Conference Agenda

In the Czech context, school grammar has traditionally held a relatively strong position and is taught systematically, often in greater detail than in many Anglophone educational contexts (Hudson, 2016). At the same time, curriculum and pedagogy have been moving towards a more functional view of language teaching, in which grammatical knowledge is expected to support meaning-making, communication, and work with texts rather than being an end in itself. This aligns with current debates in L1 grammar education, which increasingly focus less on whether grammar should be taught and more on how it should be explained, organised, and pedagogically sequenced (Hudson, 2016; Camps & Fontich, 2019; Myhill & Watson, 2014).

However, curricula often formulate competence-oriented aims without an explicit conceptual structure or clear guidance on learning progression. This increases the importance of textbooks and raises demands on teachers when translating the intended curriculum into classroom practice (Myhill & Watson, 2014). In Czech Language and Literature, expected outcomes are phrased in relatively general terms and the sequencing of grammatical concepts across grades is only weakly specified; textbooks therefore co-determine which model of “school grammar” reaches pupils and what teachers rely on in instruction. Together with selected didactic publications for teachers, textbooks act as key knowledge resources, connecting knowing (teachers’ conceptual tools) with teaching (how these tools become explanations and tasks).

This is particularly visible in the teaching of verbal tense. Tense is typically introduced early because it is assumed to be intuitively accessible; however, misconceptions may develop. Pupils often learn “tense” as a set of forms, but then encounter cases in which temporal meaning cannot be inferred directly from form, especially in expressing future time. Without an early grasp of the verbal aspect (Czech slovesný vid) as a contrast between ongoing or unfinished events and completed or bounded events, explanations of tense may remain abstract and internally inconsistent.

Pupils commonly use verbal-aspect distinctions in communication before they can name them explicitly. Verbal aspect can therefore serve as a bridge between implicit linguistic competence and explicit grammatical knowledge. At the same time, it places demands on teachers’ professional knowledge as it requires translating a meaning contrast into accessible explanations and tasks. Nevertheless, primary-level textbooks often explain future time in vague terms, such as “some verbs form the future using present-tense forms”, and postpone a more systematic treatment of verbal aspect.

The presentation examines how Czech language textbooks for Grades 4–6 conceptualise verbal categories, with particular attention to explanations of future time and an implicit (unnamed) verbal-aspect principle. It explores what consequences this may have for pupils’ concept formation and teachers’ capacity to provide coherent explanations within a competence-oriented curriculum.

Research questions (RQ)
RQ1: How do textbooks for Grades 4–6 introduce and sequence key verbal categories (tense, mood, and related concepts), and what picture of the verbal system do they convey to pupils?
RQ2: How do textbooks explain future time, and to what extent do they use or replace verbal aspect (ongoing vs. completed event meaning) to account for different ways of expressing the future?
RQ3: What didactic implications does this conceptualisation have for pupils’ understanding and for teachers’ capacity to provide coherent explanations in the context of curricular change?

This study analyses the social interactions between schoolchildren in their mother tongue, known as A Fala, and a dominant European language, such as Spanish. The sample includes all the pupils at the public school in Valverde del Fresno, specifically 39 participants from pre-school education and 101 informants from primary education, which provides a representative sample of all educational stages. The approach used in this study is qualitative, applying an ethnographic method and obtaining information from participant observation in the field of study. The results reveal that language is influenced by power dynamics and school standardisation, which limits its ability to meet the challenges it currently faces. Likewise, the resistance of certain educational actors to the mechanisms of control and social oppression established in educational institutions is observed. This leads to the deterioration of multilingual education, which has consequences for students' full access to the linguistic repertoire.

On the other hand, research reveals that schools facilitate processes of acculturation and linguistic standardisation, as well as guiding students' behaviour towards the acquisition of the dominant culture. This practice reflects the position adopted by modern schools throughout the 19th century and until the last third of the 20th century, as they established and consolidated themselves as assimilationist and homogenising institutions. In other words, it became a centralist instrument of nation building that diminished the visibility of minorities and almost always marginalised many regional voices, languages and cultures (Beniscelli et al., 2019; García-García and Rina Simón, 2023; Gellner, 1983; Guo & Maitra, 2017; Hobsbawm, 1992; Tröhler, 2020, 2023). Thus, the centralised and standardising school of the modern era has been largely responsible for fostering linguistic and identity conflicts, especially where two different language repertoires coexisted.

In a context of multilingualism and multiculturalism such as the one described above, there is a need to explore the changes in linguistic register that students make between a vernacular variety, A Fala, and a hegemonic language, Spanish. The aim is to analyse how students in schools are taught a second language to be used in a completely separate way from what is known as their mother tongue (García & Otheguy, 2020). Therefore, this study seeks to analyse how learners establish different levels of interaction between two linguistic varieties with unequal consideration, arising from processes of linguistic discrimination. In other words, it seeks to understand how children activate their choice of language and its linguistic features according to the contextual factors, both formal and informal, to which they are subjected.

