G. M. Gill (Ed.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 66–84). Routledge.
Ehmke, T., & Lemmrich, S. (2018). Bedeutung von Lerngelegenheiten für den Erwerb von DaZ-Kompetenz. In T. Ehmke, S. Hammer, A. Köker, U. Ohm, & B. Koch-Priewe (Ed.), Professionelle Kompetenzen angehender Lehrkräfte im Bereich Deutsch als Zweitsprache (pp. 201–220). Waxmann.
Fischer, N. (2020). Skalendokumentation: Sprachlich-kulturelle Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsdatenzentrum Bildung. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung.
Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S., Palmer, D., & Henderson, K. (2017). Educator language ideologies and a top-down dual language program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 704–721.
Hammer, S., Viesca, K. M., Ehmke, T., & Heinz, B. E. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs concerning teaching multilingual learners: A cross-cultural comparison between the US and Germany. Research in Teacher Education, 8(2), 6¬–10.
Iwuanyamwu, P. N. (2023). Preparing Teachers for Culturally Responsive Education. Indilinga African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 22(1), 1–13.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers: Laying the Foundation in Pre-service Teacher Education. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 98–109.
Martí Arnandiz, O., & Portolés Falomir, L. (2021). The effect of individual factors on L3 teachers’ beliefs about multilingual education. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 35(4), 1–18.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4). 317–328.
Prasad, G., & Lory, M.-P. (2020). Linguistic and cultural collaboration in schools: Reconciling majority and minoritized language users. TESOL Quarterly, 54(4), 797–822.
Schroedler, T., & Grommes, P. (2019). Learning about Language: Preparing
pre-service subject teachers for multilingual classroom realities. Language
Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 223–240.
Schroedler, T., Rosner-Blumenthal, H., & Böning, C. (2022). A mixed-methods
approach to analysing interdependencies and predictors of pre-service teachers’ beliefs about
multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism 20(1), 1–20.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
An Exploration of a Teacher's Distribution of Attention and Interaction Opportunities in Early Childhood Education: a Mixed-method Single Case Study
Thibaut Duthois, Ruben Vanderlinde, Piet Van Avermaet, Maribel Montero Perez
Ghent University, Belgium
Presenting Author: Duthois, Thibaut
Investing in preschool children's language development is critical to adressing educational inequality (Cunningham et al., 2019; Degotardi & Gill, 2017). However, opportunities for interaction are not shared equally (Black, 2004). Teachers’ interactional behaviour is strongly influenced by their perceptions of children (Black, 2004) and the pupil’s social background (Peleman et al., 2020). A narrative review study on language learning across early childhood education (ECE) shows that overheard speech that is not directed to the child does not contribute effectively to children’s language development (Rowe & Snow, 2020). Direct interaction between teacher and child with the full attention of the teacher is therefore a critical factor in language development (Weisleder & Fernald, 2013). The study of teacher attention is an emerging field in educational research, due to the innovative technique of mobile eye tracking. These studies have shown that teacher gaze is not evenly distributed across pupils (İnan-Kaya & Rubie-Davies, 2022; Smidekova et al., 2020). In particular, novice teachers tend to give their undivided attention to a limited number of pupils rather than to all children in the classroom (Cortina et al., 2015; Dessus et al., 2016). Explanations for the uneven distribution are inconsistent. For example, Chaudhuri and colleagues (2022) found that teachers focused primarily on the lowest-achieving pupils in their classrooms, while Dessus and colleagues (2016) found that primary teachers focused significantly more on a 'steering group' consisting primarily of middle- and high-achieving pupils.
Mobile eye tracking has also been used to investigate unconscious mechanisms of inequality. While teachers can largely control their verbal messages, they cannot control their non-verbal communication in the same way (İnan-Kaya & Rubie-Davies, 2022). For instance, eye tracking has been used in previous research to measure teachers' implicit biases, including in early childhood settings (Gilliam et al., 2016; İnan-Kaya & Rubie-Davies, 2022). We hypothesise that implicit bias also influences the teacher’s gaze, given that previous mobile eye tracking research by Gilliam and colleagues (2016) has shown that teachers’ implicit biases based on race and gender influenced their eye gaze.
In attempting to explain teacher attention, a distinction can be made between intentional top-down processes, such as intentionally looking at a particular child during a particular exercise to gather information about their learning processes, and unintentional bottom-up processes, such as student behaviour that disrupts classroom activities (Goldberg et al., 2021; Theeuwes et al., 2000), or unconscious teacher mechanisms, such as teacher bias (Gilliam et al., 2016). Theeuwes and colleagues (2000) write that the intentional top-down processes only secondarily influence the direction of attention. Unintentional processes are of bigger influence.
