**Learning and Teaching of English in the Multilingual Classroom: English Teachers' Perspectives, Practices, and Purposes**

Editors

**Anna Krulatz Georgios Neokleous Eliane Lorenz**

MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tokyo • Cluj • Tianjin

*Editors* Anna Krulatz Department of Teacher Education Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway

Georgios Neokleous Department of Teacher Education Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway

Eliane Lorenz Department of English – English Linguistics Justus Liebig University Giessen Germany

*Editorial Office* MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland

This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal *Languages* (ISSN 2226-471X) (available at: www.mdpi.com/journal/languages/special issues/Multilingual Classroom).

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below:

LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. *Journal Name* **Year**, *Volume Number*, Page Range.

**ISBN 978-3-0365-7729-6 (Hbk) ISBN 978-3-0365-7728-9 (PDF)**

© 2023 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications.

The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND.

## **Contents**


Reprinted from: *Languages* **2022**, *7*, 109, doi:10.3390/languages7020109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . **167**

### **Dania Jovanna Bonness, Sharon Harvey and Mari Skjerdal Lysne**


## **About the Editors**

#### **Anna Krulatz**

Anna Krulatz is a Professor of English at the Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway. She holds a Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Utah. Her research focuses on multilingualism and multiliteracy with English, pragmatic development in adult language learners, content-based instruction, and language teacher education. She has published articles, teaching tips, and book chapters, including an edited volume titled *Theoretical and applied perspectives on teaching foreign languages in multilingual settings* (2022; co-edited with Georgios Neokleous and Anne Dahl). She is actively involved with the international TESOL community and professional development opportunities for language teachers in Norway and abroad.

#### **Georgios Neokleous**

Georgios Neokleous holds a post as Associate Professor of English in the Department of Teacher Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where he works with pre- and in-service EFL teachers and supervises at B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. levels. His research interests include multilingualism with English, literacy, content-based instruction, and language teacher education. He has published numerous peer-reviewed articles, teaching tips, book chapters, and books, including the edited volume *Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Teaching Foreign Languages in Multilingual Settings: Pedagogical Implications* (2022; co-edited with Anna Krulatz and Anne Dahl).

#### **Eliane Lorenz**

Eliane Lorenz is a senior researcher and lecturer at the Chair of English Linguistics at Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany. In addition, she is an affiliated researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. She completed her Ph.D. in English Linguistics at the University of Hamburg, Germany, in 2019. Her research interests include crosslinguistic influence, L2/L3 acquisition, bi-/multilingualism, language and identity, language variation, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, and World Englishes. She is the author of the monograph *Crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition: Bilingual heritages speakers in Germany* (2022, Routledge).

## **Preface to "Learning and Teaching of English in the Multilingual Classroom: English Teachers' Perspectives, Practices, and Purposes"**

Since linguistic diversity and multilingualism are becoming the global norm, this Special Issue of *Languages* aimed to compile papers that examined English teachers' perspectives, practices, and purposes relative to working with learners in linguistically diverse classrooms. Accordingly, the issue presents a selection of articles that shed light on English pre- and in-service teachers' perspectives on multilingualism and teaching English in multilingual contexts, their implemented or planned teaching practices, and their intended goals for fostering opportunities for meaningful and equal participation and language development for all students. The ten papers are grouped into four thematic categories and present findings from researchers working on early language learning, adult language learning, multilingual competence with English as an additional language, multilingual literacy in the English language classroom, pedagogical approaches to teaching English in multilingual contexts, translingual practices in multilingual English classrooms, multidisciplinary approaches to multilingual teaching, the integration of mother tongue(s) in multilingual education, and multilingual assessment. The contributions cover a range of perspectives and geographical locations. They should interest graduate students, young and senior scholars alike, and teachers working with linguistically and culturally diverse students.

As Guest Editors of this Special Issue, we would like to express our gratitude to the 23 contributing authors for their inspiring, insightful, and crucial studies that enrich our understanding of linguistic diversity and multilingualism in the English language classroom. We are equally grateful to many dedicated reviewers whose valuable comments and suggestions helped improve the quality of the submitted papers. In addition, we would also like to thank the MDPI editorial staff for effectively and efficiently guiding us through the entire process of creating this Special Issue. We hope this collection of papers will make a significant contribution to our understanding of issues related to teaching English in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts.

> **Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous, and Eliane Lorenz** *Editors*

## *Editorial* **Learning and Teaching of English in the Multilingual Classroom: English Teachers' Perspectives, Practices, and Purposes**

**Anna Krulatz 1,\* , Georgios Neokleous 1,\* and Eliane Lorenz 2,\***


In many educational settings, the number of multilingual students is currently rising (Singleton and Aronin 2018). This increase has led to the investigation of multilingual education models (Hobbs 2012) to provide equal access to education, create opportunities for success, and improve educational outcomes for multilingual students. In response to such demands, national curricula across the globe have been revised, underlining the need for students to draw on their previous linguistic and cultural knowledge as valuable resources for learning. For instance, the core curriculum in Norway (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2020) includes multilingualism as one of its four core elements. Moreover, it considers the existing linguistic repertoires of the learners as an integrated set of beneficial resources for language learning. Similarly, India's national curriculum framework (NCERT 2005) acknowledges the value of multilingualism and recommends recognizing the students' linguistic repertoires as a resource. Likewise, the Finnish core curriculum stresses the importance of activating learners' whole linguistic repertoires as crucial in promoting multilingualism (Alisaari et al. 2019).

As linguistic diversity and multilingualism are on the rise around the globe, English language classrooms are becoming linguistic third spaces (Gutiérrez et al. 2000) where multilingual learners and teachers interact. For learners, adding another language to their linguistic repertoires entails activating their existing linguistic resources, engaging in performative competence (Canagarajah 2013), and undergoing shifts in linguistic identity (Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004). Teachers, on the other hand, are increasingly expected to implement pedagogical approaches that recognize diverse linguistic and cultural practices as valuable resources (Bonnet and Siemund 2018), engage learners' whole language repertoires (Cenoz and Gorter 2014), promote additive multilingualism, and forge opportunities for meaningful and equal participation and language development for all students (Leung and Valdes 2019).

Schools are vital sites, and teachers impact the construction of student identities (Forbes et al. 2021). English as an additional language (EAL) teachers' perspectives, practices, and purposes represent an effort towards more systematic pedagogical interventions that positively influence learners' language learning trajectories and their investment in developing multilingual identities (Forbes et al. 2021). Research calls for implementing broader, more structured, and sustainable multilingual approaches in EAL classrooms. A prevailing assumption that students can deploy their metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness without reflection or intervention from teachers, instructors, or researchers (Forbes et al. 2021) further corroborates this need. Teachers must equip students with tools to draw on multilingualism and their multilingual identities as a resource in increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms.

**Citation:** Krulatz, Anna, Georgios Neokleous, and Eliane Lorenz. 2023. Learning and Teaching of English in the Multilingual Classroom: English Teachers' Perspectives, Practices, and Purposes. *Languages* 8: 121. https:// doi.org/10.3390/languages8020121

Received: 14 April 2023 Accepted: 17 April 2023 Published: 29 April 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Yet, while researchers and academics warmly embrace the multilingual shift in language education, empirical findings suggest that teachers find it challenging to implement pedagogies that meet their diverse and multilingual learners' needs (Alisaari et al. 2019; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al. 2020). Recent research studies reported the lack of appropriate pedagogical training on optimizing learners' language learning experiences in multilingual settings (Raud and Orehhova 2022). For instance, the fact that teachers have little to no knowledge about the wide spectrum of mother tongues encountered in multilingual classrooms often hinders the implementation of flexible language approaches, which creates a barrier to multilingual development. Teachers, however, are important agents of change, and a full transition to multilingually oriented teaching practices cannot be enacted without them. In the classroom, teachers often decide to what degree they want to implement existing language policies; as a result, their actions can either support or suppress the multilingual practices of their students (Hornberger and Johnson 2007).

This Special Issue compiles papers examining English teachers' perspectives, practices, and purposes on the current challenges in linguistically diverse classrooms. The ten contributions are grouped into four thematic categories: (a) the first four articles study pre- and in-service teachers' perspectives on key aspects revolving around multilingual teaching and learning in the EAL classroom (Erling et al. 2022; Hoppin et al. 2023; Neokleous et al. 2022; Tishakov and Tsagari 2022); (b) the next three focus on multilingual practices implemented in the classroom and their impact on promoting and enhancing students' English language skills (Ibrahim 2022; Kopeˇcková and Poarch 2022; Schipor 2022); (c) the following two articles investigate pre- and in-service teachers' understanding of multilingualism and the factors that shape language teacher cognition (Christison 2023; Möller-Omrani and Sivertsen 2022); while (d) the last contribution focuses on teacher education policy documents and their coverage of linguistic diversity (Bonness et al. 2022). The subsequent sections summarize the ten articles.

The article by Erling et al. (2022) presents the results of a study with six secondary school teachers of English as a third or additional language that aimed to examine teacher perspectives of multilingual learners from migration backgrounds. The participants worked at schools in small towns with above-average numbers of multilingual students. The study identified some deficit perspectives, including labeling multilingual learners as semilingual in German and their heritage languages, underachieving, and having limited literacy skills. Moreover, the studied teachers perceived the requirement for these migration background students to learn English as a third or additional language as another burden. Nevertheless, some "pockets of possibilities" were also identified, and the findings suggest that the teachers may be open to a shift towards a translanguaging stance that values multilingual teaching practices.

In their contribution, Hoppin et al. (2023) discuss how the shift to remote instruction impacted teacher trainees preparing to work with multilingual learners. The authors draw on data from nine participants completing elective coursework in an English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program at a university in the United States and their perspectives on how to provide continuous, high-quality English instruction for multilingual students who have already experienced substantial stress and educational disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic. The article examines the teacher trainees' experiences with technologyassisted learning, the challenges multilingual learners encountered, and the participants' confidence in their ability to meet the new needs within this digital environment.

Neokleous et al. (2022) focus on Norwegian pre- and in-service teachers and these teachers' views regarding the use of learners' mother tongues to support the development of English skills and the impact of teacher education on these views. The authors identify three main themes in the data gathered from questionnaires and interviews. First, an overwhelming number of the participants stated that the use of the target language should be maximized, while the use of mother tongues should be minimized. Second, while most participants believed that their teacher education program contributed to shaping their views about best pedagogical practices, nearly half received no instruction about the use of mother tongues, and many who did were instructed to either maximize using the target language or minimize mother tongues. Finally, while many participants credited their formal education for shaping their pedagogical practices, others named further sources of knowledge and inspiration, such as their own experiences as learners and classroom teachers.

Tishakov and Tsagari (2022) conducted an online survey with English teachers in Norway to investigate their language beliefs and self-reported classroom practices and how demographic factors, such as age, gender, and education, shaped their language teacher cognition. They found that monolingual and multilingual ideologies appear to coexist, creating uncertainties and tension between beliefs and practices. Furthermore, the participating teachers reported difficulties overcoming monolingual language ideologies in their English language teaching practices, possibly due to their rootedness in teaching materials, policies, society, and experiences as learners and language teachers. The authors conclude that teacher beliefs appear to be in transition. Yet, more research on teacher cognition is needed, and pre- and in-service teacher education must provide space for teachers to reflect on multilingualism and try multilingual teaching practices.

Ibrahim (2022) reports on a project with pre-service English teachers that employed Dominant Language Constellation (DLC) to help participants engage with their multilingualism by creating DLC artifacts. This art-based approach allowed the pre-service teachers to creatively visualize their DLCs, reflect on multilingualism as dynamic and shifting, and re-examine and transform their identities as future teachers of multilingual learners. Ibrahim concludes that by participating in the hands-on task, the participants embarked on the self-identification process as multilingual individuals, which is the first step to embracing learners' multilingualism as a resource for additional language learning and becoming open to adopting multilingual teaching practices. The paper offers practical suggestions on how teacher education programs can help decenter the monolingual bias in language education and help future teachers move towards multilingual ideologies.

Kopeˇcková and Poarch's (2022) work presents a step-by-step design and application of FREPA-based plurilingual activities for primary and secondary English learners. The authors developed these activities as part of an obligatory pre-service teacher seminar on learning and teaching English as an additional language at a German university. This contribution connects theoretical knowledge with practical applications and discusses the experiences and reflections of pre-service teachers involved in the creative process of developing teaching materials and testing them in a classroom setting. The authors underline the importance of going beyond theoretical input by applying newly acquired knowledge during teacher education in the English language classroom to experience how multilingual activities can be delivered and further improved.

Schipor's (2022) study draws on data from a professional development project to enable teachers to work in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. She zooms in on two primary school teachers with approximately 30 years of teaching experience in Norway. The professional development offered to the teachers included lectures and mentorship meetings for eight months. Overall, this study demonstrates how teachers can create their own multilingual activities and affirms that activating home languages alongside Norwegian and English can promote multilingualism in the classroom. Nevertheless, Schipor (2022) concludes that successfully implementing the multilingual practices learned during professional development requires more than passively attending lectures. Active teacher involvement and activity adaptation for specific groups of learners is necessary, in addition to further support, e.g., via professional development provided by highereducation institutions.

The paper by Christison (2023), also based on data collected from pre-service teachers, examines beliefs, self-efficacy, and emerging ideologies of pre-service teachers preparing to work in multilingual contexts dominated by structured English immersion. The findings suggest that participants experienced a certain degree of anxiety about their future teaching assignments, implementing appropriate teaching practices for multilingual learners, classroom management, and understanding the politics of public schools. Most participants identified as monolinguals and were concerned about their ability to teach multilingual learners alongside native English speakers in the same classroom. This paper contributes to the fundamental discussion about shaping teacher education programs to help preservice teachers develop the skills, knowledge, and confidence needed for working with multilingual learners.

The contribution by Möller-Omrani and Sivertsen (2022) taps into the readiness of pre-service English teachers in Norway to support and foster multilingualism and lifelong language learning in the EAL classroom. The authors administered a questionnaire with open-ended and closed items to investigate pre-service teachers' understanding of multilingualism and their experiences and views on including languages other than English when teaching English. Most participants valued the impact of English in supporting the development of the students' multilingualism and showed an openness to including strategies in their teaching that foster additional language learning. However, the authors also observed a concern among pre-service teachers that adopting multilingual teaching practices would reduce target language input. Nonetheless, the study acknowledges the participants' generally positive attitudes and reflective awareness as promising and helpful starting points that license the necessity for teacher education programs to systematically implement multilingualism and pluralist teaching approaches.

Bonness et al.'s (2022) article examines ethnic and linguistic diversity in two classroom settings characterized by complex linguistic landscapes. Through a comparative analysis of two key teacher education policy documents in Norway and New Zealand, this paper investigates the incorporation of teacher language awareness in initial teacher education documents and how the examined documents converge and diverge in their treatment of language awareness. The objective is to contribute to the discussion on the composition of teacher language awareness and its place in policy documents guiding initial teacher education.

Acknowledging the increasing linguistic and cultural diversity and the need for stronger bridges between language, educational research, and pedagogical applications, this Special Issue is devoted to examining English teachers' perspectives about multilingualism and teaching English in multilingual contexts, implemented or planned teaching practices, and the purposes teachers want to attain. The research presented in this Special Issue focuses on views of pre- and in-service teachers in a range of contexts. Overall, the findings suggest that teachers continue to experience tensions between monolingual and multilingual ideologies and need continued support in adapting to the ever-evolving teaching contexts. While researchers and philosophers of language have been calling for a multilingual shift in education, teacher education and professional development programs lag behind in revising their curricula. Therefore, due consideration must be given to the teachers; they are the agents of change, but they are also experts and professionals, and their views, knowledge, and pedagogical aims must be treated with respect. Many of the articles presented here illustrate that collaboration and mentorship between school and university partners can be fruitful, creative, and rewarding. We conclude this editorial with a call for more opportunities for teachers and researchers to work in tandem to implement multilingual pedagogies that foster equal educational opportunities for all learners across different ages and stages of language development.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

Alisaari, Jenni, Leena Maria Heikkola, Nancy Commins, and Emmanuel O. Acquah. 2019. Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers' beliefs about linguistic diversity. *Teaching and Teacher Education* 80: 48–58. [CrossRef] Bonness, Dania Jovanna, Sharon Harvey, and Mari Skjerdal Lysne. 2022. Teacher Language Awareness in Initial Teacher Education

Policy: A Comparative Analysis of ITE Documents in Norway and New Zealand. *Languages* 7: 208. [CrossRef]

Bonnet, Andreas, and Peter Siemund, eds. 2018. *Foreign Language Education in Multilingual Classrooms*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. *Translingual Practice. Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations*. London: Routledge.


**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

## *Article* **Teaching English to Linguistically Diverse Students from Migration Backgrounds: From Deficit Perspectives to Pockets of Possibility**

**Elizabeth J. Erling 1,2\* , Anouschka Foltz <sup>3</sup> , Felicitas Siwik <sup>4</sup> and Michael Brummer <sup>3</sup>**


**Abstract:** This article reports on an interview study with six secondary school LX English teachers working in a part of Austria where there is an above-average number of residents–and thus also students–who are multilingual and come from migration backgrounds. It attempts to extend research on deficit perspectives of multilingual learners from migration backgrounds to the area of LX English learning and to provide insights into a language learning context that is underrepresented in international applied linguistics research, which has tended to focus on elite language learning. The article explores teachers' perceptions of teaching English in this context. We hypothesized that teachers would hold negative beliefs about their students' multilingual backgrounds and practices. The typological analysis of teachers' interview data revealed that teachers did hold some dominant deficit perspectives about their students' multilingualism and language learning; however, it also suggests that teachers are taking on the rudiments of a translanguaging stance that values multilingual practice. The article thus closes by considering how possibility perspectives can be harnessed and extended to foster students' multilingual and multicultural development, with particular regard to LX English language learning.

**Keywords:** multilingualism; LX English language teaching; translanguaging; Austria; LX language learning; social justice

### **1. Introduction**

English is a third or additional language for a growing number of students across Europe, including Austria, because of the large numbers of students from diverse linguistic and migration backgrounds in schools. The English language classroom should thus ideally serve as a 'safe space' in which students' multilingualism and multilingual identities are validated and engaged in service of further language learning and the development of intercultural communication (cf. Conteh and Brock 2011). However, deficit perceptions about the multilingualism of students from migration backgrounds have been found amongst teachers in a range of national contexts, even in the context of additional language learning (Haukås 2016; Heyder and Schädlich 2014; Jakisch 2014). In Austria, national reports as well as the media discourses around them frame students' emergent abilities in German as the key contributor to the disparity of outcomes in national and international tests of standards. Commenting on this, the former teacher and journalist Melisa Erkurt argues that negative perceptions of multilingualism in Austria contribute to the lower performance of students from migration backgrounds in school and negatively influence these students' German and heritage language abilities (Erkurt 2020, p. 21). Our research so

**Citation:** Erling, Elizabeth J., Anouschka Foltz, Felicitas Siwik, and Michael Brummer. 2022. Teaching English to Linguistically Diverse Students from Migration Backgrounds: From Deficit Perspectives to Pockets of Possibility. *Languages* 7: 186. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7030186

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 15 September 2021 Accepted: 11 July 2022 Published: 20 July 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

far confirms that teachers' beliefs about their students' backgrounds and practices relate to lower levels of achievement in English (Erling et al. 2020, 2021). We have found, for example, that the higher the percentage of multilingual students from migration backgrounds at a school, the more likely it is that teachers believe that their students are not achieving the desired learning outcomes for English. Moreover, despite some developments in teacher education, as in many international contexts (Wernicke et al. 2021), in Austria, there is still an established lack of focus on preparing teachers to work with multilingual learners (Purkarthofer 2016; Cataldo-Schwarzl and Erling 2022).

Because educational discussions about students from migration backgrounds in Austria often place one-sided emphasis on the difficulties of teaching these students, we were surprised to find evidence in a recent study, conducted at small-town schools with a high number of linguistically diverse students from migration backgrounds (Brummer 2019), of a potential counter-narrative to commonly encountered deficit perspectives. In this context, LX English learners<sup>1</sup> seem to be meeting their learning outcomes for English at a higher rate than the national average and we linked that to teachers creating spaces in which students perform their multilingual identities as valued and welcome members of the classroom community. This potential for multilingual students to flourish led us to referring to this educational context as having 'pockets of possibility' (Erling et al. n.d.).

The present article reports on a study that adds insights to the picture emerging: interviews were undertaken in 2018 with six secondary LX English teachers in this small town about their experiences of teaching LX English learners. These teachers were working in three different schools in a part of Austria, near the industrial city of Linz, where there is a distinct history of migration and an above-average number of residents–and thus also students–who are multilingual and come from migration backgrounds. The aim of the research was to explore whether in this linguistically diverse environment teachers were likely to hold deficit perspectives of their students' multilingualism. Secondary schools in this area were chosen in order to extend research on deficit perspectives of multilingual learners from migration backgrounds to the area of LX English learning. Moreover, this language learning context is underrepresented in international applied linguistics research, which has tended to focus on elite language learning (Ortega 2019). We hypothesized that teachers would hold negative beliefs about their students' multilingual backgrounds and practices, that students' other languages would not be seen by teachers as resources for LX English learning, and that this would be reflected in teachers' classroom practices. A typological analysis exploring deficit perspectives and 'pockets of possibility' found that while the teachers do perpetuate some commonly found deficit perspectives of their students' multilingualism and language learning, there is also evidence of the rudiments of a 'translanguaging stance' in which multilingualism is valued and used as a resource for LX English learning (García et al. 2017). While more insights are needed, the findings of this small-scale study add to evidence suggesting the need to promote more asset-based views of multilingualism in education and (language) teacher education. Thus, the article closes by considering how the 'pockets of possibility' identified in teachers' interviews could be harnessed and extended to foster students' multilingual and multicultural development, with particular regard to LX English language learning.

#### **2. Literature Review**

In this section, we review literature relevant to the discussion of the school achievement of multilingual learners from migration backgrounds in Austria, and teachers' perspectives of students' abilities.

#### *2.1. Deficit Perspectives of Multilingualism*

Multilingualism is associated with cognitive, social, personal, academic, and professional benefits, with a growing body of research suggesting that a way to raise outcomes of multilingual students is through mobilizing their multilingual repertoires as resources for learning to promote academic success and to boost self-confidence and self-esteem (Cum-

mins 2010; Duarte 2019; García and Kleyn 2016). While research has found that teachers' beliefs about multilingualism in general tend to be positive, as they are aware of research illustrating the benefits of multilingualism, more negative beliefs are often observed when it comes to experiencing multilingual practices in the classroom (De Angelis 2011). This is even the case when considering the value of students' multilingualism for additional language learning (Heyder and Schädlich 2014; Jakisch 2014; Lundberg 2018). Deficit perspectives of multilingualism have been found to persist in many educational systems (Keefer 2017; Mertens 2008). We define deficit perspectives as "restricted and misinformed visions that primarily focus on negative aspects of specific social groups" (Erling et al. n.d.). In the context of students from migration backgrounds, deficit perspectives contribute to beliefs that students' multilingual backgrounds hinder their academic achievement. Such beliefs not only lead to teachers having low expectations of their multilingual students but can also influence their classroom practices (Glock et al. 2019; Pit-ten Cate and Glock 2018, 2019). As a result, teachers may inadvertently convey to their multilingual students the message that they will not be able to meet class expectations (Valencia 2010, p. 9), which in turn can have a profound impact on students' learning, motivation, and academic self-concept, as well as more generally their self-esteem and wellbeing (Borg 2018; Pajares 1992; Tsiplakides and Keramida 2010). Ultimately, such deficit perspectives risk reinforcing educational disparities, lowering multilingual students' educational outcomes, and limiting their future prospects beyond compulsory schooling (MacSwan 2000).

When teachers' beliefs about multilingualism are elicited, their responses suggest widespread misconceptions about the way languages interact in the mind. De Angelis (2011) found that teachers conceive languages as separate entities and seem to believe that one language may somehow interfere with the learning of another, in this case the language of education. When surveying teachers from Austria, Italy, and the UK, she found that over a third of teachers believed that immigrant students must learn one language at a time (35% in Austria), and that a large proportion of teachers believed that the frequent use of the home language delays the learning of the language of education and can be a source of confusion for the immigrant student (35.7% in Austria). Research has also explored the assumption that students' multilingualism often goes hand in hand with a lack of language skills in the language of education (Schmid and Schmidt 2017; Wiese 2011). Such studies have found that students are often framed as being 'doubly semilingual', having only limited ability in all languages in their repertoire. Though the idea of semilingualism has come under much sociolinguistic critique for its narrow conceptualization of literacy and conventional academic language, it continues to have a decisive impact on educational policy and practice (Salö and Karlander 2018). When teachers believe that students are semilingual and have low language ability in all of their languages, this has been found to have a strong negative effect on their expectations for these students, which in turn affects teachers' choices for curricular content and classroom practice (Adair et al. 2017; MacSwan 2000).

In our research, we have found evidence for deficit perspectives of students' multilingualism amongst Austrian English language teachers (Erling et al. 2020, 2021). For example, teachers were more likely to believe that their students are not achieving the standardized learning outcomes if they have a higher percentage of multilingual students in their classrooms. Furthermore, teachers reported little to no use of multilingual pedagogies in the English classroom, even if they teach in linguistically diverse schools. These results suggest that teachers' perspectives are influenced by their students' multilingualism and reflected in their teaching practices.

#### *2.2. Perspectives on Multilingualism, Migration, and Education in Austria*

Teachers' beliefs about multilingualism are strongly influenced by national discourses about migration and multilingualism (Young 2014). In Austria, one fourth of the population is a first or second-generation immigrant, and in Vienna, 49% of the population comes from a migration background (Statistik Austria 2021). The term "migration background" is an

official statistical category commonly used in Austria (as well as other German-speaking contexts) to refer to people where both parents were born outside Austria (Will 2019). It can refer to both first- or second-generation migrants, and often also implies that these people speak an additional language to German at home. In this article, we use the term 'multilingual students' to refer to linguistically diverse students (who often come from migration backgrounds) who have a range of competences in heritage, national, and foreign languages. Educational issues regarding integrating students from multilingual, migration backgrounds in education have been hotly debated in politics and in the media, increasingly so since 2015 when Europe experienced an influx of migration. Such discourses contribute to problematic stereotypes of multilingual students in urban schools, and particularly in so-called 'Brennpunktschulen', which could be translated as 'schools in disadvantaged areas' (cf. Mohrenberger 2015; Wiesinger 2018).

Educational challenges in Austria are also influenced by the early tracking system, in which students are steered into one of two tracks after only four years of comprehensive schooling. One track is the non-selective middle school (Mittelschule or MS), which comprises grades/years 5 through 8 and aims to equip students for professional training or vocational high school (Handelsakademie or VHS; grades/years 9–12). The other track is the more prestigious, selective high school (Allgemeinbildende Höhere Schule or AHS), which comprises grades 5 through 12 and steers students towards university (BMBWF 2018). This system has come under increasing critique since the rise of the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which measures 15-year-olds' abilities to use their reading, mathematics, and science knowledge and skills to meet reallife challenges. Findings revealed a surprisingly low performance for Austria, and the early tracking system has been shown to perpetuate disadvantage. Vocational-track schools attract a higher number of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds as well as from migration and multilingual backgrounds (Herzog-Punzenberger 2017; Schreiner et al. 2020). Students in vocational-track schools perform at lower levels than those in the academic track in all key areas of the curriculum (i.e., German, Mathematics, and English) (Schreiner et al. 2018; Sucha´n et al. 2019). Moreover, students with a migration background have consistently performed significantly lower than those whose parents were born in Austria.

This has led to multilingual students from multilingual backgrounds often being blamed for the country's underwhelming PISA performance (OECD 2022). However, a differentiated understanding of the findings shows that social status and parents' educational background plays a much more important role in determining performance than migration background or multilingualism (Breit et al. 2016; El-Mafaalani 2021). Despite this, there is a tendency to focus on the role of multilingualism in isolation from the socioeconomic context of students in public discussions of education. This is exemplified in a recent national report on integration (Expertenrat für Integration 2019, p. 33) and the media discourse surrounding it, which has been criticized by the Austrian Association of Applied Linguists for perpetuating deficit perspectives and problem-oriented beliefs about multilingualism (Verbal 2019). In such discussions, the deficit perceptions about multilingualism, semilingualism, and sequential language learning cited above are often perpetuated.

#### *2.3. Pockets of Possibility*

Translanguaging has arisen as a key theory in contemporary language research to promote the idea that students' multilingualism can be useful in supporting content and language learning and in countering the existing achievement gap between dominant speakers of the language of education and those learning it as an additional language. The implementation of translanguaging pedagogies has therefore been described as potentially transformative in terms of shifting away from deficit perspectives of multilingualism and towards fostering positive multilingual identities and educational equity. García et al. (2017) have argued that in order to support multilingual students' achievement and wellbeing, teachers need to adopt a translanguaging stance–a staunch belief that students' whole linguistic repertoires are resources in general and specifically for their learning. This stance also involves creating an overall school and class ecology that is supportive of students' multilingualism and multilingual identities, and supporting them to use their language repertoire to achieve academically (García and Otheguy 2020). Research has shown how enacting a translanguaging stance can lead to the (re)creation of educational spaces that are inclusive of multilingual students' language practices while also supporting their learning of the language of education (Kleyn and García 2019, p. 73). This has been referred to as a 'safe space' (Conteh and Brock 2011) in which educators co-construct meaningful relationships with their learners; support them in performing their identities; and provide space in which students can claim ownership of their own language and everyday knowledge to engage with the curriculum (cf. Brooks 2020). Teachers must believe that translanguaging supports students and their learning, helping them to become more creative and critical (García and Kleyn 2016; García and Wei 2013). When teachers start to change their practice and get a glimmer of such possibilities, they are more likely to ask themselves 'what might be?' (cf. Craft et al. 2012). Such experiences might then lead teachers to further imagine transformation and experiment with their practice. We have termed the rudimentary emergence of such experiences and practices as 'pockets of possibility' (Erling et al. n.d.). These 'pockets' have the potential to propel teachers along a trajectory of developing creative and supportive practices that benefit their students and allow them spaces to construct new knowledge and form positive academic self-concepts as multilinguals.

#### *2.4. Multilingualism and LX English Language Teaching*

Translanguaging pedagogies entail languages being used flexibly in education, so that students can benefit from content learning across languages as well as improve their competence in all of their languages. Such pedagogies have been shown to be powerful in developing language awareness and metalinguistic awareness and are increasingly recommended for the teaching of linguistically diverse student populations, also in the context of LX English language education (Cenoz and Gorter 2020). The English language classroom is particularly well suited to offer a 'safe space' for LX English learners, especially those otherwise marginalized in the school system. LX English language education can function as a "Wegbereiter" (trailblazer) for the development of multilingual practice and further language learning (Jakisch 2014, p. 202). This can be achieved through activities that cultivate cross-linguistic transfer, metalinguistic awareness, and intercultural competence (Jessner and Allgäuer-Hackl 2020). When students are supported in seeing their multilingual abilities as being beneficial to school achievement, LX English language education can support the development of LX English learners' academic self-concepts and positive multilingual identities.

The fact that almost all students in Austria learn English contributes to the suitability of this subject as a 'safe space': There is a modern foreign language requirement in all school types (vocational and academic) in Austria, with at least 91% of students choosing English as (at least one of) their foreign language requirement(s) (Eurostat 2019). Students at the middle school level are expected to be working at the level of A1–B1 on the Common European Framework of Reference, and high school students are expected to be working at the B1–B2 levels. Students in VHS study English in a professionally related context (e.g., Business English). Most students in AHS learn at least two foreign languages (primarily English and another European language such as French, Italian, or Spanish).

While there is near equal access to English language education in all school types, national standards assessments have shown that there are not equal chances of success in English language learning: AHS students tend to do better in English overall when compared to middle school students (BIFIE 2020, p. 77). Moreover, students who indicated German as their only home language outperformed their peers who indicated having additional home languages by an average of 22–35 points out of a possible 200 to 800 points (although this difference was substantially reduced when socioeconomic class was controlled for, indicating that social class plays an important role in the disparity of outcomes). In the other core subjects of German and mathematics, a larger difference in outcomes between students who indicated that German is their only home language and those with other home languages remains when controlling for social status (Schreiner et al. 2018, p. 52; Sucha´n et al. 2019, p. 78). Thus, English language education seems to be a core area of the curriculum in which multilingual students from migration backgrounds have the most realistic potential to achieve at the same level of their autochthonous peers, i.e., those from Austria who often come from monolingual German families.

However, in order to level the playing field in English language education, deficit perceptions of LX English learners need to be transformed into possibility perspectives. Moreover, teachers need to be prepared to frame English language learning as a vehicle for further language development and use the English language classroom as a space to celebrate and increase awareness of students' full linguistic repertoires and potential for language learning. While some positive developments have started to occur in this field (Wernicke et al. 2021; Erling and Moore 2021), there is still an established lack of focus on preparing teachers to work with multilingual learners in Austrian teacher education (Purkarthofer 2016; Cataldo-Schwarzl and Erling 2022). A recent review of the English language teacher education curriculum at the University of Vienna, for example, did not uncover a single required course that focused on teaching multilingual learners (Gold 2021). Unsurprisingly, the most recent OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) found that only 31% of teachers in Austria stated that teaching in a multilingual environment was part of their initial teacher education and only 15% felt well prepared to teach multilingual learners (Höller et al. 2019, p. 90). The potential for English language education to support educational equity is thus constrained.

Because educational discussions about students from migration backgrounds in Austria often place one-sided emphasis on the difficulties of teaching them, and because there is a lack of teacher education around multilingualism, our research set out to explore teachers' perceptions of multilingualism and its role in English language education. In this article, we set out to explore the following research questions:


#### **3. Methods**

In this study, interviews were used to elicit teachers' perceptions, and typological analysis was applied to the data to explore responses. Interviews are a commonly used tool to explore teachers' perceptions of their students and their learning (Cephe and Yalcin 2015). These interviews were undertaken as part of a larger study, which also included questionnaires with students from linguistically diverse, migration backgrounds (see Brummer 2019).

#### *3.1. School Contexts*

The study was conducted in a small, linguistically diverse town outside the industrial city of Linz, Austria, where linguistic and cultural diversity are the norm in every classroom. The town has about 8,200 residents and is defined by a long history of migration and providing domicile for refugees. The municipality of about 17,500 residents, in which the town is located, has higher than average percentages of residents with migration backgrounds, with 30.6% of residents born outside Austria (compared to 20.1% for Austria as a whole and 16.2% for Upper Austria; Statistik Austria 2020). The vast majority of the municipality's residents with a migration background live in the town where our study was undertaken. Since the end of World War II, the town—now a modern satellite of Linz—has

a history of hosting large numbers of refugees and migrant workers from eastern Europe, Turkey, the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and Syria.

Using the last author's (MB) contacts in and knowledge of the area, purposive sampling was adopted to recruit three schools where the research could be conducted. In order to include perspectives from the three main secondary school types in the Austrian system, this study included a middle school (MS) and two high schools: One high school represents a vocational high school focusing on commercial and business education (VHS), the type of high school in which many middle school students continue their education. The second one was an academically oriented high school (AHS). Estimates from the head teachers of these schools revealed that the percentage of students who come from a migration background and speak languages other than German at home was more than 90 percent at the MS, 75 percent at the VHS, and at least 50 percent at the AHS. The MS classifies as a "Brennpunktschule"—a school in a disadvantaged area.

Linguistically diverse schools were chosen as the context for this research for two reasons: First, these schools are often the focus of concern in reports on education. Moreover, there has been a call for applied linguistics to focus more on multilingualism in marginalized and minoritized communities (Ortega 2019). Finally, our findings from a questionnaire study with approximately 200 multilingual students from these three schools (i.e., all students who speak at least one language other than German in the home or with extended family; (Erling et al. n.d.) suggest that these students perform at or above the national average in English, especially at the MS. This suggests that, alongside the expected deficit perspectives, we may find evidence for teachers creating 'pockets of possibility' in this particular context.

#### *3.2. Teacher Participants*

In order to gain a sense of the range of possible views of teachers in the different secondary school types that exist in Austria, English teachers in the three schools involved in the study were asked to take part in the interviews. Of the 6–10 total English teachers at each school, 6 volunteered to be interviewed: 2 from the MS, 3 from the VHS, and 1 from the AHS (see Table 1). While these participants cannot be considered to be representative of English teachers in these school types, their perspectives provide a glimpse into the experiences of teaching English to linguistically diverse students in this region.


**Table 1.** Overview of the interview participants.

All names used in the study are pseudonyms. At the time of the interviews, MS teachers Felix and Jakob had been teaching at their school for a year and four years, respectively. In addition to German and English, Jakob is conversational in Italian and French, and Felix is able to communicate in Dutch as well as Kinyarwanda. At the VHS, Alena had been teaching for more than six years; Beate had been teaching for one year; and Carla had been at the school for three years and had worked at an AHS before. Their shared linguistic repertoire included German, English, Dutch, French, Italian, Latin, and some Croatian, Czech, Hebrew, and Russian. The AHS had officially employed Kerstin for

two years, but she also did an internship at that school as part of her pre-service education. In addition to German and English, her linguistic repertoire includes some Latin, Italian, and Spanish. All interviewed teachers grew up monolingually with German and learned their other languages in instructional contexts.

#### *3.3. Interviews*

In order to explore this study's research questions, interviews were conducted with English teachers by the last author (MB). The goal was to gain insight into teachers' perceptions of their students' abilities in English language learning. The interviews were semi-structured in that the researcher prepared concrete questions, but also allowed the interviewees to put amplified focus on topics they found particularly interesting and which had not been considered by the researcher in advance (Hall 2012, p. 180). The interviews were organized according to themes, including personal information and teachers' linguistic competences. To answer RQ1, questions also explored students' language backgrounds and the number of students who spoke languages other than German at home. To answer RQ2, questions probed multilingual students' performance in the English classroom and classroom dynamics. Questions about English language teaching, designed to answer RQ3, included whether other languages were a resource or a hindrance to learning and whether or not teachers introduced many cultural topics in the classroom (see Appendix A for interview questions). All interviews were conducted in German and recorded on two recording devices to ensure that they were captured.

#### *3.4. Ethical Considerations*

The researcher who conducted the interviews was originally from the area in which the data were collected and—having personal contacts amongst the students and teachers took great precautions to ensure his participants' well-being. He used previous contacts to recruit willing participants who were supportive of his research. Written permission to carry out the study was obtained at the outset from the schools' head teachers and the participating teachers. All participants and their schools have been anonymized and pseudonyms have been created to refer to the participants. Based on national laws and university statutes and guidelines, it was not necessary to obtain formal ethics approval. The study, however, adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the British Association for Applied Linguistics Recommendations for Good Practice in Applied Linguistics (BAAL 2021).

#### *3.5. Data Preparation and Analysis*

The researcher who conducted the interviews also transcribed them, while the other three authors coded the data in MAXQDA 2020 (VERBI Software 2020). In order to uncover patterns and identify themes, they first closely read the transcripts of all the interviews in German and then, as a group, agreed on the main typological categories (as well as subcategories) that would form the analysis. These typologies aligned to a certain extent with the themes that the interview questions sought to explore, although additional categories also emerged. For example, although the intended focus of the interviews was language, teachers also mentioned topics such as students' behavior, the school environment, their own job satisfaction, etc. A code was then created for each typological category and subcategory in MAXQDA. Following the steps recommended for typological analysis (Hatch 2002, p. 153), the first three authors then each coded one interview and checked the coding of another interview in order to enhance reliability. Coding involved assigning relevant statements to the typological categories, where the same statement could be assigned to more than one category. This allowed extracting all statements belonging to one or more categories and facilitates analysis. It was then also considered whether each extract represented a deficit perspective or a possibility perspective. Extracts that support the generalizations being drawn from the data set were selected and are presented below, having been translated into English by the authors.

#### **4. Results**

In this section, we present the findings from the interviews, exploring the three research questions posed in the study. We first describe students' language repertoires, as perceived by the teachers. We then focus on teachers' descriptions of students' abilities and the school learning environment, including group dynamics in the classroom. Finally, we explore teachers' contributions to the learning environment, including their knowledge of their students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds as an index for valuing students' backgrounds and creating an inclusive learning environment. In each section, we first present the findings from the MS teachers (teachers at the lower secondary level in nonselective vocationally oriented schools); then the results from VHS teachers (the higher-level vocationally oriented secondary school that MS students often go on to); and lastly, the results from the AHS teacher (the academically oriented secondary school that spans the middle and high school years).

#### *4.1. Students' Languages*

Here, we present the findings about teachers' perceptions of their students' languages by school type, answering RQ1: What are teachers' perceptions of their students' linguistic diversity?

#### 4.1.1. Middle School Students' Languages

The MS teachers reported a large number of bi- or multilingual students, with at least 90% of the students speaking another language in addition to German. The prominent countries of heritage were Turkey, the Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia. Syria, Romania, and Hungary were some of the other less common countries of heritage.

#### 4.1.2. Vocational High School Students' Languages

The VHS teachers estimated that 75% of their students are bi- or multilingual. This seems particularly apparent among younger students, as Beate had trouble remembering any students who speak German only in the two lower grades. The teachers further reported Romania, Bosnia, and Serbia as the main heritage countries among students with migration backgrounds. Heritage languages most commonly used by the students include Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, but also Albanian, Turkish, Dari, and Farsi. VHS teachers reported that students used their heritage languages regularly. Carla described that multilingual students were often conversing in their heritage languages during classroom discussions or to explain tasks to one another. There was some uncertainty, however, regarding students' level of heritage language skills. Teachers were, for example, quite certain that the multilingual students could only speak their heritage languages but were not able to write in them. Moreover, they perceived that their students could not comprehend the grammar of their heritage languages.

#### 4.1.3. Academic High School Students' Languages

Kerstin at the AHS reported that the distribution of L1 and LX German speakers could vary depending on the program that they were following. For instance, many of the students enrolled in the scientific program have a migration background. In contrast, the music program has a larger number of autochthonous Austrian students. However, in some of her other classes, the mix of students was fairly even, with roughly 50% of the students coming from diverse backgrounds. She mentioned a particularly positive atmosphere in those classes where there is roughly a 50:50 distribution. She explained that students in these classes gained a lot from each other in terms of cultural understanding and that they were willing, and even interested, to learn what their classmates' heritage languages are like.

#### *4.2. Students' Abilities and the Learning Environment*

In the following, we explore teachers' perceptions about the school's learning environment and the extent to which they felt that students were performing at their level, also with regard to English language learning, responding to RQ2: What are teachers' perceptions of multilingual students' abilities and the learning environment?

#### 4.2.1. Students' Abilities and the Learning Environment at the Middle School

The MS teachers' opinions about students' performance were mixed. Jakob stated that students' performance is "okay" and "moderate". He related that "There aren't that many that really perform well. So, the level is not so high". While the tendency may be towards lower performance levels, Jakob noted that—while it might not be the majority—there were always students from all backgrounds who were extremely good: "there are also some who are quite high achievers despite the fact that their parents have low levels of education". Jakob commented that as a subject that starts in earnest at the beginning of middle school and that in theory should be less dependent on students' knowledge of German, "English may still be [the subject] where there is nothing to catch up on. Everyone starts the same". Despite the realization that English classes could serve to level the playing field for students with German as an LX, we find evidence of the common deficit perspectives of multilingualism reported on above. Jakob, for example, referred to the common perception that students were semilingual in the following comment: "What you just notice is that when children don't really know their native language, and also don't really speak German, they find it very difficult. If they don't really speak a language, it is very difficult for them". The yard stick applied in this context is clearly literacy rather than spoken language proficiency, as this comment illustrates: "It is also often the case that the parents cannot spell correctly [in their heritage language] and sometimes the children cannot really do it either" (Jakob). Furthermore, there is evidence of the common deficit perspective that adding yet another language overwhelms students: "And yes, then there are a lot of problems with German, and then you add English to the mix" (Jakob).

The MS teachers generally agreed that there is a good atmosphere and collaboration in the classroom, thus a positive learning environment. Jakob stated that "the class community is basically good" and that it "doesn't matter where the parents or grandparents come from, there are always reasonably good class communities". Jakob mentioned that there were a few challenging students, but nothing out of the ordinary. A case of bullying of a new student was discussed but considered to be an exception (Jakob). Felix added: "Given that there are so many nationalities in the classes, the sense of community is really good at this school". Students of different abilities work in the same group, so that "everyone is on one team and sometimes some people who are usually not that good can show that they can do certain things very well. Or they are sometimes pushed a little bit by the others" (Jakob). However, the MS teachers mentioned that there was a tendency for groups to emerge along ethnic lines, especially in the higher grades (Jakob). The teachers believed that these groups emerged because students "stay more and more in their own community" (Felix) outside of the school context. This was considered to be a problem: "And if you had at least a mix in school, and even then, you often see them standing together, for example the students of Turkish origin. Those who then also speak Turkish among themselves, that's a big problem for me, for example. If you mixed it up more, it would be much better" (Felix). To counteract the tendency for groups to emerge along ethnic lines, teachers reported routinely changing the seating arrangement in the class, so that students got to sit with different classmates (Jakob). The teachers also emphasized that students with weaker German skills would benefit if the school had more students with a strong command of German: "it would of course be better if there was more mixing with children who have a better command of German" (Jakob).

