31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Which Factors Increase the Likelihood of Using Family Languages in Educational Contexts?
Valentina Reitenbach1, Jasmin Decristan1, Dominique Rauch2,3, Katharina Maria Schneider2, Victoria Bertram3,4
1University of Wuppertal, Germany; 2University of Education Ludwigsburg; 3DIPF I Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education; 4Goethe University Frankfurt
Presenting Author: Reitenbach, Valentina
Migration-related multilingualism has been increasing in many European countries over the past few decades (Eurostat, 2024). As a result, classrooms often consist of students who are proficient in multiple languages, including their home language(s) and the local language. The multilingualism of students related to migration contrasts with school systems dominated by majority language(s). However, it can be considered fundamental from various perspectives to include the family languages of multilingual students in the classroom. For example, it can be argued that this is crucial from a holistic understanding of language, which regards language as an integral part of identity (Cummins, 2001). From a cognitive or communication-oriented perspective that views all language-related competencies as part of an individual's entire linguistic repertoire, it is fundamental that all languages can be used flexibly for communication and learning (García 2009). Translanguaging involves seamlessly navigating between languages and treating diverse linguistic repertoires as an integrated system (Canagarajah, 2011; Creese, 2017). Educators' purposeful adoption of strategies to facilitate students' translanguaging, thereby augmenting their learning, is denoted as pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021; Prilutskaya, 2021). Pedagogical translanguaging aims to improve students' metalinguistic awareness, helping them to organise and elaborate on content for a deeper understanding of the subject matter (ibid.).
However, not all students use their family languages as a communicative resource in otherwise monolingual educational settings, even if they are explicitly invited to (Meyer & Prediger, 2011; Reitenbach et al. 2023; Schastak et al., 2017; Storch & Wigglesworth 2003). From Grosjean's (2008) theory on the language modes of bilingual speakers, three overarching factors can be derived for (not-)using the full language repertoire: individual, communication partners and the teaching context. Individual factors mainly relate to the linguistic repertoire encompassing vocabulary, literacy access, and language preferences. They may vary in multilingual individuals across languages and specific language domains such as academic language. In self-reports, students referred to individual factors by pointing to their language skills and perception of usefulness as well as their language affinity (Reitenbach et al., 2023; Schastak et al., 2017; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). According to Grosjean (2008), the multilingual mode is activated during interactions with other multilingual individuals who share more than one language and accept mixed-language interactions. Therefore, the chosen language mode is also influenced by the communication partners’ linguistic competencies, language preferences, linguistic habits, or power dynamics between the speakers (Grosjean 2008). Students mentioned language skills, perception of usefulness, and language affinity when referring to their communication partners as relevant factors for using or not using their entire linguistic repertoire (Reitenbach et al., 2023; Schastak et al., 2017; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). Grosjean (2008) argues that contextual factors at the meso-level (e.g., instruction) and macro-level (e.g., educational system and society) account for speakers’ language mode. Classroom interactions, which are influenced by structural elements such as time, space, goals, content, and methods (e.g. task types and materials), constitute meso-level contextual factors that influence (not-)using the full language repertoire. In self-reports, students refer to the teaching context as perceiving the language use being either an offer, obligation or prohibition (Reitenbach et al., 2023; Schastak et al., 2017; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003).
Overall, there is little evidence in the teaching context. In particular, the relative importance of students’ reasons for using family languages has not been sufficiently empirically investigated. This article therefore uses data from an intervention study to investigate
(1) which reasons increase the probability of students using family languages and
(2) the extent to which these differ in their predictive power.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe used data from an intervention study on reading promotion in German lessons at elementary school. Prior to the intervention, the teachers attended three afternoons of training in small groups on the topic of Reciprocal Teaching (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994) and multilingualism in the classroom from a perspective of pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021; Prilutskaya, 2021). The teachers implemented the content in their lessons using a structured programme developed by the researchers. To encourage multilingual interaction, they employed three strategies: 1. creating a classroom environment that is welcoming to multilingualism (by using language portraits; Gogolin & Neumann, 1991); 2. using multilingual teaching materials (translations into > 30 languages); and 3. forming small groups based on shared family languages.