This paper presents a single case study that examines a preschool teacher's distribution of attention and interaction opportunities during two moments of language learning, with a dual aim. First, we want to investigate the teacher's attentional distribution in the context of language learning in early childhood education, with the aim of unravelling the unconscious mechanisms of inequality at the teacher level. Second, we sought to examine the ecological validity of mobile eye tracking by triangulating eye tracking metrics with data collected from alternative sources.
RQ1. How is the teacher attention distributed among preschool children during a formal and an informal language learning activity?
RQ2. How does teacher attention relate to the quality and quantity of teacher-child interactions?
RQ3. What influences the teacher’s attention during language learning, as perceived by the teacher?
RQ4. How do the eye tracking metrics relate to the attentional distribution in a real classroom?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study uses a data triangulation approach to realise an explanatory sequential mixed methods single case study design (Onghena et al., 2019). The school was selected on the basis two criteria: being located in an at-risk neighbourhood, which is characterised by socio-economic and linguistic diversity, and having a social mix in the school. Within the classroom four focal children were selected based on two criteria: age and language background. Two monolingual and two multilingual 4-year-olds were randomly selected (n=4). In order to describe these pupils, the teacher’s perceptions and expectations were investigated. The teacher was asked to describe the focal children based on three dimensions: expectations about language development, perceptions about pupils' sense of belonging (Laevers & Heylen, 2013), and expectations about pupils' social skills (Cassidy & Asher, 1992).
Mobile eye tracking was used to answer RQ1, using the Tobii Pro Glasses 2 with a one-point calibration system and a data rate of 50 Hz. The four children are individually identified as the teacher's areas of interest (AOIs). Two classroom activities were videotaped, in order to capture both formal and informal language learning: interactive book reading and fruit eating. To answer RQ2, these activities were transcribed, and the interactions were coded and analysed. In RQ3, the eye tracking metrics are accompanied by a stimulated recall interview (SRI) with the teacher. The teacher was asked to watch her own video recordings made by the glasses immediately after the eye tracking data collection. The purpose of the SRI was to explore why the teacher's attention was drawn to certain children at certain times and to give deeper meaning to the eye tracking data . To answer RQ4, video observations were conducted over two school days.
Eye-tracking analysis software, Imotions, was used to perform fixation mapping in combination with manual mapping by the researcher. Raw eye tracking metrics are reported (RQ1), such as dwell time, which represents the number of seconds the teacher focuses on the child. Video recordings of language learning moments were transcribed verbatim and coded using a literature-based coding scheme (RQ2) (Justice et al., 2018; Tsybina et al., 2006; Vanparys et al., 2023; Verhallen & Walst, 2011). A qualitative content analysis was conducted to analyse the SRI (RQ3). To investigate the ecological validity (RQ4), the real-classroom video observations were coded using the coding scheme described above.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsEye tracking revealed an uneven distribution of teacher attention (Chaudhuri et al., 2022; Dessus et al., 2016; Haataja et al., 2021). The data show a complex picture of what influenced teacher attention. At the centre of this picture is the child whose initial language skills, courage to speak and teacher’s perceptions and expectations all contribute to uneven teacher behaviour. Connections emerged between the quality of interactions and the distribution of attention. The quality and quantity of interactions, measured by the number of strategies such as open and closed questions, recasts or expansions are related to the dwell time.
Results of the interview data suggest an explanation for the uneven distribution. Intentional processes, such as pursuing a learning goal, and unintentional processes, such as responding to a child-initiated interaction, could be identified (Goldberg et al., 2021; Theeuwes et al., 2000). Cross-coding revealed a contrast in the use of intentional and unintentional processes. Unintentional processes were more frequently used to explain the focus on the proficient child, whereas intentional processes were used to explain the focus on the less proficient children. This suggests a conscious effort to regulate conversations and achieve a balanced distribution of attention. However, in line with previous research (Theeuwes, 2010), the results show that unintentional processes may direct attention more than intentional processes. This highlights the need for teachers to become aware of attentional processes and to promote awareness of inequalities that teachers may be unconsciously contributing to (Breese et al., 2023).
This single case study provides valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms that contribute to unequal language development opportunities in ECE. The similarity of results between mobile eye tracking and real classroom observations, suggests that eye tracking is an ecologically valid data collection method that can be used to investigate teacher attention and preschoolers' opportunities for interaction.