The overall positive learning environment at the MS goes along with a high level of teacher satisfaction and a positive school ecology. The teachers described the team as young and dynamic with a recent increase in male teachers (Jakob) and thus an improved

gender balance. Jakob stated that "what is important to me here at this school, and what I have already noticed from other schools where this is not the case, is that the staff work very well together. As a team, so to speak, we're a really good fit. There are no arguments or anything," adding "I'm also very happy with the management. So, I like to be here". Felix agreed: "I couldn't have chosen a better school. On a staff level, too, you are totally supported. You get materials if you have any questions. It makes being a new teacher easier".

#### 4.2.2. Students' Abilities and the Learning Environment at the Vocational High School

At the VHS, perceptions of students' performance were considerably more negative. Beate related that standards at the school were perceived to be low, and that passing grades in English tended to be in the lower range (3 = satisfactory and 4 = sufficient) rather than the upper range (1 = very good and 2 = good). Alena agreed that students' level of performance was low. Another perceived issue was that students at the VHS came to the school (presumably mostly from MS) with already low levels of performance, which lead to a low retention rate: "And, yes, the retention rate, i.e., the students who advance after the first grade [of high school], is not particularly high. It's frighteningly low" (Alena).

Regarding their students' German language skills, the VHS teachers mentioned that their students often had little understanding of German grammar and individual vocabulary items (Carla). This has implications for the English classroom as teachers seemed to rely on students' German knowledge, for example, for vocabulary teaching. For example, Alena mentioned that particularly at the higher levels, it was difficult to teach subtle differences in vocabulary because students did not understand the subtle differences in the German translations of the vocabulary items either. In addition, these three teachers expressed that they could not automatically expect their students to understand the subject matter when it was taught in German (Carla). This relates to an anecdote shared by Beate, who told us that a colleague complained about her own students not being able to follow her lesson due to the high level of German skills she demanded, and that this colleague felt that it was the German teacher's responsibility to fix the problem. Beate further noted, however, that the issue of language proficiency cannot be solved by German teachers alone, as they cannot instantly build up their students' vocabulary. She suggested that teachers of all subjects had to recognize that students for whom German was a second language would not necessarily have the same proficiency as their autochthonous classmates and should respond to this in their lessons.

A particular issue that the VHS teachers mentioned was students' (lack of) motivation. They reported that their students may be capable but that they often did not do their homework, attend classes, or study for exams and that this was what caused the lower levels of performance. Specifically, students were perceived to be satisfied with below average grades (Beate) and as not trying when something was challenging: "They don't even try" (Carla). They reported that a feeling of indifference reigned, what Carla called "ein Wurschtigkeitsgefühl"—the feeling that nothing matters. However, they commented that here, too, were exceptions and that students could become interested in topics and become inspired to engage with various films and/or social media in English outside of school, and that this could help with their English learning (Carla). The VHS teachers expressed some statements about individual cases of negative student behavior, describing their students' behavior as challenging. Despite some negative views, the VHS teachers had generally positive views of group dynamics in the classroom. All three teachers agreed that students in their classes mostly worked well together. Alena emphasized that "in many of my classes there is good cohesion. Many students also support each other". Like Jakob at the MS, Alena viewed this positive atmosphere as "something that characterizes our school".

#### 4.2.3. Students' Abilities and the Learning Environment at the Academic High School

At the AHS, students' performance was portrayed more positively. While students reportedly began high school at the AHS with vastly varying levels of English, their knowledge and performance were more homogeneous at the end of high school (which might also be because the students who struggle the most transfer out of the school). In terms of performance, "there are surprises in both directions," Kerstin reported, regardless of students' heritage languages. As at the VHS, problems were noted in terms of literacy, specifically spelling, where Kerstin noted that LX-German students, but not L1-German students, had a tendency to capitalize English common nouns and suggests that this was "probably also due to confusion because in German we capitalize nouns [ . . . ] and I can imagine that there will then be confusion". In the AHS interview, there was no mention of difficult student behavior. Similar to the VHS teachers, views of group dynamics were generally positive. Students were reported to be "ready and interested in what other people's native language is like" and classes were "really completely mixed". Kerstin further emphasized that students speaking their heritage languages amongst themselves was not an issue because "in any case, only English is spoken in English classes".

#### *4.3. Teachers' Practices and Perspectives Regarding Linguistic Diversity*

This section explores teachers' reported classroom practices and their engagement with students' languages and cultural topics in the classroom, providing insights into RQ3: What are teachers' reported classroom practices and perspectives regarding linguistic diversity?

#### 4.3.1. Middle School Teachers' Practices and Perspectives

As mentioned earlier, MS teachers generally had good knowledge of their students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds and could list the countries from which their multilingual students come. However, they did not provide information as to whether they made use of this information in the classroom. There were no examples of teachers' recounting that they used students' languages—or allowed students to use them—in the classroom to support learning. The teachers reported that they only taught cultural topics when they came up in the textbooks—but not extensively—and that they mostly focused on topics from English-speaking countries, with the examples of England, Ireland, and Australia given.

Knowledge about students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds varied among the VHS teachers. Beate and Carla knew "the exact origin of only a few [students]". Carla added: "I mean, I didn't ask them directly either. Well, that hasn't been part of class, [discussing] where exactly they come from". Alena, in contrast, was very interested in her students' backgrounds and knew where many of them come from as well as which languages they speak. Her interest seemed to be strengthened by the fact that she had visited Albania and Kosovo—a number of students' heritage countries—and had seen for herself the type of places that many of them might come from. She recounted that having been there and being familiar with the context helped her to remember students' names and where they were from. Alena added "It's also nice to have a conversation with the students: 'Well, where are you from exactly [ . . . ]'?".

#### 4.3.2. Vocational High School Teachers' Practices and Perspectives

Although there was some interest in students' migration countries, VHS teachers did not report having competence in students' heritage languages (even though some basic abilities in Czech and Russian were mentioned). Beate stated that since so many students come from Turkey and the former Yugoslavia, she thought she would have picked up a few phrases in their languages; however, although she hears these languages regularly, she has not picked up anything. She related that she knows the oft-used phrase "hajde", which means something akin to "let's go," appears in German rap songs, and is the title of a popular song, but she could not cite any other examples. Alena noted that her experience

was that there was no point in using students' heritage languages to enhance learning as they themselves had no understanding of these languages: "they have very, very little understanding of German grammar and then absolutely no understanding of their own mother tongues". Despite this, all three VHS teachers saw a clear advantage in their students' multilingual abilities and felt that it was something that should be emphasized more. Beate believed that—as populations become increasingly diverse—the demand for people who speak multiple languages increases and the many linguistically diverse students at their school should be able to take advantage of this. Alena added that these qualities were not adequately conveyed to multilingual students in schools or the administrative bodies, where their linguistic repertoire could be of value.

With regard to the inclusion of cultural topics, Beate reported that she regularly builds in cultural topics because she finds that students are really interested in them, and the cultural contexts that she mentioned are England and the United States. Alena, however, said that this was something she does not tend to do as she finds that students have no connection to other countries' cultures because they have never been to England or the US. Moreover, she argued that because many students will not use English in the US or England, but use it more as a lingua franca, she finds it inappropriate to focus too much on cultural topics. Carla agreed with Alena, saying that treating cultural topics such as Christmas at their school can be difficult (perhaps because of students' diverse religious backgrounds), but also because there is often not time to explore such topics.

#### 4.3.3. Academic High School Teachers' Practices and Perspectives

Kerstin at the AHS seemed to have excellent knowledge of her students' cultural backgrounds and even integrated her students' cultures and languages into classroom practice. For example, students in one of her classes did presentations on celebrities and many students chose a celebrity from their heritage culture:

"And then you can tell that a lot of students then choose personalities who have something to do with their culture, be it musicians, Serbian musicians, for example, we had a lot [ . . . ]. And then you noticed that the others were listening attentively and that they were really interested".

Kerstin also remembered having ten minutes of class time left with nothing to do:

"And that's when I got the idea that we could all take one sentence, 'Hello, how are you?' and then write this sentence on the board in the respective home languages. And that worked really well. They remembered that [sentence] and they still know it today. A year later, they can still do the sentences and they were totally fascinated by what the home languages of the other classmates look like".

Kerstin emphasized the importance of being open to other cultures and languages: "the greatest chances are really that one is open to other cultures and other perspectives, to other approaches, and I personally find that to be really valuable that students become more open to other cultures. That they learn to understand that there are people who approach things differently than they would".

#### **5. Discussion**

Having presented the results of the interviews in terms of the three research questions, we now consider the extent to which the teacher interviews from these three different school types provide evidence of deficit perspectives and pockets of possibility in LX English language education.

#### *5.1. Deficit Perspectives*

As could be predicted by the literature review informing this study, one of the most dominant deficit perspectives found in teachers' interviews was the idea that students were semilingual in German and their heritage languages, and that this had negative consequences for additional language learning. In this context, teachers' beliefs about

language knowledge seem to revolve around literacy. Literacy is seen as a hallmark of "knowing" a language, such that parents and students who are perceived as not being literate in their heritage languages are considered to not properly know these languages. This is interesting because, first, the vast majority of parents are most likely L1 speakers of the heritage languages, and as such highly proficient speakers—and in many cases literate in these languages. Presumably a sizable portion of LX German speakers are also proficient speakers of their heritage languages, and the fact that Kerstin could elicit a sentence in her students' home languages and–presumably with their help–write these sentences on the board suggests that at least some of the LX German students have at least emergent literacy in their heritage languages. However, many of them may be speakers of non-standard varieties or—given their migration context—commonly codeswitch or translanguage (cf. MacSwan 2000). There are also students in middle schools with refugee backgrounds, who indeed may have missed out on years of formal education and thus who are still developing formal literacy. These are, of course, special cases. However, despite not having any detailed knowledge of students' proficiencies and repertoires, or linguistic knowledge of students' heritage languages, teachers make judgments about their students' knowledge of grammar of their heritage languages. Observed difficulties with the grammar of German and/or English seem to be transferred into perceived difficulties with the grammar of students' heritage languages, and grammar seems to be conceptualized as belonging to written rather than spoken language. Second, literacy in its most basic sense is typically acquired in school in the Austrian context, not in the home, such that autochthonous students typically learn to read and write German at school. Despite this, teachers seem to hold implicit assumptions that students who are LX German speakers should be literate in their heritage languages and that, presumably, parents–not schools–should be the ones to ensure home language literacy. This focus on literacy thus at best underestimates and at worst misrepresents students' home language skills and puts additional pressures on parents of LX German speakers, making them responsible for students' perceived underachievement.

As could also be expected from the literature review, we identified in the interviews beliefs of LX English as an additional burden for students with emergent German (e.g., when Jakob notes "there are a lot of problems with German, and then you add English to the mix"). These beliefs are informed by commonly held notions that languages should be learned separately and sequentially, such that adding an additional language is seen as problematic if students are perceived not to have sufficiently mastered their other languages. Such beliefs echo outdated perspectives that growing up with more than one language overwhelms children or that learning more than one language simultaneously confuses children (see Genesee 2015; Guiberson 2013) for arguments dispelling these myths). However, such beliefs are in line with previous studies in an Austrian context, discussed above, where De Angelis (2011, p. 222) found that 35% of Austrian teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that immigrant students "must learn one language at a time."

A further prominent deficit perspective held by teachers in all school types is that students' heritage languages are a problem if they are spoken by too many classroom participants. Teachers are of the opinion that it is better not to have large groups of students who come from the same language background. This is despite the fact that teachers observe students with the same heritage language background helping each other using the heritage language. Thus, students spontaneously use their home languages as a resource when they can, but this potential remains untapped. Indeed, there was no mention in the interviews of teachers' allowing their students to use their heritage languages as a resource for English language learning. The teachers also seemed to be concerned that students tend to stay in friendship groups that are based on ethnic and linguistic lines, and hence do not develop their German abilities or have opportunities to integrate with students from other backgrounds. They seemed hesitant to allow the use of other languages at school, as they feared that this will lead to the formation of cliques and the separation of certain language groups, as found elsewhere (cf. Van Der Wildt et al. 2015). The low numbers

of autochthonous Austrian students at these schools means that many students have limited opportunities to develop friendships with autochthonous students–an issue that has been noted about school systems across Europe (Eurydice 2019). The teachers noted, however, that–for the most part–students successfully navigate relationships across ethnic, linguistic, and class boundaries. Policies that allow for more mixed schools and classrooms might better allow learners from different socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds to learn together and from each other, thus improving language learning and educational outcomes more broadly, as well as fostering intercultural communication, inclusion, and social cohesion (cf. European Commission 2020). The dominance of German in the Austrian school system cannot be contested, and research has shown that students from migration backgrounds are keenly aware of the high status of the language of education and of the need and benefit of learning this language–and indeed they tend to be motivated to do so (Alisaari et al. 2019; Gogolin 1994). However, research has established that welcoming multilingualism in school does not tend to encourage segregation of different groups. In fact, same-language friendship groups are less likely to dominate in school contexts where there are tolerant practices towards multilingualism (Van Der Wildt et al. 2015, p. 180). Tolerance seems to encourage multilingual students to show positive interest in each other and each other's languages and could thus be a first step towards encouraging interlinguistic friendships—as experienced by Kerstin in her teaching context, one of the pockets of possibility discussed further below.

#### *5.2. Pockets of Possibilities*

At these schools, the teachers reported that there is a friendly and open class atmosphere, which indicates a learning environment full of possibility. In line with this, teachers expressed a general interest in students' linguistic and cultural backgrounds and showed detailed knowledge of the rich language diversity at their school. This welcoming environment and positive rapport are also beneficial to creating a safe and motivating atmosphere– which has been found to be essential for positive language learning (Oxford 2016).

As was also found in our related research (Erling et al. 2020, 2021), teachers in this study did not report using multilingual practice in English language teaching and tended not to use students' linguistic repertoires as a resource for English language learning. An exception to this was Kerstin, the AHS teacher who reported the experience of integrating students' heritage cultures into classroom activities with great enthusiasm. Assignments which allowed students to talk about celebrities from their heritage cultures (in English) and teach each other words and phrases from their heritage languages seemed to motivate the students beyond the teacher's expectations, presumably because they allowed students to share their funds of identity (Esteban-Guitart 2016) and to celebrate–instead of hide–their language repertoires. She did not mention what prompted her to experiment with these activities–if it was something she had learned through formal teacher education or had spontaneously thought of on her own. However, Kerstin's enthusiasm about these activities suggests that she will continue to create activities that allow students to draw on their out-of-school knowledge and share with their peers, and to develop her practice along these lines. Offering more formal teacher education opportunities in this direction would only support this.

The teachers at the MS and VHS, however, tended to avoid cultural activities out of fear of overwhelming weaker students. Moreover, these teachers position cultural activities as strongly based on English-speaking countries only, which they felt were either not appropriate for their learners (who were unlikely to have visited those countries) or there was not sufficient time to cover them due to the demands of the curriculum. This is in line with work from other contexts suggesting that students who are already perceived as poorer performers are not provided certain learning experiences, in our case the active integration of cultural work. This is often because teachers believe that underachieving students cannot handle "sophisticated learning experiences" (Adair et al. 2017, p. 309). Elsewhere, we found that teachers' engagement with cultural topics positively affected students' grades, especially at the middle school level (Erling et al. n.d.). Thus, cultural topics may provide unexplored entries into intercultural comparisons and students' linguistic and cultural diversity.

Teachers' awareness of their students' needs for English as a lingua franca is–in fact–in line with research that shows that students are far more likely to use English with other non-native speakers than they are with native speakers (Seidlhofer 2011) and is thus positive. However, that English is a global lingua franca and that "inner circle countries" should no longer dominate the curriculum does not necessarily mean that topics about English-speaking cultures have no place in the classroom, or that cultural content should be excluded altogether. Indeed, Baker (2012, 2015) has provided researchinformed insights into how intercultural awareness can be promoted in English language teaching and guidelines for activities that investigate the relationships between culture, language, and communication in the classroom. These approaches offer alternatives to essentialist national representations of culture and include exploring the complexity of local cultures and the cultural diversity in English-speaking countries, as well as challenging cultural representations in the media or in language learning materials. Such activities allow students the opportunity to draw on their cultural knowledge and to develop their criticality and intercultural competence, a goal of the Austrian English language curriculum for all school types.

Our work has established that students' feeling comfortable in the classroom has a positive impact on their LX English learning (Erling et al. n.d.), and we have argued that this feeling of comfort can be attributed to the positive school environment found at these linguistically diverse schools. This finding seems to be confirmed by the teacher interviews: Even though the teachers do not engage in multilingual practice, they all are generally aware of their students' language and cultural backgrounds. This seems to be particularly important for students at the middle school level, where younger students may need support in developing a positive academic self-concept and multilingual identity, particularly because of their awareness of having been tracked into a less academically oriented form of schooling. Indeed, it seems to be the case in our current study that the teachers at the MS were most aware of their students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and this finding–along with the positive school climate and strong teamwork and leadership–seems to be contributing to the comparative success of the school. While the VHS teachers were less knowledgeable of students' backgrounds, Alena recounted the positive difference that visiting the country from which some of her students come had made. Providing teachers with more resources to connect with their students from different backgrounds and allowing students to showcase their out-of-school knowledge and experience might further enhance well-being, motivation, and performance at such schools. While there is little in the formal Austrian teacher education system which supports the development of this stance, this interview set suggests that some teachers have developed it organically. This may be because linguistic and cultural diversity has been integral to the history and development of the town and teachers at such schools have no other option but to embrace an ecology that is supportive of multilingualism.

The most positive perspectives on multilingual students come from the teacher at the AHS. Such positive beliefs may not be surprising given that the school caters to students who were already performing at higher levels at the end of elementary school and were thus tracked into this educational strand. Moreover, there is a lower percentage of multilingual students from migration backgrounds at this school, which has been found to influence teachers' beliefs about their multilingual students (Erling et al. 2020).

The pockets of possibility uncovered through this study suggest that the translanguaging stance emerging can and should be captured and enhanced—both with regard to educational practice generally and English language learning specifically (cf. Erling and Moore 2021; García and Kleyn 2016). However, given that deficit perspectives are present, even amongst these teachers who are fully committed to the education of multilingual students from migration backgrounds, this study confirms the need identified in the literature

review for teacher education in Austria to equip teachers with research-informed notions of multilingualism and multilingual practice, and to encourage teachers to reflect on their "common sense assumptions," which shape their understanding of students' practices and abilities (cf. Cataldo-Schwarzl and Erling 2022). The study suggests a need to promote more asset-based views of multilingualism in education and (language) teacher education, in which the focus lies on valuing the linguistic resources students bring with them to school and using the broad range of diversity inside the classroom as an advantage for further (language) learning. Pre- and in-service teacher education initiatives should support educators in critically examining their own deficit perspectives and practices and draw attention to the continued imperative of disrupting them (cf. Keddie 2011).

#### **6. Conclusions**

Given the deficit perspectives of multilingualism commonly found in Austrian and European schools more generally, we hypothesized at the outset of this study that teachers would hold negative beliefs about their students' multilingual backgrounds and practices, that students' other languages would not be seen by teachers as resources for English learning, and that this would be reflected in teachers' classroom practices. While this hypothesis was confirmed to a certain extent, we also found positive attitudes and pockets of possibility for good practice in teaching English with multilingual students.

Deficit perspectives that persisted in teachers' interviews included the idea that multilingual students from migration backgrounds were largely semilingual, that they had limited literacy skills in both German and their heritage languages, and that this presented them with difficulties in terms of adding English to their repertoires. Pockets of possibility included that many teachers appeared to be highly aware of students' linguistic and cultural background–and this awareness amongst teachers (even in absence of knowledge of those languages) seems to be powerful in terms of students' sense of well-being in the classroom. Teachers were also being inspired to travel to students' heritage countries on their vacation and to bring this knowledge back to the classroom to better connect with students. There was an example of a teacher trialing activities in which students drew on their out-of-school cultural and linguistic knowledge to share with their peers. She noted how enthusiastically students responded to opportunities such as this. Such experiences will hopefully spawn further "what if?" possibility thinking, as promoted by Craft et al. (2012), which will allow teachers to imagine further embracing multilingual pedagogies.

This study provides insight into a language learning context that has been underrepresented in international applied linguistics research (i.e., a non-selective English language teaching context in a small, linguistically diverse Austrian town). Further research into the experiences of English teachers in linguistically diverse schools is clearly needed. However, the results of this small-scale study suggest that if teachers are provided with resources to share and further develop such practices through pre- and in-service education, this could lead to positive changes in English language education. Embracing a translanguaging stance may allow English to get closer to achieving its potential as a curriculum subject where there is a level playing field for all students. Schools such as the MS featured in this study, where multilingualism and diversity are taken as the norm and students are performing above the national average in English, might be celebrated. They could thus serve as catalysts for further good practice and for embracing multilingual pedagogies. While these schools operate within a stratified education system shaped by Austria's wider socioeconomic and political contexts (Herzog-Punzenberger 2017), they offer some potential for developing good practices in English language education. Further exploration of such sites of English language learning could provide a better understanding of what–beyond teachers' beliefs–facilitates (and shuts down) the creation of 'pockets of possibility'. Such pockets could then be harnessed and extended to develop pedagogical practices to foster students' multilingual and multicultural development, with particular regard to English language learning.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.J.E. and M.B.; methodology, E.J.E., A.F., F.S. and M.B.; formal analysis, E.J.E., A.F. and F.S.; investigation, M.B.; data curation, E.J.E., A.F. and F.S.; writing original draft preparation, E.J.E. and A.F.; writing—review and editing, E.J.E., A.F., F.S. and M.B.; supervision, E.J.E.; project administration, E.J.E. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Based on national laws and university statutes and guidelines, it was not necessary to obtain formal ethics approval. The study, however, adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the British Association for Applied Linguistics Recommendations for Good Practice in Applied Linguistics (BAAL 2021).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they contain potentially identifying information.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank all of the participants for sharing their views with them. The authors would also like the thank the University of Vienna for providing the Open Access Funding for this article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A**

English translation of the interview questions for LX English teachers. Information in parentheses states which sets of questions relate to which research question.

#### *Subjects and experience in school (teacher demographics)*


#### *Languages (teacher demographics)*


#### *School, students, languages (RQ1)*


#### *Changes (RQ1)*


#### *Performance (RQ2)*


### *Classroom dynamics (RQ2)*


#### *English language learning (RQ3)*


#### *General (RQ3)*


#### **Note**

<sup>1</sup> Following Dewaele (2018), and in recognition of the fact that many English learners in Austria are learning the language not as a second but as a third or fourth language, we use the term 'LX English learner' to refer to these multilingual students. Similarly, students from a migration background in Austria are often learning German not as a second but as a third or sometimes fourth language, and we therefore refer to them as 'LX German speakers'.

#### **References**


Tsiplakides, Iakovos, and Areti Keramida. 2010. The Relationship between Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement in the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language. *English Language Teaching* 3: 22–26. [CrossRef]

Valencia, Richard R. 2010. *Dismantling Contemporary Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice*. London: Routledge.


VERBI Software. 2020. *MAXQDA 2020*. Berlin: VERBI Software, Available online: maxqda.com (accessed on 15 January 2022).


Wiesinger, Susanne. 2018. *Kulturkampf Im Klassenzimmer: Wie Der Islam Die Schulen Verändert*. Vienna: Edition QVV.


### *Article* **Teacher Trainees' Perspectives on Remote Instruction for Multilingual Learners of English**

**Kandace M. Hoppin <sup>1</sup> , Gregory Knollman <sup>1</sup> , Patricia Rice Doran 1,\* and Huili Hong <sup>2</sup>**


**\*** Correspondence: pricedoran@towson.edu; Tel.: +1-410-704-3891

**Abstract:** The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift to virtual learning across many countries and school systems. It is worthwhile to examine the specific ways in which this shift is significant to teacher trainees preparing to work with multilingual learners (MLs). Considering the perspectives of teacher trainees preparing to teach MLs offers an opportunity to identify the questions and concerns that they are likely to have upon graduation. Examining these perspectives can also help to identify ways that teacher trainees can use virtual and remote teaching approaches more constructively. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study of an educator preparation program focused on preparing trainees in content areas along with English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), with a focus on the perspectives of teacher trainees who worked with MLs through virtual and remote modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper draws on data from an analysis of nine teacher trainees' response journals and course assignments, and includes themes identified from the teacher trainees' perceptions of virtual learning for MLs. The findings from the analysis revealed that teacher trainees emphasized the importance of establishing meaningful professional relationships in the virtual setting with their MLs, especially as a way to facilitate effective instruction and online classroom management. Participants also spoke about the importance of developing culturally responsive and sensitive instruction, and stressed the importance of engaging students and families in appropriate, linguistically accessible ways. Implications for future virtual instruction as well as teacher preparation are also discussed.

**Keywords:** multilingual learners; English learners; English language instruction; teacher trainees; virtual learning; remote teaching

#### **1. Introduction**

Beginning in March 2020, several countries turned to remote learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. An estimated 107 countries implementing national school closures related to COVID-19 found themselves rapidly scaling up technology to address the needs of students who were homebound because of the pandemic (UNESCO 2020; Viner et al. 2020). During the first year of the pandemic, many of the largest urban districts within the United States provided at least partial online schooling (Stuart et al. 2021). Even if schools have resumed in-person learning, teachers and school leaders must consider how to use the technology to address learning loss from this shift to remote learning (Korkmaz and Toraman 2020).

Teachers must be prepared to work with diverse populations, particularly students learning English, referred to in this paper as multilingual learners (MLs). In doing so, teacher trainees must be ready to provide continuous, high-quality English instruction for students who have already experienced substantial stress and educational disruption over the past year. Teacher trainees graduate and take positions in districts where challenges related to access to technology and internet connectivity continue to exist (Lockee 2021).

**Citation:** Hoppin, Kandace M., Gregory Knollman, Patricia Rice Doran, and Huili Hong. 2023. Teacher Trainees' Perspectives on Remote Instruction for Multilingual Learners of English. *Languages* 8: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages8010085

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 20 September 2021 Revised: 7 February 2023 Accepted: 20 February 2023 Published: 16 March 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Together, these circumstances create new pressures on teachers of English, but also present unique opportunities and ways to leverage teachers' skills to provide robust culturally and linguistically responsive learning opportunities in virtual as well as face-to-face modalities. Teacher trainees must remain aware of the complex ways in which students may interact with information and the variety of learning experiences that can support them in building knowledge (Kalpana 2014). Teachers may play an important role in structuring and directing these interactions and the student learning that results from them. Student actions and interactions are influenced not only by students' growth and development but also by the social environment and culture of the classroom (Kalpana 2014). Competent teachers can structure classroom routines, activities, and experiences to provide student-centered learning activities to help their students engage in meaningful learning experiences. Within the online learning environment, as well as the face-to-face one, teachers may influence the dynamic, social, and interactive nature of language instruction and learning, which is supported through interaction, communication, and collaboration (Carwile 2007). Accordingly, it is helpful for teacher trainees to possess a strong understanding of these complex dynamics around learning environment, learner background, language and social interaction, and student well-being.

Considering the perspectives of teacher trainees who intend to serve as English language teachers provided an opportunity to identify the questions and concerns that they are likely to have, as well as highlight potential ways that they can use virtual and remote teaching approaches in transformative ways to support their MLs. This paper presents findings from a qualitative examination of the perspectives of teacher trainees completing an English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) preparation program in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, regarding working with MLs via virtual and remote modalities. The paper presents findings from ESOL teacher trainee response journals and course assignments focusing on their beliefs, experiences, and perceptions about MLs and virtual and technology-assisted learning. Last, the paper identifies implications for current and future practice, including opportunities for strengthening teacher preparation and English language instruction. The research questions for this study were:


#### *1.1. COVID-19 Pandemic and Virtual Teaching of English*

As school systems around the world shifted to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid changes in educational delivery required adjustment and adaptation for teachers of all students at all levels but posed specific challenges for language teachers (Moser et al. 2021). For example, many nonverbal and paraverbal means of learning language, such as tone, social context, gesture, and body language, can be challenging to convey over video chat or asynchronous teaching modalities. Established techniques such as Total Physical Response (TPR) are difficult or impossible to implement remotely. Moreover, students who rely on frequent, verbal interaction to practice oral language skills may be hampered by the limits of face-to-face time that are often present even in synchronous virtual instruction. While there were many challenges to language acquisition through online learning, virtual and remote modalities offered new and potentially transformative ways to engage MLs and their families (Raghavendra and Chikkala 2020). Technology allowed families to connect with teachers and even with other families; chat and video conferencing allowed students to practice skills in real time with peers even outside the

classroom; and virtual modalities allowed teachers to be present in new and unique ways for students' oral language practice, group work, or dialogue with individual students.

#### *1.2. Deployment of Online Learning and Teacher Readiness*

Prior to the pandemic, higher education made slow and steady progress in a transition to online teaching and learning by adopting varied pedagogical approaches to teaching and a range of technologies resulting in widely varied faculty attitudes of readiness to adopt these tools (Howard et al. 2021; Martin 2019). In one such study of teacher perceptions prior to the pandemic, Gurley (2018) surveyed faculty perceptions of the adoption of these online modalities and found those instructors completing certification courses to teach in blended or online learning environments held a higher perceived outlook on their success in teaching online compared to colleagues who received more general training. When considering faculty engagement in the adoption of new technologies within higher education, Bennett (2014) described the transition as an emotional process that required strategies to manage the challenges of learning new tools while also providing quality learning experiences to the students.

The pandemic resulted in a dramatic shift from teaching in person and the gradual adoption of new technologies to the rapid deployment of a fully online curriculum. College students expressed challenges in accessing reliable internet connectivity, finding a quiet space to complete online learning, concerns with finances, and fears of losing social connections with peers, faculty, and the college community (Gonzalez-Ramirez et al. 2021). Teachers in many content areas were required to redesign curriculum and instruction for remote delivery. These changes in instructional design and delivery reshaped the education landscape almost instantly with profound changes to teaching and assessment (Middleton 2020). The shift in content delivery impacted teacher perceptions differently across online learning environments (Marshall et al. 2020) and further illuminated inequities in district responses to online instruction (Hall et al. 2020). During the pandemic, Scherer et al. (2021) developed a profile of teacher readiness, which was designed to measure the teachers' preparedness to rapidly deploy technologies required to support online instruction. This profile was designed from the results of a survey that examined both instructors' personal readiness to use online instruction and the readiness of their campuses to support online teaching and learning. Among survey respondents, those who held poor self-beliefs in their ability to adapt to online teaching and learning also held more negative perceptions of their institutions' readiness to support their transition to online learning. Furthermore, the faculty members who had prior experience with online teaching and learning held higher perceptions of their readiness to adapt to new technology use.

Aside from teacher perceptions of the adaptation to online teaching, setting up instruction through virtual learning brought its own unique challenges and possibilities, which are particularly relevant to current and future teachers of English. For example, the focus on technology and technological proficiency is often less explicit within English language pedagogical models, and often treated as a separate set of competencies rather than a foundational skill. Furthermore, as Altavilla (2020) highlighted, technology represents an under-addressed area both in the curriculum and services provided to MLs. Accordingly, even when teachers utilize technology, they may not possess the pedagogical knowledge or practical experience to leverage it to maximum effectiveness.

#### *1.3. Student Well-Being and Success While Engaged in Virtual Learning*

Teachers and researchers have reported increased concerns about the well-being and success of students during virtual learning, particularly MLs (Catalano et al. 2021; Cushing-Leubner et al. 2021). Without intention, focused exploration of barriers and opportunities specific to virtual learning, educators run the risk of reproducing existing inequalities in a face-to-face classroom when they shift to a virtual space (Green and Tolman 2019). In a review of recent literature, Bartley (2021) identified factors including the following to be important to creating positive virtual learning experiences: "connections" and "relationships" (p. 1) with students as well as family members, "assets-based" approaches (p. 1), and a strong awareness of students' social and emotional status and needs.

Sayer and Braun (2020) highlighted the way in which the shift to remote learning had particularly challenging ramifications for MLs, including technology access, abrupt discontinuation of access to sheltered content, and reduced opportunities for practice of oral language skills that are often crucial to developing overall language proficiency. However, these very real difficulties were also accompanied by the "silver lining" of increased opportunity for connection (p. 4) between educators and families using technology, an opportunity that may persist in face-to-face learning where technology is utilized appropriately.

The ability to leverage technology has potential positive impacts for instruction beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, as technology can provide a powerful way to address instructional barriers. Pre-pandemic, Smith and Stahl (2016) identified a need for increased accessibility and emphasis on Universal Design Learning (UDL), as an increased number of students access online and virtual learning opportunities. UDL is a framework with origins that predated the sudden shift to fully online experiences during the pandemic by several decades. The underlying framework principles emphasized the importance of promoting instruction that includes multiple means of representation, expression, and learner engagement (Edyburn 2005; Meyer et al. 2014; Rose 2001). The term was first defined in two pieces of federal legislation within the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 and applied to the design and delivery of products and services, including assistive technologies that improve access to instruction and use of content by a wide range of people (Edyburn 2005).

Through research conducted during the pandemic, Flanagan and Morgan (2021) found that integration of UDL into instructional practices can help all learners, particularly those with disabilities, to be successful. Similarly, Basham et al. (2020) emphasized the importance of focusing on universal design to ensure all students can access learning opportunities and be successful. Related to the challenge of effectively supporting all learners, Chang (2021) highlighted the challenges of maintaining student privacy in the virtual setting, including both legal and compliance issues and issues of professionalism, interaction, and confidentiality in a virtual setting.

#### *1.4. Student–Teacher Relationships in Virtual Learning*

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers had begun to address the importance of intentional relationship-building in online learning environments for school-aged learners. Borup et al. (2013) found that with deliberate adjustment in practices, teachers could build strong relationships with learners in a virtual setting characterized by caring. Likewise, Drysdale et al. (2014) found that structured programs focused on mentoring and supporting students, including an emphasis on relationships as well as instruction, could facilitate students' success and teachers' well-being. Martin (2019) described strategies teachers can use to successfully engage with students and build relationships in virtual settings. In reviewing the impact of virtual and remote learning on MLs during the pandemic, Bartley (2021) reported relationship-building to be important for students' success. Likewise, in examining teachers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, Miller (2021) found that students engaged in remote learning during the pandemic brought unique concerns to the classroom. However, teachers could provide support by acting as "warm demanders" (Miller 2021, p. 115) to encourage continued growth and learning, as well as ensuring accessibility and offering socioemotional support. Hamilton et al. (2021) also explored teacher practices and family engagement during the pandemic to identify areas for focus and emphasis in school practices. Teachers worked quickly to shift to remote learning, but reported a need for more detailed strategies to connect with students and maintain engagement, as well as using technology effectively.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Methods*

This study was conducted by a research team consisting of several collaborators and authors. The team included the instructor of the course in which participants completed journal assignments, the lead interviewer for qualitative interviews, and two team members who investigated the relevant literature and were involved in all levels of data analysis. The research team used a descriptive–interpretive qualitative methodology (Elliott and Timulak 2021), which relied on qualitative analysis of teacher trainees' reflective journals, as well as interview data, exploring the trainees' lived experiences with virtual learning and instruction of MLs (Brinkmann and Kvale 2014). The research design of this study was based on an interpretivist paradigm, and the research team used a basic interpretive design (Creswell and Creswell 2018; Merriam and Tisdell 2016) to explore the experiences of teacher trainees preparing for and engaging in virtual instruction. The overall purpose of descriptive–interpretive qualitative design was to understand how individuals make sense of their lives and experiences (Merriam and Tisdell 2016; Patton 2015). Highlighting the experiences of teacher trainees preparing for and engaging in virtual instruction of MLs through a qualitative lens helped to expand the potential for understanding the complex issues related to language, virtual instruction, and successfully supporting future educators.

#### *2.2. Participants*

Data were collected from a total of nine participants for this study (Table 1). Participants were members of a cohort of undergraduate teacher trainees enrolled in a large United States university's College of Education completing elective coursework in ESOL in addition to their primary area of certification in order to gain endorsement in ESOL upon graduation. The cohort of teacher trainees from which this group of participants was drawn included trainees from varied fields, including Early Childhood, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education, and Elementary Education–Special Education (dual certification). All participants had completed at least one course in multicultural and multilingual education as part of this program, and were enrolled, at the time of data collection, in two additional courses with an ESOL focus. One of these courses focused on methods for teaching MLs, and the other, in which data for this study were collected, focused on assessment for MLs. Throughout this course, the teacher trainees engaged in virtual weekly tutoring and instruction of a small group (2–4 students) of MLs.

Purposeful sampling (Creswell and Creswell 2018; Patton 2015) was used to select participants whose experience would be particularly relevant to the topic of the study. Participants were selected based on the following criteria:


ESOL toward this endorsement at the time of data collection, providing them with a common knowledge base and set of reference points regarding the instructional and language needs of MLs

• Prior experience with a foreign language or as MLs: Participants had the opportunity to identify whether they considered themselves multilinguals, although responses in this regard were not used to exclude or include participants. Participants' status with respect to this category is indicated in Table 1.

**Table 1.** Characteristics of participants.


#### *2.3. Data Collection*

Data were collected from reflective journal entries that each participant submitted for a summer course on assessment and instruction of MLs, taught by one of the research team members. Participants were expected to complete eight, one-page journal reflections throughout their course, three of which were utilized for this study, as these selected reflections related most specifically to virtual learning and instruction of MLs (the other five prompts were not relevant to virtual learning or teaching). Each of the nine participants in this study responded to all three of the selected reflective journal prompts, for a total of 27 collected journal responses. The average length of the journal responses from participants was 250 words. Reflective journals included in this study were in response to the following prompts:


In addition to the reflective journal response data, one-on-one semi-structured interviews with one of the research team members were conducted with each participant upon completion of the course. The research team devised a semi-structured interview protocol

to serve as a guide to help ensure consistency among each participant and to allow individual perspectives and experiences to emerge (Patton 2015). Interviews were conducted by a member of the research team, who was familiar with the course expectations and journal reflections, but who did not teach the course from which the data were collected. Interviews focused on participants' background knowledge, experiences, and perceptions regarding virtual learning and instruction of MLs. Participants responded to prompts and follow-up probing questions regarding their experiences with MLs, experiences with prior coursework or fieldwork related to supporting MLs, and perceptions of the virtual learning process and experience. Participants completed informed consent at the start of their professional development experience and, for participants completing interviews, reviewed consent procedures orally again during the interview with the research team member conducting their interviews. All procedures were approved by the researchers' university Institutional Review Board (IRB), and informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study. Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and were audio-recorded and then transcribed.

The addition of interview data allowed the team to capture not only participants' direct responses to the journal prompts but also their perspectives on the lived experience of being a teacher trainee participating in, as well as preparing for, virtual learning and instruction (Brinkmann and Kvale 2014).

#### *2.4. Data Analysis*

Journal response data and all interview transcripts were stored in a password-protected online database to which each member of the research team had access. Participants' data were also imported and organized using NVivo, which is a qualitative data analysis application. The research team triangulated the data (Patton 2015) from the reflective journal responses and the transcribed interviews to gain a nuanced and multi-faceted perspective on the trainees' experiences and perceptions.

The researcher team coded the reflective journal responses and the transcribed interviews as a group that met virtually throughout the coding process. In order to create a valid and reliable qualitative study, the researchers used memoing and created an audit trail of the research steps taken by the team to preserve the integrity of the participants in the study (Creswell and Creswell 2018; Merriam and Tisdell 2016; Miles et al. 2020). The research team reviewed all transcripts and journal entries together, and engaged in multi-level coding (Saldaña 2015) in which key codes were first identified, then consolidated into categories, reviewed, and interpreted as general themes were identified within and across topics and questions.

The first step of analysis involved three members of the research team coding a set of three participants' data, including those three participants' reflective journal responses and transcribed interviews, independently. After this initial round of coding, the research team came together as a group to determine how they understood and interpreted similar themes and constructs from the participants' data that were analyzed, and then generated an initial codebook. During the discussion, the team established consensus in defining each code from the journal and interview data. The research team worked to complete a second round of coding as a group of the full data set. The team discussed and arrived at a consensus on the overall themes that emerged. Simultaneously, the team individually wrote memos and notes that allowed for elaboration on coding processes and reasons for decisions. Memo writing helped clarify emergent categories and themes during the coding process, and gained consensus as a group on the findings.

#### *2.5. Themes and Subthemes Aligned with Research Questions*

Four overarching themes occurred consistently across participants' responses in journals and interviews: relationships, engagement, flexibility, and appropriate use of technology. Further analysis by the research team revealed that teacher trainees' insights

about MLs and virtual learning could be grouped into several subthemes aligned with the research questions and included in Table 2.

**Table 2.** Subthemes aligned with research questions.


#### **3. Results**

Findings are summarized below with respect to each research question; a general discussion of subthemes and results follows.

#### *3.1. Question 1: How Do Teacher Trainees Describe Their Experience as a Learner within a Virtual Experience in the COVID-19 Pandemic?*

The teacher trainees in the study revealed varied perspectives on their own experience of virtual learning. All had completed virtual learning as university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. All had completed at least some virtual teaching via a one-on-one tutoring program offered by their college in conjunction with certain courses. Participants' responses indicated the following as key elements that they perceived in virtual learning:

#### 3.1.1. Adjustment and Flexibility

Among the perspectives shared on the transition to virtual learning, participants' responses focused on the sudden adjustment or adaptation needed to acclimate to the process of virtual instruction. In an interview, a participant described virtual teaching as "really, really weird" at first, and expressed concern about approaching parents through online modalities or connecting with them in culturally sensitive ways without the benefits of in-person interaction: "I'm still learning that and . . . I hope . . . in the future, we can still learn." Another participant described, in a journal response, feeling uncertain about how to deliver online instruction as a result of being a student still figuring out how to learn virtually: "I felt extremely uncertain about my ability to teach and provide instruction to students. I felt like I was still figuring out how to learn virtually myself so teaching on that platform to others was a bit intimidating to me."

Virtual learning also offered flexibility, particularly during a challenging time for many families and individuals adjusting to COVID-19 restrictions and circumstances. One participant commented in an interview: "I would have gotten more out of it, but it was also very beneficial . . . because then I could be home for my coursework." This flexibility, though, necessitated some adjustment, as described above, as the process of learning virtually was not intuitive.

#### 3.1.2. Relationship-Building

Seven participants emphasized the value of continued emphasis on personal relationships through referencing topics such as student engagement, connections with home, connection with students' cultures, and family communication. A participant indicated valuing interaction and individual meetings extended to them by professors and indicated this was important to carry such practices forward into their own teaching. One participant stated in an interview: "I feel like a lot of professors were . . . hard on themselves . . . the important thing is that [students] learned . . . the important thing is . . . they feel like they matter and they matter to you." Ensuring students feel this connection, though, can come at some cost to teachers, as this participant also shared: "You really have to go out of your way more, in a virtual environment, to make sure you're making those . . . connections."

#### 3.1.3. Need for Differentiation, Particularly for MLs

All participants identified at least one challenge related to virtual teaching and learning, including their own experience as learners as well as their students' experiences as multilingual learners. One participant shared in an interview: "Keeping the engagement for both students was difficult at times." One participant reflected in a journal entry: "It is hard to help the students directly, they will have to explain their problems or show their paper to the camera . . . Being told to explain a problem that you do not understand is very hard, especially if that language is not your native. I feel bad when we ask students to tell us where they are stuck."

#### 3.1.4. Benefits of Virtual Learning

All participants expressed uncertainty, ambivalence, or even concern about virtual learning, but seven participants also expressed optimism or positive ideas about aspects of technology, including the ability to engage students, bridge gaps or involve families. For example, one participant reflected in an interview: "I'm not sure anybody knows the long-term . . . developmental implications that this will have on students, but I feel like it's only gotten better and better and better because [of] the amount of technology that we have." It appeared that the ability to practice and improve over time also could be helpful; in the words of one participant, writing a journal entry: "We have been doing this type of tutoring since last semester and I feel like it is getting easier. I am slowly gaining confidence when it comes to speaking and teaching the students."

#### *3.2. Question 2: How Do Teacher Trainees of Multilingual Learners (MLs) Perceive the Challenges of Virtual Learning, Especially Considering Students' Experiences in the COVID-19 Pandemic?*

All participants identified at least one challenge to virtual learning, both as they related to their own experiences as students and, primarily, as those challenges related to their roles as a virtual teacher in teacher training experiences. Participants in this study had not experienced full-scale virtual classroom instruction with students but had instead participated in fieldwork focused on individual or small-group tutoring. Participants' concerns about the challenges of virtual learning can be grouped into several main categories described below:

#### 3.2.1. Technology Challenges

Technology challenges such as internet connection, difficulty in communicating students' ability to find a learning environment, and difficulty of access were referenced by four participants. One participant described their experience in a journal entry: "The virtual learning process has been very difficult. As a student there were some moments where I had internet trouble, and this became worse once we started the tutoring process . . . when I have trouble with the computer my stress level just skyrockets." Challenges with technology also extended to concerns about the ability of different age groups to utilize technology successfully; another participant wrote in a journal entry that it was "a little hard to provide in-depth instruction, especially for younger children, because of [the need to minimize] their screentime."