In the 44 participating primary school classes, 69% of the fourth-graders were identified as multilingual. Those 499 students are included in the analyses. In the post-intervention survey, 62% of participants reported speaking a language other than German during the intervention. Data is available on language competence in the family language, operationalised as vocabulary, measured by the BVAT (adapted from Muñoz-Sandoval et al, 1998). Additionally, perceived academic benefits of multilingualism were measured using a 4-item scale with a Cronbach's α of .872 (e.g., “It helps me to work on tasks”). Attitudes towards multilingualism were also measured using a 4-item scale with a Cronbach's α of .694 (e.g., “I think it's cool if someone can speak more than one other language”). Data on the context were recorded at the student level, including availability of multilingual material (96% of students had access), availability of language partners (64% of students had language partners), and frequency of communication in languages other than German in the classroom prior to the intervention ("yes, very often" = 23.0%, "yes, but only sometimes = 56.2%; "no, never" = 14.2%). The analyses were carried out using binary logistic regression with SPSS 28 (cluster = small groups). Initially, bivariate models were calculated. Then, significant independent variables were tested in a joint model.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe bivariate analyses showed that language competence in the family language (individual score and group average), perceived academic benefits of multilingualism (individual score and group average) as well as availability of material and language partnerships were significantly related to the use of family languages. The individual score of perceived academic benefits of multilingualism had the greatest predictive power (coefficient = .536; p < .001; odd's ratio = 1.710), followed by the availability of language partners (coefficient = .527; p < .001; odd's ratio = 1.694), and the individual score of language competence in the family language (coefficient = .505; p < .001; odd's ratio = 1.657).
In the joint prediction model, perceived academic benefit of multilingualism at the individual level (coefficient = .429; p = .016; odd's ratio = 1.536) and language partners (coefficient = .413; p = .002; odd's ratio = 1.511) continued to make significant explanatory contributions. The availability of a language partner increases the likelihood of family language use by 55.1%. Additionally, an increase of 1 in the perceived academic benefit of multilingualism results in a 53.6% increase in the probability of family language use. The joint model accurately predicted whether the family language was used or not in 78.3% of cases.
The analyses indicate that teachers can encourage the use of family languages in their classes by starting at a low threshold. An essential step in this regard is to establish small group work with language partners who speak the same languages. It is equally important for students to perceive their family languages as useful in a predominantly monolingual school context. In the classroom, teachers can demonstrate, enable, and motivate this by using subject-specific methods (e.g. Oomen-Welke, 2020 for German classes) or subject overarching approaches such as Linguistically Responsive Teaching (Lucas & Villegas, 2013).
ReferencesCanagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.
Creese, A. (2017). Translanguaging as an Everyday Practice. In B. Paulsrud, J. Rosén, B. Straszer, & Å. Wedin (Ed.), New Perspectives on Translanguaging and Education (1-9). Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2001). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
Eurostat (2024). Migration and migrant population statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics [18.01.2024].
Gogolin, I. & Neumann, U. (1991). Sprachliches Handeln in der Grundschule [Linguistic practice in primary school]. Die Grundschulzeitschrift, 5, 6–13.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford University Press.
Lucas, T. & Villegas, A.M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 98–109.
Meyer, M. & Prediger, S. (2011). The use of first language Turkish as a resource. A German case study on chances and limits for building conceptual understanding. In M. Setati, T. Nkambule & L. Goosen (Ed.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 21 Mathematics and language diversity (225–234). São Paulo University Press.
Muñoz-Sandoval, A.F., Cummins, J., Alvarado, C.G., & Ruef, M.L. (1998). Bilingual verbal ability tests: Comprehensive manual. Riverside Publishing.
Oomen-Welke, I. (2020). Mehrsprachigkeit im Deutschunterricht [Multilingualism in German lessons]. In I. Gogolin, A. Hansen, S. McMonagle, & D. Rauch (Ed.), Handbuch Mehrsprachigkeit und Bildung (181-188). Springer VS.