ReferencesCunningham, J. E., Zimmerman, K. N., Ledford, J. R., & Kaiser, A. P. (2019). Comparison of measurement systems for collecting teacher language data in early childhood settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 49, 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.06.008
Black, L. (2004). Differential participation in whole-class discussions and the construction of marginalised identities. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5(1), 34–54.
Peleman, B., Vandenbroeck, M., & Van Avermaet, P. (2020). Early learning opportunities for children at risk of social exclusion. Opening the black box of preschool practice. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1707360
Rowe, M. L., & Snow, C. E. (2020). Analyzing input quality along three dimensions: Interactive, linguistic, and conceptual. Journal of Child Language, 47(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000919000655
İnan-Kaya, G., & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2022). Teacher classroom interactions and behaviours: Indications of bias. Learning and Instruction, 78(101516), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101516
Smidekova, Z., Janik, M., Minarikova, E., & Holmqvist, K. (2020). Teachers’ gaze over space and time in a real-world classroom. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.13.4.1
Cortina, K. S., Miller, K. F., McKenzie, R., & Epstein, A. (2015). Where Low and High Inference Data Converge: Validation of CLASS Assessment of Mathematics Instruction Using Mobile Eye Tracking with Expert and Novice Teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9610-5
Cortina, K. S., Miller, K. F., McKenzie, R., & Epstein, A. (2015). Where Low and High Inference Data Converge: Validation of CLASS Assessment of Mathematics Instruction Using Mobile Eye Tracking with Expert and Novice Teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9610-5
Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do Early Educators’ Implicit Biases Regarding Sex and Race Relate to Behavior Expectations and Recommendations of Preschool Expulsions and Suspensions? Yale University Child Study Center.
Goldberg, P., Schwerter, J., Seidel, T., Müller, K., & Stürmer, K. (2021). How does learners’ behavior attract preservice teachers’ attention during teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103213
Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top–down and bottom–up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006
Chaudhuri, S., Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2022). Teachers’ visual focus of attention in relation to students’ basic academic skills and teachers’ individual support for students: An eye-tracking study. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102179
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy: Finnish Teachers’ Knowledge and Reported Practices
Jenni Alisaari1, Leena Maria Heikkola2, Raisa Harju-Autti3
1University of Stockholm, Department of Slavic and Baltic Studies Finnish Dutch and German; 2Arctic University of Norway, Department of Finnish and Kven Language; 3Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius, University of Jyväskylä
Presenting Author: Alisaari, Jenni;
Heikkola, Leena Maria
As the number of multilingual students continues to increase worldwide, the role of languages in learning is taking center stage in education. Studies have shown a significant gap in learning outcomes between students with a migration background and majority-language speakers in many OECD countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), including Finland (Hiltunen et al., 2023). Students with a migration background often face a range of educational obstacles, including learning gaps, challenges in transitions, and lower educational attainment compared with the majority peers (Borgna, 2017). Thus, it is of utmost importance to find sustainable solutions to improve the learning outcomes of students with a migrant background.
Learning a new language takes time, and attaining academic language proficiency may take up to five to seven years (Cummins, 2021). In today’s linguistically diverse schools, we must look beyond traditional language teaching to gain a deeper understanding of the role languages play in all learning. Teachers play a significant role in making instruction comprehensible for their students. According to theoretical understanding, teaching language and content simultaneously is necessary in order to help students understand and produce language in the ways it is used in different subjects (Schleppegrell et al., 2004). Thus, the Finnish national core curriculum for basic education (Finnish National Agency for Education [EDUFI], 2014) requires language aware pedagogies from all teachers, which, for instance, leads to integrating language and content in teaching. According to our previous studies, this requirement falls under the theoretical framework of linguistically responsive pedagogy (Alisaari et al., 2019; Heikkola et al., 2022; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). The core curriculum (EDUFI, 2014) also encourages teachers to use their students’ all linguistic resources for learning, namely, use multilingual pedagogies in teaching.