#### 3.2.2. Quality of Instruction

All participants reported some concerns around the quality of instruction, whether that involved addressing individual questions, monitoring student learning, ensuring students were focused, or addressing language barriers without in-person social cues. Informal assessment emerged as one area of concern or potential difficulty. One participant, for example, commented in a journal entry that "it can be difficult to see if a student is confused or not when you are trying to get through a lesson."

Concerns about the quality of instruction also extended to issues specific to language learners. One participant commented in a journal entry, "It is hard to help the student directly . . . being told to explain a problem that you do not understand is very hard" for MLs in particular. This participant also referenced the difficulties in providing feedback on student work via remote learning, as students would often be required to hold their work up to the computer camera in the absence of scanning and uploading it. As one participant put it in a journal entry: "It can be a little harder for [MLs]/Virtual learning makes it a little difficult to get individualized help, in a class full of students." Logistical challenges made providing help more complex in a face-to-face traditional setting, as the same participant explained: "[Y]ou have to step into a breakout room", requiring a student to be removed from peers for the duration of the help session.

The interactive nature of language learning and teaching posed some difficulty to one participant, who commented in a journal entry: "I think [MLs] thrive off of interaction and physical representations and examples. In a virtual space, those things can be hard to accomplish." These concerns indicated general ambivalence or hesitancy around the best way to provide high-quality, appropriate instruction for MLs in a virtual setting; this same participant described their own view of virtual learning as being "a little hesitant" as a result of these challenges.

#### 3.2.3. Time and Effort

Time and effort in planning and locating materials was a focus for at least two participants. One participant referenced the time required to locate materials: "[It] definitely wasn't easy but it also wasn't terrible in the sense that there was a lot more resources, just finding them, sometimes it was [not easy]." One participant referenced the increased time and adjustment needed to teach in a virtual setting, describing the experience in an interview, "It was definitely a learning curve for me."

#### *3.3. Question 3: How Do Teacher Trainees of MLs Perceive the Benefits of Virtual Learning, Especially Considering Students' Experiences in the COVID-19 Pandemic?*

In addition to detailing some challenges and drawbacks of online learning during the pandemic, seven participants also shared insights about benefits of virtual learning. These benefits were apparent in several areas, including the ability to respond to students' unique needs, differentiate for students, build relationships with students and families, and plan and deliver instruction efficiently using technology. Below is a summary of participants' observations in each of these areas:

#### 3.3.1. Individualization and Differentiation for Unique Student Needs

Despite ambivalence about students' needs being met in virtual settings, three participants noted ways that virtual or remote teaching could support differentiation and individualization: "When we are in class, Zoom gives us the opportunity to talk individually and there is no talking over [students]", as one participant wrote in a journal entry. Five participants referenced increased availability of materials for teachers, allowing them more options to share differentiated or additional material with students: "I think the online environment can be beneficial to teach students with certain needs because there are more resources readily available to them like translated versions of books and spellcheck when typing", as one participant reported in a journal entry. In an interview, another participant stressed that finding appropriate and engaging materials "was a little bit easier

online" than in face-to-face instruction. One participant noted in a journal entry that virtual learning could be aligned to UDL in that it allowed students to "see and access pictures that can be helpful to [MLs]." Virtual learning was also seen as helpful by this participant because it "leaves room for more technology such as software that can be used as tool, and videos, where some videos come with subtitles." One participant also noted that videos could be leveraged to show information in multiple ways or to pause and replay after addressing student questions, although another participant wrote in a journal entry that showing videos was helpful but sometimes diminished their opportunities to interact or engage with students: "I found myself showing a lot of examples and having the students watch instead of engaging with me. I think this can be even more challenging with Els in the class."

#### 3.3.2. Virtual Strategies for Relationship-Building

Technology seemed to foster more effective or meaningful connections with families: "I found I was able to connect more with my students", in the words of one participant as recorded in a journal entry; for this participant, "being more personable with the students and families" was seen as a distinct experience over other modalities of instruction. It appeared that virtual instruction also allowed some opportunities for increased interaction with families. For example, one participant wrote in a journal entry: "One of the advantages to online learning is the amount of interaction the teacher has with the students." This personal interaction led to deeper relationships with students as well as more frequent or meaningful contacts with parents for this participant: "In my personal experience I found that I was able to learn more about my students on a personal level and I was also able to interact with the parents more too. I thought those interactions were beneficial because it allowed me to tailor lessons to what my students are interested in, and I was also able to communicate with the parents and make sure the learning process was getting carried over to the home environment."

#### 3.3.3. Time and Planning Innovation

While participants spoke of the increased time and effort required to plan and implement virtual instruction, they also referenced efficiencies that accompanied their use of virtual teaching strategies. As one participant stated in a journal entry, "There are so many resources I can use [to complete a lesson] and I can just add [them] to the PowerPoint." The same participant also wrote that "if I don't have the answer to a question I can just look it up quickly without forgetting about it." This finding was mirrored in the references that participants made to their increased ability to provide captions, recording, and integrate technology seamlessly into instruction to address student learning needs

#### *3.4. Question 4: What Strategies or Approaches Do Teacher Trainees of MLs Appear to Find Promising or Useful for Supporting Their MLs in the Process of Virtual Learning?* 3.4.1. Parent/Family Communication

Five participants referenced the benefits of family involvement in the tutoring session or the benefits of sharing information with families in some way. These varied benefits included establishing meaningful partnerships, sharing information with parents, and receiving crucial information from parents, often easier to do when technology facilitated communication with parents. One of the participants shared in an interview: "You get . . . the additional time with the family . . . and you also get the family more involved if they're able to [be]." This participant also went on to acknowledge that some families might not have the ability to participate directly in virtual or remote instruction: "It actually puts a large amount of stress on certain families, this whole virtual thing." For another participant, family communication allowed teachers to understand family stresses and obligations: "We had a parent apologize that her son had missed sessions because they were having some family issues." In a journal entry, a participant acknowledged the benefits of securing buy-in and sharing information with family members: "Instead of giving students the

resources and leaving it alone, we should make sure the student and parent understand the resources and the benefit of them."

#### 3.4.2. Use of Appropriate Tools and Techniques, including Technology

Five participants referenced the use of websites, games, online scavenger hunt activities, apps, and quiz sites such as Kahoot! and tools embedded within Zoom (breakout rooms or screensharing of PowerPoint presentations, for example) as ways they could meet students' needs using technology in the virtual setting. These tools were seen as particularly important as ways to build or maintain student engagement and interest for MLs. Two participants referenced the importance of interactive games or activities in their journal reflections. One participant identified some weaknesses in understanding and using appropriate techniques but set a goal in their interview: "I want to know a couple of more strategies . . . " Another participant, in a journal response, noted growth in their skills and confidence in this area: "I have grown in my confidence to teach students with certain needs in the virtual environment . . . I still need to adapt my practices based on their skill levels."

#### 3.4.3. Relationship-Building

All participants emphasized their positive perceptions of relationship-building practices, defined broadly as encompassing communication, culturally responsive practices, personal interactions with students, or emphasis on engagement. These practices extended to students as well as families. For example, one participant stated in an interview: "Sometimes we allow them to teach [students] like different words from their culture and be able to connect with them." Another participant referenced the value of concluding lessons on a positive note, and two participants described using different techniques or strategies, such as brain breaks, to maintain student engagement. In this respect, these participants evidenced awareness of some of the same strategies and approaches prioritized in traditional face-to-face instruction, particularly for inexperienced teachers.

#### **4. Discussion and Limitations**

#### *4.1. General Themes across Research Questions and Interview Prompts*

Several themes surfaced across questions and categories, thus indicating participants' interest in or focus on these concepts across different areas of consideration.


#### *4.2. Pedagogical Implications*

Many of the insights gleaned from participants were focused on the practicalities of learning and teaching in virtual, technology-assisted modalities. As such, they have relevance for pedagogy moving forward, whether schools continue to provide virtual instruction or transition back to entirely face-to-face models.

Among these implications is the continued relevance of the UDL framework when educators prepare to deliver instruction using virtual or even in-person, technology-assisted platforms. A UDL-based approach (Basham et al. 2020) can provide teachers with guidance and a nuanced understanding of how to provide flexibility, encourage all learners to tackle challenging tasks, and individualize tasks where necessary. In addition, UDL provides a powerful perspective on minimizing barriers and increasing access, tasks that may in some ways be facilitated by technology, such as real-time captions, recording, and playback, or access to personalized digital resources. Whether educators are teaching in exclusively virtual modes or providing in-person instruction, such flexibility and routes of access can be leveraged to provide maximal opportunities for learning, particularly for students with unique language-learning or disability-related needs.

In addition, while virtual modalities may make it more challenging for teachers to build relationships, such relationships continue to be critical. Strategies such as one-on-one conferences, personalized connections, and games, as mentioned by participants, can all offer ways to build strong connections with students across virtual or face-to-face platforms. In addition, technology such as video conferencing and real-time messaging can make it easier to support student learning by forging connections with families.

Participants referenced, in multiple ways and at multiple points, the potential of virtual learning for individualization and pedagogical flexibility. Such potential can be harnessed in face-to-face settings as well, where teachers can supplement effective and engaging

face-to-face instruction with personalized technology, individually selected activities, and opportunities for structured review with tools such as video recordings and web-based resources. Approaches that utilize the benefits of technology and virtual learning can be useful supplements for in-person learning, especially when thinking about providing out-of-school resources or tailored interventions. It may be useful for educators to consider ways to continue utilizing these features in their in-person classrooms as well.

The findings of this study illustrated the complex ways in which teacher trainees of MLs perceive the process of virtual instruction, its challenges and benefits, and their role as emerging professionals utilizing practices geared toward positive outcomes for students. Multiple participants emphasized the importance of personal connection and relationships in the virtual setting with their MLs, especially as a way to facilitate effective instruction and online classroom management. This aligns with findings from current research, including pre-COVID work by Borup et al. (2013) and Martin (2019) and preliminary post-COVID studies by Miller (2021), among others. These findings emphasized the importance of relationships in all settings, whether traditional or virtual, but also highlight the particular importance teacher trainees may place on relationships with their culturally or linguistically diverse families in a remote or virtual setting. Participants also spoke about the importance of culturally responsive and sensitive instruction, stressing the importance of engaging students and families in appropriate, linguistically accessible ways and maintaining students' engagement in the classroom setting. In this respect, participants evidenced awareness of some of the same concerns that surface in traditional face-to-face instruction, particularly for inexperienced teachers seeking to effectively support their multilingual learners.

#### *4.3. Limitations*

This study has several limitations. First, this study explores findings from a small group of participants and a relatively small set of data sources. While relatively small cohorts are not uncommon in qualitative research, it is important to keep in mind that they are not necessarily representative due to size. Similarly, this cohort of students represented a group of self-selected participants who had opted to take an online course focused on diverse learners, and therefore these participants may reflect a greater level of comfort with remote learning and teaching than the average teacher and, likewise, a greater investment in issues of language diversity, cultural diversity, and equity. Finally, this study utilized analysis of journal prompts and interviews, attempting to triangulate multiple sources to ensure greater depth and quality of data, but findings are limited to those easily conveyed in these formats. This study did not employ supplemental survey data, teaching observations, or analysis of participant performance to capture participants' knowledge, comfort with remote learning, use of effective strategies while teaching remotely, or general teaching ability. Because of these limitations, study findings are not necessarily generalizable to all populations of teacher trainees or even teacher trainees pursuing licensure in ESOL or multilingual teaching.

#### *4.4. Connections to Research*

It continues to appear that universally designed instruction for MLs is an area of focus for these participants, corroborating findings from prior research (both pre-COVID and post-COVID) (Flanagan and Morgan 2021; Basham et al. 2020). As participants considered their skill sets for providing instruction, they also reflected on their technological proficiency and available resources. The focus on technological resources (such as Wi-Fi or apps) may be an area for districts and systems to continue to explore with the goal of ensuring equal access for all populations, especially language learners.

#### *4.5. Conclusions*

This study identified patterns and themes in the perceptions of teacher trainees regarding remote learning for multilingual learners. Teacher trainees identified challenges and drawbacks in the implementation of remote learning, particularly for MLs. These

impacted student learning as well as ability to form relationships. At the same time, teacher trainees identified potential strategies and practices to improve student experiences in remote learning. These findings are relevant to the future preparation of teachers, who are increasingly expected to integrate technology and virtual learning experiences into teaching. They are relevant as well to the specific population of MLs, who may experience transition between educational settings, increased mobility, or educational interruptions and may benefit from remote or virtual learning opportunities in those contexts. Further exploration of these topics in research, particularly ways to support those training for certification or endorsement as English language teachers in building relationships with students and families, instructional strategies for engaging learners and families in virtual settings, and integration of UDL-based practices into virtual teaching, is warranted. These topics may be appropriate to consider in further research and may be useful to integrate into teacher education programs as well as professional development for future teachers of language learners. While teacher trainees of MLs typically cover technology and relationship-building in passing, if not in full courses, these topics may merit sustained and dedicated attention as they relate to the virtual teaching setting, particularly as the use of virtual and technology-assisted modalities continues to become more frequent. Likewise, concepts such as effective instruction, differentiation, and appropriate selection of strategies may be addressed as they relate to the needs of MLs in a technology-assisted or online environment as well as the more traditional face-to-face classroom.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, K.M.H., G.K. and P.R.D.; methodology, K.M.H. and G.K.; data collection, H.H., G.K. and P.R.D.; data analysis, P.R.D., H.H., K.M.H. and G.K.; resources: K.M.H. and G.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M.H. and P.R.D.; writing—review and editing, K.M.H., G.K., H.H. and P.R.D.; funding acquisition, P.R.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Acquisition under Grant NPD.2017.T36Z170189. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned within this manuscript is intended or should be inferred.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Towson University (Protocol Number: #1804034177; initial approval 13 June 2019; annual approval 6 May 2021).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to student privacy considerations.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors appreciatively acknowledge administrative support from Laura Cometa and Lacey Rupp in the preparation of this article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **References**

Altavilla, Jennifer. 2020. How Technology Affects Instruction for English Learners. *Phi Delta Kappan* 102: 18–23. [CrossRef]


Brinkmann, Svend, and Steinar Kvale. 2014. *Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing*, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Carwile, Julie. 2007. A Constructivist Approach to Online Teaching and Learning. *Inquiry* 12: 68–73.


Edyburn, Dave. 2005. Universal Design for Learning. *Special Education Technology Practice* 7: 16–22.


**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

### *Article* **The Impact of Teacher Education on English Teachers' Views about Using Mother Tongues: A Teachers' Perspective**

**Georgios Neokleous \* , Anna Krulatz \* and Yaqiong Xu \***

Department of Teacher Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway

**\*** Correspondence: georgios.neokleous@ntnu.no (G.N.); anna.m.krulatz@ntnu.no (A.K.); yaqiong.xu@ntnu.no (Y.X.)

**Abstract:** After decades of persistent dominance of monolingual approaches in language teaching, we are now witnessing a shift to pluralist pedagogical practices that recognize learners' mother tongues (MTs) as a valuable resource. This paper examines data from 44 questionnaire respondents and 4 interviewees to investigate teacher perspectives on using learners' MTs in the classroom and the extent to which teacher education shaped their beliefs. The results suggest that while most of the participants stressed the importance of maximizing target language (TL) use, some of them also recognized the value of employing MTs for specific purposes, such as anchoring new learning, providing grammar explanations and task instructions, decreasing student and teacher anxiety, sustaining motivation, and supporting learner identity. Most participants agreed that their teacher education program exerted some influence on their beliefs and practices, but their personal experiences as learners and teachers were also named as influential sources. The most notable change in views related to an increased use of the TL, which contradicts recent findings relative to the value of using learners' existing resources. The paper concludes by stressing the need to examine the curricula and objectives of teacher education programs in the light of the current research on multilingualism in education.

**Keywords:** teacher education; language teaching; English as an additional language; mother tongues; target language

#### **1. Introduction**

#### *1.1. Background and Research Questions*

English language classrooms around the world are becoming increasingly diverse and multilingual (Conteh and Meier 2014; Hammer et al. 2019; May 2013). Consequently, language teaching practices should enable multilingual students to draw on their previous knowledge and full linguistic repertoires (Flores and Aneja 2017; Lee and Levine 2020) as they are developing proficiency in English as an additional language (EAL). For many years, the integration of students' mother tongues (MTs) in EAL classrooms was perceived as a borderline incorrect teaching practice (Copland and Neokleous 2011; Hall and Cook 2012; Shin et al. 2020). Currently, however, there has been a pendulum shift towards multilingual and pluralist approaches which acknowledge optimal or judicious use of MTs as a valuable resource (García et al. 2017; Shin et al. 2020). Consequently, there is a need to re-examine EAL teachers' views about working with multilingual learners.

Teacher beliefs impact teachers' choice of pedagogical practices (Borg 2006), and teacher education programs constitute one of the factors that impact teacher beliefs and practices (Borg 2011; Phipps 2007). Increasing numbers of teacher education programs have modified their curricula to include topics, modules, and courses that focus on multilingualism and language teaching in multilingual contexts (Hammer et al. 2019). This paper aims to examine teachers' own perspectives on the role teacher education had in shaping their

**Citation:** Neokleous, Georgios, Anna Krulatz, and Yaqiong Xu. 2022. The Impact of Teacher Education on English Teachers' Views about Using Mother Tongues: A Teachers' Perspective. *Languages* 7: 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages7030196

Academic Editors: Juana M. Liceras and Raquel Fernández Fuertes

Received: 27 September 2021 Accepted: 21 July 2022 Published: 28 July 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

beliefs about pedagogical practices for teaching EAL in multilingual contexts. The study presented here addresses the following research questions:


#### *1.2. Terminology*

Before we proceed with a brief review of the literature, it is important to shed light on the terminology adopted in this paper. Several terms are used in the literature to delineate the language(s) people are exposed to from birth; namely, MT, first language, native language, home-language, own-language, heritage language, and even minority language. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they have been under scrutiny, with researchers highlighting the connotations associated with some of them (Hall and Cook 2012; Shin et al. 2020). Hall and Cook (2012) opted for the term own-language(s) to identify the language students speak best in lieu of first language, MT, and native language. As they elaborated, the terms first and native language might not represent classroom reality as the common shared language is often not the students' first and/or native language. Additionally, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish a student's first/native language when two or more additional languages are learned simultaneously. Furthermore, the term MT is believed to have emotive connotations although it is not necessarily a language spoken by a person's mother. The term first language is not necessarily used to illustrate the language students learn first but the first language out of the students' entire linguistic repertoire that first comes to their minds. The term heritage language is typically used to denote a language other than the dominant societal language to which speakers have some historical or personal connection, regardless of the level of proficiency (Valdés 2001). Heritage language may be preferred in lieu of minority language because of the latter's emotive charges. By definition, minority language, as opposed to the majority, is interpreted as the language that is spoken by a small group of people in a country. The term is problematic because as Viaut (2019) pointed out, it primarily centers on 'the territorialized legitimacy of a language' (p. 169). Eisenchlas and Schalley (2020) argued that none of these terms "appears to be able to capture the different dimensions encountered in research and practice" (p. 17). For this study, however, the term MT is used to portray the language that is most often employed by a family for their everyday interactions. In the context of the present project, this includes Norwegian and other languages which are spoken by families of immigrant backgrounds in Norway. However, no distinction is made between Norwegian and these other languages for the purpose of data collection and analysis. The term target language (TL) is used to indicate the language students learn in a classroom.

Norwegian English language teaching (ELT) classrooms are often perceived as EFL, but English has acquired a status that vacillates between EFL and ESL (Simensen 2005). English language is a mandatory subject for students for eleven years, beginning in grade 1, with its own curriculum that is separate from other foreign languages (e.g., German, Spanish) also taught in school. Although English does not have an official status in the country, it plays an important role in work and higher education, and its impact outside the classroom is ubiquitous. Therefore, it has been postulated that Norwegian ELT classrooms should be identified as ESL settings (Rindal 2014; Simensen 2005). However, to avoid the oscillation between the terms EFL and ESL, but also to illustrate the fact that Norwegian classrooms are becoming increasingly multilingual, in this paper, we have opted for the term EAL.

#### *1.3. Literature Review*

EAL instruction has primarily been conducted through the medium of the students' MT(s) in monolingual environments (i.e., classrooms with a shared common language) (Hall and Cook 2012; Shin et al. 2020). In these contexts, teachers have often adopted the grammar-translation method, which includes activities that rely on the direct translation from TL to the students' MT. However, the emergence of new teaching approaches that foregrounded interaction amongst students (e.g., Communicative Language Teaching, Richards 2006) placed a more prominent role on the use of the TL (Hall and Cook 2012; Shin et al. 2020). Krashen's (1985) input hypothesis that put forward that students should immerse themselves in an environment that makes exclusive use of the TL constituted a further incentive for EAL classrooms to shy away from the recourse to the MT (Hall and Cook 2012). The popularity of the input hypothesis, along with the application of the new communicative teaching methodologies, cemented the idea that an EAL classroom should rely on the use of the TL (Shin et al. 2020). This reliance was often interpreted and perceived as prohibiting the integration of the MT (Hall and Cook 2012; Shin et al. 2020). The exclusive role that the TL should serve in the EAL classroom was also evidenced in national curricula (e.g., The Curriculum Development Council 2004; Kim 2008) in countries such as South Korea and Hong Kong that prescribed exclusive usage of the TL.

Despite the assumption that an all-English approach constitutes the ideal conditions for language acquisition, research studies that ventured to explore the teacher and student perspective revealed that the MT held a prominent role in the EAL classroom (Izquierdo et al. 2016; Shin et al. 2020). The studies described classroom environments where the MT ranged from sporadic utterances to lessons conducted in their entirety in the MT. The MT fulfilled different purposes in the classroom. For example, it was used to exemplify grammar and introduce vocabulary (e.g., Nukuto 2017), while it was also employed on an affective level to strengthen the relationship between teacher and students (e.g., Tsagari and Diakou 2015). The most common classroom function that the MT served was to offer translations in the students' MT. While research revealed EAL teachers' trenchant critique on resorting to translations (e.g., Copland and Neokleous 2011), recent studies displayed the benefits this practice can exert on TL acquisition (Ahmed 2019; Duc Hoang 2021). Translating to the students' MT can assist in pinpointing the accurate meaning of newly introduced vocabulary but also complex grammatical structures.

Research studies that explored the student perspective revealed that students hold a positive stance towards the use of the MT in the EAL classroom, with the learners underlining the positive impact it could have on students' language development (Hlas 2016; Liu and Zeng 2015; Neokleous and Ofte 2020; Nukuto 2017). In fact, the participants in these studies acknowledged the value of using the MT in the EAL classroom as an important aid and tool that would assist in the clarification of complex TL concepts (Tian and Hennebry 2016). However, the EAL students in these studies also underlined the importance of exposure to the TL (Izquierdo et al. 2016; Neokleous 2017). For the students, the classroom constituted the possibility of practicing the language through interaction with their peers. While the MT could assist in ensuring comprehension of key parts of the lesson and contribute to TL acquisition, the student participants also cautioned about the possibility of MT overuse (Shin et al. 2020; Thompson and Harrison 2014). This concern was also echoed by EAL teachers in studies that attempted to unearth their perspectives (Copland and Neokleous 2011). As the authors elaborated, the teachers felt that making frequent recourse to the students' MT could potentially restrict them from seeking new opportunities to demonstrate their students' new grammar and vocabulary. Most significantly, they continued, the reliance on the MT could lead to students always expecting their teachers to provide the equivalent in the MT and restrict opportunities for students to unearth the meaning themselves.

Research has also revealed that students' grade level could also play a decisive role in the amount and frequency of MT used in the classroom (Moore 2013; Thompson and Harrison 2014). Advanced learners of English seemed to rely less on their own but also on their teachers' MT usage whereas younger learners not only made recourse to the MT more frequently, but they also expected and required their instructors to integrate it into the lesson (Lin and Yu 2015; Tsagari and Diakou 2015). Younger EAL learners described MT integration as a valuable and useful tool that helped them understand complex concepts and structures of the TL while it also enabled them to draw comparisons between the two languages, which is deemed as one of the greatest benefits of MT integration (Neokleous 2017).

However, studies exploring the teacher perspective revealed that teachers' attitudes toward MT integration are not always aligned with their students' beliefs on the topic (Hlas 2016; Neokleous et al. 2022; Nukuto 2017; Shin et al. 2020). While in most studies, the teacher participants acknowledged the benefits associated with MT use, particularly when dealing with grammar, they expressed their ambition to create classroom settings that offer maximum exposure to the TL. Most surprisingly, some of the studies identified displayed traces of guilt amongst teacher participants for resorting to the students' MT to illustrate or answer questions (Copland and Neokleous 2011; Neokleous and Ofte 2020). This tendency was often ascribed to the unpreparedness of the teachers to work in multilingual classrooms. For instance, Krulatz and Dahl's (2016) study revealed teachers' desire to undergo additional training with only 62% of the participants claiming satisfactory preparedness. More recently, Lorenz et al.'s (2021) study conducted in Norwegian classrooms highlighted the challenge that the increasing number of multilingual students presents and the need for practical applications to be considered during teacher training.

Along with students highlighting the benefits associated with MT integration, the current multilingual and multicultural nature of EAL classrooms further underscores the pivotal role the students' MTs could play (García and Lin 2018; Otheguy et al. 2018; Wei 2018). Researchers reevaluated MT integration and asserted that EAL instructors should aspire toward judicious or optimal MT use as it is believed to facilitate TL acquisition. While the definition of optimal use of the MT remains vague, Shin et al. (2020) stressed that "the amount of L1 use should be judged by its purpose, content, and task styles when considering how to support L2 learning" (p. 414). However, the presence of a range of MTs in the classroom contributed to the development of pedagogical strategies that embrace the students' entire linguistic repertoire as a useful tool and resource in optimizing the TL learning experience. The pedagogical strategy of translanguaging, defined as the students' ability to make use of their entire linguistic repertoires as one single unit without adherence to the conventional boundaries of named languages (Wei 2018), transfers into the classroom the dynamic and fluid languaging practices of bi/multilingual children. Wei (2018) argued that the practice of translanguaging "emphasizes the interconnectedness between traditionally and conventionally understood languages" (p. 23) and enhances the notion of identity amongst bi/multilingual children. EAL instructors are encouraged to adopt translanguaging and implement it in their classrooms. However, research also points out that teachers should be adequately trained to develop a deeper understanding of the concept of translanguaging and how it can be effectively and efficiently used in the multilingual classroom.

It needs to be acknowledged, however, that classroom practices are closely associated with teacher beliefs about learners, learning, and teaching (Borg 2006; Raths and McAninch 2003). Teacher beliefs are influenced by a range of factors, of which, knowledge obtained through teacher education is just one of them (Raths and McAninch 2003). Other sources of influence include teachers' own experiences as learners (Lortie 1975), local and national curricula, and teaching experience (Borg 2006, 2011; Phillips and Borg 2009). Additionally, teacher beliefs about language learning and teaching are impacted by the dominant language ideologies and the perceived values of learners' MTs (Barcelos 2003; Fitch 2003). Research has shown that in cases where novel ideas and interventions were introduced, teachers were unlikely to adopt them if these clashed with what they were taught during their training (Raths and McAninch 2003). Taken together, in the context of language education, teacher beliefs and experiences lead to the construction of teacher ideologies, defined

by Blackledge (2008, p. 29) as "the values, practices, and beliefs associated with language use by speakers, and the discourse that constructs values and beliefs at state, institutional, national and global levels". The specific impact of teacher education on teacher ideologies is not well understood, and the present paper aims to address this gap.

#### **2. Context, Materials, and Methods**

This study was conducted with Norwegian EAL teachers. In Norway, English is taught as an additional language from Grade 1 and is obligatory for eleven years. For students whose MT is Norwegian, English is their second language, although these students may have been exposed to other languages such as Swedish and Danish outside of school, for example, on television. For immigrant students, whose numbers have been gradually increasing over the last few decades, English may be their third or even fourth language. They speak languages other than Norwegian at home and they learn Norwegian as a second language (NSL) at school.

This study utilized a questionnaire and an interview as data collection methods. The participants were selected via convenience sampling using respondents that were enrolled at a Norwegian institution either for pre- or in-service teacher training. Fortyfour Norwegian EAL teachers responded to the questionnaire.<sup>1</sup> There were 10 males and 34 females. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 54, and their teaching experience ranged from 0 to 15+ years. Participation was voluntary and no sensitive participant data were collected. While the study aimed to sample teachers of various ages and in different stages of experience (pre- and in-service), the sample size was insufficient to undertake any group comparisons. The study acknowledges that the sample might not be representative of the EAL teacher population in Norway. However, the results might potentially be relevant and applicable to similar educational contexts. Table 1 summarizes the background information about the questionnaire participants.


**Table 1.** Questionnaire participant background information (*N* = 44).

The participants completed a paper-based questionnaire that examined their perspectives on using MTs in the EAL classroom and views relative to the extent to which teacher education shaped their beliefs. The questionnaire consisted of 22 open-ended questions, and the responses to 10 questions were examined to answer the research questions in this paper. The questions included in the analysis asked the participants to provide information about their beliefs and practices relative to the use of MT and TL in the classroom, about the impact of their teacher education on these beliefs and practices, and about their assessment of the usefulness of their teacher education relative to teaching EAL in multilingual contexts.

In addition, four teachers who did not complete the questionnaire were interviewed to obtain more in-depth responses to the research questions. The participants were asked to state their beliefs about teaching in a multilingual setting and to describe any experiences that significantly influenced these beliefs. They were also asked whether they use learners' MTs when teaching and in what ways. The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, and the relevant excerpts were transcribed. The background information about the four teachers is presented in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Interview participant background information (*N* = 4).

The questionnaire and interview data were analyzed qualitatively using QSR International's NVivo 12 analytical software, adhering to the principles of qualitative content analysis (Frey 2018). Three major themes were established deductively based on the research questions: (1) teacher beliefs about the role of MT; (2) the impact of teacher education on beliefs; and (3) the perceived usefulness of teacher education. Both the questionnaire and the interview data underwent a thematic, inductive analysis, during which specific codes emerged under each of the three pre-established categories. After the first round of coding, the codes were checked and grouped together under sub-themes (Table 3).

**Table 3.** The coding categories for theme (1) teacher beliefs about the role of MT.



#### **Table 3.** *Cont.*

#### **3. Results**

The following three sections report the findings from the analysis of the questionnaire and interview data to address the three research questions. We first present the central themes that emerged from questionnaire data and then move to interviews to provide in-depth understandings relative to teacher beliefs about the role of MT, the perceived usefulness of teacher education, and the perceived impact of teacher education on those beliefs. We end each section by illustrating the general trends by giving extensive examples and vignettes taken untouched from the data.

#### *3.1. Teachers' Beliefs about the Role of MT in the EAL Classroom*

The first research question aimed to examine the teachers' beliefs about the role of MT when teaching EAL. In their responses to the open-ended questions in the questionnaire, the participants provided information relative to both their beliefs about the amount of MT used and the functions they believed that the MT can fulfill in the EAL classroom. By far, the majority of the participants believed that they needed to maximize the use of the TL. In fact, there were 96 references pertaining to the importance of maximizing the TL input in the data. Some of the teachers reported on their actual pedagogical practices. For example:


Other respondents, however, referred to their goals and ambitions or gave recommendations, as illustrated in the excerpts below:


• *It's better to only speak English* (T35).

The next prominent trend in the data pertained to minimizing the use of the MT. One of the prevalent themes was a concern that allowing MT use in the classroom deprives learners of opportunities to develop their skills in the TL. The following vignettes illustrate this finding:


The interview participants also acknowledged their preference for maximizing TL use and minimizing MT use when working with multilingual learners. While one teacher believed that the TL could create a common cultural space within which learners could interact with no need to switch back and forth between TL and MT, three of the four interviewees attributed their lack of use of students' MTs to their own low or entirely lacking proficiency in students' MTs. These teachers believed that being able to understand or at least having some knowledge of students' MTs was the precondition to using MTs in the EAL classroom. The following statements illustrate such beliefs:


Nevertheless, the questionnaire data suggested that some of the teachers felt that the MT could be used to the learners' benefit in the classroom and recommended that the use of the MT and the TL should be balanced, as illustrated in the following comments:


There was a total of 89 mentions of some use or role of the MT in the questionnaire data. Of these, 15 teachers acknowledged that the MT constituted a valuable resource and should be activated as a steppingstone to new learning, as in the examples below:


For seven of the teachers, it was also important to draw comparisons between the MT and the TL, for instance:


Other MT functions mentioned in the questionnaire data included introducing new words (e.g., *It might be necessary to explain some words or expressions in the mother tongue*), providing grammar explanations (e.g., *I think it's necessary when you have to explain difficult grammar*), giving instructions (e.g., *I sometimes find it necessary to use the mother tongue in order to ensure that all students understand instructions*), increasing student understanding (e.g., *I think it's important to use the mother tongue if the students need clarification or if they don't understand what is being said*), increasing motivation (e.g., *Using mother tongue is motivating*), decreasing student anxiety (e.g., *Some students get scared if they are not allowed to use their mother tongue*), and decreasing teacher anxiety (e.g., *Teachers should feel comfortable in the teacher role and speak English when they feel ready for it*). Finally, eight of the respondents believed that it was necessary to use MT with young learners, whose English proficiency is not very advanced (e.g., *First graders would need more translation to understand than tenth graders*).

The interview material gave further insights into the specific benefits the teachers associated with the use of the MT and the functions the MT can serve in the classroom. T1 explained that it was of crucial importance for learners to understand the teacher and thus recommended that both the TL and MTs could be utilized. T47 referred to this combined use of MT and TL as a negotiation between her own beliefs about the best pedagogical practices and the recommendations of the national educational policy:

• *Here in Norway, I think they're focusing so much on multilingualism. The Norwegian schools they consider and see that the use of mother tongue will help their child to understand and learn the Norwegian language* . . . *As a teacher, I think it's a little bit challenging. But as I said before, it depends maybe on that country and how the country looks into the multilingualism* . . . *In Norway, they give that importance.*

T46 perceived knowledge of additional languages as a clear benefit to students and stated that she helped her students draw comparisons between the TL and their MTs. However, she pointed out that it was easier to practice such a multilingual pedagogy when teaching NSL to immigrant students that newly arrived in Norway rather than in her mixed EAL classrooms, as illustrated in the following statements:


It is worthwhile mentioning that T48 highlighted the function of MT as an identity marker, which seemed to be overlooked by the questionnaire participants, although it was linked to decreasing student anxiety, which was featured in questionnaire responses. By emphasizing the inseparable relationship between language and identity, T48 endorsed the importance and value of using MTs to create an inclusive and safe space that could facilitate students' EAL learning. The following statement illustrates her advocacy for using MTs:

• *As I've learned in my teacher education and have experienced that language and identity are closely connected, so it's important to value the diversity and the language that students know, except for Norwegian, and that they can be just as important in the classroom. Because when we value these differences, students do learn better.*

When asked about the challenge of practicing multilingual approaches in EAL classrooms, T48 acknowledged such difficulties by saying "it's hard when you don't speak their languages, but there are ways of doing it". The teacher gave examples of practices she employed in her teaching such as writing identity texts, role playing, and relating new linguistic knowledge to previous knowledge in MT. She asserted that:

• *It's not like you have to engage in a whole big conversation, but as long as you know these little things, just to acknowledge that, I [as a teacher] know that you [the students] know more than me, or that you know more than just Norwegian.*

#### *3.2. The Perceived Usefulness of Teacher Education*

The second research question asked whether teachers feel that their teacher education has prepared them for teaching EAL in a multilingual classroom. Specifically, the teachers commented on whether teacher education helped them reevaluate their pedagogical approaches with respect to the use of MT in the EAL classroom. The data pertaining to this research question were coded as "Yes", "Somewhat", "No", "Other", and "No answer". The results are visualized in Figure 1 below.

• *I've always known that is good for children to learn a lot of languages, because then they will have a lot of language knowledge in various languages. And, yeah, it's a good principle, and* 

• *As I've learned in my teacher education and have experienced that language and identity are closely connected, so it's important to value the diversity and the language that students know, except for Norwegian, and that they can be just as important in the classroom. Because* 

When asked about the challenge of practicing multilingual approaches in EAL classrooms, T48 acknowledged such difficulties by saying "it's hard when you don't speak their languages, but there are ways of doing it". The teacher gave examples of practices she employed in her teaching such as writing identity texts, role playing, and relating new

• *It's not like you have to engage in a whole big conversation, but as long as you know these little things, just to acknowledge that, I [as a teacher] know that you [the students] know more* 

The second research question asked whether teachers feel that their teacher education has prepared them for teaching EAL in a multilingual classroom. Specifically, the teachers commented on whether teacher education helped them reevaluate their pedagogical approaches with respect to the use of MT in the EAL classroom. The data pertaining to this research question were coded as "Yes", "Somewhat", "No", "Other", and "No

It is worthwhile mentioning that T48 highlighted the function of MT as an identity marker, which seemed to be overlooked by the questionnaire participants, although it was linked to decreasing student anxiety, which was featured in questionnaire responses. By emphasizing the inseparable relationship between language and identity, T48 endorsed the importance and value of using MTs to create an inclusive and safe space that could facilitate students' EAL learning. The following statement illustrates her advocacy for

*for to remember the words, it's a strength if you know a lot of languages.* 

*when we value these differences, students do learn better.* 

*than me, or that you know more than just Norwegian.* 

*3.2. The Perceived Usefulness of Teacher Education* 

answer". The results are visualized in Figure 1 below.

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

linguistic knowledge to previous knowledge in MT. She asserted that:

using MTs:

**Figure 1.** Teacher assessment of the usefulness of their teacher education relative to the use of MT in the EAL classroom (*N* = 44). **Figure 1.** Teacher assessment of the usefulness of their teacher education relative to the use of MT in the EAL classroom (*N* = 44).

As can be seen, nearly half of the questionnaire respondents (*N* = 21) stated that their teacher education program prepared them for teaching EAL to multilingual learners, while five teachers found it somewhat useful, and ten did not find it useful at all. Two respondents provided other answers that suggested they did not understand the question, while six teachers left the space blank. As can be seen, nearly half of the questionnaire respondents (*N* = 21) stated that their teacher education program prepared them for teaching EAL to multilingual learners, while five teachers found it somewhat useful, and ten did not find it useful at all. Two respondents provided other answers that suggested they did not understand the question, while six teachers left the space blank.

Finally, the questionnaire participants were asked if the role of the MT was explicitly discussed in their teacher education program and if so, what specifically were they taught. The responses were divided into the following categories: "Instructed to use TL", "Instructed to use MT", "Instructed to reduce MT", "No such instruction", "No EAL endorsement", "Other", and "No answer". Figure 2 summarizes these findings. Finally, the questionnaire participants were asked if the role of the MT was explicitly discussed in their teacher education program and if so, what specifically were they taught. The responses were divided into the following categories: "Instructed to use TL", "Instructed to use MT", "Instructed to reduce MT", "No such instruction", "No EAL endorsement", "Other", and "No answer". Figure 2 summarizes these findings.

**Figure 2.** Explicit coverage of the role of MT in teacher education (*N* = 44). **Figure 2.** Explicit coverage of the role of MT in teacher education (*N* = 44).

Most of the participants (*N* = 19) admitted that they did not receive explicit instruction relative to the pedagogical functions of MT, while nine participants reported that they learned to maximize TL use, and four recalled being instructed to reduce the Most of the participants (*N* = 19) admitted that they did not receive explicit instruction relative to the pedagogical functions of MT, while nine participants reported that they learned to maximize TL use, and four recalled being instructed to reduce the amount of

amount of MT. Only two teachers stated that they were instructed to use the MT. Two answers were placed in the category "other". These included a teacher who recalled

The third research question examined to what extent the participating teachers base their teaching practices on the knowledge acquired through teacher education and what the teachers think about the impact of teacher education on their views about the role of the students' MTs in the teaching and learning of EAL. In total, 15 of the 44 participants indicated that what they had learned in their teacher education program impacts their pedagogical choices to some degree, with 6 asserting that the knowledge and skills obtained through formal education were very useful. The overall trend can be exemplified

• *The experience I have from teacher training is something I bring with me to my own class as* 

• *I base a lot of my teaching on knowledge acquired in teacher training because everything I've* 

• *I have learned so much! I love to try it out in my classes* (T3)*.* 

*learned is helpful and meaningful* (T44)*.* 

*I have seen a lot of things that work and things that don't work* (T28)*.* 

*3.3. The Impact of Teacher Education on Teachers' Beliefs* 

recall exactly what they had been taught.

by the following vignettes:

MT. Only two teachers stated that they were instructed to use the MT. Two answers were placed in the category "other". These included a teacher who recalled learning about both the advantages and disadvantages of employing MT and about how to balance the use of different linguistic resources and another teacher who could not recall exactly what they had been taught.

#### *3.3. The Impact of Teacher Education on Teachers' Beliefs*

The third research question examined to what extent the participating teachers base their teaching practices on the knowledge acquired through teacher education and what the teachers think about the impact of teacher education on their views about the role of the students' MTs in the teaching and learning of EAL. In total, 15 of the 44 participants indicated that what they had learned in their teacher education program impacts their pedagogical choices to some degree, with 6 asserting that the knowledge and skills obtained through formal education were very useful. The overall trend can be exemplified by the following vignettes:


Two of the interview participants (T46 and T48) also credited their teacher education and training for having triggered their transformation from employing TL only to using MTs, as illustrated in the following statements:


Only two of the questionnaire participants explicitly stated that what they had learned through teacher education bore no relevance to their current classroom teaching:


This perception was echoed in the interview data by T45, who stated:

• *I don't actively learn anything really, in kind of very passive way of learning* . . .

The next large source of impact on pedagogical practice, however, was the teachers' own experiences in the classroom as well as experiences as language learners. Sixteen interview participants indicated that this was the case, as illustrated in the examples below:


The influence of teachers' previous language learning experiences on their current teaching was elaborated by all the four interview participants:

• *I don't think school has helped me very much with learning the languages and this is something in one way at least it has influenced my teaching practices in this sense that I would very much prefer my students to be able to hold a conversation in English and make themselves understood* . . . *I think my style of teaching is a very personal one. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to be a theoretical standing in front of the blackboard writing on the blackboard teacher* . . . *especially in English, it's more important to be able to use the language in a constructive manner than it is to learn the grammar* (T45).


Nine of the questionnaire participants acknowledged that in their pedagogical practices, they drew on both the knowledge obtained through teacher education and the teaching experience they accumulated in the classroom. The following examples illustrate this trend:


Other sources of impact on teaching practices mentioned in the responses to the questionnaire included ideas from colleagues, inspiration from professional groups on social media, and teacher companion guides to textbooks. In the interviews, while T47 acknowledged the influence of the multilingualism-focused policy on her use of students' MTs, the other three teachers believed that it was important to consider the classroom reality, including the number of minority students, these students' proficiency in the TL, and students' attitudes towards their own MTs.

By far, the most prominent influence of teacher education pertained to the increased use of the TL. Twenty-three teachers commented in their questionnaire responses that they aimed to maximize their own and their student's use of the TL because of what they had been taught in their program, as can be seen in the following comments:


However, 11 of the questionnaire participants stated that they had not experienced any change in their beliefs about the amount of MT that should be used in the EAL classroom. In fact, about half (*n* = 5) of these teachers reported that their beliefs about the importance of TL use were reinforced through participation in teacher education courses. The following vignettes illustrate this theme:


Other changes relative to the beliefs about the use of the TL and MT that the questionnaire participants ascribed to teacher education included increased MT use, balanced use of TL and MT, more reflective teaching, using task-based instruction to model and encourage TL use, and the importance of paying closer attention to giving clear instructions.

#### **4. Discussion**

Rooted in the tradition of studies that investigated language teacher attitudes to the use of the MT in the classroom, the present study set out to examine EAL teacher attitudes about the use of learners' MT in the EAL classroom. Further, the study sought to explore whether their teacher education had prepared them for teaching EAL in the multilingual classroom and whether it had had an impact on their views about the role of the MT in the teaching and learning of EAL.

The study participants acknowledged the benefits associated with the integration of the MT in the EAL classroom. The main argument they put forward relied on the ability of the MT to ensure and deepen student understanding, particularly when they were required to introduce new vocabulary and complex grammar points. In such cases, the teachers were also in favor of making comparisons between the TL and the MT. These findings were also in sync with previous studies that explored teacher and student perspectives on MT use (Hlas 2016; Neokleous 2017; Nukuto 2017; Shin et al. 2020). Current research embraces and actively encourages teachers to make use of the students' entire linguistic repertoires (e.g., Singleton and Aronin 2019; García et al. 2017; García and Kleyn 2016). This finding was corroborated by the interview data in the present study, as most of the participants attributed greater importance to maximizing TL use and minimizing MT use in the EAL classroom. In fact, they reported a preferred minimized MT usage when working with multilingual learners, which is in contrast with current research on multilingualism that promotes a classroom environment that is appreciative and inclusive of students' linguistic repertoires (Krulatz et al. 2022; Singleton and Aronin 2019; Shin et al. 2020).