Prilutskaya, M. (2021). Examining pedagogical translanguaging: A systematic review of the literature. Languages, 6(4), 180.
Reitenbach, V., Decristan, J., Rauch, D., Bertram, V., & Schneider, K.M. (2023). Selbstberichtete Gründe für die (Nicht‑)Nutzung von Familiensprachen beim mehrsprachigkeitssensiblen Reziproken Lehren [Students’ reasons for (not) using their home languages during linguistically responsive Reciprocal Teaching]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 51, 221–243.
Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educa-tional Research, 64, 479–530.
Schastak, M., Reitenbach, V., Rauch, D., & Decristan, J. (2017). Türkisch-deutsch bilinguale Interaktion beim Peer-Learning in der Grundschule: Selbstberichtete Gründe für die Nutzung oder Nicht-Nutzung bilingualer Interaktionsangebote [Turkish-German bilingual interactions during peer-learning in elementary school. Self-reported reasons for acceptance or rejection of bilingual interaction]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(2), 213–235.
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 37(4), 760–770.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Supporting multilingual learning — Teachers’ perceptions
Ninni Lankinen
University of Helsinki, Finland
Presenting Author: Lankinen, Ninni
As Northern Europe is becoming increasingly multilingual, new challenges are posed to public institutions. In Finland, schools have not yet managed to turn students’ multilingual resources into an advantage. The Finnish national core curriculum of basic education (The Finnish National Agency for Education 2014) encourages a language aware school culture and mentions the parallel use of different languages in the school. However, the use and definition of these concepts are vague, and it is not clear how they should be implemented in schools. Teachers' attitudes may also be strongly driven by monolingual ideology (Alisaari et al. 2019), which is not conducive to promoting everyday multilingualism in classrooms. According to recent studies (Suuriniemi 2021, Repo 2022, Alisaari et al. 2023), linguistically responsive teaching (e.g. Lucas & Villegas 2013) and practices supporting multilingual learning have not yet become mainstream in Finnish comprehensive education, even if many teachers express both the need and the positive attitude (Harju-Autti & Sinkkonen, 2020) towards acquiring new teaching methods for their linguistically diverse classrooms. These questions are not only specific to Finland or the Nordic countries, but to all Western countries with recent increase in immigration.
Educational system and especially basic and upper secondary education have a key role in integrating young people into the society, by providing qualifications for transition to working life, and by creating a sense of belonging and possibilities for democratic participation and agency in the Finnish society. The PISA results have shown that the learning outcomes of students with an immigrant background are remarkably lower than those of students with a Finnish background (Harju-Luukkainen et al. 2014). My presentation will investigate the individual and structural challenges multilingual students with migrant background face. Effective school language learning is key to academic success, but Finnish educational system does not seem to promote a truly multilingual society, where all the language resources of individuals are treated as an asset rather than an obstacle. Supporting the students’ individual identities calls for valuing their previous knowledge, including their language skills (Alisaari et al. 2023, Cummins, 2021).