The framework from which to proceed addresses, the coexistence of two languages in the north of the province of Cáceres (Extremadura), on the border with Portugal (Xálima region), where there is a shared repertoire among the members of a community, both linguistic and extralinguistic in nature, which is the cumulative result of their negotiations (Meyerhoff & Strycharz, 2013). This pretext refers to the Fala de Xálima, a variety used by fewer than 3,700 speakers in three villages: San Martín de Trevejo, Eljas and Valverde del Fresno (Dondelewski, 2024). It is therefore a very small and compact linguistic community (Valeš, 2017), characterised by the use of three main varieties: mañego in San Martín de Trevejo, valverdeñu in Valverde and lagarteiro in Eljas. Differences between the three varieties still persist today.

In this study, I examine how the role of written language is reflected in early foreign language education. Foreign languages have been taught in all Finnish schools since spring 2020, starting in the first grade. Based on previous studies (e.g., Hahl et al., 2020), some teachers have been uncertain about the appropriate working methods for early foreign language teaching. Some have expressed concern that not all 1st and 2nd grade students can read and write yet – previously, foreign language teaching mainly began in 3rd grade, when most students were already literate. On the other hand, some teachers have stated that written language is not necessary in early language education.

The Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (EDUFI, 2016) gives teachers room for interpretation. In early language teaching, the description of the curriculum content and objectives covers grades 1–2. According to the curriculum, early language teaching should emphasize oral interaction and diverse, functional learning. Opportunities to become familiar with the written language should also be provided, and pupils should be gradually encouraged to read and write in the foreign language. However, pupils are not required to have reading or writing skills at the beginning of foreign language education.

This study is part of the second article of my doctoral dissertation, which continues the theme of my first article on the role of written language in early language education. My dissertation is part of a larger research project that examines teachers' perceptions of multiliteracies and how these perceptions are reflected in teaching practices in early foreign language education.

In my first article (Hakola, draft), I studied teachers' views on written language in first-grade foreign language teaching based on teacher interviews. The teachers interpreted and implemented the "gradual introduction to written language" aspect of the curriculum in different ways, which were divided into three groups: 1) written language is a natural part of diverse language teaching, 2) written language is visible, but reading and writing are not emphasized, and 3) written language does not belong in foreign language teaching in the first grade. The study also highlighted the role of written language as a calming activity or alternative when functionality fails.

Teachers' views on teaching, language teaching, and learning have a significant impact on what their teaching looks like in practice (Krogager & Andersen 2021). In this study, I focus on classroom observation data to examine how the role of written language is reflected in foreign language teaching practice. To achieve this, I will answer the following research questions:

1. How and to what extent does written target language appear in foreign language lessons in grade 1?

1. How are teachers' perceptions of the role of written target language reflected in their teaching practices?

Writing instruction in second/foreign language education has long been shaped by shifting pedagogical paradigms, policy priorities, and theoretical developments. While extensive research has documented contemporary approaches to L2 writing, considerably less attention has been paid to how pedagogical knowledge about writing has been historically produced, stabilised, and transmitted through official policy documents and instructional materials, and how this knowledge continues to inform present-day classroom practice. In contexts such as Türkiye, where language education has undergone major curricular and ideological transformations over the past century, understanding the historical conditions under which knowledge about L2 writing emerged is crucial for interpreting what counts as legitimate writing pedagogy today.

This study approaches L2 writing instruction as a form of pedagogical knowledge that is historically situated, institutionally mediated, and enacted in practice. Rather than treating current classroom practices as isolated or purely individual choices, the study conceptualises them as forms of action that are made possible by historically sedimented assumptions about language, learning, and writing. In doing so, the study aligns closely with the ECER 2026 theme Knowing and Acting by foregrounding the relationship between the production of educational knowledge and its use in pedagogical contexts.

The primary objective of the study is to examine how pedagogical knowledge about L2 writing instruction in Türkiye has been constructed and legitimised over time through policy documents and instructional materials, and how this knowledge remains epistemically present in contemporary L2 writing classrooms at the A2–B1 levels.

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How has pedagogical knowledge about L2 writing instruction been constructed and legitimised in policy documents and instructional materials in Türkiye across different historical periods?
2. What continuities and transformations can be identified in the pedagogical assumptions, instructional practices, and learner roles embedded in these historical representations of L2 writing?
3. How is historically produced pedagogical knowledge about L2 writing re-situated, adapted, or contested in contemporary L2 writing classrooms at the A2–B1 levels?

The theoretical framework of the study draws on sociocultural and historical perspectives on educational knowledge, which view pedagogy not as a neutral application of theory but as a socially and historically situated practice. From this perspective, textbooks and policy documents are understood as key knowledge artefacts that codify dominant pedagogical assumptions and circulate them across time and institutional contexts. The study also draws on scholarship that conceptualises teaching as epistemic work, positioning teachers as active agents who interpret, adapt, and sometimes resist inherited pedagogical models in response to situated classroom realities.

By bringing together historical analysis and theoretically informed practitioner inquiry, the study seeks to contribute to ongoing debates about how educational knowledge is produced, stabilised, and enacted, and how past pedagogical ideas continue to shape present forms of educational action.