This preference for an increased use of the TL was also echoed in other studies conducted in Norwegian contexts. For instance, Vikøy and Haukås's (2021) study disclosed that most of the Norwegian teacher participants perceived students' multilingualism as a problem and thus rarely utilized students' MTs as a resource. In addition, this negative view of the learners' MTs was reflected by actual language use in Norwegian EAL classrooms. Similarly, Brevik and Rindal's (2020) study revealed that languages other than the TL (English) and the language of instruction (Norwegian) were not employed in the classroom due to the dominance of these two languages in the academic domain and the society at large. Despite recent research encouraging multilingual approaches to EAL teaching, similar attitudes have also been reported in many classrooms around the globe with teachers still striving to implement English-only policies (Pennycook 2017). However, more recently, Neokleous and Ofte's (2020) study in Norwegian EAL classrooms acknowledged teacher awareness of the benefits that may be derived from MT use, although their participants also expressed feelings of guilt for resorting to the MT in their lessons. As evidenced by research conducted in Norwegian EAL settings, the stigma associated with MT integration still seems to prevail among teachers. The pivotal role that students' linguistic repertoires can have in enhancing TL acquisition has not been successfully communicated to teachers. For this reason, it is important that teacher-training programs focus more extensively on the ways in which the students' MT can be integrated into linguistically diverse classrooms.

Nevertheless, some of the teachers (*n* = 9) in the present study stated that a balanced use of the TL and MT can be beneficial for learners. These teachers felt that the MT can be employed as a steppingstone to learning the TL (for example, via pointing out similarities and differences between MTs and the TL), or as a resource that improves student understanding, minimizes anxiety, and increases motivation. Thus, the teachers showed some evidence of their conceptualization of MT use as potentially beneficial to students in line with current research conducted in EAL classrooms around the globe (Hlas 2016; Krulatz et al. 2022; Naka 2018; Singleton and Aronin 2019; Shin et al. 2020;

Tonio and Ella 2019). However, future research should aim to shed additional light on how EAL teachers could cater to the needs of students in Norwegian classrooms who are speaking increasingly diversified MTs. As classrooms in Norway are becoming increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse, most of the practices observed might not be in line with what multilingual approaches to teaching, such as translanguaging, recommend. Because both of our in- but also pre-service teacher participants have not yet been introduced to similar concepts and the pivotal role the students' MTs could play in optimizing the learning experience, it might explain the hesitance about employing the MT in their lessons.

Relative to the second research question, even though almost half of the questionnaire participants (*n* = 19) stated that they did not receive any explicit instruction on the role of MTs in a multilingual EAL classroom, and further 13 were instructed to either maximize the use of TL or minimize the use of MT, nearly a half of the respondents (*n* = 26) indicated that what they learned in their teacher education program was useful or somewhat useful relative to the use of MT. This suggests that, even in courses where the use of MT is not directly addressed, some other information may be provided to pre- and in-service teachers that helps them draw conclusions about how to balance the TL and the MT for optimal instruction. These results point to the effectiveness of teacher education in changing teachers' beliefs about the usefulness of MTs. However, they also confirm the persistence of monolingual-oriented approaches such as the TL-only policy which has tended to dominate educational contexts. Research has shown that teachers report an urgent need for additional training (Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Faez and Valeo 2012) and that the lack of instruction as to the pivotal role the MT can play in increasingly multilingual classrooms may further cultivate and promote pedagogical practices that rely on the monolingual bias with student teachers reporting a reluctance to use languages other than the TL (Portolés and Martí 2020). The importance of training on shaping student teacher beliefs about an optimized learning environment was also highlighted in recent studies conducted by Alisaari et al. (2019) and Portolés and Martí's (2020).

The most important finding relative to the third research question was that more than half of the participants (*n* = 25) admitted that their teacher education program exerted some impact on their beliefs and pedagogical practices, with two teachers asserting that their teacher education enabled their transformation from TL-only approaches to employing MTs as a resource in the classroom. However, we are unable to pinpoint the exact impact teacher education could have on teacher beliefs about their attitudes and practices relative to MT use. Several previous studies revealed the influence the teacher training period can exert on student teachers (e.g., Cabaroglu and Roberts 2000; Debreli 2012). However, research has also concluded that the pre-existing set of beliefs of student teachers could remain unchanged (e.g., Abasifar and Fotovatnia 2015; Karavas and Drossou 2010; Peacock 2001). The participants in the present study identified their individual experiences as language learners, their teaching experience in the classroom, and inspiration from colleagues, social media groups, and teacher companion guides as other important sources of their pedagogical beliefs and knowledge.

As it transpires from recent studies unearthing the teacher perspective in increasingly multilingual settings, the pedagogies encouraged to be adopted in EAL education aim to not only promote foreign language acquisition but also enhance learners' competence in other languages they know (Krulatz et al. 2022; Singleton and Aronin 2019; Shin et al. 2020). Yet, despite the paradigm shift towards adopting multilingual pedagogies in the classroom, in EAL settings where teachers did not undergo training on multilingual pedagogies, EAL teachers are still reluctant to fully embrace such an approach (Krulatz et al. 2022; Vikøy and Haukås 2021). Evidently, the challenges teachers are facing in the new multilingual and multicultural norm are met with the relatively stable nature of educational frames and policies. Even in teacher education programs that aspire to train prospective teachers to teach two or more languages, the recommended practices often continue to abide by a strict separation of languages. Although an increasing number of teacher education programs include instructional approaches and strategies that treat and assess students' linguistic

repertoire as a valuable tool, the universal acceptance of multilingual approaches as the norm is still a distant reality. Along with previous research unearthing teacher attitudes, the present study also pinpointed the pivotal role that EAL teachers' training can play in the strategies and approaches they adopt in their lessons and can further cement the path towards the integration of multilingual and multicultural teaching. For this reason, it is useful for teacher training programs to foster teachers' understanding of their key role as agents of change for a successful and efficient multilingual turn in language education.

#### **5. Conclusions**

With EAL classroom settings becoming increasingly multilingual, this study attempted to unearth the impact of teacher education on EAL teachers' perspectives on using learners' MTs. While some teachers acknowledged the importance of catering to their students' needs and the ensuing advantages of employing the MT, most of the participants stressed the objective of abiding by an English-only approach. Some of the participants associated the use of the MT in the classroom with reduced opportunities to enhance TL acquisition. Acknowledging the impact of teacher education programs on teachers' pedagogical practices, data from the participants revealed a lack of training on the positive role of the MT in the EAL classroom.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this project. First, as the number of participants was limited, it was impossible to examine the relationship between the participants' age and their length of teaching experience and their views about the use of MT in the EAL classroom. Future studies should examine this issue. In total, 18 of the 44 participants were aged 18–25 and enrolled in pre-service teacher education. As some of these participants were in the early stages of their teacher training, it is possible that they had not taken relevant courses that tackle the question of MT use at the time of the study and that such courses are offered at some later stage of their respective programs. Additionally, as our definition of MT encompassed both Norwegian and other languages, we are unable to provide any insights into whether teachers view Norwegian and other languages differently. Finally, as we did not collect information about the languages spoken by the participants, we are unable to comment on the extent to which teachers' potential competencies in students' MTs impacted their ability and willingness to allow and employ these languages in the classroom.

Undisputedly, continued work is needed on this topic and particularly in increasingly multilingual and multicultural nations, such as Norway. The findings of this study have indicated that multilingualism would be one of the issues that Norwegian EAL classrooms will have to address as it is increasingly becoming the norm. The emergence of linguistically diverse classrooms demands cautious planning and competent teachers who optimize the learning experience of the students.

For this reason, teacher-training programs should re-assess their objectives and prioritize EAL pre-service teacher preparedness to work with multilingual students. Similarly, in-service teachers should undergo additional training that would strengthen their awareness of the catalyst role the use of the student MT can play in optimizing learning. What is also pivotal is for teachers to comprehend that each classroom is unique and there is no perfect or "one size fits all" approach. It is precisely for this reason that teachers should conduct individual action research projects that would help them shed additional light on the classroom practices and purposes their students' MTs can serve in the classroom. Further, comparing and contrasting the results of these projects along with collaborative research conducted internationally would help paint a more adequate picture of the preferred MT practices. As a result, such projects could contribute to the alleviation of any negative attitudes that surround MT use so that language learning can become not only more inclusive and flexible but also more effective.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.K. and G.N.; methodology, A.K., G.N. and Y.X.; data analysis, A.K. and Y.X.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K., G.N. and Y.X.; writing—review and editing, A.K., G.N. and Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for the questionnaire data in this study due to the age and full anonymity of the participants (no names, IP addresses, or contact information were stored at any point during the study). Ethical approval was obtained from the Norwegian Center for Research Data to collect the interview data (Report form 202376; date of approval 20 November 2020).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Note**

<sup>1</sup> These participants received IDs 1–44. Interview participants' IDs were 45–48.

#### **References**


Brevik, Lisbeth M., and Ulrikke Rindal. 2020. Language use in the classroom: Balancing target language exposure with the need for other languages. *TESOL Quarterly* 54: 925–53. [CrossRef]


Duc Hoang, Doan. 2021. Learners' Perspectives on the Benefits of Authentic Materials in Learning Vietnamese-English and English-Vietnamese Translation. In *ICDEL 2021: 2021 the 6th International Conference on Distance Education and Learning*. Edited by Mario Barajas Frutos and Rui Zhang. New York City: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 266–70. [CrossRef]


Hammer, Svenja, Kara Mitchell Viesca, and Nancy L. Commins, eds. 2019. *Teaching Content and Language in the Multilingual Classroom: International Research on Policy, Perspectives, Preparation and Practice*. New York: Routledge.


Krashen, Stephen D. 1985. *The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications*. New York City: Longman.


Pennycook, Alastair. 2017. Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. *International Journal of Multilingualism* 14: 269–82. [CrossRef]

Phillips, Simon, and Simon Borg. 2009. Exploring tensions between teachers' grammar teaching beliefs and practices. *System* 27: 380–90. [CrossRef]

Phipps, Shelley. 2007. What difference does DELTA make? *Research Notes* 29: 12–16.


Richards, Jack C. 2006. *Communicative Language Teaching Today*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rindal, Ulrikke. 2014. What is English? *Acta Didactica Norge* 8: 14. [CrossRef]


Singleton, David, and Larissa Aronin, eds. 2019. *Twelve Lectures on Multilingualism*. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.


Wei, Li. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. *Applied Linguistics* 39: 9–30. [CrossRef]

### *Article* **Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway: Trajectories in Transition?**

**Theresé Tishakov \* and Dina Tsagari**

Department of Primary and Secondary Teacher Education, OsloMet—Oslo Metropolitan University, 0130 Oslo, Norway; dintsa@oslomet.no

**\*** Correspondence: themat@oslomet.no

**Abstract:** Language teachers struggle to shift from monolingual ideologies and pedagogical practices, as advocated for in the promotion of multilingualism and inclusive pedagogy. Additionally, the role of English as a multilingua franca pushes English teachers to rethink their beliefs about the language and its use. Even when positive about multilingualism, teachers are often uncertain of how to address the complexities of multilingual ideals due to varying contextual factors and a lack of practical knowledge and skills. This study reports on English teachers' (*N* = 110) language beliefs and self-reported practices in linguistically diverse classrooms in Norway based on an online survey. We applied factor analysis to investigate if any demographic factors influenced the results. A complexity paradox emerged in which the teachers' acceptance of multilingual ideals was contradicted by their beliefs and teaching practices, which reflected monolingual ideologies. Teacher age, learner age group, and teacher gender were important factors in the respondents' beliefs. The discussion suggests why various factors may influence teachers and explores the complexity of their multifaceted ecologies. We conclude with recommendations for practitioners and researchers.

**Keywords:** language beliefs; teacher beliefs; language teacher cognition; multilingualism; English as a lingua franca; online survey

#### **1. Introduction**

To capitalize on the richness of the multilingual and multicultural communities that are expanding in many regions of the world and to promote inclusiveness, many societies position multilingualism as a goal. In particular, schoolchildren are tasked with gaining multilingual competence through the acquisition of several languages. Still, researchers often debate the cognitive, social, and economic benefits of multilingualism, including building equity and promoting social justice (Berthele 2021; Beisbart 2021; Bialystok 2016; Jessner 1999, 2008; Cenoz 2003). Research and policy have encouraged and promoted the local adaptation of inclusive multilingual pedagogy as beneficial for individuals and society (European Commission 2017, 2018a; Cenoz and Gorter 2022; Rokita-Ja´skow and Wolanin 2021; Chumak-Horbatsch 2019; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018). Yet, teachers still struggle to enact multilingual ideals in schools due to varying contextual factors, the need for increased knowledge and skills, and a lack of teaching and assessment tools that position multilingualism as a resource (Alisaari et al. 2019; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al. 2020; Bayyurt et al. 2019; Erling and Moore 2021). The *multilingual turn* (May 2013) described in Western applied linguistics discourse questions monolingual views of language, pushing against long-standing monolingual and monoglossic ideologies in society and education. Fluid and dynamic views on language and communication have emerged as a result (Berthele 2021; García and Wei 2014), and there are calls for 21st-century skills and education experts who can adapt to the challenges of an evolving and complex future (Bransford et al. 2005). Furthermore, scholars have discussed new perspectives on the English language due to the expansive use of English as a multilingua franca (ELF; Jenkins 2015). ELF

**Citation:** Tishakov, Theresé, and Dina Tsagari. 2022. Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway: Trajectories in Transition? *Languages* 7: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages7020141

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 16 November 2021 Accepted: 23 May 2022 Published: 1 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

is an inherently multilingual means of communication involving people from different linguacultural backgrounds, each with unique multilingual language repertoires (Cogo et al. 2022; Seidlhofer 2018; Mauranen 2018; Jenkins 2017). Still, the teaching of English continues to be dominated by the ideals of the past, monolingual ideologies, and colonial perspectives of nation-states (García et al. 2021; García 2019). Learning objectives, teaching materials, and assessment protocols also typically position the "native speaker" as the measuring stick of English proficiency and success (Douglas Fir Group 2016; Sifakis 2017).

#### *1.1. Multilingualism*

*Multilingualism* is defined as "the acquisition and use of two or more languages"(Aronin and Singleton 2008, p. 2). Studied in many fields, including linguistics, socio- and psycholinguistics, and education, multilingualism can be addressed from two perspectives: that of the individual, or one's ability to use languages, and that of society, or how languages are used within and across societal groups. Defining language, explaining how language is housed in the mind, and what boundaries separate languages (if any) are centrally debated matters in this field (see Berthele 2021 for an overview). Scholars have put forth many terms to describe the varying conceptualizations of multilingualism and multilingual communication, including plurilingualism (Council of Europe 2001), metrolingualism (Otsuji and Pennycook 2009), languaging (Jørgensen 2008), heteroglossia (Bailey 2007), and translanguaging (García and Wei 2014). Atomistic stances conceptualize languages as discrete, separate entities and multilingualism as additive (e.g., L1 + L2 + L3). In turn, holistic views conceptualize individuals' complete linguistic repertoire as a qualitatively unique whole. They describe language as a repertoire of codes and resources that influence one another, intersect, and gain meaning through negotiated social practices (García 2009). This includes complex dynamic systems theorists, who see language as a process rather than a state (De Bot et al. 2015; Herdina and Jessner 2002), and *languaging* and *translanguaging* proponents. Languaging considers the contextualized social nature of language use as an activity, rather than as a system or a product (Pennycook 2010), while translanguaging posits that language consists of dynamic resources that comprise an integrated semiotic system creatively used by individuals in their identity development (García and Otheguy 2020; Cenoz and Gorter 2020; Leung and Valdes 2019; Canagarajah 2011).

Translanguaging has relevant conceptual, theoretical, pedagogical, and practical merits, which are actively discussed by researchers and practitioners. The translingual paradigm considers "the deployment of a speaker's full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named, national and state languages" (Otheguy et al. 2015, p. 81) and pushes back against previously accepted language usage norms (Poza 2017). With transformative roots, this paradigm redefines language from a perspective that promotes changes to sociopolitical structures that limit and exclude multilinguals and multilingual practices (García and Otheguy 2020; García and Wei 2014). Further, *pedagogical translanguaging* is a theoretical and practical application of translanguaging in educational settings. It is the use of two or more languages for pedagogical purposes with the goal of promoting multilingualism as a resource (Cenoz and Gorter 2020, 2022).

#### *1.2. English as a Lingua Franca*

Positioned under the umbrella of multilingualism, current scholarship on ELF is concerned with the widespread use of English as the "global default lingua franca" (Mauranen 2018, p. 7). Globally, ELF is used extensively in multilingual contexts, more often by non-native multilingual speakers than by native monolingual speakers. Unlike other lingua francas, English is used by individuals of all educational and socio-economic statuses to communicate in every possible sphere of livelihood in all corners of the globe (ibid.). Such breadth and depth of English use and the immense global interest in learning English uniquely positions the language. Moreover, ELF researchers question limiting the ownership of English to a few inner-circle countries and the long-standing focus on

standardized English as the goal in teaching (Seidlhofer 2018; Holliday 2015). Rather, all users of English are suggested to have equal rights and opportunities to use and claim ownership of the language, regardless of their origin or background (Widdowson 1994, 2003). With such evolving views on the English language and the multilingual nature of its use, researchers and English language educators seek practical solutions for teaching and learning English in our globalized, interconnected world (Rose et al. 2021; Cogo et al. 2022; Bayyurt and Dewey 2020; Callies et al. 2022). One proposal is ELF-aware teacher education and pedagogy, which aims to challenge "teachers' deep-seated convictions about language, communication and teaching" (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015, p. 55). This is done by raising awareness and critically considering issues addressed by ELF research, including awareness of language and language use, instructional practice, and learning. From an ecological perspective, ELF-aware teaching practices and products (e.g., curricula, teaching materials, assessment) mindfully consider the whole learning environment, including contextual factors specific to the situation and various teaching constraints (Sifakis 2017).

Nevertheless, as teachers encounter the ideological notions of multilingualism and ELF and are encouraged to implement them in their teaching and assessment, many struggle to alter established practices and norms. They must synthesize evolving discourses found in policies and guidelines, such as changes in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) first published in 2001 and revised in 2020 (Council of Europe 2001, 2020). For example, the revised CEFR emphasizes that the "idealized native speaker" was not the point of reference for the development of the new proficiency levels, while acknowledging that the 2001 levels had a native-speaker focus. Researchers and teacher educators have proposed that increased knowledge of multilingualism and multilingual pedagogy can lead to sustainable change if adapted to local teaching contexts (Hult 2014; Hornberger and Johnson 2007). However, not all agree on the specifics of what knowledge and skills are needed and how to promote multiple languages in meaningful and pedagogically beneficial ways (Leung and Valdes 2019; De Angelis 2011). Teachers also remain uncertain about how to address the complexities of this ideological shift due to varying contextual factors and constraints, as well as a lack of practical knowledge and skills (Bayyurt et al. 2019; Alisaari et al. 2019; Sarandi 2020; Dewey and Pineda 2020; Choi and Liu 2020; Yuvayapan 2019; Lopriore 2015).

#### *1.3. Language Teacher Cognition*

The theoretical frame used very often in language teacher education is *language teacher cognition*, or "what language teachers know, think, and do" (Borg 2003, p. 81). Language teacher cognition is theorized as emergent, situated, and woven into the complex contexts in which teachers are found and participate dynamically (Kubanyiova and Feryok 2015; Burns et al. 2015; Li 2020). This work takes a situated and ecological perspective of language teacher cognition, with a focus on what teachers do, why they do this, and the implications this has for learning from a bottom-up view. The goal is to identify "salient dimensions of language teachers' inner lives" (Kubanyiova and Feryok 2015, p. 436). Formed early and resistant to change, *teacher beliefs* are often explored as one facet of language teacher cognition, characterized frequently as tacit, evaluative, and affective. Teachers' beliefs are intertwined with their classroom experiences as learners and as practitioners (Burns et al. 2015; Borg 2006; Pajares 1992), and likewise, their beliefs deeply affect and influence their teaching practices (Borg 2009; Burns et al. 2015). The relationship is reciprocal in that teacher beliefs are influenced by teachers' classroom experiences (past and present, as learners, student teachers, and as teachers), while their beliefs also influence their classroom practices. However, a straightforward relationship between teachers' beliefs and actual classroom practices has not been found due to the complexity of the concept, how it is researched, and the multitude of factors that influence teaching practices (Pajares 1992). Further, research has described an interplay between belief sub-systems, one in which earlyformed, stable *core beliefs*, often gained via experience, influentially compete with newer *peripheral beliefs* in decision-making in the classroom (Phipps and Borg 2009; Pajares 1992). For example, many teachers experienced British English as the preferred learning target for English education during their schooling, teacher education, and teaching practices at their schools, which may strengthen a core belief and choice to teach standard British English. Moreover, many teachers develop peripheral beliefs that are contradictory, such as knowledge and understanding of multilingualism as a positive phenomenon and the pervasive use of English in multilingual communication.

#### *1.4. Previous Research in Norway*

In Norwegian schools, an inclusive learning environment that recognizes diversity and multilingualism as a resource is required by law and stated in the National Curriculum (Utdanningsdirektoratet 1998, 2020a). Moreover, the Curriculum in English (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2020b) asserts that learners should be able to communicate with people locally and globally in English, as a lingua franca, irrespective of linguistic or cultural background. The curriculum thus grants ideological and implementational spaces (Hornberger 2002) for multilingual, ELF-aware perspectives. Research from Norway has found that English teachers generally have positive attitudes toward multilingualism and multilingual learners (Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Burner and Carlsen 2019; Calafato 2020; Haukås 2016; Angelovska et al. 2020). Yet, they require raised linguistic awareness and knowledge of multilingualism and multilingual pedagogy (Šurkalovi´c 2014; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Burner and Carlsen 2019; Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Iversen 2017), since monolingual ideologies are prevalent in Norwegian English teachers' beliefs and practices (Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Flognfeldt 2018; Angelovska et al. 2020). Elite forms of multilingualism (Ortega 2019) are often promoted as well, mainly Norwegian–English bilingualism, while minoritized languages are not systematically included to promote multilingualism as a resource (Beiler 2020, 2021; Burner and Carlsen 2017; Iversen 2017; Christison et al. 2021; Haukås 2016). Rather, Norwegian is used regularly in English classes to ensure inclusion through sameness and avoid exclusion in using unknown migrant languages (Beiler 2021; Brevik and Rindal 2020; Flognfeldt 2018; Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Iversen 2017; Haukås 2016).

#### *1.5. Aim of the Study*

This study focuses on teacher beliefs about language within the evolving multilingual space in Norway. We inquired into teachers' beliefs and self-reported practices about the English language and how English is used in the schoolroom and in teaching and assessment resources. Further, we analyzed which demographic factors may influence their cognition through ordinal regression statistical analysis. The aim of this study is to set a baseline and expose factors that influence cognition. The following research questions guided our work:


The results of this study highlight the complexity of English teachers' beliefs and practices in Norway's diverse multilingual context. They may provide valuable insight for teacher educators, especially in planning pre- and in-service teacher education programs; policymakers in considering how teachers may meet and enact new educational policies; and researchers in planning further work about the beliefs of language teachers and their interplay with teaching and learning.

#### **2. Research Design and Methodology**

#### *2.1. Methods*

This study examined English teachers' beliefs and self-reported practices from data collected in Norway in fall 2018 using an online, self-administered survey (Borg 2012; Sundqvist et al. 2021). The survey was linked to an Erasmus+ project, titled *ENRICH: English as a Lingua Franca Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms* (EU funded, grant: 2018-1-EL01-KA201-047894). It was collaboratively developed by the consortium members during the project's needs analysis phase (Long 2005; see description in Lopriore 2021). The results informed the development of the ENRICH Course (see http://enrichproject.eu/). The Norwegian Centre for Research Data and corresponding bodies at partner institutions were consulted to confirm all necessary steps were taken to adhere to research ethics. Accordingly, the survey was made anonymous; we did not gather IP addresses during data collection, and data were stored securely. The participants were provided information about the purpose of the study and the protection of their collected data, and all gave consent to participate voluntarily.

The survey instrument was developed according to the traditions of questionnaire design found in applied linguistics (Dörnyei and Taguchi 2010) to capture information about teacher beliefs and practices, the multilingual context, background information, and learning experiences and needs. A literature review of key concepts informed the development of items, including multilingualism (e.g., Aronin and Singleton 2008; Martin-Jones et al. 2012; Cenoz 2003; Blommaert 2010); English as a lingua franca (e.g., Seidlhofer 2011; Jenkins et al. 2011; Mauranen 2006); language teaching and learning, such as the CEFR and its companion volume (Council of Europe 2001, 2020); teacher effectiveness, such as the Eurydice report (European Commission 2018b); and effective teacher education (e.g., Padwad and Dixit 2011; Richards and Farrell 2005; Vázquez 2016), including ELF awareness in English teacher education (Sifakis 2014, 2017; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018). The instrument was piloted with stakeholders as a validation step before being distributed to teachers of English (Dörnyei and Taguchi 2010). Our study reports on 32 items from the original 43-item instrument. These items were chosen due to their relevance to our research questions inquiring about the beliefs and practices of English use in relation to teaching and include 6 items about demographics, 5 items about the characteristics of the multilingual context, and 22 items about teacher beliefs and self-reported teaching practices (see items in Appendix A). Non-probability sampling was utilized in a call for participation sent via email to the National Academic Council for English Studies, alumni of English teacher education courses, and professional and personal contacts. Posts were also made on several social media forums for teachers in Norway, as were announcements and presentations at several conferences for educators.

#### *2.2. Data Analysis*

The statistical analyses performed were descriptive statistical analysis and ordinal regression analysis for dependent variables measured using an ordinal scale and logistic regression analysis for dichotomous dependent variables. The participants' demographic details were used as predictors in the regression analyses. The factors included age, gender, education, L1, learner age group, if they were aware that people with different language backgrounds live in Norway, if they knew the language education policies, if their school supported the social integration of learners with migrant backgrounds, and the percentage of multilingual learners in their classroom.

#### *2.3. Research Context*

The research context was Norway, where there has been an influx in migrants with diverse backgrounds in the past few decades. In 2021, 18.5% of the population had an immigrant background (Statistics Norway 2021a), and approximately 220 languages were represented in the population's linguistic profile (Svendsen 2021). Schools reflect this diverse reality, and while no national statistics exist, 35% of the pupils in the Oslo school district had a linguistic minority background in 2020–2021 (Oslo Kommune Statistikkbanken 2021). Regarding language policy, Norway's Language Act (Lov om språk), enacted in 2022, positions Norwegian as the "main national language" (Kulturdepartementet 2021, §4). In part, the act attempts to push back against the abundant use of languages other than Norwegian in society, particularly English (Språkrådet 2021). Special rights are granted to indigenous and minority languages in response to assimilation practices during nation building, as well as Scandinavian languages with historical ties to Norway.

The National Curriculum for basic education is the guiding document for educators and outlines competency aims and outcomes by subject and grade level. Teachers largely have autonomy to use learning materials and teaching methods they deem appropriate to meet these aims. Still, textbooks and published teaching resources are commonly purchased for entire school districts or schools. Our data were collected when Norway's LK06 National Curriculum was in effect (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2013). Under that curriculum, English was described as an international language needed for communication with people from other countries. Learning English was to "contribute to multilingualism" and personal development (ibid., p. 2). A new National Curriculum, LK20, was introduced in August 2020. LK20 positions multilingualism as a resource and describes English from an ELFaware perspective. Learners should gain an appreciation of linguistic diversity and its benefits, develop their linguistic identity, and "experience that being proficient in a number of languages is a resource, both in school and society at large" (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2020c, p. 5). LK20 also describes the role of English in a global society as necessary for knowledge growth, to participate in activities, and for employability in the 21st century. Further, learners should be able to use English "both locally and globally, regardless of cultural or linguistic background" (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2020b, p. 2).

English is the first foreign language taught from grade 1 in Norway, with a second introduced later, most often in lower secondary school. Teachers in basic education in Norway are often educated as semi-specialists qualified to teach two to four school subjects. To qualify to teach English, teachers are required to complete relevant coursework in English language pedagogy (i.e., 30 ECTS for grades 1–7 or 60 ECTS for grades 8–13). Markedly, English is the core subject taught most frequently by un-/under-qualified teachers, with as many as half of all English teachers in Norway not holding the required qualifications (Perlic 2019). Still, the more hours a teacher instructs in the subject per week, the more qualified they tend to be, with 26% of English teachers qualified who teach one hour per week and 82% qualified who teach five or more. The greatest lack of English teaching qualifications is in grades 1–4, where 64% of teachers had no qualifying coursework in 2018, and only 32% were fully qualified. In grades 5–7, 44% held full qualifications and 76% in grades 8–10 (ibid.). In response, a large-scale national strategy was started in 2014, Lærerløftet (Teacher Lift), to increase the qualifications of teachers in key subjects. This has aided over 1000 teachers of English per year to gain formal qualifications through continuing education programming, such as Kompetanse for Kvalitet (Competence for Quality).

#### *2.4. Participants*

There were 110 participants in this study. Table 1 provides information about their backgrounds, including gender, education, L1, age range, and the age group of their learners. The relevant BA/MA degrees listed in the survey were English language teaching, teacher education, English studies, or similar topics. In the survey, no inquiry of ECTS credits in English pedagogy was made. The participants' education level is representative of teachers of basic education in Norway, with 14% having an MA in 2020 (Statistics Norway 2021b).


**Table 1.** Participant demographic information.

The respondents all reported competencies in Norwegian and English and indicated the following languages as their L1: Norwegian (95), English (5), German (3), Icelandic, Punjabi, Swedish, Greek, Russian, Spanish, Latvian, and French (1 each). This indicates a higher percentage of respondents who had a linguistic minority background (L1 other than Norwegian) than is found in Norway's general teacher population (13.6% vs. 7.5%; Statistics Norway). Many respondents reported competencies in multiple languages, with 83 (75.5%) being proficient in at least three languages and 50 (45.5%) in four or more. The most common language competencies were German (49), French (38), and Spanish (19), followed by Swedish and Italian (6 each); Arabic and Russian (3 each); Portuguese, Icelandic, and Sami (2 each); and Berber, Latvian, Frisian, Dutch, Danish, Greek, Czech, Urdu, Punjabi, and Irish Gaelic (1 each).

Regarding the participants' context, 92 (83.6%) reported that they currently teach multilingual learners, and 104 (94.6%) were in agreement that people with different language backgrounds live in Norway. The average number of multilingual learners in the respondents' English classes varied, reflecting differences found across schools: 0–25%: 57 (51.8%); 26–50%: 21 (19.1%); 51–75%: 11 (10%); and 76–100%: 21 (19.1%). While no national statistics exist, these numbers are similar to those available for the Oslo school district for multilingual learners: 0–25%: 55 (40.7%); 26–50%: 34 (25.2%); 51–75%: 26 (19.3%); and 76–100%: 20 (14.8%; Oslo Kommune Statistikkbanken 2021). These results indicate that the teachers are aware of their learners' multilingual backgrounds and that they have varying numbers of multilingual learners in their classes.

Finally, 105 (95.5%) participants reported knowing Norway's language educational policies, and 69 (62.7%) stated that their school supports the social integration of learners with migrant backgrounds through special programs and/or events. Such results can be explained by the role educational policies, mainly the National Curriculum and Educational Act, play in guiding education in Norway. Further, schools have legal obligations to support all learners and do so via various means at different schools and school districts, such as introductory classes for newly arrived migrants or bilingual teacher assistants. Noteworthy criticism has arisen as to the underlying premise of some of these programs, particularly that they are more political than pedagogical (Burner and Carlsen 2017).

#### **3. Results**

We report the results according to themes as they emerged from the analysis of the questions included in the survey (Braun and Clarke 2012; Hsieh and Shannon 2005). This process was carried out in two stages. First, the questions were tagged according to the themes that emerged, and preliminary categories were created (Miles et al. 2019). Then, some of the themes were replaced by researcher-generated ones to achieve a more coherent description of the topics identified. The researchers separately undertook the analysis and organization of the themes to enhance cross-verification, with differences jointly discussed and the themes finalized thereafter (see survey Appendix A with survey items and themes).

#### *3.1. Teacher Beliefs and Reported Practices*

#### 3.1.1. Teacher Beliefs about English Use

The teachers' beliefs about English use in teaching practices are presented in Table 2. The participants were uncertain if native speaker norms are desirable for English teachers or preferred by learners. The teacher responses spread across the middle of the scale on Q30 and Q33, indicating many were uncertain of their beliefs. However, we observed a general agreement about non-native English-speaking teachers and uses of English as good and acceptable in teaching in Q31 (94% agreement), Q32 (91%), Q39 (70%), and Q36 (72%). Such results indicate positive beliefs regarding non-native users and uses of English, which are deemed valid and suitable for teaching and point to a heightened awareness of ELF within their contexts. Still, we detected tension between uncertainty toward native speaker norms and validation of non-native speaking norms. On the one hand, the teachers were unable to dismiss native speakers as the most preferred or suitable model to learning English, indicating that a standard, monolingual language orientation remains in their beliefs. On the other hand, the teachers were welcoming toward non-native teachers, accents, and uses of English, validating their work as non-native teachers of English and their learners' use of English as non-native speakers. Such beliefs convey more fluid perceptions of language and communication, as found in multilingual language ideologies.


**Table 2.** Teacher beliefs about English use in teaching practices.

\* NS, native speaker; NNS, non-native speaker; NN, non-native; N, native.

#### 3.1.2. Teacher Beliefs and Practices about English Use in Assessment

The teachers' beliefs about the use of English in assessment and feedback practices indicated some uncertainty or conflicting beliefs among them (see Q37 and Q38 in Table 3). These results may indicate that many teachers have not previously considered such practices or that they remain uncertain of if or how such practices should be incorporated into assessment and feedback. Likewise, this may reflect misperceptions of the terms used in the survey items. Assessment is commonly used as an overarching term for testing, assessments, and/or feedback, whereas tests are commonly defined as measurements of language proficiency at a given time, where accuracy and errors are key concepts. Alternative assessment refers to measuring overall communicative skills attained across time and often gathered in extended samples (Kouvdou and Tsagari 2018). We observed no clear tendency in beliefs about the role of a teacher in error correction (Q34), with responses spread across the middle points of the scale. A number of the teachers (Q37, 54%; Q38, 48%) were in agreement that tests should include interactions involving non-native users of English and that assessment should focus on intelligibility, but still, over one-third (Q37, 38%; Q38, 36%) were undecided about their beliefs on these issues. Regarding alternative assessment (Q23), 70% reported they *sometimes* or *often* incorporate such practices, which suggests most teachers are familiar with and practice alternative assessment. Indeed, the Norwegian educational authorities (Utdanningsdirektoratet n.d.) advocate for alternative assessment, as do researchers of multilingualism and ELF, who push forth a focus on communicative practices rather than native-speaker norms (Kouvdou and Tsagari 2018).


**Table 3.** Teacher beliefs and practices about English use in assessment.

3.1.3. Teachers' Self-Reported Practices for English Use

The teachers' self-reported practices for English use in teaching indicated that they believe all uses of English are beneficial to learning and that classroom learning should link to extramural uses of English (see Table 4). The respondents reported that they provide learners opportunities to use English in the classroom (Q14, 95% agreement) and expose them to English similar to its extramural uses *often* or *always* (Q18, 61%). However, contradictions in the teachers' beliefs and reported practices did emerge regarding the teaching of standard pronunciation. While the respondents reported *often*/*always* teaching standard British or American pronunciation (Q20, 78%), they were uncertain if teachers should have native-like pronunciation and affirm non-native uses and users of English as acceptable. While the teachers are seemingly open to non-standard uses of English, they still feel teaching standard forms is central to English language teaching. The teachers also described allowing the use of languages other than English in teaching *sometimes* or *often*, (Q24, 69%). Such results could indicate a pro-multilingual perspective on language learning. However, previous research in Norwegian English classes highlighted that the regular use of Norwegian is common, but the systematic use of other languages in learners' and teachers' multilingual repertoires is not (Beiler 2021; Brevik and Rindal 2020; Burner and Carlsen 2017). Without further data about which languages are used, the meaning of these results is unclear.



3.1.4. Teachers' Reported Practices for English Use in Teaching Materials and Resources

Table 5 lists the results of the teachers' reported practices for English use in teaching materials and resources. These revealed a strong tendency to use materials and resources with native speakers (Q21, 80% *often/always*; Q12, 72% in agreement) and native countries and cultures (Q16, 90% in agreement), more so than materials with non-native speakers or migrant cultures (Q22, 76%; Q25, 71%—*rarely/sometimes*; Q13). The infrequency with which learners are exposed to non-native speakers or cultures through learning materials points to uncertainty about if this is or should be done. Further, the common practice of developing additional learning materials for multilingual learners (Q19, 61% *often/always*) and the strong agreement among the teachers that they should use authentic materials, (Q35, 72% agreement) suggests that the teachers believe supplementary materials are needed and/or beneficial to learning. The types of materials developed and the reasoning for doing so remain unclear from the survey results. However, teachers who have recently completed continuing education to qualify to teach English have noted a newfound freedom to break away from the confinements of textbooks after gaining confidence in using and teaching English (Lund and Tishakov 2017).


**Table 5.** Teachers' reported practices for English use in teaching materials and resources.

\* MLL, multilingual language learners.

#### *3.2. Factors Influencing Teacher Beliefs and Practices*

Teacher age, learner age group, and teacher gender were all factors that influenced the beliefs and reported practices of the teachers about the English language and English language use when teaching in Norwegian multilingual classrooms. We did not find the native language of the respondents to be a significant factor for any items.

#### 3.2.1. Teacher Age

Teacher age was a significant factor for several items. The tendency noted was the younger their age, the more likely the teachers were to validate the use of non-native English in teaching and learning materials; allow learners opportunities to use English in classes; and focus on intelligibility in assessment and feedback. Younger teachers were more accepting of non-native teachers as acceptable models and users of English as well (Q31). The odds of the teachers aged 26–35 years old reporting that they *strongly agree* that non-native teachers can be good language models were 12.9 times higher than those aged 36–45 years old (*b* = 2.554, Wald χ 2 (1) = 5.252, *p* = 0.022). Additionally, younger teachers were more confident users of English (Q32), where the odds to *strongly agree* to being comfortable with their own accent were 18.7 times higher for the teachers aged 26–35 than the teachers aged 36–45 (*b* = 2.930, Wald χ 2 (1) = 7.984, *p* = 0.005).

Furthermore, the younger the teacher, the more likely they allowed their learners to interact in English in the classroom (Q14). For example, the odds of the teachers aged ≤25 to *strongly agree* with this statement were 42.7 times higher than those aged 26–35 (*b* = 3.755, Wald χ 2 (1) = 5.826, *p* = 0.016) and 14 times higher for those aged 26–35 than those aged 36–45 (*b* = 2.645, Wald χ 2 (1) = 5.722, *p* = 0.017). Likewise, younger teachers were more likely to frequently expose learners to English similar to extramural English uses (Q18), with the

odds of the teachers aged 26–35 responding *always* being 8.7 times higher than the teachers aged 36–45 (*b* = 2.162, Wald χ 2 (1) = 5.061, *p* = 0.024). Younger teachers were also more likely to frequently use learning materials that expose their learners to non-native speakers (Q25) with the odds of the teachers aged ≤25 reporting *always* 10 times higher than the teachers aged 26–35 (*b* = 2.303, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.899, *p* = 0.048). Finally, younger teachers were more likely to agree to a focus on what is intelligible when assessing learners (Q38), with 11.5 times higher odds of the teachers aged 26–35 marking *strongly agreeing* than the teachers aged 36–45 (*b* = 2.446, Wald χ 2 (1) = 7.201, *p* = 0.007). Younger teachers had greater odds as well to be more confident users of English and have beliefs and practices that indicate pro-multilingual language beliefs. Such results suggest that younger generations of teachers may hold different beliefs about language and language teaching, about the role of ELF, native/non-native English use, and what types of English should be used in teaching and assessment practices.

#### 3.2.2. Learner Age Group

The age group of the learners whom the respondents teach was also a significant factor for several items. We observed differences in belief sets between the teachers of young learners (aged 6–10) and the teachers of other age groups. The teachers of young learners were less likely to agree that non-native teachers are good language models (Q31), to be comfortable with their accents (Q32), and to include interactions with non-native speakers in assessments (Q37). The odds of respondents teaching learners age ≥11 to *strongly agree* that non-native teachers can be good language models was 4.1 times higher than those teaching ages 6–10 (*b* = 1.409, Wald χ 2 (1) = 3.885, *p* = 0.049), and for being comfortable with their accent, it was 5.5 times higher than those teaching ages 6–10 (*b* = 1.696, Wald χ 2 (1) = 6.146, *p* = 0.013). The teachers of young learners were also less likely to agree that standard tests should include non-native speakers (Q37). The odds of the teachers of other age groups to *strongly agree* was 4 times higher than the teachers of ages 6–10 (*b* = 1.381, Wald χ 2 (1) = 4.985, *p* = 0.026) and 3.4 times higher than the teachers of ages 11–13 (*b* = 1.226, Wald χ 2 (1) = 4.246, *p* = 0.039). However, the teachers of young learners were more likely to focus on intelligibility in assessment (Q38), with odds to *strongly agree* 36.8 times higher than for the teachers of ages 14–17 (*b* = 3.606, Wald χ 2 (1) = 6.401, *p* = 0.011) and 3.7 more than the teachers of ages 11–13 (*b* = 1.307, Wald χ 2 (1) = 4.994, *p* = 0.025). In contrast, the odds were greater for the teachers of other age groups than 18+ to report that they agree that their role is to correct learners' incorrect uses of English (Q34) and that they teach standard pronunciation (Q20). The odds of the teachers of other age groups to *strongly agree* to error correction was 17.3 times higher (*b* = 2.848, Wald *χ* 2 (1) = 5.492, *p* = 0.019) and, to *always* teach standard pronunciation, 11.22 times higher (*b* = 2.418, Wald *χ* 2 (1) = 4.077, *p* = 0.043) than that of the teachers of ages ≥18.

For the teachers of young learners, a focus on intelligibility could indicate how the learners' age, developmental level, and new experience with learning English influence teacher beliefs and reported practices. Generally, the first years of English learning in Norway are low stakes and focus on experiencing the language through play, songs, and discovery (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2020b). In turn, teachers working with the oldest schoolchildren may have different beliefs due to the learners' age, maturity, and generally high English competence (on average B1 level; Brevik and Rindal 2020). However, a contradiction has arisen in the teachers' focus on intelligibility in assessments and on error correction in English use, highlighting tension in teacher beliefs.

#### 3.2.3. Teacher Gender

Teacher gender was a significant factor for two items, namely intelligibility in assessment practices (Q38) and materials development for multilingual learners (Q19). The odds of the female teachers to *strongly agree* that teachers should focus on assessing intelligibility was 3.3 times higher than the male teachers (*b* = 1.182, Wald χ 2 (1) = 4.045, *p* = 0.044). The percentage of female teachers working in primary schools in Norway is high (74.4%,

3.2.3. Teacher Gender

**4. Discussion** 

Statistics Norway), so these results may be considered in light of the learner age group findings for Q38 (discussed above), where the teachers of young learners were more likely to focus on intelligibility in assessment. Furthermore, the odds of the female teachers to report *always* to developing materials to aid their multilingual learners was 13.9 times greater than the male teachers (*b* = 2.632, Wald χ 2 (1) = 15.860, *p* < 0.0005). These results indicate female teachers may be more likely to hold certain pro-multilingual beliefs, though further research is needed to confirm and explore them (Ricklefs 2021). report *always* to developing materials to aid their multilingual learners was 13.9 times greater than the male teachers (*b* = 2.632, Wald *χ*2(1) = 15.860, *p* < 0.0005). These results indicate female teachers may be more likely to hold certain pro-multilingual beliefs, though further research is needed to confirm and explore them (Ricklefs 2021).