The languages of the students are present in the classroom in one way or another, whatever agreement was made between the teacher and the students regarding their use. Research about the importance and means of pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter 2022) are still scarce in the Finnish school context. My research investigates the everyday realities of multilingualism at the Finnish educational system, specifically teacher’s perceptions on supporting multilingual learning. My research asks, 1) how do teachers see their role in supporting multilingual students’ linguistic and academic development, and 2) how are these ideas promoted in everyday classroom practices in linguistically diverse 9th grade classrooms? This study will give new knowledge on how to promote truly multilingual learning in linguistically diverse classrooms, where the teacher typically is a native speaker of the school language.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe presentation at hand is part of the second sub-study of my dissertation Multilingual transitions – Post-comprehensive educational choices of multilingual pupils with migrant background. In this study I focused on subject teachers’ perceptions and means of supporting their multilingual student’s learning. The ethnographic research data of this study were produced in two lower secondary schools in the Metropolitan Helsinki area. Both schools have a large amount of non-native Finnish speakers as students, and they are situated in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. The data consist of field notes on multilingual pedagogic practices during one school year (59 observed schooldays) and individual interviews of 27 lower secondary subject teachers and other school staff such as special education teachers, career counselors, principals and multilingual counselors. My presentation will provide some preliminary results on the analysis that focuses on the teachers’ views. The interviews have been analyzed by using qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBased on the ethnographic fieldwork conducted for this study, I argue that even linguistically diverse Finnish schools lack systematic practices in supporting multilingual students’ learning. Many teachers spoke mostly English for newly arrived students and even well-known linguistically responsive methods were not found in everyday classroom practices. Students were rarely encouraged to use their languages in class and multilingual pedagogies were not familiar to most of the teachers interviewed. However, certain teachers used these methods regularly and verbalized the significance of these practices in the interviews. These teachers were dedicated to including all students in learning, both in the content matter but also socially. They had consciously developed their teaching in linguistically responsive direction and acknowledged their students’ languages as resources for learning. In my presentation I will present established practices of multilingual pedagogies and discuss policy recommendations for education.
ReferencesAlisaari, J., Heikkola, L. M., Acquah, E. O. & Commins, N. (2019). Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education 80, 48-58.
Alisaari, J., Bergroth, M., Harju-Autti, R., Heikkola, L. M., & Sissonen, S. (2023). Finnish Teachers’ Perspectives on Creating Multilingual Learning Opportunities in Diverse Classrooms. In V. Tavares, & T.-A. Skrefsrud (editors), Critical and creative engagements with diversity in Nordic education (pages 109–129). Lexington books.
Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.
Harju-Autti, R., & Sinkkonen, H.-M. (2020). Supporting finnish language learners in basic education: Teachers’ views. International Journal of Multicultural Education 22(1), 53–75.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., Nissinen, K., Sulkunen, S., Suni, M., & Vettenranta, J. (2014). Avaimet osaamiseen ja tulevaisuuteen: Selvitys maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaamisesta ja siihen liittyvistä taustatekijöistä PISA 2012 -tutkimuksessa [Keys to skills and the future: a study on the skills and related determinants of young people with an immigrant background in PISA 2012]. Finnish Institute for Educational Research.
Lucas, T. & Villegas, A. M. (2013) Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers: Laying the Foundation in Preservice Teacher Education, Theory Into Practice,52:2, 98-109.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
National Agency of Education. (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. https://eperusteet.opintopolku.fi/#/fi/perusopetus/419550/tiedot
Repo, E. (2020). Discourses on encountering multilingual learners in Finnish schools. Linguistics and Education, 60, 100864.
Suuriniemi, S.-M. & Satokangas, H. (2021): Linguistic landscape of Finnish school textbooks, International Journal of Multilingualism.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical translanguaging in content and language integrated learning. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices, 3(1), 7–26.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
The Use of Students’ Home Language(s) in Increasingly Linguistically Diverse English as an Additional Language Classrooms in Norway and Cyprus
Georgios Neokleous1, Sviatlana Karpava2
1Norwegian University of Science & Technology (NTNU), Norway; 2University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Neokleous, Georgios;
Karpava, Sviatlana
Across Europe, school classrooms are more linguistically diverse than in the past. Because of this, research encourages the implementation of pedagogical approaches that embrace the diversity of students and the increasing role of home languages in the school curriculum (Aronin & Singleton, 2012; Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; May, 2014). As a result, the changing demographics and composition of students have also altered teachers’ classroom settings from traditionally homogenous to those that are more diverse in nature (Lorenz et al., 2021; Rosnes & Rossland, 2018). However, some EAL classrooms have not been adequately prepared to cater to the needs of multilingual students as their settings have essentially been defined as homogeneous by the educational systems in which they work (Lorenz et al., 2021).
