Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
31 SES 12 A: Teaching Multilingual Students
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper As Long as the Work Gets Done: Teachers’ Reactions to Students’ Use of Primary Languages During Pair Work 1: University of Turku; 2: University of Eastern Finland; 3: UiT The Artic University of Norway; 4: University of Jyväskylä Presenting Author:Advocating for the use of home languages in learning can enable students to use their entire cognitive capacity, support their holistic identities (Cummins, 2021) and positively influence their self-esteem and enthusiasm for learning (Catalano et al., 2019). Consequently, it has been argued (García & Hesson, 2015) that all teaching should support the entire linguistic repertoires of bilingual and multilingual students. When students are encouraged to use all their languages, their understanding of the topics being taught may be deeper than if they are restricted to using only the language of instruction (Tharp et al., 2000). In this study, we focus on collaborative learning as allowing students to co-construct knowledge through social interaction with peers who speak the same language, which provides them opportunities to develop their skills within their zone of proximal development (Teemant, 2018; Vygotsky,1978). Unfortunately, many teachers are either unwilling or unable to use their students’ primary languages as learning resources (Author et al., 2019; Iversen, 2019; Lundberg, 2019; Sullivan, 2016; Taylor et al., 2008). Thus, there is a need to better understand teachers’ beliefs about the use of different languages for learning, since “if teachers don’t believe that drawing on all the students’ linguistic and other semiotic resources in teaching is good pedagogy, it will not work because they are not convinced of the value” (Catalano et al., 2019, p. 66). In this study, we focused on teachers’ survey responses to a hypothetical situation where they observe students using their primary language during pair work. Pair work was used as the context for this question because successful collaboration requires negotiation, knowledge construction, and joint regulation of a learning process, which may involve the use of one’s entire linguistic repertoire. The research question guiding our inquiry was: How do teachers report responding to students’ use of their primary language during pair work? The study is relevant to the European context especially in countries of relatively recent but rapidly increasing migration, such as Finland, where many teachers are grappling with multilingualism and multilingual pedagogies in their classrooms for the first time. By examining teachers’ responses to the survey question, we can reveal attitudes and stances that may need to be addressed in initial or continued teacher education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The data for this study were collected with an online survey in fall 2021 as part of a larger research project on culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy in Finland. To collect the data, the Ministry of Education and Culture sent a cover letter and a link to the survey to all Finnish education authorities. The survey was distributed to teaching staff via education authorities and promoted on social media. Information on the study’s purpose and data protection was provided in the cover letter and survey introduction, with informed consent given through participation. As the total reach of the survey link is unknown, the response rate could not be calculated; 1035 educators responded to the survey. The survey, adapted from the instrument used in Author et al. (2019), included background questions, Likert-scale, and open-ended questions. For this study, we examined educators’ responses to the following open-ended question: “Your students are working in pairs. You walk around the classroom, watching the pairs work.You approach two students with immigration background who are speaking to each other in their primary language. You do not know the language. How do you react?” The data were analyzed by building on theory-driven categories from Author et al., (2021) and data-driven content analysis (Krippendorff, 2012). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The emerging findings indicate that overall, teachers’ responses fell into three categories, in line with our previous research (Author et al., 2021): Restrict: teachers stated they would curb students’ use of primary languages in some way; Tolerate: teachers stated they would let students use their primary languages as long as they were working on the assignment; and Encourage: teachers stated that they welcomed students’ use of their primary languages. The majority of the respondents held neutral or positive beliefs: most responses fell into the second category and a smaller number into the third category, with teachers wanting to restrict primary language use being in the minority. For example, one participant stated: “Using your first language is not a problem if the conversation relates to the subject being taught.” However, hidden behind this seemingly neutral response is the underlying belief that primary languages can be a problem - a belief that goes against the idea of languaging as the basis for cognitive activity (Vygotsky, 1978). In addition, responses that fell into the “restrict” category demonstrated not only the problematic notion that primary languages should not be used for learning, but also fundamentally erroneous ideas about multilingualism in the classroom. For example, one participant stated they would ask students to translate what they had said into Finnish, which would put a halt to students’ otherwise productive interaction and ask them to do something they might not even be able to do. Lastly, there were few responses describing specific actions by the teacher for facilitating primary language use beyond an encouraging attitude. The study points to the need for examining teachers’ beliefs around language and language use more thoroughly in teacher education and to connect this reflection to pedagogical strategies teachers can learn to facilitate students’ use of their primary languages for learning. References Author et al. (2019). Author et al. (2021). Catalano, T., Traore Moundiba, H. C., & Pir, H. (2019). ‘I felt valued’: Multilingual microteachings and the development of teacher agency in a teacher education classroom. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 7(3), 55–76. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners. A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters. García, O., & Hesson, S. (2015). Translanguaging frameworks for teachers: Macro and microperspectives. In A. Yiacoumetti (Ed.), Multilingualism and language in education: Current sociolinguistic and pedagogical perspectives from commonwealth countries (pp. 221–242). Cambridge University Press. Iversen, J. (2019). Negotiating language ideologies: Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on multilingual practices in mainstream education. International Journal of Multilingualism,18(3), 421–434. Lundberg, A. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism: Findings from Q method research. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(3), 266–283. Sullivan, E. C. (2016). Mainstream teachers’ language-related knowledge and linguistically responsive teaching practices for English language learners [Doctoral dissertation, NotreDame of Maryland University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Taylor, L. K., Bernhard, J. K., Garg, S., & Cummins, J. (2008). Affirming plural belonging:Building on students’ family-based cultural and linguistic capital through multiliteracies pedagogy. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 8(3), 269–294. Teemant, A. (2018). Sociocultural theory as everyday practice: The challenge of PK-12 teacher preparation for multilingual and multicultural learners. In The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 529–550). Routledge. Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Stoll Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L.A. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Westview Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press. 31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper Facilitating Language and Content Learning or Correcting Spelling Mistakes? Teachers Facilitating Students’ Group Work 1: University of Eastern Finland, Finland; 2: University of Turku, Finland; 3: The Arctic University of Norway, Norway; 4: Tampere University, Finland Presenting Author:Numerous studies have shown a significant gap in the learning outcomes of students with a migration background compared to those of majority-language speakers in many member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including Finland (Kilpi-Jakonen & Alisaari, 2022; Pulkkinen et al., 2024; Ukkola et al., 2025). It has been suggested that linguistically responsive pedagogy would be beneficial for all, but especially multilingual learners (Lucas et al., 2008), as it pays specific attention to the role of language in content instruction and emphasizes the teachers’ active role in supporting their learners. To address this, a revision was made to the Finnish national core curriculum for basic education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2014) in 2014 to include that all teachers must be linguistically responsive, integrate both language and content in their teaching, and understand the role that languages play in socialization and identity construction. Learning a language takes time. Attaining academic language proficiency may take five to seven years (Cummins, 2021). To promote inclusive education for all learners, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds, developing meaningful approaches and methods for teaching both subject content and the language of schooling is essential (Harju-Autti et al., 2021). Teachers play a significant role in making instruction comprehensible for their students. 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 (Cummins & Early, 2015). However, several separate studies from different perspectives have shown a gap in Finnish teachers’ pedagogical skills and their knowledge about linguistic diversity (Alisaari et al., 2019; Alisaari & Heikkola, 2020; Heikkola et al., 2022). This research has demonstrated teachers’ varied attitudes towards linguistically responsive pedagogy but has not delved deeply into teachers’ specific practices. In this study, expand this perspective by examining teachers’ answers to a survey question where they were asked for specific examples from their practice. In this study, we focus particularly on teachers’ reported practices for developing both language and content. As all learning is connected to language, it is essential to understand that all subjects have terms, concepts, and vocabulary that can be considered a new form of language, even for students who are fluent in the language of instruction (Lahti et al., 2020). However, subject-specific language is particularly challenging for multilingual students, and the optimal way to develop it is in discussions between the students and the teacher (Tharp et al., 2018). Therefore, language should be taught together with content knowledge in all subject areas (Carlson et al., 2018). Moreover, teachers should scaffold instruction so learners can accomplish academic assignments at otherwise unattainable cognitive and language levels (Gibbons, 2015; Tharp et al., 2018; Vygotsky, 1978). Joint productive activity, where the teacher is working together with a small group of students, is especially effective in supporting students’ learning (Teemant, 2018). The research question guiding our inquiry is: How do teachers report guiding students' pair or group work by supporting their language or content learning? This study is relevant in the European context since while research has thus far explored teachers’ attitudes and stances towards linguistically responsive pedagogy (CITES), there is a dearth of research looking into teacher practices. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The data for this study were collected with an online survey in fall 2021 as part of a larger research project on culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy in Finland. To collect the data, the Ministry of Education and Culture sent a cover letter and a link to the survey to all Finnish education authorities. The survey was distributed to teaching staff via education authorities and promoted on social media. Information on the study’s purpose and data protection was provided in the cover letter and survey introduction, with informed consent given through participation. As the total reach of the survey link is unknown, the response rate could not be calculated; 1035 educators responded to the survey. The survey, adapted from the instrument used in Alisaari et al. (2019), included background questions, Likert-scale, and open-ended questions. For this study, we examined educators’ responses to the following open-ended question: “Do you facilitate students' pair or group work related to language or content as they work? If so, how? Give a few examples.” There were 523 responses in this particular question. The data were analyzed using data-driven content analysis (Krippendorff, 2012). The following themes were found: 1. Does not facilitate pair or group work 2. Facilitates language learning / use 3. Facilitates content learning 4. Does not implement pair or group work Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Most of the respondents reported facilitating their students’ pair or group work in some way. Responses reflecting the most optimal ways of facilitating group work included mentions of supporting language, such as by providing vocabulary, and using guiding questions to support students’ content understanding: “Yes, all the time. I throw in words to support them, remind them where to find vocabulary/help, encourage them to speak more, remind them and repeat what I have taught, and ask questions that help the students move forward.” In some responses, educators focused on facilitating either language or content but not both simultaneously, even though research has shown that language should be taught together with content knowledge in all subject areas (Carlson et al., 2018). A portion of the respondents reporting facilitating language use understood the question narrowly, touching on spelling or appropriate use of language: “– – I will correct any spelling mistakes in their texts.” “If a student uses inappropriate language, for example, I correct them so that they express themselves more appropriately”. Interestingly, fifty-six of the respondents reported that they do not facilitate their students’ pair or group work in any way, although teachers working together with their students has been shown to be especially effective in supporting students’ learning (Teemant, 2018). Eight respondents explicitly mentioned not using pair or group work in their classes. Our findings indicate that there is still room for development in teachers’ ability to scaffold instruction during pair or group work so learners can accomplish academic assignments at otherwise unattainable cognitive and language levels (Gibbons, 2015; Tharp et al., 2018; Vygotsky, 1978). Initial teacher education and professional development might include more of a focus on facilitating student learning at the intersections of language and content. References Most relevant references Alisaari, J., & Heikkola, L. M. (2020). Kielellisesti vastuullista pedagogiikkaa ja oppilaan tukemista— suomalaisten opettajien käsityksiä kielen merkityksestä [Linguistically responsive pedagogy and supporting the student – Perceptions of Finnish teachers on the significance of language]. Kasvatus, 51(4), 395–408. Alisaari, 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. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners. A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. & Early, M. 2015. Big ideas for expanding minds: Teaching English language learners across the curriculum. Pearson Education Canada. Finnish National Agency for Education, 2014 Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014 [The national core curriculum for basic education 2014]. Finnish National Agency for Education. Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language—scaffolding learning (2nd ed). Heinemann. Harju-Autti, R., Mäkinen, M., & Rättyä, K. (2021). “Things should be explained so that the students understand them”: Adolescent immigrant students’ perspectives on learning the language of schooling in Finland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(8), 2949–2961. Heikkola, L. M., Alisaari, J., Vigren, H., & Commins, N. (2022). Linguistically responsive teaching: A requirement for Finnish primary school teachers. Linguistics and Education, 69, 101038. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically Responsive Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361–373. Pulkkinen, J., Kauppinen, H., Hiltunen, J., Lehtola, P., Nissinen, K., & Rautopuro, J. (2024). Tukea tasa-arvoiselle koulutielle. Maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaaminen PISA 2022 -tutkimuksessa [Support for an equal school path. Competence of young people with immigrant backgrounds in the PISA 2022 study]. Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Teemant, A. (2018). Sociocultural theory as everyday practice: The challenge of PK-12 teacher preparation for multilingual and multicultural learners. In The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 529–550). Routledge. Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Stoll Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L.A. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Westview Press. Ukkola, A., Suomilammi, M., Silverström, C., Metsämuuronen, J., & Marjanen, J. (2025). Matematiikan ja äidinkielen taidot kuudennen luokan lopussa. Perusopetuksen oppimistulosten pitkittäisarviointi 2018–2024. [Competence in mathematics and mother tongue and literature at the end of sixth grade – a longitudinal assessment of learning outcomes in basic education 2018–2024]. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC). Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press. 31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper Bridging Language Gaps University College Leuven-Limburg Presenting Author:Language is an important key to success at school. A growing group of pupils struggle with exposure to the language of instruction for various reasons (different home language and/or low SES, foreign-language newcomers). From the outset, this has an impact on overall educational performance. Even when SES is neutralised, pupils with a different home language in most European countries appear to be disproportionately represented among the low performers on PISA and PIRLS tests. (Department of Educational Sciences, Ghent University 2019 and 2023, Dockx et al. 2023, EACEA 2019). We also see a link with higher school dropout rates (EACEA 2019), and there appears to be a correlation with well-being: primary school children for whom the language of instruction at school differs from their home language report a lower sense of belonging and more experiences of bullying (EACEA 2019). Within all European Union countries there are efforts to support pupils with language deficits and to narrow the gap between the language spoken at home and the language of instruction (EACEA 2019). Gitschthaler et al. (2024) distinguish between two main models: on the one hand, the segregative pull-out approach, in which pupils with language deficits attend separate lessons in a language support class for a certain period of time in order to acquire the language of instruction through explicit instruction, and on the other hand, the integrative push-in approaches, in which pupils attend lessons in the mainstream class and acquire the language through an implicit language immersion approach in a language-rich environment. Each of these language support approaches has its advantages and disadvantages (Gitschthaler 2024). i Our central research question therefore is: - How can teachers and schools implement evidence-based insights on language acquisition in their own school practice for a broad target group (i.e. not only newly arrived multilingual learners), striving for a strong balance between an implicit, integrated approach (a language-rich learning environment for all pupils) and a target-group-oriented approach involving explicit instruction? This leads us to the following sub-questions to be answered in the course of the research project: 1. What effective practices, strategies and models for improving the academic success of the broad target group of pupils with language deficits emerge from surveys and a literature review of national and international (practical) scientific sources? 2. How can teachers embed explicit language instruction, monitoring and target group-oriented approaches in a language-rich classroom environment for the broad target group of pupils with language deficits? 3. How can vignettes, a model and a toolbox support teachers (teams) in improving language instruction for pupils with language deficits? 4. What recommendations do different actors formulate for effective educational organisation and deployment of resources for effective language support for a broad target group of pupils with language deficits? The intended project outcome of this two-year project is a book, in which we will use the vignette technique, that will invite teacher teams to reflect on their own language support model and to adjust their practice in line with the specific context and needs of their school. In addition, we develop a didactic model and a toolbox with lesson examples. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Bridging Language Gaps is a mixed methods approach with a particular focus on Design Thinking 101. This method consists of three main steps: understanding, exploring and materialising. Each step contains sub-steps, resulting in a total of six steps: empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test and implement. For the data collection in the understanding phase we use the following methods: - literature study - interviews with experts on language support (n=16) - focus groups and observations in primary and secondary schools (n=4) - online survey The literature study is conducted by using the Cochrane methodology to arrive at a systematic review. This methodology works with seven domains to assess each source and identify possible bias. The prototype that will later on be tested and implemented will make use of the vignette method. Vignettes are short stories that place participants in a concrete practical situation. By discussing the vignette, participants can explore their opinions about the problems in the vignette and indicate how they think best to act. Because the vignettes are fictionalised, participants can choose whether or not to share personal stories, and there are few socially desirable answers. Based on the discussion of several vignettes, individual participants or teams can take a position on issues, in this case the desired approach to language support for the broad target group of pupils with a language deficit. Finally, we use deliberative methods during a round-table discussion in the final phase of the project to formulate recommendations for the policy level with various actors (teachers, support staff, experts). As this is a two-year project (2025-2027) we will present and discuss the preliminary project outcomes of year 1: - The analysis of the review study and the interviews with experts and schools - A first prototype of the didactic model that will serves a the basis for the vignettes, the toolbox and the instruments will be developed in year 2 of the project. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The project will result in: Year 1 (2025-2026): MAPPING THE CURRENT SITUATION 1.1: review of international (practical) scientific sources 1.2: a status report with a description of the language support models and practices embedded in Flemish schools, how teachers, pupils and experts evaluate them and needs 1.3: prototype of the didactic model that will serve as the basis for the vignettes, the toolbox and the instruments will be developed in year 2 of the project. => at ECER we will present these preliminary conclusions, followed by an in-depth discussion about these results and the next stage of the project. Year 2 (2026-2027): DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOK ‘BRIDGING LANGUAGE GAPS’ with the following main sections: 2.1: vignettes (5 primary, 5 secondary education): stories, vivid descriptions of practices that illustrate different positions on the spectrum of language support models. The vignettes and accompanying reflection questions can be used by teachers and language policy teams to reflect on the current language support model in the school and to make decisions about school organisation and the use of resources for targeted language support. 2.2: a didactic model for language support. Prelimary results of the literature study and interviews indicate that the model will support schools to determine their position of different axes that represent views on language support models: push-in versus pull-out; monolinguistic versus plurilingual; implicit language learning versus explicit language learning; direct instruction versus language learning autonomy strategies, language class versus content based language learning, etcetera. 2.3: a toolbox with didactic points of attention, levers and pitfalls, and good practices that illustrate how explicit language instruction, target group-oriented approaches and monitoring can be integrated within a language-rich classroom context. In addition to the materials in the book, we also provide online supplements for this toolbox via links and QR codes in the book. References Agirdag, O., De Leersnyder, J. (2024). Against the odds: predictors of academic succes and excellence in majority-minority schools. School effectiveness and School Improvement. Consulted: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09243453.2024.2385938 Bunar, N & Juvonen, P. (2022) ‘Not (yet) ready for the mainstream’ – newly arrived migrant students in a separate educational program, Journal of Education Policy, 37:6, 986-1008. Bredthauer, S. & Engfer, H.. (2016). Multilingualism is great – but is it really my business? – teachers’ approaches to multilingual didactics in Austria and Germany. Sustainable Multilingualism, 9, 104-121. Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English‐language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL quarterly, 43(2), 317-321. Dockx, J., Denies, K., Pelgrims, L., Van Keer, H., & Aesaert, K. (2023). Leesvaardigheid in het vierde leerjaar in Vlaanderen. Verdiepend rapport bij PIRLS 2021. 1: Verschillen tussen netten. Duarte, J., Günther-van der Meij, M., De Backer, F., Frijns, C., & Gezelle Meerburg, B. (2022). Talenbewust lesgeven. Aan de slag met talige diversiteit in het basisonderwijs. Coutinho. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Integrating Students from Migrant Backgrounds into Schools in Europe: National Policies and Measures. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Gitschthaler, M, Erling, E. & Schwab, S. (2024). Segregation or Integration? German language support teachers’ beliefs about ‘ideal’ language support models in Austria. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Goossens, G. (2003). Effecten van expliciete en impliciete instructiewijzen op taalleren: een experiment bij 11/12-jarige NT1-en NT2-leerders. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 70 (1), 65-78. Hollingsworth, J., Ybarra, S. (2020). Expliciete Directe Instructie 2.0. Tips en technieken voor een goede les. Uitgeverij Pica. Mc Carthey (2006). Language Support Model for Teachers | University of Strathclyde. Consulted: https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/psychologicalscienceshealth/speechlanguagetherapy/languagesupportmodelforteachers/ Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., Marcelleti, D. (2013). English Language Development. Guidelines for Instruction. American Educator. Taelman, H. (2013). De effectiviteit van woordenschatinterventies in de kleuterklas. School of Education KULeuven. Leuven. Trioen, M., Taelman, H., Schraeyen, K., Geudens, A., Missinne, L., Casteleyn, J., Simons, M., Smits, T.F.H. (2021). De schijnwerper op taal. Taalondersteuning voor leerlingen die daar extra nood aan hebben. Universiteit Antwerpen. Consulted: www.taaltrajecten.be Vakgroep Onderwijskunde UGent. (2019). Leesvaardigheid van 15-jarigen in Vlaanderen: Overzicht van de resultaten van PISA 2018. Consulted: https://dataonderwijs.vlaanderen.be/documenten/bestand.ashx?id=12265 Vakgroep Onderwijskunde UGent. (2023). Vlaams rapport PISA 2022. Consulted: https://www.pisa.ugent.be/uploads/files/Vlaams-Rapport_PISA2022.pdf Van Avermaet, P., Agirdag, O., Slembrouck, S., Struys, E., Van de Craen, P., Van Houtte, M. (2015). Beleidssamenvatting Meertaligheid Als Realiteit op School. Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming. Verhallen, M. (2009). Meer en beter woorden leren, een brochure over taalvaardigheid en schoolsucces. POraad Nederland. | ||