Teacher gender was a significant factor for two items, namely intelligibility in assessment practices (Q38) and materials development for multilingual learners (Q19). The odds of the female teachers to *strongly agree* that teachers should focus on assessing intelligibility was 3.3 times higher than the male teachers (*b* = 1.182, Wald *χ*2(1) = 4.045, *p* = 0.044). The percentage of female teachers working in primary schools in Norway is high (74.4%,

findings for Q38 (discussed above), where the teachers of young learners were more likely to focus on intelligibility in assessment. Furthermore, the odds of the female teachers to

#### **4. Discussion** The current study aimed to gauge the beliefs and reported practices of English teachers about the English language and English language use when teaching in multilingual

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22

The current study aimed to gauge the beliefs and reported practices of English teachers about the English language and English language use when teaching in multilingual classrooms in Norway, as well as explore what factors influence these beliefs and practices. The findings point to tensions and uncertainties. Notably, some of the teachers' beliefs and reported practices indicate monolingual ideologies of language, while others imply multilingual ideologies. These conflicting beliefs and practices seem to coexist paradoxically. As represented in Figure 1, the beliefs push against and overlap one another, creating tension and a gray zone of uncertainties where what the teachers believe should be practiced in teaching contradicts what they reported practicing in their own classrooms. We found prominent tension in the space given to native speaker norms in teaching practices and materials used (Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Flognfeldt 2018), as opposed to a general affirmation of non-native speakers and uses of English as acceptable and good (Angelovska et al. 2020; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Burner and Carlsen 2019; Haukås 2016). Previous studies have found similar results of the conflicting ideologies present in teacher beliefs and practices (Ricklefs 2021; Birello et al. 2021; Kroskrity 2010; De Korne 2012). classrooms in Norway, as well as explore what factors influence these beliefs and practices. The findings point to tensions and uncertainties. Notably, some of the teachers' beliefs and reported practices indicate monolingual ideologies of language, while others imply multilingual ideologies. These conflicting beliefs and practices seem to coexist paradoxically. As represented in Figure 1, the beliefs push against and overlap one another, creating tension and a gray zone of uncertainties where what the teachers believe should be practiced in teaching contradicts what they reported practicing in their own classrooms. We found prominent tension in the space given to native speaker norms in teaching practices and materials used (Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Flognfeldt 2018), as opposed to a general affirmation of non-native speakers and uses of English as acceptable and good (Angelovska et al. 2020; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Burner and Carlsen 2019; Haukås 2016). Previous studies have found similar results of the conflicting ideologies present in teacher beliefs and practices (Ricklefs 2021; Birello et al. 2021; Kroskrity 2010; De Korne 2012).

**Figure 1.** Tensions and uncertainties in English teachers' language beliefs and reported practices in the Norwegian multilingual context. **Figure 1.** Tensions and uncertainties in English teachers' language beliefs and reported practices in the Norwegian multilingual context.

#### *Complex Multifaceted Ecologies*

With its ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner 1979), the multifaceted nature of the language learning and teaching framework helps tease apart the complexity of language teaching, and learning. We use this framework to consider the influences on the teachers' language beliefs within a larger structure (Douglas Fir Group 2016; De Costa and Norton 2017). Language teacher beliefs are rooted in and intertwined with the social experiences teachers have as learners, educators, and members of various groups in society (Borg

2019; Kroskrity 2010). There are many influences on teachers' beliefs, some more salient than others, that we attempted to identify from our data, results, and discussion and sort according to the levels of the language learning and teaching framework. Figure 2 presents an overview of the mutually dependent contextual levels (macro, meso, and micro) that may influence language teachers' beliefs and practices. It also includes time in reference to the historical context, or teachers' past experiences. Kroskrity 2010). There are many influences on teachers' beliefs, some more salient than others, that we attempted to identify from our data, results, and discussion and sort according to the levels of the language learning and teaching framework. Figure 2 presents an overview of the mutually dependent contextual levels (macro, meso, and micro) that may influence language teachers' beliefs and practices. It also includes time in reference to the historical context, or teachers' past experiences.

With its ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner 1979), the multifaceted nature of the language learning and teaching framework helps tease apart the complexity of language teaching, and learning. We use this framework to consider the influences on the teachers' language beliefs within a larger structure (Douglas Fir Group 2016; De Costa and Norton 2017). Language teacher beliefs are rooted in and intertwined with the social experiences teachers have as learners, educators, and members of various groups in society (Borg 2019;

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

*Complex Multifaceted Ecologies* 

**Figure 2.** Contextual levels that impact teachers' language beliefs. **Figure 2.** Contextual levels that impact teachers' language beliefs.

The macro level of ideological structures considers global and regional influences with widespread impact, including the language ideologies found in society at large and the shifting perspectives of the language of instruction, such as English as an expansively used multilingua franca. Further influences are global and national educational policies and guidelines, such as the CEFR and national curriculum; paradigms of language teaching and learning, such as English-only pedagogy and communicative language teaching; teacher education programs; and standardized assessments and teaching materials, such as high-stakes tests and published textbooks. The macro level highlights a multitude of diverse and evolving ideologies that influence teachers, who must navigate them in real The macro level of ideological structures considers global and regional influences with widespread impact, including the language ideologies found in society at large and the shifting perspectives of the language of instruction, such as English as an expansively used multilingua franca. Further influences are global and national educational policies and guidelines, such as the CEFR and national curriculum; paradigms of language teaching and learning, such as English-only pedagogy and communicative language teaching; teacher education programs; and standardized assessments and teaching materials, such as highstakes tests and published textbooks. The macro level highlights a multitude of diverse and evolving ideologies that influence teachers, who must navigate them in real time to the best of their ability, according to the resources available. Our results suggest English teachers in Norway are influenced by various ideological structures to varying degrees, similar to findings presented by others (Haukås and Mercer 2021; Chvala 2020; De Korne 2012; Kroskrity 2010). Markedly, the teachers reported that they were unable or unwilling to escape the influence of monolingual language ideologies in their teaching practices. These ideologies seem to be rooted in teachers' core beliefs on account of their long-standing dominance in both society and language education paradigms. They are further reflected in policies, teacher education programs, assessments, and teaching materials (Leung and

Valdes 2019; Douglas Fir Group 2016; Canagarajah 2006; Galloway and Numajiri 2020; Galloway 2018; Callies et al. 2022). Newer and less established multilingual ideologies seem to be peripheral beliefs, more easily overlooked or canceled out by steadfast core beliefs during teaching practices. Another consideration on a regional level is linked to teacher education and qualifications, particularly the lack of teachers who hold professional qualifications to teach English in Norway. Such teachers tend to be less confident users and teachers of English and depend more on textbooks, which may adhere to monolingual language ideologies (Galloway 2018), to guide their teaching (Lund and Tishakov 2017).

The meso level considers the influence of sociocultural institutions and communities, including social identities and groups, such as the school district, school, department, or educational level within which teachers work, as well as their social identity as general or subject teachers. Likewise, the teaching resources available at a school or in a school district may affect beliefs and practices. According to our results, the teachers of grades 5 and over were more likely to hold pro-multilingual beliefs of English, which may point to differences in the focus and organization of teaching at the different levels of schooling and the teachers' identities and qualifications. In the beginning grades, Norwegian schools are characterized by a strong focus on the development of basic numeracy, literacy in Norwegian, and social skills (Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2003; Hoff-Jenssen et al. 2020). Teachers at this level are commonly generalists who teach core subjects, including English, to one class or parallel classes. Individual teachers often instruct a few hours of English per week, and a substantial percentage do not hold the required qualifications to teach English, as noted in the section *Research Context*. In the middle grades, the focus of schooling shifts towards the use of literacy skills to learn various subjects. The number of hours of English instruction per week increases, and more teachers with the required qualifications teach the subject. Additionally, more identify as semi-specialist subject teachers, such as teachers of English, math, and science. Influences on teachers at various levels of schooling and their identity/qualifications as teachers at these levels may be salient in these results.

The micro level of social activity is the classroom, where teachers have the most direct impact on pedagogical and linguistic practices. At this level, the teachers' beliefs are enacted in practice. This includes what languages are used or excluded in accordance with their beliefs about language and language learning and any constraints present, such as time pressure, teaching resources, learning outcomes, and assessment requirements. The linguistic repertoire of the teachers and learners is another available resource to draw upon, but it is often overlooked in Norway (Flognfeldt 2018; Christison et al. 2021). The participants reported allowing languages other than English in the classroom *sometimes* or *often*; however, research has found that in practice, this refers almost solely to Norwegian (Brevik and Rindal 2020). The native language of the teacher (Norwegian/non-Norwegian) was considered as a factor but was not found to be significant. These results are in agreement with the findings of Bernstein et al. (2021). Still, other research results have determined that the native language of a teacher is significant to their language beliefs (Ricklefs 2021). Additionally, researchers have identified other related factors are significant for pro-multilingual beliefs, including experience learning another language (Bernstein et al. 2021) and the number of languages instructed by a teacher (Calafato 2020, 2021). Such varying results highlight the complexity of language beliefs and the need for more research about how the richness of teachers' linguistic repertoires and various types of experiences with learning and teaching languages may influence their language beliefs.

Lastly, the historical context considers influences across time, including the lived experiences of teachers as language learners and teacher students, generally agreed to have significant influence on language teacher cognition (Borg 2006; Li 2020). The historical context provides insight into our findings that younger teachers are more likely to favor multilingual ideologies, similar to Bernstein et al. (2021), who specified that age and years of experience are significant. Younger generations of teachers have grown up in an expanding multilingual context in Norway with vastly different experiences and opportunities to use and learn English. This is due to the expanding global use of English in recent decades and

the inclusion of English as an obligatory subject in Norwegian schools from grade 1 since 1997. Furthermore, teacher education programs evolve over time, socializing generations of teachers into the profession in varying ways as epistemological changes take hold (Johnson 2009). For example, multilingualism and multilingual pedagogy have been included as topics in English teacher education in some programs in Norway since 2013. Younger generations of teachers prefer more multilingual language ideologies and seem to have a different trajectory than that of past generations.

Teachers are part of a complex, evolving multilingual ecology that has many ideological structures permeating various sociocultural institutions and communities. In this space and time, both multilingual and monolingual language ideologies diffuse into English language teachers' beliefs and practices. Within the beliefs of individual teachers and groups of teachers, the degree of monolingual and/or multilingual language ideologies varies. Language ideologies do not neatly transfer into the cognition of individual teachers as whole set entities. Rather, teachers are influenced by various ideological structures and beliefs and all the interrelated contextual levels, and they form their own dynamic belief system that guides their classroom practices.

#### **5. Conclusions**

Our communities and schools are rich in linguistic resources, and schoolteachers are pivotal in promoting multilingualism as a resource, as called for in educational policies and by researchers. In this study, we investigated Norwegian English teachers' beliefs about the English language and its use, and we identify factors which influence them. We found a complexity in which contradictory beliefs about language remain adjacent in the teachers' dynamic belief sets, with a gray zone of uncertainty regarding some matters. We found teacher age, learner age group, and teacher gender to be significant factors for some beliefs. Finally, we used the multifaceted nature of the language learning and teaching framework to reflect on the mutually dependent contextual levels that influence teachers' language beliefs. Our results suggest that teachers' trajectories are in transition, with the language beliefs of some groups of teachers indicating pro-multilingual ideals.

While the methodology used in this study allowed for a large sample size from across Norway and statistical analysis of the results, it has some limitations. First, calls for participation were sent out by the local project team, all members of the same teacher education program, and may have resulted in many alumni responding rather than other participants. Further, we did not address meso- and micro-level contextual factors and the teachers' reasoning behind their beliefs and practices. We also did not observe the teachers' actual classroom practices. Finally, our analysis did not consider if proficiency in multiple languages was a factor in teachers' beliefs. We recommend further qualitative investigation to contextualize English teachers' language beliefs and practices at the macro, meso, and micro levels. They may investigate why different groups of teachers are more likely to favor multilingual language ideologies and can further study actual teaching practices in schools and classrooms.

As the makeup of learners diversifies, schools and educational authorities must mindfully avoid assumptions of a shared linguistic and cultural background among learners and their families. They must not overlook or downplay the richness of the semiotic and cultural resources all learners bring with them, especially those with multilingual backgrounds. As uniting spaces, schools are a key platform for the promotion of multilingualism as a resource in learning and across society and must work to stop the reproduction of standard monolingual ideologies. Considering the calls to rethink the standing of English and how language is theorized, our results may indicate such a transition has begun, if ever so gradually, among some groups of teachers. Nevertheless, continued opportunities for English teachers are needed that allow for reflection on concepts surrounding multilingualism and ELF and to try multilingual pedagogical practices in local teaching environments. Two especially relevant resources that may be used in pre- and in-service teacher education and development programs to aid in this effort include *English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Con-* *texts*, an edited edition by Sifakis and Tsantila (2019) that provides empirical perspectives about ELF of particular importance to EFL teachers and stakeholders. Further, the ENRICH Course (see http://enrichproject.eu/) provides an open-access, asynchronous, continuing professional development course for EFL teachers and stakeholders. This includes short lectures and activities to guide teachers toward an understanding of English within an ELF-aware, multilingual perspective.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, D.T. and T.T.; methodology, D.T.; formal analysis, T.T. and D.T.; writing—original draft preparation, T.T.; writing—review and editing, T.T. and D.T.; visualization, T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, after consultation with the Norwegian Centre for Research Data due to anonymous data collection which did not include sensitive or identifying personal data.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data supporting the reported results is securely stored.

**Acknowledgments:** The study presented was linked to an Erasmus+ project, titled *ENRICH: English as a Lingua Franca Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms* (EU funded, grant: 2018-1-EL01- KA201-047894). The project was coordinated by the Hellenic Open University and included partners at: Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway; Bogazici University, Turkey; Roma Tre University, Italy; University of Lisbon, Portugal; Computer and Technology Institute, Greece. We acknowledge the project consortium members for the development of the survey and OsloMet's project team for the collection of data in Norway.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A. Survey Items and Themes**


Q32 I am comfortable with my own accent.

Q33 My learners prefer being taught by native English speakers.

Q36 It is important that I integrate examples of English used by non-native speakers in my teaching.

Q39 The current status of English as a global language implies that non-native uses of English are as valid as native uses of English.

**Teacher Beliefs and Practices about English Use in Assessment**

Q23 In my teaching, I incorporate methods of alternative assessment (e.g., self assessment and peer assessment).

Q34 My role as a teacher of English is to correct my learners' incorrect uses of English.

Q37 English language standard tests should also include interactions involving non-native speakers.

Q38 When assessing their own learners' spoken and written production and interactions, teachers should mainly focus on what is intelligible.

**Teachers' Reported Teaching Practices for English Use**

Q14 In my class I give learners several opportunities to interact in English.

Q18 I expose my learners to uses of English similar to those they may be exposed to outside the classroom.

Q20 I teach standard (British or American) English pronunciation to my learners.

Q24 During my English classes I allow my learners to also use languages other than English.

**Teachers' Reported Practices for English Use in Teaching Materials and Resources**

Q12 The coursebook(s) which I use in my class(es) focus/es on the way native English speakers (e.g., British, American, Australian) use the language.

Q13 Cultures relevant to my learners, including those of migrant backgrounds, are included in the coursebook(s) which I use in my class(es).

Q16 The coursebook(s) which I use in my class(es) include/s topics related to English-speaking-countries traditions, cultures, art, history, and values.

Q19 I develop my own additional teaching materials to address the needs and wants of my multilingual learners.

Q21 In my teaching, I use authentic materials (TV series, films, songs, etc.) involving predominantly native speakers of English.

Q22 In my teaching, I use authentic materials (TV series, films, songs, etc.) involving predominantly non-native speakers of English.

Q25 In my experience, my learners are exposed to communication involving non-native speakers of English through teaching materials used in the classroom.

Q35 Teachers should use authentic materials in teaching.

#### **References**

Alisaari, Jenni, Leena Maria Heikkola, Nancy Commins, and Emmanuel O. Acquah. 2019. Monolingual Ideologies Confronting Multilingual Realities. Finnish Teachers' Beliefs about Linguistic Diversity. *Teaching & Teacher Education* 80: 48–58. [CrossRef]

Angelovska, Tanja, Anna Krulatz, and Dragana Surkalovic. 2020. Predicting EFL Teacher Candidates' Preparedness to Work with Multilingual Learners: Snapshots from Three European Universities. *European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL* 9: 183–208.

Aronin, Larissa, and David Singleton. 2008. Multilingualism as a New Linguistic Dispensation. *International Journal of Multilingualism* 5: 1–16. [CrossRef]

Bailey, Benjamin. 2007. Heteroglossia and Boundaries. In *Bilingualism: A Social Approach*. Edited by Monica Heller. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 257–74.

Bayyurt, Yasemin, and Martin Dewey. 2020. Locating ELF in ELT. *ELT Journal* 74: 369–76. [CrossRef]


Oslo Kommune Statistikkbanken. 2021. Andel Minoritetsspråklige Elever i Grunnskolen. Available online: https://statistikkbanken. oslo.kommune.no/webview/ (accessed on 10 October 2021).


Padwad, Amol, and Krishna Dixit. 2011. *Continuing Professional Development. An Annotated Bibliography*. New Delhi: British Council.


Perlic, Biljana. 2019. *Lærerkompetanse i Grunnskolen. Hovedresultater 2018/2019*. Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå.


Utdanningsdirektoratet. 1998. *Act Relating to Primary and Secondary Education and Training (Education Act)*. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet. Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2013. *Curriculum in English*. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.

Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2020a. *National Curriculum*. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.

Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2020b. *Curriculum in English*. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.

Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2020c. *Core Curriculum—Values and Principles for Primary and Secondary Education*. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.

Utdanningsdirektoratet. n.d. Vurderingspraksis—Vurdering for Læring. Available online: https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/ vurdering/ (accessed on 10 October 2021).

Vázquez, Borja Manzano. 2016. Teacher Development for Autonomy: An Exploratory Review of Language Teacher Education for Learner and Teacher Autonomy. *Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching* 12: 387–98. [CrossRef]

Widdowson, Henry G. 1994. The Ownership of English. *TESOL Quarterly* 28: 377–89. [CrossRef]

Widdowson, Henry G. 2003. *Defining Issues in English Language Teaching*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yuvayapan, Fatma. 2019. Translanguaging in EFL Classrooms: Teachers' Perceptions and Practices. *˙Ingilizce derslerinde dil ala¸sımı: Ö˘gretmenlerin tutumları ve uygulamaları* 15: 678–94. [CrossRef]

## *Article* **Visual and Artefactual Approaches in Engaging Teachers with Multilingualism: Creating DLCs in Pre-Service Teacher Education**

**Nayr Correia Ibrahim**

Faculty of Education and Arts, Nord University, 8026 Bodø, Norway; nayr\_ibrahim@hotmail.com; Tel.: +47-91-119-276

**Abstract:** This paper reports on a study of teachers' engagement with their own multilingualism in a pre-service teacher education context. As linguistic diversity in society and schools around the globe is increasing, teachers are required to meet the challenges of teaching children who live with multiple languages. However, teachers are seldom required to reflect on and engage with their own multilingualism, which forms the basis of a subjective and experiential approach to educating teachers multilingually. Embedded in an arts-based visual methodology, this study used the concept of Dominant Language Constellations (DLCs) as both a theoretical underpinning and a creative qualitative tool for collecting data. It included fourteen DLC artefacts created by future teachers of English in Grades 1–7 and Grades 5–10 in northern Norway, supported by oral and written narratives. Plurisemiotic analysis of teachers' DLC artefacts indicates that teachers 'saw' or perceived themselves as plurilingual individuals for the first time. Furthermore, they reflected on the classroom implications of including multilingual practices in a context of increasing linguistic diversity in Norway, through capitalizing on their own and potentially their learners' multilingual identities.

**Keywords:** multilingualism; DLC (dominant language constellation); language repertoires; teacher education; ELT (English language teaching); visual arts-based methodologies

### **1. Introduction**

This paper reports on a study conducted in a pre-service teacher education English programme as part of a five-year Master's in primary (Grades 1–7) and secondary (Grades 5–10) education in Norway. Based on the theoretical perspective of multilingualism as 'lived or subjectively experienced' (Kalaja and Pitkänen-Huhta 2018, p. 15) and embedded in the 'visual turn' (Kalaja and Melo-Pfeifer 2019, p. 4), this study investigated pre-service teachers' engagement with their own multilingual repertoires via visual and creative methods. Aronin's (2006, 2019b) construct of the Dominant Language Constellation (DLC) as a theoretical and research approach underlies the methodological choice of an artefactual, hence concrete, visualization of the student teachers' languages. The study included fourteen DLC artefacts from three groups of student teachers, two in the first year of English Grades 1–7 and one in the fourth year of Grades 5–10. Consequently, this study heeds the call for pedagogical applications of DLC research and constitutes an innovative approach to engaging and describing individuals' complex repertoires of languages, linguistic competences, and identities.

#### *1.1. Multilingualism in Education*

Multilingualism is neither an exception nor a new phenomenon. Edwards (1994, p. 1) described it as 'a normal and unremarkable necessity' for individuals and societies. More recently, Aronin and Singleton (2008, 2012) and Aronin (2019a, pp. 26–27) have called for 'a new linguistic dispensation' based on 'an unparalleled spread of the use of English as an international language [and] a remarkable diversification of the languages in use', where

**Citation:** Ibrahim, Nayr Correia. 2022. Visual and Artefactual Approaches in Engaging Teachers with Multilingualism: Creating DLCs in Pre-Service Teacher Education. *Languages* 7: 152. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7020152

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 5 September 2021 Accepted: 7 June 2022 Published: 17 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

flexible language practices include 'monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual arrangements'. This increase in linguistic diversity is evident in the Norwegian context, which has been described by Lanza (2020, p. 131) as a 'linguistic paradise' as a result of a certain tolerance of linguistic diversity that is evident in policy, curriculum renewal processes, and attitudes towards multilingualism. Not only have Norwegian schools become more culturally and linguistically diverse because of immigration to the country and an increase in the number of children born in Norway to immigrant parents (18.5% according to Statistics Norway 2021), but Norwegian society has recently become more open to accommodating a mosaic of languages. The indigenous languages Sami, Kven, Romani, and Romanes have official status as national minority languages, as does Norwegian Sign Language; there are two written forms of Norwegian, Bokmål and Nynorsk, and a multitude of spoken dialects across the country (Vikøy and Haukås 2021).

Globally, national curricula are increasingly integrating references to linguistic diversity, as exemplified by two northern European countries. The Finnish and Norwegian curricula both refer explicitly to linguistic diversity, and the term 'multilingual' or 'multilingualism' appears in both. The Finnish National Agency for Education emphasises an 'Awareness of languages in general and appreciation of multilingualism and multiculturalism' (Finnish National Agency for Education 2014; Kalaja and Pitkänen-Huhta 2020, p. 6), while the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training (2020), English curriculum (Læreplan i engelsk) states, 'Pupils should be given a basis for seeing their own and the identity of others in a multilingual and multicultural context' (p. 3). However, Kalaja and Pitkänen-Huhta (2020, p. 7), when analysing the Finnish curriculum, lament the fact that references to multilingualism remain 'at the level of buzzwords and lack any concrete applications', as curricula do not come with how-to manuals. Although references to multilingualism and linguistic diversity are much-needed and welcome additions to national curricula and educational policy, there is a scarcity of concrete guidelines for teacher training with elements of plurilingual pedagogy (Otwinowska 2014, p. 307).

Several studies in Norway have highlighted the positive attitudes of teachers towards the phenomenon of multilingualism (Haukås 2016). However, there is little evidence of teachers integrating plurilingual practices in their teaching. For example, Pran and Holst (2015) revealed that only three out of ten teachers in Grades 1–10 have at some point carried out activities on the topic of multilingualism with their classes. A survey carried out among 176 teachers of English showed that only 5% believed they were very well qualified to teach in multilingual classrooms (Krulatz and Dahl 2016). Despite a high level of qualifications and well-intentioned attitudes towards multilingualism and L1 activation, the teachers in Burner and Carlsen's (2019) study, working in a school for newly arrived students, struggled to implement multilingual teaching practices. Instead, they prioritised the learning of Norwegian over the L3 (English) for integration purposes, even though English is a compulsory subject in the Norwegian curriculum. Similarly, the teachers in a longitudinal study by Lorenz et al. (2021) supported the idea of integrating multilingual practices, but they did not implement such practices systematically. Hence, recent research into teachers' perceptions and practices in Norway has confirmed that there is still a need to educate teachers who understand and can knowledgeably use multiple languages and multilingual teaching practices in their classrooms in general and in the English classroom in particular.

In calling for a greater focus on multilingualism and plurilingual practices in teacher education, researchers and educators in different contexts have also been considering what teachers need to learn about the phenomenon. Firstly, as no one language fulfils an individual's full communicative, cognitive, or emotional requirements, it is imperative for teachers to understand multilingualism as a complex, dynamic, shifting, and multidimensional phenomenon (Ibrahim 2022; Jessner 2013; Cenoz and Gorter 2011, 2015). According to Otwinowska (2014, 2017), teachers should develop an awareness of crosslinguistic, metalinguistic, and psycholinguistic knowledge concerning multiple language acquisition. García and Kleyn's (2019) three-strand approach includes knowledge of the children and their

families, knowledge of bi/multilingualism, and knowledge of appropriate plurilingual pedagogies. However, not only do individuals seldom identify as multilingual as a result of monolingualizing processes that have penetrated and structured education systems and ideologies, but they are rarely encouraged to explore their personal engagement with multilingualism. A focus on multilingual practices in teacher education can contribute to positive attitudes towards multilingualism (Portolés and Martí 2020; Haukås 2016), but identity-based approaches, where teachers actively go through a process of identification as multilingual, are also proving to be effective (Krulatz and Xu 2021). Ibrahim (forthcoming) argues that teachers need to develop an understanding of multilingualism as subjectively lived or experienced, 'involving positive and negative emotions, attitudes, beliefs, visions and identities' (Kalaja and Melo-Pfeifer 2019, p. 1). This personal and subjective approach constitutes key first steps in 'raising the critical awareness amongst teachers and teacher trainers of their own multilingual background, their own learning trajectories and their own attitudes toward plurilingualism and plurilingual practices' (Wei 2020, p. 274).

#### *1.2. Arts-Based Approaches in Teacher Education*

Even though researchers have employed a variety of traditional tools, such as interviews, narratives, and discourse analysis, there has been a strong 'lingualism' (Block 2014) bias in investigating the multilingual phenomenon. The more recent focus on visual and multimodal/artefactual methods affords research into teacher education and multilingualism interesting new avenues. Whitelaw (2019, p. 7), developing the concept of critical aesthetic practice, foregrounds the role of the arts in developing an awareness and understanding through sensory experiences that allow for thinking, seeing, feeling, and perceiving differently. Arts-based practices open up a safe, creative space for engaging with linguistic repertoires and exploring teachers' and students' identity connections with their linguistic histories and biographies (Busch 2018; Blommaert and Backus 2013; Barkhuizen and Strauss 2020). They bring to the classroom different ways of being, which disrupt the verbocentric status quo (Kendrick and McKay 2002, 2009) and provide a transformative lens through which to re-envision language education. Arts-based approaches personalise the learning process and provide more opportunities for inclusive practices, as they allow for a 'certain freedom and spontaneity' (Lähteelä et al. 2021, p. 21) in appropriating the tools for self-expression related to experience, action, and emotion.

Researchers and practitioners have been engaging with the visual turn in teacher education in innovative ways. Kalaja and Melo-Pfeifer (2019) gathered thirteen studies using a variety of visual methods (drawings, photos, objects, artefacts) across different contexts, including teacher education. For example, the four case studies in Part 3: Multilingual Teacher Education (pp. 197–274) used drawings to explore the participants' future selves as teachers of English in linguistically diverse contexts. Even though these studies did not engage directly with the teachers' perceptions of themselves as multilingual individuals, Pinto (2019, p. 229) did highlight the 'discovery of their own 'plurilinguality', or their ability to think, be(come), and act plurilingually as teachers of EFL. Hirsu et al. (2021) described a project in which researchers, teachers, and artists worked together to operationalise translingual practices in the classroom by side-lining the complex definition of translanguaging. They adopted a creative arts-based approach, in which students used their full range of semiotic resources, highlighting the 'creative and critical dimension' (Wei 2018, p. 13) of multilingualism. Teachers' conversations around those visuals, both individually and collaboratively, also proved to be meaningful in deepening discussions around teacher identity construction (Orland-Barak and Maskit 2017, p. 28).

Aronin and Ó Laoire (2013, p. 225) call for a greater focus on 'the material culture of multilingualism' and argue that 'a deliberate focus on the study of materialities (artefacts, objects, and spaces) can contribute significantly to the investigation of multilingualism'. Ibrahim (2019, 2021) combined visual and artefactual elements in exploring children's identity, where the multimodal text goes beyond the 'predominantly verbal' and 'accommodates the interplay of different semiotic modes and recognises the complexity of multimodal

narrative meaning' (Page 2010, p. 115). Using drawings and selected objects to represent their languages, children described multiple and erratic language trajectories, where repertoires become 'biographically organised complexes of resources [that] follow the rhythms of human lives' (Blommaert and Backus 2011, p. 9). Barkhuizen et al. (2014) privileged the term multimodal narratives (such as drawings, photographs, videos, digital stories, etc.) to highlight the multidimensionality of this representation resource. In this study, student teachers created a concrete visual artefact of their language repertoires and DLCs, constituting a 'powerful tool for delving into participants' feelings, attitudes and perceptions about the self' (Ibrahim 2019, p. 48). The current study heeds the call for pedagogical applications of DLC research by embedding DLCs in artefactual, multimodal practices in researching teacher education.

#### *1.3. Dominant Language Constellations (DLCs) as a Research and Pedagogical Approach*

The concept of the DLC (Aronin 2006, 2016; Lo Bianco and Aronin 2020; Aronin and Vetter 2021) was developed in an attempt to capture the complexity, multidimensionality, and unpredictability of contemporary multilingual communication. The DLC bridges the hypothetical monolingual perspective, where individuals only need one language to function on a daily basis, and the multilingual perspective, where a full language repertoire consists of a 'long list of skills in many languages accumulated with the help of mobility, new media and technologies' (Aronin 2019b, p. 20). Aronin (2019b, p. 21) defines an individual's DLC as 'the group of a person's most expedient languages, functioning as an entire unit and enabling an individual to meet all his/her needs in a multilingual environment'. While a language repertoire refers to 'the totality of linguistic skills in all the languages possessed by an individual or by a community and may include several languages, a Dominant Language Constellation captures only a subset of them (typically but not always three languages) that are deemed to be of prime importance' (Aronin and Moccozet 2021, p. 2). However, as argued by Coetzee-Van Rooy (2018), 'a single dominant language constellation' (p. 25) is unrealistic in certain contexts, and the division between language repertoires and DLCs may be more porous than first identified. Hence, it makes more sense to consider the 'co-existence of several 'dominant language constellations' in the "language repertoires" of people' (p. 24), where the apparently lesser-used languages in a repertoire gain importance, visibility, and functionality in different domains; for example, different languages contribute to a family DLC, a professional DLC, or a leisure DLC. This highlights the nature of DLCs as unstable, evolving, and fluctuating as a result of political changes, group and individual migration, and new life circumstances (Krulatz and Dahl 2021).

Even though the DLC emerged as a theoretical concept, it is now being operationalised in various contexts. For example, Nightingale's (2020) study focused on an individual's language use and 'how his most expedient languages are reconfigured according to the multilingual environment and how they relate to his emotions, language attitudes, and identity construct' (2020, p. 232). This study captured not only the functional aspects of the individual's DLC but also his affective and emotional ties to the various languages.

More recently, the concept of the DLC has been employed in education and teacher training. Coetzee-Van Rooy (2018) investigated the DLCs of urban South African youth to create and contribute to more effective multilingual language-in-education policies and practices. Björklund and Björklund (2021) used individual and institutional DLCs within the teaching practicum as part of the teacher education programmes at Åbo Akademi University in Finland as a tool to uncover the multiple layers of DLCs in organizations. Krulatz and Dahl (2021) and Vetter (2021) both took a language policy perspective: the former compared 'the actual and imagined DLCs of refugees to Norway with the majority communal DLC in Norway and the imagined DLCs that are envisioned for refugees by the government, educational institutions, and communities of settlement' (p. 115), while the latter analysed school language education policy in urban secondary schools. Yoel (2021) investigated the evolution of the DLCs of immigrant (Russian) teacher trainees of English in Israel. Although they used English as a 'pivot language' (p. 158) that allowed

them to negotiate initial access to Israeli society, the objective was to learn Hebrew in order to integrate. As a result, their individual and community DLCs underwent a process of transition and reconfiguration, as Hebrew occupied a more prominent position and English became their professional language. negotiate initial access to Israeli society, the objective was to learn Hebrew in order to integrate. As a result, their individual and community DLCs underwent a process of transition and reconfiguration, as Hebrew occupied a more prominent position and English became their professional language.

government, educational institutions, and communities of settlement' (p. 115), while the latter analysed school language education policy in urban secondary schools. Yoel (2021) investigated the evolution of the DLCs of immigrant (Russian) teacher trainees of English in Israel. Although they used English as a 'pivot language' (p. 158) that allowed them to

#### *1.4. DLC Maps and Modelling: Visual and Concrete Representations of Subjectively Lived Multilingualism 1.4. DLC Maps and Modelling: Visual and Concrete Representations of Subjectively Lived Multilingualism*

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

The original visual representation of DLC maps reflected a constellation in the night sky, with stars representing the different languages (Aronin 2019b; Lo Bianco and Aronin 2020; Aronin and Vetter 2021). At the XIth International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism in Lisbon (Aronin 2018), the author of this article discovered 3D DLC modelling with plasticine and sticks (Figure 1), an activity that provided physical, tactile, and creative engagement with her DLC. As Aronin and Moccozet (2021) stated, external concrete representations 'boost cognition by shortcutting analytic processes, saving internal memory, creating persistent referents and providing structures that can serve as a shareable object of thought' (pp. 5–6). Hence, a '3D plasticine model of a personal DLC serves as both a cognitive extension and a material symbol of one's own sociolinguistic existence and the language skills that ensure this existence' (Aronin and Moccozet 2021, p. 7). This approach to exploring DLCs affords individuals deeper, more personal connections with their language repertoires and DLCs, thus enhancing self-awareness of multilingualism as a concept and of themselves as multilingual individuals. The plasticine models, in different colours and sizes, uncover the relationships, map the journeys, and reveal the identities that individuals ascribe to their languages. The original visual representation of DLC maps reflected a constellation in the night sky, with stars representing the different languages (Aronin 2019b; Lo Bianco and Aronin 2020; Aronin and Vetter 2021). At the XIth International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism in Lisbon (Aronin 2018), the author of this article discovered 3D DLC modelling with plasticine and sticks (Figure 1), an activity that provided physical, tactile, and creative engagement with her DLC. As Aronin and Moccozet (2021) stated, external concrete representations 'boost cognition by shortcutting analytic processes, saving internal memory, creating persistent referents and providing structures that can serve as a shareable object of thought' (pp. 5–6). Hence, a '3D plasticine model of a personal DLC serves as both a cognitive extension and a material symbol of one's own sociolinguistic existence and the language skills that ensure this existence' (Aronin and Moccozet 2021, p. 7). This approach to exploring DLCs affords individuals deeper, more personal connections with their language repertoires and DLCs, thus enhancing selfawareness of multilingualism as a concept and of themselves as multilingual individuals. The plasticine models, in different colours and sizes, uncover the relationships, map the journeys, and reveal the identities that individuals ascribe to their languages.

**Figure 1.** Author's DLC model created at the XIth International Conference on Third Language Acquisition Multilingualism in Lisbon (Aronin 2018) and reproduced in Aronin (2021). **Figure 1.** Author's DLC model created at the XIth International Conference on Third Language Acquisition Multilingualism in Lisbon (Aronin 2018) and reproduced in Aronin (2021).

Visualization methods, such as DLC maps, plasticine models, and computer-assisted modelling (Aronin and Moccozet 2021), offer teacher educators a promising tool for exploring student teachers' relationships with their languages and their individual perceptions of the role of these languages in their lives, and for reflecting on the impact this may Visualization methods, such as DLC maps, plasticine models, and computer-assisted modelling (Aronin and Moccozet 2021), offer teacher educators a promising tool for exploring student teachers' relationships with their languages and their individual perceptions of the role of these languages in their lives, and for reflecting on the impact this may have on their future practice. The present study employed an innovative approach, in which the student teachers (henceforth STs) created artefactual representations of their full linguistic repertoires and naturally occurring DLCs in a free and spontaneous activity.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Aim of the Study*

The aim of the study was to investigate STs' perceptions of multilingualism and engagement with their linguistic repertoires by creating an artefact that encapsulated all of their languages and highlighted their DLCs and by reflecting thereon. Heeding the call for pedagogical applications of DLCs and via an innovative and agentic approach, this paper investigated the creative process of engaging with STs' full linguistic repertoires and their DLCs as they emerged in the process of creative self-reporting.

The study explored the following questions:


#### *2.2. Context and Participants*

This study comprised fourteen DLC artefacts created by three groups of STs enrolled in a Master's Program in Primary and Secondary Education at a university in northern Norway. Two groups of STs (n = 18) were in the first year of their Master's in Grades 1–7 and had chosen English as an elective. These STs had 30 credits of English in a two-year integrated, interdisciplinary course, after which they could teach English in primary school. The third group was in the fourth year of the five-year Master's in Grades 5–10 (n = 10) and had also elected to teach English. They had completed a compulsory 60 credits before choosing to write their thesis in English. The learning and research context was the respective university courses, where the STs were encouraged to explore their language learning experiences and multilingualism. The Grade 1–7 STs experienced plurilingual practices throughout the year, such as translanguaging, tangled translations, comparing languages, and working with bilingual picturebooks (Ibrahim and Prilutskaya 2021). The Grade 5–10 STs took a module on Multilingualism and Plurilingual Practices as part of the 15-credit course Literacy, Diversity, and Intercultural Citizenship in the English Language Classroom, which included the following four sections: Understanding multilingualism: Terminology, definitions, context, and historical background; Understanding multilingualism: A complex, multidimensional phenomenon; Engaging and visualising multilingualism; and Teaching multilingually. The DLC artefact activity was conducted at the beginning of the course as a way to engage STs with their multilingual selves and to prepare them for plurilingual practices. The DLC artefact creation was complemented by a reflective written narrative, in which they were required to address the following questions:


#### *2.3. Data Collection*

The STs were introduced to the concept of language repertoires and DLCs at the beginning of the course. They were provided with an example of the educator's DLC in the form of word cards set out on a table (Ibrahim 2022) and definitions of the terms. They were shown some examples of previous DLC artefacts and were given two weeks to create an artefact that reflected their full language repertoire, within which they highlighted their DLCs. The STs were free to choose any materials, shapes, and colours and were encouraged to create a 2D or 3D manual artefact. The STs then presented their own artefacts to the class, where they revealed their languages and offered explanations for their choices. After this, they answered the reflective questions in a piece of writing, which they returned by email. The STs were free to create the artefact that best described their relationship with their languages, thus allowing agency in how they self-reported on their multilingualism. Fourteen STs gave consent for the use of their artefacts for research purposes, and ultimately, fourteen original artefacts were collected, as described in Table 1.

**Table 1.** Description of artefacts created by STs.



#### **Table 1.** *Cont*.

#### *2.4. Quantifying DLCs within Language Repertoires*

Eighteen languages constituted the overall linguistic repertoire of the participants in this study (Table 2), which can be categorised into the following groups: a common Norwegian–English DLC; other Scandinavian languages that are mutually intelligible; foreign languages as offered in Norwegian secondary education; future language learning; other languages learnt as a result of personal choices or circumstances.

**Table 2.** Number and frequency of languages identified.


#### 2.4.1. Norwegian–English DLC

Norwegian and English appeared as a stable and context-dependent two-language DLC in this Norwegian context. Not only was Norwegian the first language or mother tongue of 70% of the participants, but it was also the language of schooling and the additional language of the STs who had linguistic connections to other contexts, these being Latvian, Polish, Swedish, and Ukrainian, thereby increasing their DLCs to three. Even though English is an elective in the Master's degree, it is a compulsory subject in Norwegian schools from Grade 1. It is ubiquitous in society in general, with easy access to English on television, a very positive attitude towards English, and good levels of the language, as 'English levels in Norway are consistently found to be among the highest in the world' (Krulatz and Dahl 2021, p. 114). These STs, having chosen to teach English, inevitably had this language in their DLCs.

As this was a small sample of participants, it is difficult to generalise how this study contributes to understanding and quantifying DLCs within language repertoires in northern Norway. However, some conclusions can be drawn from the participants' self-reports, as Norwegian and English constituted a stable DLC in all participants.

#### 2.4.2. Scandinavian Languages

The next major group consisted of the Scandinavian languages, Swedish (n = 9) and Danish (n = 9). These were languages to which the participants had easy access as a result of similarities and intercomprehension with Norwegian. Apart from one ST who had family connections in Sweden and had learnt to read and write Swedish as a result, these languages did not appear as part of the STs' DLCs.

#### 2.4.3. Foreign Languages

The third group constituted the foreign languages learnt at school, German (n = 9), Spanish (n = 4), and French (n = 3). The STs generally reported low proficiency levels in these languages and revealed mixed relationships with them, some finding the learning experience positive and others not.

#### 2.4.4. Future Language Learning

The STs also looked to the future and envisaged expanding their linguistic repertoires with further language learning. Two STs mentioned a desire to learn Italian, Icelandic and Sami, or Korean; two simply mentioned their desire to learn more languages, with comments such as 'to be continued' and 'but I want to learn more languages in the future'.

#### 2.4.5. Personal Choice or Circumstances

The fifth group constituted an eclectic collection of languages, mostly appearing in one single ST's artefact, denoting a personal interest in the culture or language (Chinese) or opportunities to study abroad (Dutch). Only one ST mentioned Sami as an 'interesting' language, without any reference to the important place Sami occupies in the Norwegian context.

#### *2.5. Data Analysis*

Data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis consisted of highlighting the number of languages mentioned across the three groups of STs, the average number of languages in the STs' repertoires and self-report on DLCs, and the groups of languages identified. The qualitative analysis was employed to examine the STs' artefacts and reflections.

The artefacts and written reflections were analysed qualitatively as multimodal meaning-making, where the object, the image, and the written narrative interacted to create one message around subjectively lived multilingualism. Riessman (2007, p. 179) acknowledged that 'just as oral and written narratives cannot speak for themselves, neither can images'. Hence, creating, saying, and showing in an interactive process (Busch 2018) become the same thing. Artefactual, multimodal analysis is a holistic approach, which meshes the visual and the lingual. The blending of the two modes in this study enhanced their mutual communicative potential and simultaneously expanded the possibilities of exploring and presenting a multilingual identity. In addition, the materials, shapes, colours, and positionings of the DLC artefacts, constituting a metaphorical object, were chosen by the STs to represent their multilingualism from a biographical, educational, and relational perspective. Content analysis was used to identify the STs' connections with their languages, which was divided into the two categories discussed in the next section of this paper: (a) the object chosen and (b) the creative process.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Exploring the Artefact as Subjectively Lived Multilingualism*

This section explores, in detail, the structure of the DLCs and the choices the STs made in the creative process. The STs' subsequent explanations of these choices allow for a deeper understanding of the shift to perceiving themselves as multilingual, their relationships with their languages, and the impact on their future teacher identity.

#### 3.1.1. Personal and Symbolic Choices of DLC Artefacts: The Object Chosen *Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

First and foremost, the artefacts created by the STs were unique and reflected their likes and dislikes. For example, one ST chose to create a butterfly mobile because 'Butterflies are beautiful and I think languages are too' (ST4), while another chose an atom to reflect her interest in science (ST14) (Figure 2). 'Butterflies are beautiful and I think languages are too' (ST4), while another chose an atom to reflect her interest in science (ST14) (Figure 2).

The printed flags on the butterflies of ST8's artefact signify languages. The flag is a common symbolic representation of language, despite its monolingual, nation-state associations. It is interesting that of the fourteen STs studied, only four used flags to represent languages (ST8, ST6, ST12, ST13). The printed flags on the butterflies of ST8's artefact signify languages. The flag is a common symbolic representation of language, despite its monolingual, nation-state associations. It is interesting that of the fourteen STs studied, only four used flags to represent languages (ST8, ST6, ST12, ST13).

ST3 explained, 'because I think of Norwegian and English as my roots'. ST3 used the positioning of the leaves and different shades of green to describe her relationship with her languages: *'*Danish and Swedish, are in a paler shade of green as I do not have a strong relationship with these languages'. Similarly, ST1 placed Polish, her mother tongue, at the bottom of the tree trunk, slightly lower and in a different colour than English and Norwegian. The use of a striking, highly visible colour, such as red, gives Norwegian emphasis and importance, and the action of plunging the language deeper into the earth associates

Other representations were chosen specifically for their potential to describe the STs' visions and experiences of their language repertoires and DLCs. For example, ST1, ST2,

this language with her roots, her background, and the depth of emotion.

Other representations were chosen specifically for their potential to describe the STs' visions and experiences of their language repertoires and DLCs. For example, ST1, ST2, and ST3 (Figure 3) each chose a tree and used the roots and trunk to place their DLCs; as ST3 explained, 'because I think of Norwegian and English as my roots'. ST3 used the positioning of the leaves and different shades of green to describe her relationship with her languages: 'Danish and Swedish, are in a paler shade of green as I do not have a strong relationship with these languages'. Similarly, ST1 placed Polish, her mother tongue, at the bottom of the tree trunk, slightly lower and in a different colour than English and Norwegian. The use of a striking, highly visible colour, such as red, gives Norwegian emphasis and importance, and the action of plunging the language deeper into the earth associates this language with her roots, her background, and the depth of emotion. *Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

**Figure 3.** ST1's (**a**), ST2's (**b**), and ST3's (**c**) DLC artefacts. **Figure 3.** ST1's (**a**), ST2's (**b**), and ST3's (**c**) DLC artefacts.