According to Wernicke et al. (2021), attention should be paid to multilingualism and multiculturalism in educational settings to increase awareness and recognition of linguistic and cultural diversity at individual and societal levels. Further, research articulated that historical, ideological, social, economic, and political factors need to be taken into consideration, as well as language policy and the diverse language practices of teachers and students (Choi & Ollerhead, 2018). Multilingual education presupposes not only the teachers’ proficiency in several languages but also their knowledge and understanding of language acquisition processes, theoretical and pedagogical models, approaches focused on the development of multilingual competence (Hammond, 2014), teaching strategies, language, and content integration (Palincsar & Schleppegrell, 2014), and language policies and ideologies related to language teaching and language use (Flores & Rosa, 2015).
Recent research on multilingualism and language education has mainly been conducted with a focus on the learning and teaching of the English language, or in English-speaking contexts (Burns & Siegel, 2018;Matsuda, 2017). This study looks at two increasingly multilingual EAL settings, namely, Norway and Cyprus, whose recent reports (Statistics Norway, 2022 for reports on Norway and Annual Report of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, and Youth, 2021 for reports on Cyprus) identified an increase in linguistic diversity and testified to the need for effective and efficient multilingual pedagogies that would assist in optimizing the student learning experiences.
The researchers aimed to investigate pre-service EAL teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, and reflections regarding the use of students’ HLs in increasingly linguistically diverse EAL classrooms in Norway and Cyprus. Fifty-nine teachers were observed during their teaching practicum and were interviewed with respect to their views, beliefs, and self-reflections on the impact and role of HL for EAL teaching and learning purposes. In both countries, data were collected through classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. The field notes enabled the researchers to reflect on the documented events and the behaviors observed in practice to produce meaning and understanding. The research question the study sought to address was:
- Do Norwegian and Cypriot pre-service EAL teachers share similar attitudes towards HL integration in the EAL classroom or are there any differences between them?
The findings revealed that more than half of the participants in both countries were in favor of employing multilingual pedagogies. However, most of them acknowledged certain challenges in their practical implementation and the need for further training. The study concludes with the authors stressing the catalyst role teacher educators could play in making EAL classrooms more inclusive for multilingual learners (Neokleous & Karpava, 2023). The significance of this study is in its comparative nature and in its potential for providing further evidence in the exploration of linguistically and culturally responsive teaching and deeper insights into EAL teachers beliefs and cognitions but also how teacher training can effectively prepare pre-service teachers on enhancing learning in linguistically diverse settings (Kart et al., 2022).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn both countries, data were collected through classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. Notes taken during the observations were later written up as field notes constituted the third data collection strategy. The field notes enabled the researchers to reflect on the documented events and the behaviors observed in practice to produce meaning and understanding.
A convenience sampling method was implemented to recruit participants (Mathieson, 2014), who were all attending a pre-service EAL university course in one institution in Cyprus and one institution in Norway. Participants were at the same level in their English language teacher education program of study. A total of 30 undergraduate students in Cyprus and 29 undergraduate students in Norway, who self-identified as future EAL teachers, took part in the study. In Cyprus, 17 participants were male and 13 were female. Their ages ranged from 18 to 26 years old. In Norway, 19 were female and 10 were male. Their ages ranged from 18 to 23 years old. To comply with the ethical decisions raised to conduct the study, approval was granted from the Norwegian Centre for Research and Data and the Cyprus National Bioethics Committee. The study complied with the ethical guidelines of the two participating countries and institutions to ensure that the participants make a fully informed decision about whether to participate in the research.
For the interviews with the participants, an interview protocol was created. The interviews were semi-structured with questions that were common for all participants while also leaving the window open for probing and clarification inquiries. However, the fourth section contained questions that were specific for each of the participating classrooms based on the observations and the practices of the teachers. The interviews with the participants were conducted in English.