Although the curriculum for basic education (EDUFI, 2014) requires linguistically responsive pedagogy and multilingual pedagogies from all teachers, there are studies indicating that Finnish teachers have not been sufficiently aware of how to teach multilingual learners, especially before the requirement came into force in 2016. For example, teachers were not aware of the role of language in learning subject content nor language dimensions, i.e. the ways language varies between everyday language, academic language and subject specific language (Alisaari & Heikkola, 2020). Studies from many other countries indicate that globally, teachers’ competencies in supporting multilingual learners are still developing (e.g. Agirdag et al., 2014; Iversen, 2019; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al., 2020). However, more recent studies are needed to indicate what is the current state of Finnish teachers’ linguistically responsive knowledge. This study focuses on what kind of linguistically responsive knowledge do Finnish teachers have after the curriculum reform.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data were collected in autumn 2021 using an online survey that included both Likert scale items and open-ended questions. The survey was developed based on a survey that we used in 2016 for a similar purpose. The link to the survey and a cover letter were sent by the Ministry of Culture and Education to all local education offices in Finland since it was part of a larger investigation of Finnish- and Swedish-as-a-second-language teaching in Finland. The school districts were asked to forward the survey to teachers working in basic and upper secondary education. In addition, the survey was advertised through social media. Information about the study, its purpose, and the protection of the data were included in the cover letter and on the first page of the online survey. Participants were informed that filling out the survey implied their consent to participate in the study. It was not possible to calculate a participation percentage, as the number of people who received or saw the survey link is unknown.
A total of 1,035 teachers participated in the survey, 63% of which (n = 650) answered the open-ended questions. 72% identified as female, 17% as male, and 1% as other, and the mean age was 48. The gender and age structures correspond well with the Finnish teacher population (Kumpulainen, 2017). Finnish was the first language of 92.7%, Swedish of 5.8%, and 1.5% had other first languages. The respondents included primary school teachers (30%), subject teachers from lower and upper secondary schools (46.5%), special education teachers (15.9%), principals (3.2%) and study counsellors (1.9%) and others (2.5%), such as preparatory class teachers and supplemental teachers. All the aforementioned groups have teaching responsibilities in Finland.
The data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively: In analysing Likert-questions, we used statistical analysis, such as frequencies and factor analysis. For open ended questions, we used qualitative data-driven content analysis (Krippendorf, 2012). The participants’ background factors and their relation to the results of other analysis were investigated by using Cross tabs, Khi square tests, Cramér’s V and z-tests.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary analysis of the data indicates that there has been some positive development in Finnish teachers’ linguistically responsive knowledge after the curriculum reform. However, there are still many areas that need more attention and require improvement by the means of professional development. These will be discussed in more details during the presentation.
Four different teacher profiles were identified from the data: 1) teachers that are aware of language learning, 2) teachers that take responsibility of language support, 3) teachers that encourage students to take more active role of their learning and 4) teachers that seek support from other teachers. Teachers’ reported linguistically responsive pedagogy differed remarkably between these four teacher profiles.
Teachers’ background factors (e.g. their teaching area, training, teaching experience and the number of immigrant students in their schools) affected teachers’ knowledge and reported linguistically responsive pedagogy. More detailed analysis will be presented in the presentation.
This study is relevant in the European context since linguistically responsive pedagogy is recommended in many countries as the European Commission recognizes it as one of the pedagogical approaches to be used in European schools. The results of this study bring valuable information on, e.g. what kind of understandings teachers have on linguistically responsive pedagogy and which teacher groups would benefit the most of professional training, or a more comprehensive change in teacher education.
ReferencesAgirdag, O., Jordens, K. & Van Houtte, M. (2014). Speaking Turkish in Belgian primary schools: teacher beliefs versus effective consequences. Bilig, 70, 7-28.
Alisaari, J. & Heikkola, L. M. (2020). Kielellisesti vastuullista pedagogiikkaa ja oppilaan tukemista – Suomalaisten opettajien käsityksen kielen merkityksestä opetuksessa. [Linguistically responsive pedagogy and supporting students - Finnish teachers’ beliefs regarding the role of language in teaching.] Kasvatus, 4, 395–408.
Borgna, C. (2017). Migrant penalties in educational achievement. Second-generation immigrants on Western Europe. Amsterdam University Press
Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical claims. Multilingual Matters.
Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI). (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet [Finnish core curriculum for basic education]. Määräykset ja ohjeet.
Hiltunen, J., Ahonen, A., Hienonen, N., Kauppinen, H., Kotila, J., Lehtola, P., Leino, K., Lintuvuori, M., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E., Sirén, M., Vainikainen, M.-P., Vettenranta, J. (2023). PISA 2022 ensituloksia. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2023:49. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-949-3
Iversen, J. Y. (2019). Negotiating language ideologies: Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on multilingual practices in mainstream education. International Journal of Multilingualism
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Kumpulainen, T. (Ed.). (2017). Opettajat ja rehtorit Suomessa 2016 [Teachers and school leaders in Finland]. Raportit ja selvitykset 2017:2. National Agency of Education.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98–109.
Rodriguez-Izquierdo, R. M., Falcon, I. G., & Goenechea, C. (2020). Teacher beliefs and approaches to linguistic diversity. Spanish as a second language in the inclusion of immigrant students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90.
Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67–93.
|