ST8's artefact (Figure 4), a heart with paper garlands, symbolises how choices reflect the language learning journey, language connections, and contribution of language families, in this case, the Germanic languages, to developing the ST's language repertoire. Even though Latvian, pertaining to the heart (mother tongue), and Russian, both languages acquired in natural contexts, are separated from the three other languages learnt in educational contexts, the paper garlands are all attached to the heart, thus creating a holistic yet complex story of connection through experience and place. Furthermore, the colour choices and sequencing of the garlands are an analogy for language interdependence. German, English, and Norwegian, all identified as foreign languages, are purposely depicted in yellow, blue, and green, as 'German (yellow) and English (blue) were a base for learning Norwegian (green)' (ST8)*.* Even though this artefact seems to reveal the ST's DLC as Latvian–Russian, and the narrative focused on the learning experience, the sociocultural and geographical reality of place and profession reflects a Latvian–English–Norwegian DLC. Ironically, both English and Norwegian are described as foreign languages, yet they are languages the ST is obliged to use on a daily basis in their current living context. The artefact, narrative, and reality of the ST's professional context depict the ambiguity of multilingual living: language distance (Norwegian is furthest away from Latvian), based on chronology and the ST's life choices, is depicted in the artefact and the narrative yet does not mirror the ST's actual language use. The personal and creative expression of the intricacy and complexity of lived and subjective experience reveals life lived in the inter-ST8's artefact (Figure 4), a heart with paper garlands, symbolises how choices reflect the language learning journey, language connections, and contribution of language families, in this case, the Germanic languages, to developing the ST's language repertoire. Even though Latvian, pertaining to the heart (mother tongue), and Russian, both languages acquired in natural contexts, are separated from the three other languages learnt in educational contexts, the paper garlands are all attached to the heart, thus creating a holistic yet complex story of connection through experience and place. Furthermore, the colour choices and sequencing of the garlands are an analogy for language interdependence. German, English, and Norwegian, all identified as foreign languages, are purposely depicted in yellow, blue, and green, as 'German (yellow) and English (blue) were a base for learning Norwegian (green)' (ST8). Even though this artefact seems to reveal the ST's DLC as Latvian–Russian, and the narrative focused on the learning experience, the sociocultural and geographical reality of place and profession reflects a Latvian–English–Norwegian DLC. Ironically, both English and Norwegian are described as foreign languages, yet they are languages the ST is obliged to use on a daily basis in their current living context. The artefact, narrative, and reality of the ST's professional context depict the ambiguity of multilingual living: language distance (Norwegian is furthest away from Latvian), based on chronology and the ST's life choices, is depicted in the artefact and the narrative yet does not mirror the ST's actual language use. The personal and creative expression of the intricacy and complexity of lived and subjective experience reveals life lived in the interstices of languages, places, and identities.

stices of languages, places, and identities.

**Figure 4.** ST8's DLC artefact. **Figure 4.** ST8's DLC artefact. **Figure 4.** ST8's DLC artefact.

ST12 chose to create a book that encapsulated his languages (Figure 5). For this ST, 'books are synonymous with knowledge and learning, which made a book feel like a natural fit for languages'*.* However, this ST 'wanted the inside to be very personal for my own language journey. I decided to draw things of great importance to me within each language'*.* The use of the word *'within'* gives the impression that languages carry ideas and feelings, and the DLC artefacts reveal these emotions and experiences. This is evident in ST12's meticulous choice of objects to express his relationship with, and experiences in, the languages. Norwegian is a house, *'*family home, as Norwegian really does feel like the language of home and one of the things that ties me to my family and local friends'. English is the language of 'fun' and entertainment, hence the drawings of consoles and gaming. Chinese, the language the ST is learning 'actively in my free time', is depicted by the Chinese apps used to learn the language and keep in touch with Chinese friends. German is connected to the ST's love of metal music, and for Dutch, the bicycle and beer reflect his experience as an exchange student in the Netherlands. ST12 chose to create a book that encapsulated his languages (Figure 5). For this ST, 'books are synonymous with knowledge and learning, which made a book feel like a natural fit for languages'. However, this ST 'wanted the inside to be very personal for my own language journey. I decided to draw things of great importance to me within each language'. The use of the word *'within'* gives the impression that languages carry ideas and feelings, and the DLC artefacts reveal these emotions and experiences. This is evident in ST12's meticulous choice of objects to express his relationship with, and experiences in, the languages. Norwegian is a house, 'family home, as Norwegian really does feel like the language of home and one of the things that ties me to my family and local friends'. English is the language of 'fun' and entertainment, hence the drawings of consoles and gaming. Chinese, the language the ST is learning 'actively in my free time', is depicted by the Chinese apps used to learn the language and keep in touch with Chinese friends. German is connected to the ST's love of metal music, and for Dutch, the bicycle and beer reflect his experience as an exchange student in the Netherlands. ST12 chose to create a book that encapsulated his languages (Figure 5). For this ST, 'books are synonymous with knowledge and learning, which made a book feel like a natural fit for languages'*.* However, this ST 'wanted the inside to be very personal for my own language journey. I decided to draw things of great importance to me within each language'*.* The use of the word *'within'* gives the impression that languages carry ideas and feelings, and the DLC artefacts reveal these emotions and experiences. This is evident in ST12's meticulous choice of objects to express his relationship with, and experiences in, the languages. Norwegian is a house, *'*family home, as Norwegian really does feel like the language of home and one of the things that ties me to my family and local friends'. English is the language of 'fun' and entertainment, hence the drawings of consoles and gaming. Chinese, the language the ST is learning 'actively in my free time', is depicted by the Chinese apps used to learn the language and keep in touch with Chinese friends. German is connected to the ST's love of metal music, and for Dutch, the bicycle and beer reflect his experience as an exchange student in the Netherlands.

#### **Figure 5.** ST12's DLC artefact. **Figure 5.** ST12's DLC artefact. **Figure 5.** ST12's DLC artefact.

3.1.2. Personal and Symbolic Choices in the Creative Process: Shapes, Sizes, Colours, Layout 3.1.2. Personal and Symbolic Choices in the Creative Process: Shapes, Sizes, Colours, Layout 3.1.2. Personal and Symbolic Choices in the Creative Process: Shapes, Sizes, Colours, Layout

The choice of materials for creating the DLCs was overwhelmingly coloured card, which the author was able to offer the STs. However, the personalization of the artefacts occurred through the creative process, in the deliberate choices of shapes, sizes, colours, layout, and arrangement/layering of the different elements that constituted the final The choice of materials for creating the DLCs was overwhelmingly coloured card, which the author was able to offer the STs. However, the personalization of the artefacts occurred through the creative process, in the deliberate choices of shapes, sizes, colours, The choice of materials for creating the DLCs was overwhelmingly coloured card, which the author was able to offer the STs. However, the personalization of the artefacts occurred through the creative process, in the deliberate choices of shapes, sizes, colours,

layout, and arrangement/layering of the different elements that constituted the final

layout, and arrangement/layering of the different elements that constituted the final artefacts. This process was described in the narrative as an intentional act of identifying the different roles languages play, and have played, in each ST's life trajectory. *Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

For example, ST6 and ST7 chose hearts (Figure 6) as a metaphor for their love of languages, yet the shapes, sizes, and colours selected portray each ST's personal relationships and journeys with these languages. ST6 arranged five hearts in three rows of 1 + 2 + 2 hearts, in decreasing size and in different colours per row. Each row illustrates a different language group and a different language relationship. This layering also increases the distance between the languages in terms of frequency of use, proficiency, and learning context. The symbolic choice of colour in this artefact is especially important, as colours are considered signifiers (Tabaro Soares et al. 2021), carrying 'a set of affordances from which sign-makers and interpreters select according to their communicative needs and interests in a given context' (Kress and van Leeuwen 2002, p. 355). Norwegian, the ST's mother tongue, is the biggest heart and is 'designed in a blue heart. Blue is my favorite color, and therefore I thought it would fit my first language'. The next row consists of slightly smaller hearts in orange. These represent English, which the ST studied in school ('I've learned it for 13 years now') and used 'in my everyday life, mostly through the internet and television', and Swedish, which she used with family members. The ST considered these languages to be her second languages ('I consider Swedish as my second language, just like English'), and hence, Norwegian, Swedish, and English constitute her DLC. The third row, in even smaller hearts and in green, captures the ST's two least-used languages, and those in which she had the lowest proficiency. The ST explained her use of green: 'green is a color I don't like that much, and therefore it is on the bottom with Danish and German–The languages I know the least'. artefacts. This process was described in the narrative as an intentional act of identifying the different roles languages play, and have played, in each ST's life trajectory. For example, ST6 and ST7 chose hearts (Figure 6) as a metaphor for their love of languages, yet the shapes, sizes, and colours selected portray each ST's personal relationships and journeys with these languages. ST6 arranged five hearts in three rows of 1 + 2 + 2 hearts, in decreasing size and in different colours per row. Each row illustrates a different language group and a different language relationship. This layering also increases the distance between the languages in terms of frequency of use, proficiency, and learning context. The symbolic choice of colour in this artefact is especially important, as colours are considered signifiers (Tabaro Soares et al. 2021), carrying 'a set of affordances from which sign-makers and interpreters select according to their communicative needs and interests in a given context' (Kress and van Leeuwen 2002, p. 355). Norwegian, the ST's mother tongue, is the biggest heart and is 'designed in a blue heart. Blue is my favorite color, and therefore I thought it would fit my first language'*.* The next row consists of slightly smaller hearts in orange. These represent English, which the ST studied in school ('I've learned it for 13 years now') and used 'in my everyday life, mostly through the internet and television', and Swedish, which she used with family members. The ST considered these languages to be her second languages ('I consider Swedish as my second language, just like English'*),* and hence, Norwegian, Swedish, and English constitute her DLC. The third row, in even smaller hearts and in green, captures the ST's two least-used languages, and those in which she had the lowest proficiency. The ST explained her use of green: 'green is a color I don't like that much, and therefore it is on the bottom with Danish and German–The languages I know the least'.

**Figure 6.** ST6's (**a**) and ST7's (**b**) DLC artefacts. **Figure 6.** ST6's (**a**) and ST7's (**b**) DLC artefacts.

ST7 created a similar structure, origami nested hearts, also in different colours and sizes in four rows, with English occupying the second row on its own. The other languages, Swedish and Danish (third row) and German (fourth row) represent languages that the ST may have understood but did not speak. In the ST's words, 'I wanted them to be in different sizes because of how well I know and understand the languages. The ST7 created a similar structure, origami nested hearts, also in different colours and sizes in four rows, with English occupying the second row on its own. The other languages, Swedish and Danish (third row) and German (fourth row) represent languages that the ST may have understood but did not speak. In the ST's words, 'I wanted them to be in different sizes because of how well I know and understand the languages. The different colours is the same as the sizes, and they are different except from Danish and Swedish

that are the same size and same colour because I know them and understand them the same amount'. different colours is the same as the sizes, and they are different except from Danish and Swedish that are the same size and same colour because I know them and understand them the same amount.'

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22

ST5's DLC mobile with circles and hearts (Figure 7) also reflects this layering of languages as constituent of language distance and a source from which the DLCs emerge. ST5's narrative was interesting, as it decentred the expected distance in the layering of the languages. For example, Norwegian and German are far apart, yet they are both represented by heart shapes, which expresses the ST's enjoyment of learning both languages, 'because Norwegian was my mother tongue and German was fun to learn'. Even though English, Swedish, and Danish are at the same level, just below Norwegian, they are all, together with French, at the bottom of the mobile and with the longest string, categorised as languages the ST had to learn at school. In this case, the ST did not identify proficiency but did separate English and Norwegian from the full linguistic repertoire 'because I speak them pretty much fluently', hence identifying a two-language DLC. ST5's DLC mobile with circles and hearts (Figure 7) also reflects this layering of languages as constituent of language distance and a source from which the DLCs emerge. ST5's narrative was interesting, as it decentred the expected distance in the layering of the languages. For example, Norwegian and German are far apart, yet they are both represented by heart shapes, which expresses the ST's enjoyment of learning both languages, 'because Norwegian was my mother tongue and German was fun to learn'*.* Even though English, Swedish, and Danish are at the same level, just below Norwegian, they are all, together with French, at the bottom of the mobile and with the longest string, categorised as languages the ST had to learn at school. In this case, the ST did not identify proficiency but did separate English and Norwegian from the full linguistic repertoire 'because I speak them pretty much fluently'*,* hence identifying a two-language DLC.

**Figure 7.** ST5's DLC artefact. **Figure 7.** ST5's DLC artefact.

ST13 (Figure 8) described the action of updating her DLC by adding colour and size to the representative drawing of German, which she had deliberately left in black and white as a symbol of a language to which she did not feel a strong connection. The ST explicitly stated that 'the language is a part of my language repertoire; however, I do not consider it as a part of my DLC'. Therefore, the drawing lacks colours. In contrast, the languages that appear in bright colours represent her emotional attachment to people, place, and experience (Ibrahim 2014, 2019), as the ST described, reproduced below: ST13 (Figure 8) described the action of updating her DLC by adding colour and size to the representative drawing of German, which she had deliberately left in black and white as a symbol of a language to which she did not feel a strong connection. The ST explicitly stated that 'the language is a part of my language repertoire; however, I do not consider it as a part of my DLC'. Therefore, the drawing lacks colours. In contrast, the languages that appear in bright colours represent her emotional attachment to people, place, and experience (Ibrahim 2014, 2019), as the ST described, reproduced below:

• People: Latvian–Since exchanging letters with my grandmother has always been in Latvian (and still is); Russian–Russian is associated with my father, who consciously encourages our written and spoken conversations to be in Russian; Polish–is represented as a heart because of the romantic connection I feel to the language, and the • People: Latvian–Since exchanging letters with my grandmother has always been in Latvian (and still is); Russian–Russian is associated with my father, who consciously encourages our written and spoken conversations to be in Russian; Polish–is represented as a heart because of the romantic connection I feel to the language, and

the colours are bright as it is a language I use the most at home. In addition, the heart shape has been chosen to illustrate the connection to the Polish relatives on my mother's side; colours are bright as it is a language I use the most at home. In addition, the heart shape has been chosen to illustrate the connection to the Polish relatives on my mother's side;


**Figure 8.** ST13's DLC artefact. **Figure 8.** ST13's DLC artefact.

#### *3.2. Engaging with the Multilingual Self and Implications for Classroom Practice 3.2. Engaging with the Multilingual Self and Implications for Classroom Practice*

One of the main results of this study was the STs' discovery of a multilingual self or perceiving themselves for the first time as multilingual. This is evident in comments, such as the following: One of the main results of this study was the STs' discovery of a multilingual self or perceiving themselves for the first time as multilingual. This is evident in comments, such as the following:


As a result of using DLCs as a pedagogical tool in an educational context, the STs envisioned a classroom scenario where other languages were welcome, and could be used As a result of using DLCs as a pedagogical tool in an educational context, the STs envisioned a classroom scenario where other languages were welcome, and could be

used as teaching and learning resources. The STs visualised a future imagined classroom community, which prioritised multilingual awareness, inclusion, and proactive visibilising of students' languages. Their comments below also intimate a reciprocal approach in creating a safe multilingual learning environment, as one ST even considered learning words from the students' languages to enhance the process of inclusion:


Creating DLC artefacts involved purposeful kinaesthetic activities, such as cutting and shaping card, drawing and colouring chosen objects, and sticking, attaching, and layering string and wooden ice-cream sticks. This physical interaction with STs' multiple languages not only uncovered their subjectively lived multilingualism but also initiated a transformative process in developing their future professional identities, which is further elaborated in the next section.

#### **4. Discussion**

This study explored STs' engagement with their DLCs and linguistic repertoires through an innovative creative approach to DLC modelling, that is, creating DLC artefacts. First and foremost, the STs engaged positively with this visual/artefactual activity, rendering their language repertoires and DLCs concrete, visible, and tangible. For example, they commented, 'Creating this constellation has been a great experience for me' (ST12) and 'It was fun to illustrate my languages and while I was doing it, I wanted to be able to add more languages' (ST2). The STs were able to engage with a wider group of languages and skills that went beyond, complemented, and interacted with their DLCs. This expansion of linguistic knowledge allowed for reflections on the characteristics of multilingualism as dynamic, porous, and dependent on individuals' shifting language biographies and life trajectories (Blommaert and Backus 2013), with differing competences and proficiencies across closed language systems and domains (Grosjean 2010). It decentred the notion of language proficiency, thus centre-staging plurilingual knowledge and mediation (Council of Europe 2020). ST10 (Figure 9), depicting the interconnectedness of the language repertoire and DLC through planets, appreciated his expanded language repertoire: 'Nice to see how big my language repertoire actually is, it's not limited to the languages that I actually can speak–it can include the languages that I'm not good at'.

As we can see from the results, a plurisemiotic analysis of the DLC artefacts highlights the following areas: the interrelatedness of the language repertoire and the DLCs; DLC artefacts as creative and discursive pedagogical tools for engaging with multilingualism in teacher education; the visibilising of the full language repertoire for exploring language connections, emotions, and identities; and the potential impact on and issues related to classroom practice of multilingualism and plurilingual practices.

**Figure 9.** ST10's DLC artefacts. **Figure 9.** ST10's DLC artefacts.

#### As we can see from the results, a plurisemiotic analysis of the DLC artefacts high-*4.1. The Interrelatedness of Language Repertoires and DLCs*

lights the following areas: the interrelatedness of the language repertoire and the DLCs; DLC artefacts as creative and discursive pedagogical tools for engaging with multilingualism in teacher education; the visibilising of the full language repertoire for exploring language connections, emotions, and identities; and the potential impact on and issues related to classroom practice of multilingualism and plurilingual practices. *4.1. The Interrelatedness of Language Repertoires and DLCs*  This study expanded the activity of DLC mapping and modelling (Aronin and Moccozet 2021), as it embedded DLCs in the language repertoires of the STs, thus extending their perceptions of themselves as multilingual. For the STs, the physical process of creating DLC artefacts began the process of identification as multilingual individuals and future teachers through reflecting on their experiences of lived and subjective engagement with languages. These artefacts allowed for the interplay between the full linguistic rep-This study expanded the activity of DLC mapping and modelling (Aronin and Moccozet 2021), as it embedded DLCs in the language repertoires of the STs, thus extending their perceptions of themselves as multilingual. For the STs, the physical process of creating DLC artefacts began the process of identification as multilingual individuals and future teachers through reflecting on their experiences of lived and subjective engagement with languages. These artefacts allowed for the interplay between the full linguistic repertoire and more context-specific DLCs. They revealed the evolution and unpredictability of DLCs as life circumstances change (ST13 and ST8), where 'it would appear that the DLC is constantly in flux, subject to social, cultural, and temporal changes, the latter of which may be long- or short-term' (Nightingale 2020, p. 244). The STs described a process by which their DLCs emerged naturally in the creative and discursive possibilities of the artefact as a pedagogical tool and fine-tuned their multimodal narratives with artistic choices of size, colour (or absence thereof), materials, and objects.

ertoire and more context-specific DLCs. They revealed the evolution and unpredictability of DLCs as life circumstances change (ST13 and ST8), where 'it would appear that the DLC is constantly in flux, subject to social, cultural, and temporal changes, the latter of which may be long- or short-term' (Nightingale 2020, p. 244). The STs described a process by which their DLCs emerged naturally in the creative and discursive possibilities of the ar-Even though flags and objects may have essentialist cultural-national links, it was the positioning or layering of the different languages that decentred hierarchical attitudes and monolingualizing processes. The embeddedness of the DLC constructed a more complete, albeit complex, story of connection with people; of places, not only geographical, but also learning, travelling, and intercultural spaces; and of holistic experiences.

tefact as a pedagogical tool and fine-tuned their multimodal narratives with artistic choices of size, colour (or absence thereof), materials, and objects. Even though flags and objects may have essentialist cultural-national links, it was the positioning or layering of the different languages that decentred hierarchical attitudes and monolingualizing processes. The embeddedness of the DLC constructed a more complete, The DLC artefacts confirm that 'language choices depend not only on level of proficiency, but on the particular language identity that individuals choose to foreground momentarily in diverse situations, and the communicative need of the immediate sociocultural context' (Ibrahim 2022, p. 37). ST13 expressed the ongoing linguistic dynamism of the DLC artefact as follows:

albeit complex, story of connection with people; of places, not only geographical, but also learning, travelling, and intercultural spaces; and of holistic experiences. The DLC artefacts confirm that 'language choices depend not only on level of proficiency, but on the particular language identity that individuals choose to foreground momentarily in diverse situations, and the communicative need of the immediate sociocultural context' (Ibrahim 2022, p. 37). ST13 expressed the ongoing linguistic dynamism of The artefact is fixed, it represents the current situation, meaning that it would not display any changes if the correlation among the languages would switch. To exemplify, if I would like to teach German at some point, I would have to continue both development and practice of the language, meaning that at some moment the representation of German could become colourful, as well as brighter and bigger in size.

#### the DLC artefact as follows: *4.2. DLC Artefacts as Creative and Discursive Research and Pedagogical Tools*

The artefact is fixed, it represents the current situation, meaning that it would not display any changes if the correlation among the languages would switch. To exemplify, if I would like to teach German at some point, I would have to continue both development and practice of the language, meaning that at some moment the representation of German could become colourful, as well as brighter and bigger in size. The creative process of constructing the DLC artefacts afforded the STs agency as they appropriated the tool, at both research and pedagogical levels. The creative approach helped the STs embrace their full language repertoires and identify the parts that contributed to the whole. An 'umbrella identity' (Fisher et al. 2020) 'encompasses, but in important ways, transcends a person's language-specific identities' (Henry 2017, p. 548). The STs constructed linguistically richer selves in the process, thus attesting to the transformative power of arts-based methods in language teacher education (Whitelaw 2019).

Given the freedom to choose the artistic materials and the concrete outcome, the STs externalised their language relationships, giving them a tangible, visible reality that altered their perceptions of their linguistic selves. This activated a reassessment of not only the self but also acquired language ideologies, beliefs about languages in education, and linguistic social justice. As an extension of DLC modelling, which pre-determines the materials and the outcome, the creative and physical process of connecting languages with string, paper garlands, glue, and tape, the process of layering the languages according to relationships and experiences, and the choice of colour and shape further emphasised these subjective relationships. The interplay between shapes, sizes, and colours and the subjective layering of linguistic experiences created an eclectic yet holistic relationship with the full language repertoire. These details were also what allowed for the emergence and identification of the STs' DLCs.

As with DLC modelling, the materiality of the artefact served as a 'cognitive extension and a material symbol of one's own sociolinguistic existence, skills, and languages used, all these against the background of social reality' (Lo Bianco 2020, p. 37). It also extended the potential of a metaphorical perspective on the creative choices in STs' relationships with the languages. The physical activity of creating the artefact changed the STs' relationship with their languages, as was evident in their reflections.

Ultimately, the artefacts and the written narratives complemented each other, enhancing each other's meaning-making, thus overcoming the limitations of each mode (Tabaro Soares et al. 2021, p. 25) and contributing to the 'unravelling of narratives of identity and language' (Bristowe et al. 2014).

#### *4.3. Visibilizing the Full Language Repertoire*

By engaging with their full linguistic repertoires, which included their DLCs, additional languages, languages they had forgotten, languages they only knew a few words of, languages they did not currently use, and languages they had not even started learning, the STs came to the realization that they were multilingual. Their reflections on the process of visibilising their multilingual repertoires pointed to a positive engagement with their multilingualism and impact on their developing identities as multilingual primary teachers. This has implications for classroom practice, as the STs' positive engagement with this visual, tangible activity encouraged reflection on the classroom implications in a context of increasing linguistic diversity in Norway. This visibilising process allowed the STs to position themselves as multilingual vis à vis their language repertoires and encouraged them to engage with heteroglossic practices, linguistic biographies, and the interconnectedness of language. This transformative process altered perceptions of the linguistic self and increased the potential for integrating a plurilingual perspective in future classroom practice.

As this was a predominantly qualitative study, an exploration of STs' engagement with subjective, lived multilingualism via visual methods and narrative self-reporting was appropriate. However, these were pre-service teachers with very little agency in the classroom in their teaching practicums. Therefore, it is impossible at this stage to deduce from this study how these experiences of engaging with multilingualism will impact their classroom practice in the future. Even though their comments allowed for a glimmer of hope that the artefactual elicitation of biographical narratives had brought down some language barriers and started the process of normalizing multilingualism, more classroombased research into engaging teachers' multilingual selves is necessary. In addition, a longitudinal approach would also more fully capture the evolution of individual and group DLCs and of shifting relationships with their languages.

#### **5. Conclusions**

This innovative conceptualization of the DLC in teacher education extends its potential as a pedagogical tool and identity artefact, thus establishing an intricate and dynamic relationship between language repertoires and DLCs. In attempting to answer the research

questions, this study has foregrounded three main areas relating to the creation of DLC artefacts: the potential contribution of DLC artefacts as research and pedagogical tools in linguistically diverse classrooms; the symbolic, even metaphorical affordances of the creative process in engaging teachers with subjectively lived multilingualism; and eliciting narratives on the abstract concepts of multilingualism and identity, which reflect potential transformative processes in the identification of the STs as multilingual individuals and future multilingual teachers. In Aronin's (2021, p. 37) words, 'the embodiment of one's personal linguistic life and communal linguistic practices in a tangible model turns out to be not only entertaining but also useful for adult multilinguals, educators and researchers who participated in this activity'.

Ultimately, this method of representation that employs visual, artefactual, and verbal tools gives STs a multilingual voice to bring to the classroom, which can contribute to decentring the monolingual and monoglossic premise of language education and start undoing the shackles of decades of monolingualizing processes. The DLC artefacts enable researchers and teacher educators to access and understand the multilingual voices, identities, and experiences of pre-service teachers, thus creating 'the ideal "learning trance", a state in which time flies and fun is being had alongside the learning' (ST12).

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Informed Consent Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NSD Norsk Senter for Forskningsdata (protocol code 836691 and 29 September 2021).

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available in the Results section of the present article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


Barkhuizen, Gary, and Pat Strauss. 2020. *Communicating Identities*. Abingdon: Routledge.

Barkhuizen, Gary, Phil Benson, and Alice Chik. 2014. *Narrative Inquiry in Language Teaching and Learning Research*. New York: Routledge. Björklund, Mikaela, and Siv Björklund. 2021. Embracing multilingualism in teaching practicum in Finland? DLC as a tool for uncovering individual and institutional multilingualism. In *Dominant Language Constellations Approach in Education and Language*

*Acquisition. Educational Linguistics*. Edited by Larissa Aronin and Eva Vetter. Cham: Springer, pp. 131–50. [CrossRef]


## *Article* **Learning to Teach English in the Multilingual Classroom Utilizing the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures**

**Romana Kopeˇcková 1,\* and Gregory J. Poarch <sup>2</sup>**


**Abstract:** Positioned in a specific curriculum context, yet universal in its rationale, this paper illustrates how over the course of one term, student teachers experiment with designing and teaching language learning activities that foster plurilingual competence of young learners of English, while following the *Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures*. It presents two practical teaching examples (one for primary and one for secondary school level) not only to showcase the great learning and motivational potential of pluralistic tasks employed in L3 English classrooms but also to bear testimony to the creativity and plentiful resources today's pre-service language teachers themselves bring into their multilingual classrooms if encouraged and opened up to such a practice. Based on the FREPA descriptors, the paper evaluates the developed teaching material to discuss implications for pre- and in-service training of teachers working with young learners of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

**Keywords:** third language acquisition; pluralistic teaching approaches; plurilingual competence; FREPA; teacher training; metalinguistic awareness; cross-linguistic awareness

### **1. Introduction**

This paper presents the aims and practical teaching examples of a seminar on learning and teaching English as a third/additional language (L3/Ln) for future primary and secondary school teachers in Germany. It is positioned within the broader field of L3 acquisition in which L3/Ln learners are conceptualised as specific learners who have acquired a first language (L1) and are still acquiring or have acquired a second language (L2). Such L3/Ln learners should thus be able to draw on greater previous language learning experiences and linguistic knowledge stemming from two languages than L2 learners do (e.g., De Angelis 2007; Otwinowska and Angelis 2014). Furthermore, and relatedly, L3/Ln learners should differ from L2 learners in displaying enhanced metalinguistic awareness, while also being subject to greater cross-linguistic influence due to the potential interaction of three linguistic systems instead of two (Jessner 2014). We argue that such potential, both in terms of metalinguistic ability and cross-linguistic transfer (whether of facilitative or non-facilitative nature), can and should be put to use in a systematic manner by language teachers in today's foreign language classrooms (cf. Jessner 2008; Krulatz et al. 2018). The aim of language teaching, after all, is to foster pupils' communicative skills in the respective language, on the one hand, and to form a basis for pupils' life-long language learning, on the other hand, which entails the development of plurilingual and pluricultural competence (Council of Europe 2001). This competence is understood as the ability to flexibly call upon the inter-related, uneven, and developing knowledge of multiple languages and cultures (Council of Europe 2018), and the teaching approach that exploits such an ability is referred to as a pluralistic approach (cf. Candelier et al. 2012). It is worth noting that a distinction is

**Citation:** Kopeˇcková, Romana, and Gregory J. Poarch. 2022. Learning to Teach English in the Multilingual Classroom Utilizing the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures. *Languages* 7: 168. https:// doi.org/10.3390/languages7030168

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 29 September 2021 Accepted: 28 June 2022 Published: 4 July 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

made between the terms plurilingualism and multilingualism in European documents to denote individual multilingualism and societal multilingualism, respectively. In the present paper, however, the two terms are used interchangeably in reference to the acquisition of multiple languages by learners of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Given that today's classrooms in Germany are inhabited by pupils with and without migrant backgrounds, curricular requirements for foreign languages explicitly mention that all pupils' language resources should be integrated in teaching to recruit previous language learning expertise and experiences. In other words, pluralistic approaches to learning should be implemented (see, e.g., curriculum for North Rhine-Westphalia; QUA-LiS NRW 2009). What makes this teaching situation significantly different than hitherto is a paradigmatic shift that acknowledges multilinguals not as speakers with several monolingual competencies but much more as speakers with a linguistic multicompetence (Cook 1991, 1992), in whom languages are co-activated and continuously interact at all linguistic levels (see Kopeˇcková et al. 2016; Kroll et al. 2013; Rothman 2011). Furthermore, there is ample evidence that multilingualism can affect cognition (Bialystok 2017; Poarch 2018; see also Poarch and Krott 2019). Such multilingual interactions and cognitive effects may be modulated to varying extents by factors that include relative language proficiencies, language typology (and psychotypology), and contexts of usage (Gullifer and Titone 2021). According to Lüdi and Py (2009), the language resources mobilized by multilinguals are of an individualized, dynamic, and contextualised nature. As such, future teachers of English should, therefore, be aware and become knowledgeable of the possibly diverging learning paths of individual L2 and L3 leaners in order to foster all of their pupils' learning process.

More specifically, we make out three concurrent objectives for English language teachers: (1) pupils with migrant backgrounds should be made aware of the possible language learning synergies originating from their native language(s) and their L2 German; they may profit from their enriched language learning history and language awareness in acquiring L3 English. At the same time, fostering language awareness and cross-language comparisons in these pupils may reciprocally accelerate and support the development of proficiency in their heritage language(s) and L2 German; (2) pupils without migrant backgrounds should be nudged towards perceiving it as meaningful and relevant to acquire an additional language. Such a process could be supported by fostering language awareness through cross-linguistic comparisons between L1 German (including German dialects if relevant) and L2 English (and any other foreign languages they are familiar with), and by reflecting their language learning process; (3) all pupils should benefit from co-creating knowledge about similarities and differences between languages and how languages work at different linguistic levels; this can include morphosyntactic, lexical, phonological, semantic, orthographic, as well as pragmatic features. Being in charge of their personally significant learning, pupils will arguably become more motivated and autonomous learners, confident to engage in life-long language learning.

To enable such learning spaces, foreign language teachers need to be supported with suitable pre-service and in-service training programmes that allow them to reflect on their attitudes towards multilingualism and pluralistic approaches, and to experience how to teach linguistically and culturally diverse audiences effectively. Recent studies from German educational contexts suggest that today's (in-coming) teachers of English are aware of the linguistic and cultural diversity of their classrooms, acknowledging the learning potential this constellation offers. However, they often feel insecure about how to teach English in a linguistically inclusive and effective way (cf. Busse et al. 2020; Cutrim Schmid and Schmidt 2017; Jakisch 2015; Komusin 2017). This paper presents a best practice example in pre-service English teacher preparation that aims to address these teachers' needs.

#### *Utilizing FREPA in Pre-Service English Teacher Training*

The English Department of the University of Münster has been offering a seminar titled "Multilingualism in Schools: L3 English Acquisition" since 2014. Students enrolled in teacher training for either primary or secondary school levels are obliged to take this

seminar as part of their German as a second language module (Deutsch als Zweitsprache— DaZ Modul). The first half of the 14-week seminar covers key aspects of L3 acquisition, while the second half focusses on how to implement pluralistic approaches in the English classroom. At the end of the seminar, students reflect their learning process and their developing skills as foreign language teachers, using sections of the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL, Newby et al. 2007) 1 .

Specifically, during the initial phase of the seminar (8 weeks), student teachers reflect on how prior language knowledge features in the learning of additional languages (Cenoz 2003), on their own multilingualism and their attitudes towards pluralistic pedagogies (De Angelis 2011), and whether knowing and using multiple languages has any beneficial effects on non-verbal cognition (Poarch and Bialystok 2017; Poarch and Hell 2018). Furthermore, student teachers become familiar with the concepts of metalinguistic and cross-linguistic awareness, which have been shown to be of key relevance in L2/L3/Ln learning (Hofer 2015) and can be effectively fostered in the primary (Busse et al. 2020; Hopp et al. 2020) and secondary (Cajko ˇ 2014) classrooms. Against the backdrop of such concepts, the seminar goes on to offer the student teachers a guideline and a tool on how to transfer the theoretical knowledge gained into practical application by utilizing the *Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures* (FREPA, Candelier et al. 2012).

The FREPA operationalises language learners' competences and resources using specific descriptors for a range of educational levels. It makes a principled distinction between the concepts in that competences are viewed in the framework as linking to complex tasks that are situation-bound, while resources represent a mix of knowledge, attitudes, and skills that are at least partially de-contextualised. Competences call upon these internal resources (as well as external resources such as dictionaries) and can be taught as a result of appropriate learning activities. In other words, the FREPA postulates that teaching contributes to the development of competences through the resources which they activate. Accordingly, the FREPA project offers teaching materials with distinct learning objectives regarding knowledge (e.g., about the evolution of languages, cultural and social diversity), attitudes (e.g., language learning motivations, values, and identities), and skills (e.g., metalinguistic observation and reflection). These learning objectives (descriptors) were also used in the present paper as an analytical tool to evaluate the developed teaching activities in terms of their potential to activate pupils' various resources. Relatedly, this study's research question asks about the extent to which the two best practice example activities presented below fulfil FREPA's key learning objectives.

The framework recognizes all linguistic repertoires, both within and outside of the educational environment, including regional, migrant, and heritage languages as well as those taught within the school curriculum; it provides teachers with a better understanding of the options in the pursuit of their plurilingual educative goals. The FREPA can thus be viewed as an important instrument for the implementation of language education policies that strive to develop plurilingual and pluricultural competence of all learners.

In line with these educative goals, the following section presents two example activities developed by student teachers together with the aims of the activities and corresponding lesson plans. The effectiveness of the teaching activities is then evaluated against a set of FREPA descriptors regarding target English learners' knowledge, attitudes, and skills (Candelier et al. 2012).

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

Motivated by the aims and concepts of the FREPA framework, the student teachers in the L3 English seminar collaboratively design their own teaching activities that draw on the languages of a specific learner group. These often include French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Russian, Czech, Dutch, and Turkish next to German and English; however, they are also encouraged to consider regional dialects and/or languages that no one in their group may be familiar with. It is required that their learning activity is plurilingual in nature (not

juxtaposing but rather interrelating multiple languages), well-resourced (integrated within the curriculum for the intended learner group), instructive (effective in delivery), and engaging for the intended multilingual group (based on exploration and encounter rather than direct instruction). Each team-teaching activity to their student peers, pretending to be their target learner group, is planned for 20 to 30 min in length to allow for self-reflection, peer, and instructor feedback after teaching.

Two example activities developed by the student teachers on the training seminar one from a primary and the other from a secondary school level context—are presented. These were selected for evaluation considering: (1) the attained consent from teacher trainees to use their work in a research publication; (2) the diversity of educational levels and linguistic domains illustrated; and (3) fulfilment, at least to some degree, of the first two requirements for the development of the teaching material outlined above, which means evidencing a pluralistic approach to teaching English and having relevance to the curricular goals for the target learner group.

#### *2.1. Example Activity 1: Children of the World, Special Days*

The main aim of this vocabulary learning activity, targeting primary school pupils, is to provide the prospective learners with an opportunity to discover similarities and differences between words in different languages, exemplified on the lexical field of birthday celebrations (see Table 1 below for a detailed lesson plan and Appendix A for related handouts). Acting as language detectives when listening to the Happy Birthday song and matching birthday-related words in different languages, primary school pupils learn to search for lexical connections between their own languages and those of their peers (that is, foster their cross-linguistic lexical awareness), talk about languages (enhancing their metalinguistic awareness), and reflect on different linguistic and cultural practices related to birthday celebrations, as lived in their own familial and cultural contexts (intercultural awareness).


**Table 1.** Lesson plan for multilingual birthday celebrations.


#### *2.2. Example Activity 2: Present Simple vs. Present Progressive Tenses*

This grammar-oriented activity targets lower secondary school pupils. It aims to consolidate their understanding of the use of present simple and present progressive in English while inviting comparisons of the function and the form of the grammar in other languages (see Table 2 for a detailed lesson plan and Appendix A for a related worksheet). The pupils, thus, learn to compare a grammatical structure and its use in different languages (cross-linguistic grammatical awareness) and to use relevant terminology in the discussion of grammar (metalanguage).

#### **Table 2.** Lesson plan for multilingual present tenses.


#### **Table 1.** *Cont.*

#### **3. Results**

The two teaching activities designed and taught by the two teams of student teachers were evaluated in terms of the activities' potential to activate pupils' various resources, as defined by the FREPA descriptors regarding knowledge, attitudes, and skills (Candelier et al. 2012).

#### *3.1. Example Activity 1: Children of the World, Special Days*

This activity is firmly embedded within the English curricular requirements for the target learner group (cf., QUA-LiS NRW 2009) in addressing children's lived (home) experiences and acknowledging the diverse linguistic and cultural manifestations of these. It further helps the primary school pupils to reflect on linguistically and culturally appropriate behaviour in a specific context.

Based on Candelier et al. (2012) the following resources are likely fostered in the young language learners when engaging in this learning activity:

*Knowledge (pp. 27–30):*


*Attitudes (pp. 39–49):*


*Skills (pp. 52–59):*


This activity thus activates a range of relevant resources in the young learners, and sensitively combines both linguistic and cultural aspects of foreign language learning. It promotes both listening and speaking skills in the learners, which is a pedagogically sound decision considering the intended primary classroom context. It is notable, however, that the systematic cross-linguistic and metalinguistic work concerning the observation of similarities and differences between lexical items related to birthday celebrations is limited to five specific languages, which happen to comprise of Modern European languages that the teachers themselves reported being familiar with.

#### *3.2. Example Activity 2: Present Simple vs. Present Progressive Tenses*

This activity revolves around a typical item of English grammar that has been shown to be challenging for L2 learners whose L1 does not make a distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects (e.g., Roberts and Liszka 2013). To facilitate cognitive links to prior grammatical knowledge of the pupils and thus the acquisition of this grammar, the activity promises to activate the following resources in the lower secondary school pupils (Candelier et al. 2012):

*Knowledge (pp. 29–30):*


*Attitudes (pp. 39–45):*


*Skills (pp. 51–55)*:


As above, in the case of this activity, a range of key resources are to be activated in view of fostering the learners' plurilingual competence. It is worth noting that Turkish, a typologically distant language and a frequent home language in the specific curricular context, was invited in the cross-linguistic comparison task. German, as the majority language and language of instruction, and arguably an interesting case for comparison regarding imperfective aspect, was nevertheless omitted from the planned comparison. It also remained unclear why the cross-linguistic work was planned for a learning activity that served as a consolidation exercise rather than in the input phase.

Furthermore, the student teachers justified the choice of the teaching material by suggesting that Santa Claus and Christmas Eve tap a familiar topic that is positively associated in the mind of their pupils. As such it was meant to alleviate some pupils' anxieties about an item of grammar that can be otherwise felt as distant to them and/ or processed independently from their background grammatical knowledge. While the anxiety-reducing consideration on the part of the teachers is to be applauded, the teachers apparently missed on appreciating that their learners may come from more diverse cultural backgrounds than they themselves do, and that the teaching material may, thus, potentially exclude some students. The teachers' designed material, therefore, did not seem to systematically support affective and cognitive linking to the pupils' background cultures and languages (including German) to a full potential.

#### **4. Discussion**

As illustrated in the example activities designed by the student teachers in the introduced teacher training programme, relatively small yet fundamental changes to the lesson planning of English teachers can be made to assure that pupils can build on their many linguistic resources for a more personally significant and effective language learning experience. With the help of FREPA descriptors, teachers are empowered to set specific learning

goals for their target English lessons, to analyse and develop linguistically and culturally appropriate teaching materials, and to devise new plurilingual and pluricultural tasks. The teachers in this study appeared well-guided by the FREPA descriptors in this regard and showed great creativity in developing suitable teaching material for their respective school form only after eight weeks of input providing theoretical grounding and eight weeks of practical teaching support.

What clearly transpired from the nature of the developed teaching material is that student teachers at this stage of their professional career can be rather challenged in thinking beyond their own foreign language learning (and indeed cultural learning) experiences. Evidence for this assessment is the selection of languages for comparison in the first example activity and the main motivation for the design/choice of the topic in the second example activity. Indeed, in a small-scale follow-up study with six of the seminar participants, Komusin (2017) found that, at the end of the seminar, the student teachers still struggled with the idea of incorporating additional languages in the English language classroom. A particular challenge was what they referred to as incorporating "other languages", exemplified by Turkish and Russian languages, both of which may be perceived as less prestigious in German society (cf. Busse et al. 2020). Given that most of the seminar participants had non-migrant backgrounds, the student teachers did not seem to yet have a clear vision of how to integrate truly all pupils' language repertoires into their day-to-day future teaching. Consequently, they actually questioned the feasibility of such a practice.

Future teachers should not feel insecure about devoting lesson time to multilingual tasks in their teaching of a foreign language. Recent findings from research projects including intervention studies that devoted up to 20% of the total of lesson time on multilingual activities show that this is time well spent, which does not impair target language development but rather boosts the learners' vocabulary and specific items of grammar learning, as well as language learning strategies (Busse et al. 2020; Hopp and Thoma 2021). Importantly, these studies also indicate that pluralistic teaching approaches benefit students irrespective of their linguistic backgrounds, that is whether they come from majority or minority language backgrounds. They are, therefore, to be acknowledged as a viable inclusive strategy in teaching foreign languages to promote the development of foreign language skills across language domains and learner groups.

In any case, the results from the present study suggest that suitable pre-service teacher training can help student teachers to begin to appreciate the nature of pluralistic teaching approaches and to build on their own positive language learning experiences (cf. Lorenz et al. 2021) in developing suitable teaching materials. Greater practical teaching experience in actual language classroom and accumulated rewarding encounters with diverse languages positioned next to the target English, which may have so far eluded most foreign language teachers' experiences, may aid teachers' willingness to regularly integrate also minority languages and cultures present in their classroom. Long-term in-service teacher training programmes will be fundamental in supporting such an aspiration for further professional development of foreign language teachers (for an example from the Finnish educational context, see Christison et al. 2021).

Relatedly, language teachers may like to be reminded of the bi-directional nature of the teaching and learning process. Even though well-trained and/or experienced teachers may be appreciative of pluralistic approaches themselves and implement these systematically in their multilingual English classroom, it is also the pupils who bring expectations regarding instruction into the classroom interaction. Although the affective and cognitive aspects of language learning are likely improved in classrooms that implement pluralistic approaches, language learners may initially be unaccustomed to the novel pedagogy and experience a degree of reticence. In a case study with a secondary school English teacher who was a graduate of the academic programme described in this study, Kopeˇcková and Poarch (2022) found that teachers may initially receive a rather questioning rapport from both their multilingual pupils and other stakeholders in the school setting. This finding is also in line with those from a recent large-scale research project conducted in primary schools in

German-speaking Switzerland, which showed that multilingual pupils may not always feel at ease when positioned into the role of language experts, especially when engaged in multilingual activities that appear random, without clear learning objectives and/or stereotypical in nature (Peyer et al. 2020).

It is hoped that the first research-based, practically oriented publications on how to effectively plan for and deliver linguistically and culturally inclusive English lessons (Busse et al. 2020; Christison et al. 2021; Krulatz et al. 2018, 2022; Peyer et al. 2019) will empower foreign language teachers in their specific teaching and professional contexts.

#### **5. Conclusions**

The present paper presented the theoretical background and practical examples of teaching English as an L3 using pluralistic approaches. It described how prior linguistic knowledge can be included in the English language learning classroom and how this may help foster the development of plurilingual competence in primary and secondary school pupils.