An interpretational approach was employed to address the three research questions. Gall et al. (1999) defined interpretational analysis as a process which “involves a systematic set of procedures to code and classify qualitative data to ensure that the important constructs, themes, and patterns emerge” (p. 315). Once transcribed, the interviews were thematically analyzed. The transcripts were attentively reviewed: repeating themes were identified, the data were coded, and based on the keywords and phrases, categories were created (Rolland et al., 2020). Abiding by the interpretational approach guidelines, the interviews with the pre-service teachers were transcribed and coded using Saldaña’s (2009) two coding cycle methods.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsEven in classroom settings that have traditionally been described as monolingual with students and teachers sharing a majority language, because of rapid increases in mobility and migration, increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms have become the norm. As a result, EAL classrooms both in Norway and Cyprus now represent a range of different HLs. Current pedagogical approaches embraced the multilingual turn in education that prompted teachers to make use of the students’ entire linguistic repertoires to perform and negotiate TL functions (Aronin and Singleton, 2012; Shin et al., 2020). The purpose of this study was to unearth pre-service teacher attitudes toward the integration of HLs and the purposes they should serve in the classroom but also to identify differences and similarities between two traditionally monolingual but incrementally multilingual settings.
As it emerged from the results of this comparative study, the pre-service teacher participants were aware of the current classroom reality and the ensuing challenges that the linguistic diversity might bring in their teaching. As the participants elaborated, the challenges stemmed from a lack of adequate training and relevant teaching experience that would equip them with the required skills and knowledge to face the diverse needs of the student body in multilingual settings. Because of this unpreparedness, the participants were hesitant and in certain cases reluctant to immerse themselves in a classroom without feeling confident about the pedagogical practices and approaches they would employ. The results cement the significance of ensuring coherence between theory and practice in teacher education programs regarding the preparation of pre-service teachers for their work with diverse pupils. These findings can be used in teacher training programs to assist prospective teachers in better understanding the natural linguistic behavior of multilingual students but also how to effectively use the students’ entire linguistic repertoires as a resource.
ReferencesAronin, L., and Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Burns, A., and Siegel, J. (2018). International perspectives on teaching the four skills in ELT: Listening, speaking, reading, writing. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Cenoz, J., and Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Choi, J., and Ollerhead, S. (2018). Plurilingualism in teaching and learning: Complexities across contexts. London, UK: Routledge.
Flores, N., and Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harv. Educ. Rev. 85, 149–171. doi: 10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Hammond, J. (2014). An Australian perspective on standards-based education, teacher knowledge, and students of English as an additional language. TESOL Q. 48, 507–532. doi: 10.1002/tesq.173
Kart, A., Groß Ophoff, J., and Pham Xuan, R. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms. Insights from the Austrian-wide summer school programme in 2021. Lang. Cult. Curric. 36, 276–292. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2022.2138426
Lorenz, E., Krulatz, A., and Torgersen, E. N. (2021). Embracing linguistic and cultural diversity in multilingual EAL classrooms: the impact of professional development on teacher beliefs and practice. Teach. Teach. Educ. 105:103428. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103428
Matsuda, A. (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
May, S. (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. Routledge.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, and Youth. (2021). Annual Report. Available at: http://www.moec.gov.cy/en/annual_reports.html.
Neokleous G and Karpava S (2023) Comparing pre-service teacher attitudes toward the use of students’ home language(s) in linguistically diverse English as an additional language classrooms in Norway and Cyprus. Front. Educ. 8:1254025. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1254025
Palincsar, A., and Schleppegrell, M. (2014). Focusing on language and meaning while learning with text. TESOL Q. 48, 616–623. doi: 10.1002/tesq.178
Rolland, L., Dewaele, J., and Costa, B. (2020). “Planning and conducting interviews: power, language” in The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. eds. J. McKinley and H. Rose (London, UK: Routledge), 279–290.
Rosnes, E. V., and Rossland, B. L. (2018). Interculturally competent teachers in the diverse Norwegian educational setting. Multicult. Educ. Rev. 10, 274–291. doi: 10.1080/2005615X.2018.1532223
Statistics Norway. (2022). Population. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning
Wernicke, M., Hammer, S., Hansen, A., and Schroedler, T. (2021). Preparing teachers to work with multilingual learners. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
|