We acknowledge that the teacher training seminar presented in this paper has a clear linguistic and cognitive focus and does not explicitly integrate intercultural, or other relevant aspects often found in multilingual didactics. Nevertheless, acknowledging and integrating dimensions of plurilingual competence presented here and envisaged in the FREPA should be considered a worthwhile tool for both foreign language teachers and learners.

For student teachers, it will further be important to experience how exactly such multilingual activities work in real-life classroom situations. Apart from reflecting their own developing competences revolving around lesson planning, lesson conduct, learner interaction, and assessment of learning, they will also have to be aware of the potentially broad linguistic and cultural experiences that will be present in their future classrooms. They will also need to be trained on how to find ways to effectively communicate their pluralistic teaching approach to their own pupils.

In light of the increasingly heterogeneous linguistic backgrounds of pupils in the foreign language classroom, (continuous) teacher training programmes should place more effort on catering to the resulting needs of future and present language teachers. Such needs could be met by offering good practice examples of learning activities that are closely tied to the realities of individual learner groups and teachers, as well as regular opportunities for teacher peer observation and peer feedback.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, methodology, and writing, R.K. and G.J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** We acknowledge support from the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Muenster and the University of Groningen.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The present study was conducted in accordance with local legislation and the institutional requirements, and it follows both the Code of Ethics "Rules of Good Scientific Practice" of the University of Münster (2002) and The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, 2017).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank Victoria Rolfes, Moritz Meyer, Linda Klang, Nadine Sinram, and Melanie Benavides Herrera for their kind consent to use their lesson plans and designed teaching material in the present paper.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A Appendix A. Activity 1: Children of the World, Special Days**

*Appendix A.1. Activity 1: Children of the World, Special Days* **Appendix A. Activity 1: Children of the World, Special Days**

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13


.

.

#### *Appendix A.2. Activity 2: Present Simple vs. Present Progressive Tenses* II. Activity 2: Present Simple vs. Present Progressive Tenses

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13

### II. Activity 2: Present Simple vs. Present Progressive Tenses




#### **Note**

<sup>1</sup> The EPOSTL is a tool for students in teacher training that allows them to reflect on their knowledge of didactics and the necessary skills for language teaching, as well as to assess their developing didactic competences (Newby et al. 2007, p. 5).

#### **References**


## *Article* **Jeg Gotta Like Spille Fortnite, Men I Never Win the Game: Implementing Multilingual Pedagogies in a Norwegian Primary School**

**Delia Schipor**

Department of Languages and Literature Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway, 3184 Borre, Norway; delia.schipor@usn.no

**Abstract:** Teachers in Norway have been increasingly faced with the challenge of adapting their instruction methods to address the needs of minority-language students. The current body of research on the issue seems to indicate that multilingual practices are being introduced in Norwegian classrooms. However, they often rely on majority languages, such as English and Norwegian. Some teachers have been found to employ minority languages to support learners' English writing in drafts. As a result, minority languages in Norwegian schools tend to be regarded as less valuable than Norwegian and English. However, more recent projects are being implemented in Norwegian schools to help teachers alter their ideologies of minority languages. This article adds to this body of research by presenting two teachers' work with multilingual pedagogies, involving the active use of minority languages alongside Norwegian and English in student texts. The data were collected from: teacher reports, student materials, and mentorship meetings. The findings indicate that the teachers successfully implemented multilingual pedagogies by using language portraits, parallel translanguaging in multilingual posters and multimodal dictionaries, and complementary translanguaging in multilingual poetry. These multilingual practices enabled the students to showcase their linguistic identities and multilingual literacy practices. The implementation of multilingual pedagogies benefited from the long-term availability of scholarly input and guidance for teachers and the opportunity to share experiences in a professional network.

**Keywords:** multilingual pedagogy; translanguaging; code-switching; multilingual practices; minority language; home language

#### **1. Introduction**

According to Statistics Norway (2022), immigrants and Norwegians born to immigrant parents currently represent 18.9% of the Norwegian population. This contributes to a culturally and linguistically diverse society, where educators are challenged to adapt their teaching approaches to accommodate the needs of students who use two or more languages in everyday communication on a regular basis, and are thereby considered *multilingual* (cf. Franceschini 2009, pp. 33–34). This article investigates the implementation of multilingual practices to address the needs of multilingual students in mainstream Norwegian primary school classrooms. More specifically, it discusses how two primary school teachers have implemented multilingual practices and presents their reported experiences and needs throughout the implementation process.

The rights of multilingual students are stated in governmental documents such as the Education Act (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 1998) and, more recently, in the revised national curricula for both English and Norwegian (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019a, 2019b). More specifically, the Education Act states the following in Sections 2–8:

Pupils attending the primary and lower secondary school who have a mother tongue other than Norwegian or Sami have the right to adapted education in

**Citation:** Schipor, Delia. 2022. Jeg Gotta Like Spille Fortnite, Men I Never Win the Game: Implementing Multilingual Pedagogies in a Norwegian Primary School. *Languages* 7: 147. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7020147

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 12 October 2021 Accepted: 18 April 2022 Published: 9 June 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Norwegian until they are sufficiently proficient in Norwegian to follow the normal instruction of the school. If necessary, such pupils are also entitled to mother tongue instruction, bilingual subject teaching, or both. The mother tongue instruction may be provided at a school other than that normally attended by the pupil. When mother tongue instruction and bilingual subject teaching cannot be provided by suitable teaching staff, the municipality shall, as far as possible, provide for other instruction adapted to the pupils' abilities.

In other words, students have the right to benefit from differentiated instruction in Norwegian until they are sufficiently proficient to follow ordinary education in Norwegian (Hilt 2016, pp. 13–14). Furthermore, mother tongue instruction and bilingual subject teaching would be provided "if necessary", but the Education Act does not clarify what this condition entails (Hilt 2016, pp. 13–14). However, the more general phrase "other instruction adapted to pupils' abilities" implicitly suggests the possibility of using a wider variety of linguistic resources, including mother tongues and home languages besides the target language of the classroom or school. In this article, a *home language* is understood as any language employed in the family domain, for various activities and purposes, and may thus include the concept *mother tongue*, which refers to the language(s) children learn from their parents. The concept *majority language* is employed to refer to languages that have an official status in a certain geographical area, for example, Norwegian in Norway.

In practice, this mandate for equal educational rights has been implemented in various ways, for example, by creating introductory schools, which aim to prepare students for mainstream schools (see Burner and Carlsen 2019) or introductory classes within mainstream schools (see Beiler 2019). In other cases, under the *særskilt norsk opplæring* 'differentiated instruction in Norwegian' initiative (henceforth SNO), individual teachers are employed to assist newly arriving students, either during lessons in class, or in pull-out sessions occurring in parallel with regular lessons. While these are important measures aimed at the educational well-being of minority-background students, they may be limited in their scope, since they do not address the complex educational needs of all multilingual students, some of whom may in fact be fluent and literate in Norwegian, irrespective of their home languages.

#### *1.1. Theoretical Background*

Multilingual students can benefit from the opportunity to freely draw on their linguistic repertoires to activate prior knowledge, express their identity, and meet their communicative needs in an academic setting (cf. García and Wei 2014, p. 22). First, multilingual students build their multilingual competence and literacy skills on previously acquired languages, as literacy abilities are transferable across languages, especially those sharing the same script (cf. Cenoz 2003). It may be argued that even where languages in a linguistic repertoire use different scripts, there is a certain degree of interaction and overlap between them in the brain, which is referred to as *common underlying proficiency* (Cummins 2000). Second, multilingual students construct their linguistic identities by reflecting on and using their entire range of linguistic repertoires (Cummins et al. 2005; García and Wei 2014; Beiler 2019). Third, multilinguals who have three or more languages often have an increased level of metalinguistic awareness (Cenoz 2003), which means that they can focus explicitly on linguistic forms. This ability, coupled with the comparison of linguistic forms across several languages, constitutes a learning strategy, which may contribute to further language acquisition (cf. Burner and Carlsen 2019). The use of this strategy is actually one of the competence aims in the new Norwegian National Curriculum for English (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019a), which implicitly supports the use of multiple languages for developing metalinguistic awareness. A discussion of different linguistic forms in the classroom might contribute to co-learning (Wei 2014), meaning that teachers allow themselves to be educated by their students, thus facilitating the negotiation of power relations in the classroom. García and Flores (2012, p. 238) advocated for the use of multilingual pedagogies, defined as organized and sustainable teaching practices based on

*translanguaging*, which is here understood as a communicative practice whereby multilinguals employ a wide variety of linguistic resources without aiming to keep them separate (cf. García and Wei 2014, pp. 22–23). In this paper, the use of the term translanguaging is separated from the conceptualization of García and Otheguy (2014), who view the concept *language* as a political construct, and thus claim that a linguistic repertoire is a mass of linguistic features, which cannot be grouped into distinct languages. More specifically, it is argued here that translanguaging may be successfully applied in contexts of multiple language use, while still supporting the idea that the linguistic repertoires of multilingual students consist of different languages (cf. MacSwan 2017). The possibility of identifying different languages thus co-exists with the reality of using multiple languages in the same act of communication without keeping them separate. At the same time, recognizing distinctions between languages as systems does not question the existence of a common underlying proficiency (Cummins 2000) in the linguistic repertoires of multilingual learners. Hence, translanguaging is here understood similarly to *pedagogical translanguaging*, which scholars have recently employed to refer to multilingual practices in the classroom (see Cenoz and Gorter 2020; Cenoz et al. 2021; Prilutskaya 2021).

In certain ways, translanguaging is very useful as an umbrella term, covering a wide variety of multilingual phenomena, including *code-switching* and *borrowing*. Code-switching is referred to as the alternation between two or more languages in one sentence or between sentences (cf. Poplack 1980; Myers-Scotton 1993) and is often governed by linguistic patterns, such as the equivalence constraint (Poplack 1980), which stipulates that switching between languages typically occurs without violating the syntactic rules of either of them. In some cases, translanguaging is especially convenient as a higher-order term where it would be challenging to argue for the exact classification of a specific instance of multiple language use. For example, in the Norwegian sentence *Det var nais* 'That was nice', the English adjective nice has been adapted to the Norwegian spelling conventions, but it is debatable whether this should be classified as an instance of code-switching or borrowing. Such language use is typical in the everyday communication of multilinguals (cf. García and Wei 2014). In the classroom, this would translate into the use of two or more languages within one lesson, or even within one learning activity (Cenoz and Gorter 2011, p. 357).

As MacSwan (2017) points out, studies of multiple language use, including multilingual pedagogies, would benefit from incorporating conclusions from research on code-switching, which indicates that multiple language use is governed by norms and should, therefore, not be equated with lacking linguistic proficiency (MacSwan 2017, p. 169). More specifically, there are two main theoretical frameworks under the code-switching paradigm that may be useful for developing a multilingual pedagogy. First, code-switching has been classified as *parallel* and *complementary* (Sebba 2012), where *parallelism* refers to the use of different languages for the same content, while *complementarity* refers to the use of different languages for different content. Parallelism is, in fact, the translanguaging model for *identity texts*, where students present the same content in two texts—one in their home language, and the other in the target language (Cummins et al. 2005). By using two different languages for the same content, students are allowed to activate their previous knowledge, reflect on their identities as multilingual learners, and invest their identities in language learning (cf. Cummins et al. 2005; Krulatz et al. 2018). Second, code-switching has six communicative functions: *referential*, *directive*, *expressive*, *phatic*, *metalinguistic*, and *poetic* (Appel and Muysken 2005, pp. 118–19). Appel and Muysken (2005, pp. 118–19) explain the six functions as follows: (1) the referential function implies the use of another language if speakers do not remember a word in the language they were initially using, thus bridging a communication gap; (2) the directive function refers to the ability to both exclude and include conversation partners by alternating between languages; (3) the expressive function concerns the use of multiple linguistic resources to construct and present the identity of the speakers; (4) the phatic function has to do with using a certain linguistic resource for an enhanced effect, for example, providing the punch line of a joke in a different language for a more humorous effect; (5) the metalinguistic function implies the use of multilingual

practices to attract admiration and is mainly employed by persons whose professional skills involve multilingual competence; (6) the poetic function refers to drawing on multilingual resources to create a rhetorical effect in literary texts. These functions may be applied within multilingual pedagogies to inform multilingual activities and prompt discussions about language use. To be more specific, many of these functions may be combined in various multilingual activities to incorporate the use of both home languages and majority languages alongside English.

#### *1.2. Implementing Multilingual Pedagogies*

Implementations of multilingual pedagogies in education reflect the softening of boundaries between languages in communication (Cenoz and Gorter 2013), meaning that multiple languages may successfully be used in one given setting or domain, without attempting to keep them separate. This is set in opposition to one domain-one language patterns of language use, which are often found in multilingual societies (cf. Fishman 1972, p. 144). Although the one domain-one language pattern may work well in some settings, applying it in the educational domain in Norway would situate Norwegian as the sole or main educational language, thus placing home languages outside of the educational sphere. This would, in turn, clearly contradict the principle of *social justice*, as referred to in García and Flores (2012, p. 242), whereby educators promote an inclusive and respectful attitude towards all languages and their speakers.

The new national curricula for Norwegian and English advocate for the implementation of multilingual pedagogies. First, the national curriculum presents multilingual competence as a valuable resource both at school and in society in general, irrespective of the languages involved, and encourages teachers and school leaders to adopt the same view (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019a, 2019b). Second, both curricula support this fundamental value with concrete competence aims, which require the implementation of multilingual teaching approaches. For example, after Year 4, or by the age of 10 to 11 years, students should have the ability to compare words and expressions in Norwegian to other languages. In English, they should discover and play with words that are the same or similar in English and other languages familiar to them. This in an important change from the previous curriculum, which limited the comparisons to English and the students' native languages. The new Norwegian curriculum also includes another relevant aim, which refers to the students' ability to explore and discuss linguistic variety and diversity in their social environments. In other words, teachers are expected to foster and guide active classroom work with a variety of languages in Norwegian and English lessons alike, or even in a cross-curricular manner, while also encouraging discussions about linguistic diversity, which can contribute to an increased level of metalinguistic awareness.

Multilingual pedagogies have both a *stance* and a *design* component (cf. García et al. 2017). This means that to embark on developing such pedagogies, teachers must first take a positive stance towards the use of multiple languages by allowing students to use them in both communicative and learning situations at school. Nevertheless, this positive stance on its own is not sufficient, so it must be complemented by the design element, whereby teachers purposefully plan and implement multilingual approaches at all stages of learning processes, based on the students' needs and linguistic practices.

Such a multilingual teaching approach might include, for example, the use of *language portraits*, where the students showcase their linguistic repertoires in drawings. More specifically, they use different colors to represent their different languages on a bodylike figure, and thereafter explain their representations (Busch 2012). This activity may contribute to the development of learners' metalinguistic awareness, as they consciously reflect on when and how they use their different languages. A useful aspect of this process might be the potential to uncover patterns of domain-based distributions of languages in students' experiences.

Teachers may also ask students to make comparisons between different languages to raise their metalinguistic awareness (cf. García and Flores 2012; also see Sections 1.1 and 1.3). This may include discussions of the pragmatic functions of multilingual practices, as language choices in a text may serve to guide readers (see Section 3.1.3). Further, multilingual materials produced by students may be used to create *schoolscapes*, which Gorter (2017) defines as the linguistic landscapes of educational spaces such as schools. In other words, schoolscapes represent the totality of signs made publicly visible in a school and thus have the potential to make the students' language repertoires visible in the classroom and other educational spaces (cf. Gorter 2017). This validates the importance of all represented languages and empowers their speakers by indicating that their identities are accepted and valued in a particular educational space.

#### *1.3. Multilingual Practices in Norwegian Schools*

As multilingual practices have recently started to be employed in Norwegian classrooms (see Beiler 2019; Krulatz and Iversen 2019), scholars have identified several challenging aspects. To begin, Iversen (2017) pointed out that in certain classrooms, some students used their minority languages as learning strategies (see Burner and Carlsen 2019) to enhance their learning process. This is undoubtedly beneficial, but the problematic aspect is that their teachers seemed to take on a rather passive role, as they merely encouraged multilingual practices if the students used them, but did not intentionally foster them. In general, teachers may shy away from implementing new teaching methods if they feel that they do not have the necessary training for such endeavors (cf. Šurkalovi´c 2014), or they might be reluctant to challenge the status of the majority language in the classroom, even if they have the skills to do so (cf. Iversen 2017).

Burner and Carlsen (2019) presented similar findings in their study. Although, the teachers in their study had appropriate qualifications and reported positive attitudes towards multilingual practices, they did not employ home languages systematically in instruction. More specifically, the teachers sporadically asked the students for words in their home languages, especially in Norwegian lessons, but were reluctant to establish a consistent practice due to their perceived lack of time (Burner and Carlsen 2019, p. 11). In fact, the teachers admitted to intentionally prioritizing Norwegian, even in English lessons, to prepare the students for mainstream schools (Burner and Carlsen 2019, pp. 8–10). In terms of visibility, the researchers indicated that home languages did not seem to be part of the schoolscape, as only English and Norwegian were represented on the classroom walls, on two separate posters (Burner and Carlsen 2019, p. 11). Finally, the teachers expressed concern about the fact that students may use their shared home languages to form sub-groups, which would compete with school structures (Burner and Carlsen 2019, pp. 11–12).

In another important study, Beiler (2019) unveiled how multilingual learners make use of their multilingual repertoires for draft writing in two introductory English classes. In this study, the teachers explicitly encouraged the students to use their home languages and other languages they had acquired before their arrival in Norway. The students typically translated and alternated between languages to support their drafts and thereafter wrote the final piece in English. Interestingly, they seldom used their home languages, and seemed to prefer other languages. There seemed to be a strong contrast between their rich language portraits, and the extent to which they used their represented languages in draft writing. One student explained that she rendered her literacy skills in her home language as insufficient for school texts, even if she used it in informal conversations on social media (Beiler 2019, p. 21). According to Beiler (2019), teachers should legitimize students' out-of-school literacy practices as useful resources for the development of inschool literacy. Furthermore, Beiler (2019) also suggested that translanguaging should be used as a rhetorical mechanism in finalized texts, which corresponds to Appel and Muysken's poetic function of code-switching (Appel and Muysken 2005, p. 119).

Krulatz et al. (2018) showed that minority languages may remain invisible even when teachers actively engage with multilingual approaches in language teaching. The researchers conducted a project within the *Kompetanse for Mangfold* 'Competence for Diversity' initiative, which consisted of a one-year collaboration with two rural schools from Mid-Norway. The project focused on the use of identity texts (cf. Cummins et al. 2005) to increase metalinguistic awareness and respect for cultural diversity among students and teachers. Although this aim was achieved, the researchers reported that the identity texts produced by students only showed the use of English and Norwegian, with no visible presence of minority languages (Krulatz et al. 2018, p. 566), which reproduced domain-based patterns of language distribution in the educational domain, where Norwegian and English are typically taught, used and, thus, recognized as the only languages of the school.

#### *1.4. Relevance and Aims of the Present Study*

This paper contributes to the growing body of research on multilingual practices in Norwegian schools by presenting results that complement some of the main findings of previous research in the field, namely: teachers' passive role concerning home language use (Iversen 2017), or their reluctance to adopt a systematic approach for including home languages in the classroom (Burner and Carlsen 2019), and the general lack of home language use in student texts (Krulatz et al. 2018), especially finalized written texts (Beiler 2019). In contrast to previous work, this study discusses systematic approaches of teachers who actively encourage and support home language use both in learning activities related to, for example, vocabulary work, as well as in final pieces of creative writing, such as multilingual poetry.

The research questions addressed are as follows:

RQ1: What kind of multilingual practices do teachers employ in their work with multilingual learners in the classroom? What might be the aims and outcomes of such multilingual practices?

RQ2: Do the practices teachers employ encourage students to use their home languages actively? If so, how are home languages represented in student texts?

RQ3: What are teachers' reported experiences and needs at the different stages of implementing multilingual pedagogies?

These questions are answered based on various types of data collected during a larger project within the *Competence for Diversity* initiative, funded by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (see Section 2). Section 3 presents the findings in detail, and Section 4 discusses them in connection with relevant theoretical frameworks and previous studies. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions and identifies several challenges and main factors that may influence the implementation of sustainable multilingual pedagogies in Norwegian mainstream classrooms.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

This article is based on data collected during a professional development project involving primary school teachers of English and Norwegian, which aimed to equip teachers to perform in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms through collaborations between schools and universities. This professional development project was conducted in a similar way to that presented by Krulatz et al. (2018). As Krulatz et al. (2018) point out, the local implementation of *Competence for Diversity* programs seems to vary across the country, as they are based on the requests from local schools. Typically, schools carry out an assessment of their needs, which the partner university uses to create a plan and eventually provide tailored training for teachers (Krulatz et al. 2018). As a result of such collaborations, teachers benefit from scholarly input and mentorship and often create new professional networks within or across schools.

#### *2.1. Background of the Study*

The project referred to here was conducted in the period 2020–2021 as a collaboration between the Education Agency (henceforth UDE) and a university in Eastern Norway. It started in September 2020 and was completed in April 2021 and initially involved eight schools in an urban area in Eastern Norway, 19 in-service primary and secondary-school teachers, and seven faculty members who acted as lecturers and teacher mentors. This project addressed a rather general need expressed by the school representatives, namely, to equip teachers to work with student groups characterized by linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity. The present author was one of the teacher mentors, and she held one of the lectures and led two mentorship groups in collaboration with a faculty colleague.

The program included four lectures in plenum and three mentorship meetings in small groups, consisting of two to six teachers per group. The attendance rate varied considerably during the project, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The lectures were organized as 2 to 2.5 h sessions and were carried out in September and October 2020 and February and April 2021. The mentorship meetings were organized as 1.5 h seminars in alternation with the lectures, and started in October, after the first lecture. The lectures provided theoretical input and practical activities for use in multicultural classrooms on the following topics requested by the school representatives: religion in a multicultural context, multilingualism as a resource, transitions from everyday language to school language, and practical tools for multilingual teaching approaches. It should be noted that the latter topic was discussed in detail during the second and third lectures, as well as continuously in the mentorship meetings led by the present author. The mentorship meetings provided opportunities for teachers to clarify the theoretical input from lectures, and discuss how certain activities could be applied in their classes.

The general aim of the project was to guide and support teachers as they designed and employed new methods for teaching in a multicultural environment. After each lecture, the teachers received assignments to work on and share with the professional community at their respective schools. They then wrote brief reports to present their work, which they sent to the mentors before each mentorship meeting. During the meetings, they shared and discussed their experiences with the mentors and the other teachers in the group. Three main challenges were identified while the project was carried out. First, no mentorship meeting was organized after the final lecture. Second, many of the teachers participated passively. Third, two of the mentorship meetings and two of the lectures were held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was also the reason why many teachers found it challenging to work with the provided assignments and attend all the lectures and mentorship meetings.

#### *2.2. Participants*

This article is based on the experiences of two primary school teachers, here referred to as T1 and T2, from a mainstream school in Eastern Norway, which offers education in grades one to seven, and where roughly 50% of the students have an immigrant background. Out of the 11 teachers in the mentorship groups led by the present author, only T1 and T2 participated in all lectures and mentorship meetings, handed in reports, and were actively involved throughout the program. T1, a female teacher, and T2, a male teacher, each had approximately 30 years of teaching experience at the primary level. Both teachers held a graduate degree in teaching, organized as a bachelor's degree followed by additional courses. T1 taught Norwegian, Mathematics, Social Studies, and KRLE (Christianity, Religion, Philosophies of Life, and Ethics). T2 taught Norwegian, English, Music, Social Studies, Food and Health, and KRLE. Although T1 did not teach English, her work has been included here because it involves the use of English alongside Norwegian and minority languages.

During this project, T1 and T2 taught in primary-school classes, where most immigrant students come from Albania, Poland, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Denmark, Turkey, Somalia, and the Philippinesand Korea. The teachers worked on the integration of mother tongues in multilingual education in a cross-curricular manner. This means that the multilingual activities they implemented, except for the work on multilingual dictionaries, were not limited to either English or Norwegian. Instead, the activities were based on the inclusion of the students' mother tongues alongside Norwegian and English. Although Norwegian seemed to be the teachers' preferred language of communication and starting point in most activities, English proved to be a steadfast companion in all activities, in various ways.

#### *2.3. Data Collection Methods*

The methodology employed in this project was based on linguistic ethnography, an approach that aims to study the participants' perspectives in the wider socio-cultural context where they occur (Copland and Creese 2015). An ethnographic perspective allows for qualitative introspection into the experiences of participants (cf. Heath and Street 2008), including the investigation of language practices in context over time (Heller 2008, p. 250). An important aspect of using an ethnographical methodology is that it values the combination of various data, such as interviews, written reports, and student materials, as a balanced approach that contributes to the overall validity of the research enterprise (cf. Copland and Creese 2015).

This study employed four main types of linguistic ethnographic data collected from:


The 21 digital copies of student texts consisted of seven language portraits, four vocabulary charts, two multilingual dictionaries, and eight multilingual poems. The language portraits and multilingual poems were produced by 10 students. Seven of them also participated in recordings made by T2, where they presented their portraits or read their poems out loud. These recordings were transcribed and used to confirm the students' linguistic repertoires. To ensure their anonymity, the students are referred to as Sn (n = 1–10) and the plural form of the third person, they, is used for both singular and plural references. In this study, biological gender is not a salient variable. The present author received written consent from the students' parents or caregivers to use the student texts and recordings for research purposes. To ensure data protection, the files were stored on a password-protected computer to which only the present author had access. The project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (henceforth NSD), with registration number 442887.

Furthermore, the multilingual dictionaries and poems were transcribed, and the language portraits and vocabulary charts were described based on their visual content together with the student recordings and extra-textual information provided by teachers in their reports, or orally during the mentorship meetings. The student texts were first grouped based on their types and shared characteristics, and then analyzed based on their linguistic composition by integrating MacSwan's (2017) understanding of the existence of separate languages that may nevertheless share certain linguistic features, such as cognate words shared by North Germanic languages (see Section 3.1.3). To be more specific, the languages employed in the texts were identified, and their presence was interpretated and discussed by means of theoretical frameworks involving the functions of code-switching (see Appel and Muysken 2005; Sebba 2012) and applied linguistic perspectives on multilingual practices (see Cummins et al. 2005; Krulatz et al. 2018). This analysis was complemented by teachers' insights and reflections presented in their reports.

The four teacher reports and digital copies of the 21 student texts were sent to the researcher by T1 and T2 prior to the mentorship meetings. Of the four reports, two were produced individually by each teacher, and the first and last were produced by T1 and T2 in collaboration. These reports provided various types of information, ranging from practical details about the school, such as the percentage of immigrant students, to descriptions of how multilingual practices were implemented and the teachers' reflections on this process. The reports also contained contextual information about the student texts, such as the

resources the students used and their reactions to the implementation of multilingual practices. For this reason, the reports were used as supportive material in the analysis of student texts.

An informal interview was employed to collect data during the first mentorship meeting of the project, which took place in person. This type of interview is an established ethnographic method (Copland and Creese 2015) and was selected for several reasons. First, it allows the participants to explore a wider area or topic (Copland and Creese 2015), where the researcher uses strategic questions rather than a pre-prepared interview guide (Agar 2008, p. 140). As a result, the researcher may avoid taking the formal role of an interviewer, thus allowing the participants to take charge of the discussion. This is particularly useful during the initial phase of a long-term project because it allows for an in-depth exploration of participants' concerns, as the researcher can address other important questions at a later stage (Gobo 2008, p. 191). During the informal interview, the teachers reflected on their attitudes, knowledge, practices, and needs concerning multilingual practices within the larger frame of teaching approaches for multicultural classrooms. Their reflections were recorded in hand-written notes, which were thereafter processed through inductive coding to identify the most significant reoccurring themes (cf. Saldaña 2011).

During the last mentorship meeting, which took place on Zoom, a formal semistructured focus-group interview was used to investigate the two teachers' perspectives and needs after they had implemented multilingual practices in their classrooms. More specifically, an interview guide was prepared based on relevant theory and the themes identified during the coding of the informal interview notes. The teachers were also encouraged to provide input on additional topics related to their experiences with multilingual practices, as the interviewer's purpose was to perceive the investigated matter from the interviewees' perspectives (cf. Copland and Creese 2015). At this point, a formal type of interview was considered ideal because the teachers and mentors had already established a relationship based on mutual trust and respect (see Sherman Heyl 2001, p. 369). External factors, such as school announcements about infection control measures and teachers' limited time availability, might have had an impact on the discussion. This interview was recorded with a physical voice recorder placed at the interviewer's location to ensure the privacy of the participants. The interview was transcribed, and the data were processed through inductive and abductive coding (cf. Saldaña 2011) by focusing on theory-based themes, as well as themes generated by the participants. The present author received written consent from the other mentor and both teachers to use the recorded interview, reports, verbal contributions from mentorship meetings, and student texts for research purposes. To ensure data protection, the files were stored on a password-protected computer to which only the present author had access. The project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (henceforth NSD), with registration number 442887.

The following section addresses the research questions by presenting the various multilingual practices employed by the teachers during the project and their experiences and needs identified at the start and end of the project. The results also make reference to students' involvement in the process, as well as implications for their families and the professional community of the school, insomuch as it was affected by the teachers' work with multilingualism.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Multilingual Practices and Materials and Their Value in and beyond the Classroom*

3.1.1. Language Portraits—A Springboard for Metalinguistic Awareness and Co-Learning

In this study, the participants' work with language portraits seems to have had a domino effect by reaching learners, the school's professional community, and the learners' families. First, T2 worked with language portraits in his class. Subsequently, T1 and T2 presented this activity to their colleagues, who thereafter also employed them in their work with students from 1st grade to 7th grade. The teachers' work with this activity had three main outcomes: (1) developing the students' metalinguistic awareness and validating their

linguistic identities, (2) facilitating innovative reflections on the concept language, and (3) establishing co-learning pathways within and beyond the classroom. These aspects are presented in detail below, together with the background of the implementation process.

After the second lecture of the teacher training program, T2 decided to use language portraits with his class to learn more about the languages the students used at home, and what other languages they could use, irrespective of their proficiency level. The teacher's motivation was inspired by an assignment received during the program, but the use of language portraits for this purpose was his own decision. T2 decided to carry out this lesson in an interdisciplinary setting. More specifically, the students explored and reflected on their linguistic practices including minority languages, so instruction was not formally restricted to either English or Norwegian as overarching subjects, but the teacher used Norwegian as the main language of instruction.

By modelling the activity and allowing the students to define their own understanding of knowing a language, T2 fostered metalinguistic awareness development among his students and validated their linguistic identities in the classroom. First, T2 explained his motivation to the students and then proceeded to model the activity for them by creating his own language portrait. While creating their portraits, some of the students considered that they needed to speak a language fluently to represent it, while others believed one word was enough. Notably, both approaches were approved by the teacher. During the days following this activity, the teacher had informal, individual discussions with the students, where they explained why they chose to represent their languages with a certain color and in a certain place on their drawing of the body-like figure. Some of the students presented their portraits independently, while others needed guiding questions from the teacher. This paved the way to developing their metalinguistic awareness by asking them to reflect on the languages they knew, where and when they used them and with whom, and how they learned them. Afterwards, the portraits were displayed on the classroom wall, thus validating the students' linguistic identities by making them visible in their social space.

According to T2's report, the students engaged well with this activity, and believed it was an exciting exercise. Indeed, their engagement is clearly noticeable in some of the portraits, which present complex representations of multiple languages. For example, S5's representation of languages included seven linguistic varieties: Norwegian (mother tongue), Turkish (mother tongue), Danish, English, Nynorsk (New Norwegian), Swedish, and American English (Amerikansk in original). Interestingly, the reference to Amerikansk here indicates that S5 has an awareness of distinctions between British and American English. Other mother tongues represented in the students' portraits are Urdu, Amharic, and Polish, which are typically associated with the home or family domain. Unsurprisingly, Norwegian and English appear in all language portraits and seem to be the only languages used in two domains, namely, education and hobbies.

In their final report, T1 and T2 wrote that "they [the students] were motivated, proud, and showed mastery" during the implementation of language portraits at the school level. More specifically, the students appeared proud of their backgrounds, which the teachers considered to be a positive aspect. At the same time, this activity fostered the students' reflections on their linguistic identities and contributed to creative conceptualizations of the term language among them. To illustrate, 5th-grade students discussed the potential for considering gaming and martial arts languages, and 7th-graders talked about multiethnolects, and more specifically, kebabnorsk, a local ethnolect used in and around Oslo by teenagers and young adults with a multilingual background. Such discussions revealed the students' advanced abilities for sociolinguistic and metalinguistic reflection, which seemed to be directly proportional with their age.

Another important outcome of using language portraits was the creation of new pathways for co-learning (see Section 1.1) both within and outside the school. The teachers reported that they gained new knowledge about each other and learned more about the students' backgrounds, linguistic repertoires, and communication practices. At the same time, the students also used this opportunity to get to know each other better. Beyond the classroom setting, 1st graders' work on language portraits involved the participation of parents, who talked to their children about their own linguistic repertoires. This may be considered a useful step for establishing a systematic long-term collaboration between the school and parents, aimed at forging a common understanding of the students' linguistic needs and development.

#### 3.1.2. Parallel Translanguaging in Vocabulary Work

The use of multilingual practices for vocabulary work was based on parallel translanguaging, which refers to presenting the same content in two or more languages (see Section 1.1). The findings presented in this section are based on two main types of materials employed by the teachers: multilingual posters and multimodal dictionaries. The main findings indicate that both types of materials successfully showcase the students' multilingual literacy skills and that the students' families are involved in the students' learning processes in various ways. The findings are presented in more detail below, following descriptions of the implementation of multilingual materials in the classroom.

#### Multilingual Fairytale Posters

The main aim of using multilingual practices in T1's class was to raise her students' awareness about the presence of multiple languages in their class while working with fairy-tale vocabulary. She aimed to activate and include the linguistic competence of all students, while allowing them to experience linguistic diversity firsthand. For this purpose, she used multilingual posters with key words based on the fairytale Little Red Riding Hood. This study analyzed four multilingual posters in Urdu, Albanian, Turkish, and English, respectively.

The fairytale was presented to the class orally in a parallel manner, by using Norwegian, English, and Turkish in sequence to convey the same content. Turkish was chosen since it was represented in some of the students' repertoires, so a Turkish-speaking teacher employed at the school assisted with this. Afterwards, the students were asked to retell the story to their learning partners by using keywords in Norwegian provided by the teacher. This was followed by students activating their multilingual schemata by identifying key concepts in their home languages, such as Urdu, Turkish, Kurdish, Albanian, Korean, and English. T1 then placed the words written by the students on post-it notes into a chart where she provided the keywords in Norwegian in the left-hand side column. Interestingly, Kurdish and Albanian seemed to be missing from the image of the chart provided by T1. The absence of Kurdish may be related to the fact that in her report, Kurdish is presented as an alternative to Turkish.<sup>1</sup> It is also possible that these two languages belonged to the repertoires of students who also spoke Turkish, but it is unclear if this was indeed the case.

The use of differentiation in this task played a major role in organizing the work on multilingual posters. In other words, the teacher employed collaborative groupwork organized in homogenous groups based on shared home languages. Additionally, minoritylanguage students created multimodal posters with keywords in their home languages, accompanied by drawings and translations to Norwegian, while students with a Norwegian background created a comic strip based on the fairytale. One of the students, who had Albanian in their repertoire, managed to perform both tasks. After they created the posters, the students presented them to the rest of the class, who repeated the words out loud in each minority language.

A significant finding based on the multilingual posters is that the students' linguistic identities seemed to be reflected by visually marking certain languages. For example, on the English–Norwegian poster, the English words and drawings were produced in plain gray pencil on a white background, while the Norwegian words were written in black ink on pink cut-outs glued onto the poster. As a result, the Norwegian words immediately caught the viewer's attention and may mark Norwegian as a more important language for the students who created this poster. Similarly, the Turkish words were larger

and took up considerably more space than the Norwegian ones on the Turkish poster. Additionally, this poster is different from the others in that the students wrote the Turkish title Kırmızı ¸Sapka 'Red Hood' twice at the top of this poster, without the Norwegian equivalent. Additionally, it appeared that this title is the students' interpretation since the conventional Turkish title would be Kırmızı Ba¸slıklı Kız. This could indicate that (some of) these students had previously encountered this fairytale in Turkish, possibly in more informal settings. In general, these details seemed to indirectly present Turkish as an especially important language in these students' repertoires. On the Albanian and Urdu posters, the visual representations of the languages seemed to be more balanced, which could indicate a relatively equal status of the languages employed in the respective posters. More specifically, on the Albanian–Norwegian poster, the words in the two languages were similar in size and written in the same color, starting with the Norwegian words. In the Urdu–Norwegian one, there were no significant differences in size between the languages, but the Urdu words were placed above the Norwegian ones, with the latter being underlined.

The work on multilingual posters allowed the students to showcase their literacy skills in the finalized pieces. For example, the Turkish and Urdu posters employed Turkish diacritics and the Urdu alphabet, respectively, which indicates the existence of advanced literacy skills in Turkish and Urdu. At the same time, T1 became aware of the students' advanced multilingual literacy skills, as her report stated that the Urdu-speaking children showed a high level of proficiency in their mother tongue, both orally and in writing. It may be noted that the presence of mother tongues in the finalized pieces, such as multilingual posters, indicates that minority languages were accepted and valued as languages of communication in this educational setting.

The students who spoke minority languages, especially Albanian, Turkish, and Urdu, showed a high level of engagement with the task, while the ethnically Norwegian students seemed more passive. The minority-language students shared their experience with their families, which T1 perceived as an indication of their pride and satisfaction with the recognition of their linguistic background in the classroom. Some of the students experienced a certain degree of uncertainty with regard to finding the equivalent words in their home languages, but the students who spoke Turkish, Albanian, and Urdu seemed enthusiastic about working on their posters. They were proud to say the words in their mother tongue out loud in class, and have their classmates repeat after them, which may be a source of co-learning for both peers and teachers alike.

#### Multimodal Dictionaries

The teachers' main purpose for using multimodal dictionaries in a cross-curricular manner with both of their classes was to support the students' understanding and acquisition of idiomatic phrases while fostering their metalinguistic awareness. For this purpose, they created a template for a multilingual dictionary based on the topic Gi gass + Flaggregler 'Speed up + flag rules' from the SALTO student book (see Kolbjørnsen Bjerke et al. 2020, pp. 15–17), which they used with their classes. This was based on the theoretical input and assignment they had received during the third lecture of the training program.

The main principle for the template design was based on parallel translanguaging and partly also on the principle of direct language acquisition. In other words, visual representation was the starting point for the first two concepts, as it was provided in the first left-hand column. This was followed by a column dedicated to Norwegian, English, and mother tongue/dialect/synonym in this order, which allowed for the presentation of the same signified concepts by using signifiers in different languages.

Although Norwegian seemed to be prioritized, the presence of English and mother tongue was significant, as it provided a more inclusive representation of the students' multilingual repertoires. The inclusion of dialect and synonym in addition to mother tongue was based on differentiation aimed at supporting the ethnic Norwegian students in exploring their entire linguistic repertories, which would typically consist of different linguistic varieties and styles, ranging from formal to informal ones.

This template guided the students in creating their own multimodal dictionaries, by drawing the last three images in the first column, filling in the last word in the English column, and providing corresponding words in their mother tongue (see Table 1). In their final report, T1 and T2 mentioned that some of the students worked with their parents, while others used online translation tools to accomplish this task.


**Table 1.** Multilingual dictionary with Turkish.

The teachers were generally impressed with the students' achievements in working with these concepts. However, the report did not specify whether the students compared between the different languages in the classroom. This is interesting because such a parallel display of different languages would be ideal for identifying similarities and differences between various linguistic forms, and thus facilitating metalinguistic awareness as a learning strategy and competence aim (see Sections 1.1 and 1.3). For example, comparisons could be drawn between languages within one table, by comparing between English, Norwegian, and the mother tongue, as well as by comparing the different mother tongues across tables.

Although this design was based on parallel translanguaging, it had a complementary dimension, which may have contributed to nuancing and clarifying semantic distinctions between signifiers. For example, the signifier finish may have different meanings as a noun or verb in English, but in this context its meaning was clarified by the presence of the Norwegian verb fullføre 'complete', which eliminated any potential confusion with, for example, the noun texture. This knowledge contributed to selecting the most appropriate word in the mother tongue for this specific meaning.

#### 3.1.3. Complementary Translanguaging in Multilingual Poetry

T2 was inspired by translanguaging in poetry during the training program, where teachers were provided with examples and encouraged to write short poems about themselves in more than one language. Although this was not part of an assignment task for the teachers, T2 decided to implement it with his class in a slightly adapted version. In total, eight sample texts were made available for the present study. The poems are referred to as Pn, where n = 1–8. Seven of these contain a combination of Norwegian (see Example 1) and several other languages, such as Urdu, Polish, Swedish, and English. One text is a translation from Norwegian to Amharic (P5), and another text contains English, Danish, and Norwegian (see Example 2). Three samples are discussed in more detail below, with English translations produced by the present author, and original Norwegian texts provided in Appendix A (I).

T2's work with multilingual poetry in the classroom revealed the employment of multilingual practices relying mostly on complementary translanguaging, which refers to the use of multiple languages to convey different content within the same text (see Section 1.1). In other words, the students were asked to interpret Norwegian rhyming couplets by switching between Norwegian and other languages from their repertoires, leading to code-switching both within (see Examples 1 and 3) and between sentences (see Example 2). They also had other options, for example, to write their own multilingual poems freely, without relating them to Norwegian texts (see Example 3), or to translate

the entire poem from Norwegian into another language of their choice, leading to parallel translanguaging (see P5 in Appendix A (II)).

Interestingly, T2's guidance for the students involved advising them to switch to another language in content rather than function words, which seems to echo the equivalence constraint (see Section 1.1). However, the students themselves chose which words to insert into other languages, and while most switches seemed to occur in content words, function words were also switched; for example, the coordinating conjunction og 'and' was switched to the Urdu ar in Example 1.


Example 1. Multilingual poem by S3.

Complementary translanguaging in multilingual poetry seemed to have an expressive function (see Section 1.1), as it allowed the students to express their linguistic repertoires by switching to languages of their choice to represent distinct content in the poems. In Example 1, S3 chose to use their mother tongue, Urdu, together with Norwegian. This poem could also be used for drawing comparisons between languages, for example, between the linguistic forms of the verb to sleep in English, Urdu, and Norwegian. In Example 2, S1 used Norwegian, their mother tongue, together with Danish and English, but not Nynorsk, which is also listed in their language portrait. This may indicate that these three languages play the most important roles in S1's repertoire.

The visual marking of languages seemed to fulfil several different purposes in the five texts that show this feature. For example, the text in Example 1 originally contained Urdu words written in blue, which made them stand out, with the pragmatic function of helping the reader to identify more quickly which Norwegian words had been replaced by Urdu. In contrast, in Example 2, all languages were visually marked in the original text, with red for Norwegian (here underlined), orange for English (here italicized) and yellow for Danish (here in bold). On the one hand, this clearly indicates that S1 could distinguish between the languages in their repertoire. On the other hand, this clear separation might have the function of visually signaling to the reader the presence of three languages in one text, even before they start reading it. This kind of representation, however, would have benefited from further discussion in the classroom, since the linguistic boundaries between these three languages are not always easily distinguished. For example, Danish and Norwegian as North Germanic languages have significant areas of overlap, so *i sin egen krop* 'in its own body' might have been classified as Norwegian if the word for body had been written kropp. Similarly, words such as so and can are mutually intelligible in all three languages involved, which might be addressed by further work on cognates shared by, for example, Germanic languages.


Example 2. Multilingual poem by S1.

så mange kilometer tråd *in such one* **lille mave**?

It is also notable that transliteration could be classified as a translanguaging phenomenon, where out-of-school literacy was integrated in classroom writing, even when

So many miles of thread In such a little belly?

literacy skills in the mother tongue did not seem to be fully developed. For example, Urdu words were produced in a Latin script in S3's text. Transliteration was also used in P3 and P5 (see Appendix A (II)), where Polish and Amharic, respectively, were also transliterated. In contrast, in P4 and P6, words in Polish and Urdu were written by using Polish diacritics and the Urdu script, respectively (see Appendix A (II)); this indicated the existence of a certain level of literacy skills in the mother tongues in question.

In a way, the free multilingual poem produced by S9 was similar to an identity text (see Section 1.2), because S9 chose a topic related to their own interests, namely, their frustration with changes occurring in video games, and drew on their linguistic resources both in a complementary and parallel way (see Example 3). This makes it a unique instance in this sample set. Since S9's language portrait was not available for this study, it was impossible to fully analyze their choice to visually mark the Norwegian words by underlining them. However, if their visual marking followed the pattern of most texts (see Appendix A (II)), it is likely that Norwegian was their mother tongue. It is, however, clear that English and Norwegian were part of their repertoire, and that they probably used both languages in the gaming domain. Most of the translanguaging here was complementary because different languages were used for different concepts, but parallelism was also used for concepts such as game and sucks, which were expressed both in English and Norwegian. In this case, as in Example 2, it was possible to discuss areas of linguistic overlap and differences between the two languages, in words such as like and favorite.

In general, multilingual poetry was mainly based on complementary translanguaging, but it did allow for parallel-based comparisons between languages. While the complementarity aspect would typically require the readers to understand all the languages employed in a poem, here, this was not problematic since most students used a Norwegian text, which they interpreted by means of code-switching. Consequently, T2 was able to understand the texts simply by reading the interpreted version together with the Norwegian one, and thus engaged with translanguaging and co-learning (see Sections 1.1 and 3.1.1).

Jeg gotta like spille fortnite men i never win the game og din so . . . <sup>2</sup> tinx or gay . . . var the game that was m[y] most favorit spill but the changes is a haug of sukcs epic games er en haug som suger

I gotta like playing fortnite but I never win the game and your so . . . tinx or gay . . . was the game that was m[y] most favorite game but the changes is a pile of sucks epic games is a pile which sucks

Example 3. Free multilingual poem by S9.

The students expressed their linguistic identities by selecting and representing different languages from their repertoires, which they often also marked visually. Based on T2's report, the students read their poems out loud in class and compared the rhythm and rhymes to the original Norwegian poems. This indicates that one of the outcomes of this activity was the discussion of multilingual resources for a literary stylistic effect, which would correspond to the poetic function of translanguaging (see Section 1.1). In terms of student engagement, T2 reported that a student who usually found it challenging to speak in class appeared motivated when it was their turn to read their poem out loud to their classmates.

#### *3.2. Teachers' Experiences and Needs at Different Stages of the Implementation Process*

First, the teachers' perspectives on multilingual practices at the end of the project appeared to be different from those they reported at the start of the project. At the start of the project, T1 and T2 generally showed interest in using a multilingual approach, which seems to be relatively common in Norwegian settings (see Iversen 2017; Burner and Carlsen 2019). However, their main reported need was to develop specific tools for new teaching practices tailored to the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms (see Šurkalovi´c 2014). Interestingly, T1 stated that she was aware that strong literacy skills in the mother tongue represent a solid basis for further language acquisition (see Cenoz 2003),

but she admitted that using translanguaging in the classroom for this purpose was a novel idea to her. Furthermore, both teachers expressed their intention to regularly work in ways that would validate linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity. However, they were unsure of how this could be carried out, and explained that the level of awareness, competence, and experience with such work was relatively low at their school. At the end of the project, the teachers expressed their intention to continue integrating translanguaging regularly into their lessons and expressed different needs. More specifically, T1 felt confident that she had gained sufficient knowledge and practical tools to apply a multilingual approach in her work with diversity. She mentioned that the main challenge was to find time to plan and implement such work consistently, in a cross-curricular manner. T2 claimed that to continue his work in a similar manner, he would need a support network to provide him with scholarly input and critical perspectives on his work.

Interestingly, long-term work with designing multilingual pedagogies might have changed T2's attitude towards the use of the directive function of code-switching (see Section 1.1). In other words, at the first mentorship meeting, T2 expressed the concern that allowing the students to speak their home languages at school would involve the risk of excluding certain interlocutors from the conversation, which is a fear reported by other scholars in the Norwegian context (see Section 1.3; Burner and Carlsen 2019). However, at the last mentorship meeting, T2 stated that he did not, in fact, experience the exclusive use of the directive function of code-switching among his students during the project work.

Both teachers worked actively with the implementation of multilingual practices in the classroom, which stands in stark contrast to the passive role taken by the teachers in Iversen's study (2017) (see Section 1.3). Their work with multilingual practices was characterized by using established didactic methods, such as schemata activation, modeling, task differentiation, and scaffolding, which is unsurprising considering their extensive experience with teaching (see Section 2). Furthermore, T2 allowed a wide understanding of knowing a language among students in their work with language portraits (see Section 3.1.1) and T1 fostered co-learning processes among students and between students and herself during the fairytale work (see Section 3.1.2).

In general, both T1 and T2 reported that they experienced a high level of student engagement during or after the multilingual activities. For example, T1 mentioned that one of the immigrant students in her class who had typically been silent had for the first time started to contribute to class orally after the multilingual activities. T1 was especially impressed because this student was in a unique learning situation where they cooperated with a peer whom they had not previously met. Although T1 was reluctant to consider this a direct result of the multilingual work, she did believe that an active use of the students' mother tongues in the classroom was beneficial for the students because they understood that their teacher valued and validated them as important resources. This belief was also shared by T2, who gave an example by referring to a student in his class who seemed more engaged with classroom work when their mother tongue was involved (see Section 3.1.3).

When asked about their needs concerning future work with translanguaging in the classroom, the teachers had different answers. T1 mentioned that she intended to integrate a multilingual perspective into the activities she would typically use, by, for example, encouraging the students to create multilingual mind maps for different topics. She also believed it was beneficial to speak English every now and then during other classes. Furthermore, T1 mentioned that simply asking the students for equivalent words in their home languages was a very convenient way for her to validate and acknowledge these languages in the classroom. Interestingly, she believed that by implementing a multilingual approach in all subjects in the ways they had implemented it during the training program, the teachers would fulfil the requirements for SNO (see Section 1.3). In comparison, T2 mentioned that he planned to first take a break to allow himself more reflection time, and then share more of his experiences with his colleagues to attempt more collaborative work in their professional community. He also mentioned that he would consult one of the school leaders to determine the best future course of action. In fact, both teachers mentioned that

the school leader in question was very interested in taking on a multilingual approach at their school and, thus, was very supportive of their work and engagement with the training program.

#### **4. Discussion**

The findings in this research project can be classified into three main categories based on the three research questions presented in Section 1.4: (RQ1) the types of multilingual practices employed by teachers and their aims and outcomes, (RQ2) the representation of home languages in student texts, and (RQ3) the teachers' reported experiences and needs at the different stages of the implementation process. These are discussed in more detail in the subsections below.

#### *4.1. Multilingual Practices Employed by Teachers and Their Aims and Outcomes*

The teachers in this study employed language portraits, parallel translanguaging on multilingual fairytale posters and in dictionaries, and complementary translanguaging in multilingual poetry. Overall, the aims of such multilingual practices were to allow the students to reflect on their multilingual repertoires, use their repertoires to activate their schemata and develop literacy skills, and raise awareness about the existence of linguistic diversity both among students and teachers. The general outcomes of these multilingual practices included increased metalinguistic awareness among students, acknowledgment of minority languages in the classroom, development of multilingual literacy skills, and colearning both within and outside of school. A challenging aspect of multilingual practices is that it may be difficult to adapt them to appropriately address the needs of ethnic Norwegian students, who may not necessarily have many different languages in their repertoires. Although this may be addressed by including different dialects, similar challenges may arise in other contexts of applying multilingual pedagogies.

Based on the findings presented in Section 3.1, it can be concluded that multilingual practices such as language portraits were a successful ingredient for the implementation of multilingual pedagogies. First, the activities facilitated the students' development of metalinguistic awareness and metalinguistic reflection, while also providing them with a sense of mastery and pride concerning their identities (see Krulatz et al. 2018). Second, language portraits validated the students' linguistic identities through student-teacher dialogues and in schoolscapes consisting of the students' drawings (see Gorter 2017; Cummins et al. 2005). There is, however, a potential caveat worth mentioning here. If the one domain-one language associations ensuing in student-teacher dialogues remain unchallenged, they may tacitly legitimize the dominance of majority languages, such as English and Norwegian, in the educational sphere. Third, multilingual work based on language portraits led to co-learning among teachers, students, and parents alike (see Wei 2014). Co-learning also involved the parents of multilingual students in their work with multimodal dictionaries. In this case, co-learning had two main advantages: (1) it lent fluidity to power positions in the classroom, as teachers allowed themselves to learn from their students, and (2) it constituted a significant step for promoting an open dialogue between the school and home concerning the students' linguistic development.

An important result of employing multilingual posters and poetry was that minority languages were recognized as valid carriers of literacy and literary expression in written texts by both teachers and learners (see Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). In other words, in their work with multilingual posters and poetry, the students used their mother tongues in final text products, with two main implications. First, the students were engaged and proud to activate and share their linguistic backgrounds with the class. Second, the students used their mother tongues in writing, irrespective of their level of literacy, which contributed to their multilingual literacy development. At the same time, their out-of-school practices were validated as resources for multilingual literacy development at school (cf. Beiler 2019).

Furthermore, the students' work with multilingual poetry led to the use of expressive, poetic, and pragmatic functions of translanguaging (see Section 1.1). The students expressed

their identities by selecting the languages they would use in their poems and explored the poetic function of translanguaging by experimenting with rhythm and rhyme, which Beiler (2019) highlighted as an important component of a multilingual approach to writing literary texts. By pragmatically using visual cues such as colors and underlining to mark different languages, they helped the reader to faster identify which Norwegian words were replaced by words in other languages (see Section 3.1.3).

Finally, the work with multimodal dictionaries was least present in the data in the present study, but it nonetheless indicated how parallel translanguaging could be used for developing metalinguistic awareness, while working with idiomatic vocabulary learning. In other words, the representation of words and idiomatic phrases in different languages in the same table or chart may be used as a starting point for comparisons between linguistic forms and identifying similarities and differences between various languages the students are familiar with (see Sections 1.2 and 1.3). Surprisingly, such comparisons between languages seemed to be missing from the teachers' accounts, even if they would have been facilitated by multilingual posters, dictionaries, and poetry. Thus, certain multilingual activities may not fulfil their full potential if they are not followed by reflective discussions, even if they otherwise lead to successfully showcasing linguistic diversity in educational settings.

#### *4.2. Home Languages in Student Texts*

One of the most significant findings of this study is that the students employed their mother tongues across the various multilingual practices, often in the same texts with Norwegian or English or both. It should be noted that here too, as in other studies (Beiler 2019; Burner and Carlsen 2019), the majority language, Norwegian, was prioritized, which is unsurprising in the Norwegian educational sphere. However, the notable aspect here is that, even when Norwegian was selected as the main language of interaction between teachers and students, English was always included, from discussing its importance in language portraits, to employing it in multilingual dictionaries. This stands in contrast to the findings of Burner and Carlsen (2019), where teachers seemed to prioritize Norwegian in English lessons.

The representation of home languages in multilingual poetry and posters revealed a variety of literacy skills, ranging from advanced literacy skills to basic literacy skills. In other words, some students who spoke Urdu and Turkish, for example, used the conventional scripts and diacritics of the respective languages, showing an advanced level of literacy, while students who spoke Amharic and Polish used transliteration, showing perhaps a more basic level of literacy in these languages. However, transliteration may be considered a useful translanguaging practice that allows learners to transfer their out-ofschool communication resources to support the development of their literacy skills in the classroom (see Section 3.1.3). This representation was also valuable because it provided the teacher with insight into the students' abilities and needs concerning their literacy skills in their mother tongues.

On multilingual posters and in poetry, code-switching between different languages was accompanied by visual marking, which implicitly indicated that the students could distinguish between the different languages in their repertoires. In most cases, visual marking was employed to highlight words or stretches of text written in the students' mother tongues, with different purposes. As pointed out above, in multilingual poetry, which employed complementary translanguaging, visual marking may be considered a pragmatic mechanism to help the reader quickly identify and navigate unknown words in the interpreted texts by comparing them to the original Norwegian texts. However, visual marking may have a different function in the multilingual posters, which contained parallel translanguaging. Since two languages were typically used to convey the same content, the reader was not likely to encounter any comprehension issues, which eliminated the pragmatic value of visual marking. In the multilingual posters, mother tongues were visually marked by using a larger script and repeating the content in these languages

(see Section Multilingual Fairytale Posters). Consequently, it may be inferred that visual marking in multilingual posters reveals the important role played by mother tongues in the students' repertoires. From a theoretical perspective, a visual literacy framework would have been complementary for a multimodal analysis of the student texts.

#### *4.3. Teachers' Experiences and Needs*

In terms of teachers' experiences and needs, the most significant finding revealed that working with the design stage of multilingual pedagogies may have an overall positive effect on the stance component, as conceptualized by García et al. (2017). At the start of the project, the teachers were interested in adopting a multilingual approach (see Section 3.2). However, they admitted that they lacked the competence required, which is comparable to the findings of Šurkalovi´c (2014), and voiced certain concerns regarding the use of minority languages as an exclusion mechanism, which was also pointed out by Iversen (2017) and Burner and Carlsen (2019). However, at the end of the project the teachers had a favorable stance towards the spontaneous use of multilingual practices in the classroom and planned to include them in their regular teaching. This may be explained by the fact that they worked with designing their own multilingual pedagogies over time, with available theoretical support and mentorship throughout this process.

#### **5. Conclusions**

This study set out to investigate the implementation of multilingual pedagogies in a long-term project that aimed to equip teachers to perform in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. In this project, the implementation of multilingual pedagogies consisted of three main types of multilingual practices centered around language portraits, parallel translanguaging for vocabulary work, and complementary translanguaging in multilingual poetry. The focus on linguistic repertoires in their entirety contributed to creating a space where the boundaries between different linguistic resources were softened.

The theoretical make-up of this study benefited structurally and terminologically from the deliberate integration of translanguaging conceptualizations with code-switching frameworks, which indicates that further research in the field may benefit from an integrated perspective of these two paradigms. In the present study, this allowed the association of types of multilingual practices with specific aims in the classroom, such as employing parallel translanguaging for multilingual vocabulary work with a potential focus on metalinguistic awareness, and complementary translanguaging for developing multilingual literacy skills. Similarly, certain functions of translanguaging, such as the directive, expressive, and poetic functions, were useful for describing both the teachers' stance to multilingualism and the multilingual practices reflected in the students' texts.

An important conclusion of this work is that the implementation of multilingual pedagogies was an individually tailored process, which at the same time depended on external support provided by organizations such as UDE and higher–education institutions. It is admirable that the two participants in this study managed to carry out this project, given the special conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Their in-depth work was not merely the result of passively following all the steps of a professional development program. In fact, they invested time and effort in selecting the most relevant tools for their teaching context and adapting them to lay the foundations of a tailored multilingual pedagogy for their group of students. This study illustrates how teachers may create their own multilingual pedagogies based on their access to resources, networks, mentorship, leadership support, and personal dedication.

This study revealed that the use of mother tongues, home languages, English, and Norwegian together, in various patterns and types of texts contributed to building and promoting multilingual pedagogies. More specifically, it involved multilingual practices successfully employed for a variety of purposes, such as developing metalinguistic awareness, showcasing multilingual identities and literacy practices in the classroom, working with vocabulary learning, and encouraging students to express their linguistic identities. However, more work is needed on metalinguistic awareness in conjunction with both parallel and complementary translanguaging. Another important direction for future research is the exploration of co-learning possibilities beyond the classroom, by directly involving parents or caregivers of multilingual students in the development of multilingual pedagogies.

**Funding:** The APC was funded by the University of South-Eastern Norway (USN).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) with protocol code 442887 on 25 February 2021.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects whose personal information was collected and processed during the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Selected data are available in the body of the article and in Appendix A (II). Other data sets are not publicly available due to ethical considerations. Further inquiries may be addressed to the corresponding author.

**Acknowledgments:** Many thanks to Siri Mohammad-Roe, who kindly inspired me to start this research study.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A**

I. Original texts in Norwegian

Så rart

Så rart å være flaggermus Og flakse rundt fra hus til hus Og gå til sengs i trærne Men er det noen som forstår Hvordan den kan få sove når Den henger etter tærne?

Telleregler på norsk

En to tre fire fem seks syv Reven er en hønsetyv Syv seks fem fire tre to en Reven stjal et hønse ben.

Egget

Høne nummer en la egget. Høne nummer to stekte det. Høne nummer tre dekket bordet. Høne nummer fire spiste det. Men den bitte lille høna som var gått på juleball, Og når hun kom tilbake, jo da fikk hun eggeskall.

II. Multilingual poems

#### **P1–S3–Så rart–norsk og urdu (with visual marking)**

Så agib å være flaggermus ar flakse rundt fra gar til gar og jana til sengs i Per Men er det noen som samage Hvordan den kan få sona når Den latekrie etter anglio.

Urdu words are here underlined (written in blue color in the original text).

Så rart å være edderkopp Med nøste i sin egen kropp Og spinne alle dage Men hvordan kan den gjemme på Så mange kilometer tråd I slik en liten mage?

En liten gutt måtte løpe på do på do satt en annen så da ble de to. To små gutter en hytte fikk se, der inne satt ei jente og da ble de tre.

#### **P2–S1–Så rart – norsk, engelsk, dansk (with visual marking)**

Så rart å *be spider with yarn* **i sin egen krop og** spinne alle dage. *But how can* **det skjule på** så mange kilometer tråd *in such one* **lille mave**?

The different languages are highlighted in the student text:


### **P3–S7–Reven er en hønsetyv–norsk og polsk (no visual marking, transliteration rather than Polish spelling)**

Jeden dva tsy steri pjensh (1-2-3-4-5) Lis (reven) er en hønsetyv Sedem shest pjensh fire tre to en (7-6-5-4-3-2-1) Reven okrat (stjal) et hønse ben

### **P4–S10–Egget på norsk og polsk (Polish spelling used here; with visual marking)**

Kura (høne) nummer Jeden (en) la Jajko (egget). Kura (høne) nummer dwa (to) stekte det. Høne nummer trzy (tre) dekket boret. Høne nummer cztery (fire) spiste det. Men den bitte mało (lille) høna który (som) var gått på juleball. Og når Ona (hun) kom tilbake, Jo da fikk hun skorupka jajka (eggeskall). Polish words are here underlined (written in blue color in the original text).

### **P5–S4–Egget–oversettelse fra norsk til amharisk (transliterated, no Amharic alphabet)**

Doro kuter and Inihtdi inkulal Doro kuter hulet yetetebese ye. Doro kuter sositi teshefenwali Terepeza. Doro kuter arati Bela inikulalun. Gin isu Newi tinishi doro wede yenegena Kwasi yehedewi. Ina sitimelesi, Dehina keziya yeinikulali Zagolochi agenyechi.

#### **P6–S8–telleregler på norsk og urdu (no visual marking here)**

En - to - tre - fire - fem - seks – sju (Urdu) Reven er en hønsetyv Sju - seks - fem - fire - tre - to – en (Urdu) Reven stjal et hønseben

### **P7–S2–telleregler på norsk og svensk (with visual marking)**

En liten pojke måtte løpe på dö på dö satt ett övrig så sedan blev de to. To små pojkar en hytte fick se der i satt ei jente og sedan ble de tre. Swedish words underlined (written in blue color in original text).

### **P8–S9–English and Norwegian– free text (with visual marking, underlining from original text)**

Jeg gotta like spille fortnite men i never win the game og din so . . . tinx or gay . . . var the game that was m . . . most favorit spill but the changes is a haug of sukcs epic games er en haug som suger

#### **Appendix B. Informed Consent Statement**

I. Teachers

Vil du delta i forskningsprosjektet *"Multilingual pedagogies"***?**

**Dette er et spørsmål til deg om å delta i et forskningsprosjekt hvor formålet er å forske på flerspråklighet i undervisningen på norske skoler. I dette skrivet gir vi deg informasjon om målene for prosjektet og hva deltakelse vil innebære for deg.**

#### Formål

Prosjektet handler om lærernes praksis og tilnærming til og behov for støtte angående bruk av flerspråklighet i mangfoldige klasserom i Norge. Data samles inn på veiledningsmøter med lærnerne og fra materialer elevene har produsert i løpet av prosjektet. Resultatene skal publiseres i enn forskningsartikkel på engelsk i en internasjonal fagfellesvurdert tidsskrift, *Languages*.

#### **Hvem er ansvarlig for forskningsprosjektet?**

*OsloMet Storbyuniversitetet* er ansvarlig for prosjektet.

#### **Hvorfor får du spørsmål om å delta?**

Du blir invitert til å delta basert på dine bidrag til Mangfold prosjektet i samarbeid mellom Utdanningsetaten og OsloMet Storbyuniversitetet.

#### Hva innebærer det for deg å delta?

Hvis du velger å delta i prosjektet, innebærer det at du samtykker at det tas lydopptak av veiledningsmøtet den 10. mars, og at et utvalg av elev tekster produsert i prosjekt perioden brukes for å samle inn data. Opptaket og dine og elevenes personlig informasjon behandles som private personopplysninger, og skal aldri publiseres. Eg skal også ta notater fra veiledningsmøtet, og du vil ha anledning til å svare på spørsmål også i et anonymt spørresjema, f.eks. på Mentimeter. Hvis du er spesielt interessert i forskningen min, får du anledning til å bidra mer, ved f. eks. et intervju etter seminaret, men dette er selvfølgelig helt opp til deg.

#### **Det er frivillig å delta**

Det er frivillig å delta i prosjektet. Hvis du velger å delta, kan du når som helst trekke samtykket tilbake uten å oppgi noen grunn. Alle dine personopplysninger vil da bli slettet. Det vil ikke ha noen negative konsekvenser for deg hvis du ikke vil delta eller senere velger å trekke deg.

#### **Ditt personvern–hvordan vi oppbevarer og bruker dine opplysninger**

Vi vil bare bruke opplysningene om deg til formålene vi har fortalt om i dette skrivet. Vi behandler opplysningene konfidensielt og i samsvar med personvernregelverket.

Det er kun meg, Delia Schipor, som skal ha tilgang til opplysningene. Navnet og kontaktopplysningene dine vil jeg erstatte med en kode som lagres på egen navneliste adskilt fra øvrige data. Veiledningsmøtet skal foregå på Teams og lydopptaket skal tas med Nettskjema-diktafon app, og fysisk diktafon som sikkerhetskopi. Deltakerne vil kunne ikke gjenkjennes i publikasjon.

#### **Hva skjer med opplysningene dine når vi avslutter forskningsprosjektet?**

Opplysningene anonymiseres når prosjektet avsluttes/oppgaven er godkjent, noe som etter planen er 31. Desember 2021. Lydopptaket blir lagret til slutten av 2021, og blir deretter slettet.

#### **Dine rettigheter**

Så lenge du kan identifiseres i datamaterialet, har du rett til:

innsyn i hvilke personopplysninger som er registrert om deg, og å få utlevert en kopi av opplysningene,

å få rettet personopplysninger om deg,

å få slettet personopplysninger om deg, og

å sende klage til Datatilsynet om behandlingen av dine personopplysninger.

#### **Hva gir oss rett til å behandle personopplysninger om deg?**

Vi behandler opplysninger om deg basert på ditt samtykke.

På oppdrag fra *OsloMet Storbyuniversitetet* har NSD – Norsk senter for forskningsdata AS vurdert at behandlingen av personopplysninger i dette prosjektet er i samsvar med personvernregelverket.

#### **Hvor kan jeg finne ut mer?**

Hvis du har spørsmål til studien, eller ønsker å benytte deg av dine rettigheter, ta kontakt med:

Delia Schipor, deliasch@oslomet.no, Telefon: 67 23 80 42, ved OlsoMet Storbyuniversitetet

Vårt personvernombud: Nina Hestnes, Telefon: 67 23 70 76, E-post: ninahe@oslomet.no

Hvis du har spørsmål knyttet til NSD sin vurdering av prosjektet, kan du ta kontakt med:

NSD–Norsk senter for forskningsdata AS på epost (personverntjenester@nsd.no) eller på telefon: 55 58 21 17.

Med vennlig hilsen *Delia Schipor* (Forsker/veileder)

#### **Samtykkeerklæring**

Jeg har mottatt og forstått informasjon om prosjektet *Multilingual pedagogies*, og har fått anledning til å stille spørsmål. Jeg samtykker til:

————————————————————————————————————–

å delta i intervju

å delta i innsamling av anonymiserte elev tekster/liknende

Jeg samtykker til at mine opplysninger behandles frem til prosjektet er avsluttet. —————————————————————————————————————

(Signert av prosjektdeltaker, dato)

II. Parents/Caregivers

Vil du delta i forskningsprosjektet

"*Multilingual pedagogies*"?

Dette er et spørsmål til deg om å delta i et forskningsprosjekt hvor formålet er å forske på flerspråklighet i undervisningen på norske skoler. I dette skrivet gir vi deg informasjon om målene for prosjektet og hva deltakelse vil innebære for deg og barnet ditt.

Formål

Prosjektet handler om lærernes praksis og tilnærming til og behov for støtte angående bruk av flerspråklighet i mangfoldige klasserom i Norge. Data samles inn på veiledningsmøter med lærnerne og fra materialer elevene har produsert i løpet av prosjektet. Resultatene skal publiseres i en forskningsartikkel på engelsk i en internasjonal fagfellesvurdert tidsskrift, Languages.

Hvem er ansvarlig for forskningsprosjektet?

Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge er ansvarlig for prosjektet.

Hvorfor får du spørsmål om å delta?

Du blir invitert til å gi ditt samtykke for at barnet ditt kan delta basert på tekstene hun/han har produsert på skolen i løpet av Mangfold prosjektet i samarbeid mellom Utdanningsetaten og OsloMet Storbyuniversitetet.

Hva innebærer det for deg å delta?

Hvis du velger å delta i prosjektet, innebærer det at du samtykker at tekstene produsert av barnet ditt kan brukes for å samle inn data og som eksempler i artikkelen. Lydopptak skal tas i pausene, sånn at kun elevene som vil delta blir med på dette. Opptaket og dine og barnets personlig informasjon (i.e. fornavn, håndsskrift, tegninger o.l.) behandles som private personopplysninger, og skal aldri publiseres.

Det er frivillig å delta

Det er frivillig å delta i prosjektet. Hvis du velger å delta på vegne av barnet ditt, kan du når som helst trekke samtykket tilbake uten å oppgi noen grunn. Alle dine og barnets personopplysninger vil da bli slettet. Det vil ikke ha noen negative konsekvenser for deg hvis du ikke vil delta eller senere velger å trekke deg.

Ditt personvern – hvordan vi oppbevarer og bruker dine opplysninger

Vi vil bare bruke opplysningene om deg og barnet ditt til formålene vi har fortalt om i dette skrivet. Vi behandler opplysningene konfidensielt og i samsvar med personvernregelverket. Det er kun meg, Delia Schipor, som skal ha tilgang til opplysningene. Navnet og opplysningene dine vil jeg erstatte med en kode som lagres på egen navneliste adskilt fra øvrige data. Deltakerne vil kunne ikke gjenkjennes i publikasjon.

Hva skjer med opplysningene dine når vi avslutter forskningsprosjektet?

Opplysningene anonymiseres og lydopptaket slettes når prosjektet avsluttes/oppgaven er godkjent, noe som etter planen er 31. juli 2022.

Dine rettigheter

Så lenge du kan identifiseres i datamaterialet, har du rett til:


Hva gir oss rett til å behandle personopplysninger om deg?

Vi behandler opplysninger om deg basert på ditt samtykke.

På oppdrag fra Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge har NSD – Norsk senter for forskningsdata AS vurdert at behandlingen av personopplysninger i dette prosjektet er i samsvar med personvernregelverket.

Hvor kan jeg finne ut mer?

Hvis du har spørsmål til studien, eller ønsker å benytte deg av dine rettigheter, ta kontakt med:


Hvis du har spørsmål knyttet til NSD sin vurdering av prosjektet, kan du ta kontakt med:

• NSD – Norsk senter for forskningsdata AS på epost (personverntjenester@nsd.no) eller på telefon: 55 58 21 17.

Med vennlig hilsen Delia Schipor

(Forsker/veileder) ————————————————————————————————————— Samtykkeerklæring

Jeg har mottatt og forstått informasjon om prosjektet Multilingual pedagogies, og har fått anledning til å stille spørsmål. På vegne av barnet mitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., samtykker jeg til:

barnets deltakelse i lydopptak tatt av læreren

barnets deltakelse i innsamling av elev tekster.

Jeg samtykker til at mine og barnets opplysninger behandles frem til prosjektet er avsluttet.

—————————————————————————————————————-

(Signert av prosjektdeltaker, dato)

#### **Notes**


#### **References**

Agar, Michael H. 2008. *The Professional Stranger*, 2nd ed. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.


Iversen, Jonas. 2017. The Role of Minority Students' L1 when Learning English. *Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology* 5: 35–47. [CrossRef]

Kolbjørnsen Bjerke, Kari, Siw Monica Fjeld, and Ingvill Krogstad Svanes. 2020. *SALTO 4 Elevbok 4*. Oslo: Gyldendal Undervisning, pp. 15–17.

Krulatz, Anna, and Jonas Iversen. 2019. Building inclusive language classroom spaces through multilingual writing practices for newly-arrived students in Norway. *Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research* 64: 372–388. [CrossRef]

Krulatz, Anna, Tove Steen-Olsen, and Eivind Torgersen. 2018. Towards critical cultural and linguistic awareness in language classrooms in Norway: Fostering respect for diversity through identity texts. *Language Teaching Research* 22: 552–69. [CrossRef]

MacSwan, Jeff. 2017. A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging. *American Education Research Journal* 54: 167–201. [CrossRef] Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. *Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching*. Oxford: Clarendon.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. 1998. *Lov om grunnskolen og den videregående utdanninga [Education Act]*. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. 2019a. *Læreplan i engelsk [National curriculum for English]*. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. 2019b. *Læreplan i norsk [National curriculum for Norwegian]*. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.

Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I'll start a sentence in English Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. *Linguistics* 18: 581–618. [CrossRef]

Prilutskaya, Marina. 2021. Examining Pedagogical Translanguaging: A systematic review of the literature. *Languages* 6: 180. [CrossRef] Saldaña, Johnny. 2011. *Fundamentals of Qualitative Research*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sebba, Mark. 2012. Researching and theorising multilingual texts. In *Language Mixing and Code-Switching in Writing Approaches to Mixed-Language Written Discourse*. Edited by Mark Sebba, Sharhrzad Mahootian and Carla Jonsson. London: Routledge, pp. 1–26.

Sherman Heyl, Barbara. 2001. Ethnographic interviewing. In *Handbook of Ethnography*. Edited by Paul Atkinson, Aamanda Coffey, Sara Delamont, John Lofland and Lyn Lofland. London: Sage, pp. 369–83.

Šurkalovi´c, Dragana. 2014. Forbereder grunnskolelærerutdanningen engelsklærere for undervisning i engelsk som tredjespråk i Norge? [Does the general teacher education prepare English teachers for teaching English as a third language in Norway?]. *Acta Didactica Norge* 8: 1–17. [CrossRef]

Statistics Norway. 2022. Available online: https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/innvandrere/statistikk/innvandrere-og-norskfodtemed-innvandrerforeldre (accessed on 19 April 2022).

Wei, Li. 2014. Who's teaching whom? Co-learning in multilingual classrooms. In *The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education*. Edited by Stephen May. London: Routledge.

## *Article* **Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs, Practices, Emerging Ideologies about Multilingualism and Self-Efficacy Relative to Teaching Multilingual Learners**

**MaryAnn Christison**

Department of Linguistics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA; ma.christison@utah.edu

**Abstract:** Teacher beliefs have a powerful impact on the development of classroom instructional practices. This article reports the results of research that investigated the beliefs, practices, self-efficacy, and emerging ideologies of 268 pre-service teachers (PSTs) who were preparing for primary and secondary school contexts (Grades Kindergarten through 12; K-12), had just taken a course on teacher language awareness (TLA), and were midway through their teacher education program. Three different sources of numerical and non-numerical data were analyzed: (a) open-ended questions, (b) a language identification task, and (c) teacher-generated instructional materials. Four research questions focused on PSTs' beliefs, perceptions, self-efficacy, and emerging ideologies about the challenges of teaching in a K-12 context in which structured English immersion (SEI) was the dominant model, working with English and multilingual learners (MLs), and developing TLA.

**Keywords:** English learners; multilingualism; multilingual learners; pre-service teachers; structured English immersion; teacher beliefs; teacher identity; teacher language awareness; teacher self-efficacy

### **1. Introduction**

For decades, issues related to language and cultural diversity in U.S. primary and secondary schools (Grades Kindergarten through 12; K-12) have been in the educational foreground for classroom teachers, administrators, researchers, and teacher educators. There are over 300 languages spoken by children in U.S. public schools and over five million children who speak a language at home that is different from the language of school (National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) 2021; Riser-Kositsky 2019). These children are often referred to as English learners (ELs), which is the generic term most often used to refer to all learners in the U.S. K-12 context who are learning English as their second language. While EL is a useful term for reporting demographic information, determining the allocation of resources, and making policy decisions, it is less useful as a term for understanding learner differences and the complex process of language learning because it fails to recognize the diverse backgrounds and profiles of learners that could affect academic success in school.

A growing number of children who are referred to as ELs are, in fact, multilingual learners (MLs). In other words, they already speak or use more than one language as a result of their prior experiences in other contexts or the language(s) they use at home and in their communities outside of school (De Groot 2011). To recognize the important role that additional languages play in the acquisition of target languages and to focus attention on additive rather than subtractive views of bilingualism, the term MLs will be used in this paper to include all students who are learning English in school.

The rising number of MLs in U.S. public schools and the preparedness of teachers to educate MLs successfully is of crucial concern for university teacher educators and teacher education programs that provide courses to meet licensure requirements for K-12 teachers and prepare them for careers in teaching. Even though linguistic diversity and multilingualism are on the rise globally (Alisaari et al. 2019; Aronin and Singleton 2012;

**Citation:** Christison, MaryAnn. 2023. Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs, Practices, Emerging Ideologies about Multilingualism and Self-Efficacy Relative to Teaching Multilingual Learners. *Languages* 8: 41. https:// doi.org/10.3390/languages8010041

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 26 January 2022 Revised: 22 December 2022 Accepted: 4 January 2023 Published: 30 January 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

Conteh and Meier 2014), many K-12 practicing teachers in the U.S. public school context are monolinguals. As a result, they may find it difficult to develop self-efficacy as teachers of MLs and acquire the skills necessary for teaching effectively. Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs that teachers have in their capacity to act in the classroom in ways that promote learning (Bandura 1997; Cevdet 2011; Wyatt 2018).

Recent research has focused on critiquing teacher education, suggesting that models of teacher education offer ineffective and weak interventions and do not provide the deep specializations that teachers need for working in diverse contexts with MLs (see Cakcak 2016 for a critical review of teacher education models). While there may be some truth in what these all-encompassing critiques report, they do not provide empirically based guidance for determining how teacher education can be improved or what PSTs need in order to become effective teachers of MLs. There is evidence that teacher education can make a difference (Darling-Hammond et al. 2002), especially relative to teacher self-efficacy. To understand how to shape teacher education to serve the needs of pre-service teachers (PSTs) of MLs, it is important to understand what K-12 PSTs believe and how their beliefs, self-efficacy, and experiences are shaping them to become practicing teachers in contexts with MLs.

#### *1.1. Teacher Cognition, Teacher Beliefs, and Teacher Identity*

Teacher cognition (Borg 2006) focuses on understanding what teachers think and know and on the unobservable dimension of teachers' mental lives (Freeman 2002). Rather than emphasize teaching behaviors and what teachers do as indicators of effective teaching, the focus of research on teacher cognition has evolved to include an examination of what teachers believe, what they think, what decisions they make, and why (Borg 2006). From this perspective, teaching is viewed as a complex mental activity that is guided by teacher cognition.

It is important to recognize that teaching is not only a cognitive endeavor but also a sociocultural one. As Barkhuizen (2016) states, teachers construct the "socio-cultural worlds in which they live their teacher and learner lives" (p. 3). The socially oriented conception of teaching has led to a growing body of research associated with the development of language teacher identity (Varghese et al. 2005), which can be conceptualized as teachers' socially constructed understandings of self. It is assumed that teacher identity plays a key role in teachers' decision-making processes and serves as an analytic lens that can be used to investigate teachers' practices. The development of teacher identity is shaped by personal and professional histories and by the culture of the context in which teachers work and learn (e.g., the individual schools or districts—the geographical units for the local administration of elementary or secondary schools in the K-12 context). For PSTs in this study, the context in which they were learning included not only the courses in their teacher education program but also their field experiences in K-12 classrooms, which took place in conjunction with their university courses and their semester- or year-long practice teaching experiences at the conclusion of their formal course work.

#### *1.2. Understanding Context*

The K-12 context in which the PSTs in this study were preparing to work is culturally and linguistically diverse, with 120 different home languages spoken by children in the state and 80 in the urban district. Federal guidelines require individual states to implement programs to meet the needs of MLs, and local education agencies (e.g., schools) have a legal responsibility to ensure that all students have access to a quality education, including access to programs that are focused on English language development (ELD). In the K-12 context used in this study, ELD is most often designed and delivered within an educational model referred to as structured English immersion (SEI). In SEI, MLs are educated alongside majority-language speakers of English in both primary and secondary schools. There can be as many as 30 different home language backgrounds present in one school, so two-way immersion has not been viewed as a viable educational model for the education of MLs. Two-way immersion is a form of education in which students from two different language groups, each with a different home language, are taught literacy skills and grade level content in two languages, for example Spanish and English in the United States, so that both groups of students serve in the roles of language model and language learner at different times (for more information see Lindholm-Leary 2004; Lindholm-Leary and Hernandez 2011; Tedick and Wesely 2015).

For MLs, SEI has been criticized on the grounds that it leads to subtractive bilingualism. This criticism exists because in SEI the focus is solely on learning English, rather than on multilingualism—learning English in addition to recognizing, maintaining, and developing other languages in learners' linguistic repertoires (Cummins 2017; García 2009; García and Wei 2013; Jessner 2008) through the use of multilingual pedagogies. Classes in SEI are taught by grade-level teachers in primary schools and subject-matter specialists in secondary schools in content areas such as history, language arts, math, social studies, and life and natural sciences (i.e., biology, chemistry, and physics) and not English language specialists. All teachers, by default, share the responsibility for the education of MLs because all teachers are likely to have MLs in their classes. Teacher education programs must, therefore, be designed to prepare all PSTs to work with MLs in this diverse context, regardless of whether they are mainstream teachers in primary schools, content-area specialists in secondary, or PSTs specializing in ELD. The teacher education program in the present study embedded courses specifically designed to prepare teachers for working with MLs within the requirements for licensure. Pre-service teachers could take additional courses beyond licensure requirements to obtain an English as a Second Language (ESL) Endorsement (i.e., a qualification for teaching MLs that is overseen by a State Board of Education and not the teacher education program).

It is important to point out that, at least in theory, SEI is meant to be fundamentally different from submersion, where MLs are placed in mainstream classes with little or no support services with the idea that they will simply pick up academic English and grade level content. According to the U.S. Department of Education (n.d.), all practicing teachers in SEI contexts are to have specialized training in ELD in order to meet the needs of MLs (Lillie et al. 2012). In practice, however, SEI may often be quite close to submersion relative to the learning experiences of MLs because developing a cadre of practicing mainstream and/or content area teachers with specialized training in ELD and multilingual pedagogies has proven to be a challenging endeavor. In addition, most practicing teachers are first socialized to teaching in their disciplines and develop professional teacher identities as either primary school teachers or disciplinary experts in secondary schools (Schleppegrell and O'Hallaron 2011) and not as expert teachers of MLs. In fact, many K-12 teachers draw the erroneous conclusion that teaching MLs effectively is just a matter of good teaching (Harper and de Jong 2004) even though there is evidence to show that MLs need targeted ELD to make proficiency gains in English (Saunders et al. 2013) and benefit from pedagogical approaches that draw on their diverse backgrounds and knowledge of other languages (Cenoz and Gorter 2021; García et al. 2016; Krultaz et al. 2022)—components of instruction that are often absent in ELD.

Targeting ELD within SEI is a complex process. In the K-12 contexts, SEI was superseded by an instructional model known as the pull-out model. In the pull-out model, MLs were taken out of mainstream classes to receive targeted ELD from English language specialists. According to critics of the pull-out model, this action denied MLs access to grade-level content and opportunities to develop subject matter expertise. While the claim about access seems logical to non-language specialists, such as parents or politicians, the issue of access is much more intricate. From the perspective of language proficiency, it is important to recognize that access to grade-level content is dependent on a learner's level of language proficiency. If a learner's level of language proficiency is quite low, it will be difficult for a learner to access content even if the learner is present in the classroom during instruction. In addition, Saunders et al. (2006) showed that MLs in stand-alone and pull-out programs made greater gains than learners in push-in programs (i.e., an ELD

specialist enters a mainstream classroom to provide support for MLs). In pull-out programs, ELD specialists focused on language development activities 91% of the time. When used in conjunction with SEI, pull-out and push-in programs provide important benefits for MLs, but these models are not always available in contexts where SEI is the dominant instructional model.

#### *1.3. Multilingualism and Multilingual Learners*

In recent years, multilingualism has become more visible in political, social, and educational contexts (Aronin and Singleton 2012; Jessner 2008; May 2014, 2019; Ortega 2014). Contemporary multilingualism is no longer limited by specific geographical boundaries or to certain social echelons, or is it restricted to a particular modality, such as writing. Globalization, the use of digital technologies, and the increase in human migration (Aronin and Singleton 2008; Cenoz 2013; Christison and Murray 2022) have all contributed to its visibility. In addition, there has been an increased focus on multilingualism in applied linguistics as researchers have taken up the study of multilingualism from societal and individual perspectives (Kramsch 2010; Krultaz et al. 2022).

Methodologies that focus solely on the development of English (e.g., Echevarria et al. 2016) tend to discount the value of other languages and fail to recognize the concept of multilingualism at their core while multilingual pedagogies target the development of multiple languages and competences by making use of learners' whole linguistic repertoires (De Angelis 2011). For example, pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz and Gorter 2021) may include specific strategies for learning to write, which can transfer across languages (Cenoz and Gorter 2011). This type of pedagogy encourages MLs who have academic backgrounds in languages other than English to bring this knowledge to the task of learning English, thereby making it different from the subtractive model of bilingualism inherent in SEI. To address the needs of MLs most effectively, teachers and schools need to explore pedagogical strategies that consider MLs' backgrounds and include them in instructional planning and curriculum design.

Multilingual learners in the K-12 context exhibit many diverse profiles in terms of how they have acquired the languages in their linguistic repertoires and how they use them on a daily basis. Some multilinguals may have been exposed to two languages from birth and are learning English as a third language in school. Other MLs may have a primary language they speak at home, know a second language they learned in school as a result of migration, and be learning English in school. Some MLs may speak English at home when the family communicates as a group because the parents use different mother tongues when communicating individually with their children and extended family. The diverse experiences of MLs result in different levels of language proficiency and competences across language skills. To be a ML does not require perfect mastery of all the languages in one's repertoire.

Views of multilingualism have been changing and evolving from atomistic views (Cenoz 2013) with a focus on understanding "one language only" and "one language at a time" (Wei 2011, p. 374) to holistic views with a focus on understanding how multiple languages are interconnected and used by MLs in "real life communication involving all the languages and multilingual discursive practices" (Cenoz 2013, p. 11). While holistic views of multilingualism are gaining currency in applied linguistics, atomistic views of language are widespread and still comprise the dominant view of language learning in the U.S. K-12 context.

#### *1.4. Teacher Language Awareness*

Shulman (1999) maintains that professional teachers need to be able to take thoughtful grounded actions in the classroom and that these actions must be based on a deep knowledge of subject matter. The subject matter for teachers in SEI contexts includes disciplinary content knowledge as well as knowledge of language. While knowledge of language can be construed broadly to include many different foci such as language as it is used in a specific

context, the relationship between language and culture, emerging patterns of discourse, language change and variation, and the relationship between language and power (Arndt et al. 2000; Mooney and Evans 2018; Rojo 2016), the research presented in this article takes a narrower focus and concentrates on PSTs' knowledge and understandings of language systems, particularly knowledge of morphology (i.e., words and vocabulary) and syntax (i.e., grammar). These systems are at the heart of the language acquisition process for MLs; therefore, it stands to reason that if teachers are to help learners achieve both language and content goals, teacher language awareness (TLA) must be included in the core of subject-matter knowledge of K-12 teachers (Andrews 2007).

Teacher language awareness can be defined as a teacher's ability to use, analyze, and teach language, and it can be conceptualized into three domains (Andrews 2003; Edge 1988; Lindahl 2018; Wright and Bolitho 1993). The first domain is the user domain. This domain focuses on the language teacher as proficient user of language in a variety of contexts. The analyst domain focuses on developing teachers' understandings of language systems (e.g., the systems of sounds, words, or sentences). It also includes an introduction to multilingualism, second language acquisition, and the potential ways in which languages beyond one's home language can be learned. The teacher domain is associated with pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Park and Oliver 2008; Shulman 1986), a term used in education to describe the interconnected nature of knowledge—content knowledge and the knowledge of pedagogy that are used to teach specific subject matter. For teachers in K-12 contexts who work with MLs, PCK must also include the knowledge of language that enables teachers to think about language as if they were MLs so that they can identify specific features of language that may pose difficulties for MLs, adapt particular content information in their disciplines (e.g., math, language arts, history, social sciences), and convey this information to MLs through pedagogical means.

#### *1.5. Research Questions*

Four research questions guided the current study:


#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Research Design*

The research design that was chosen for this study allowed the voices of PSTs to be center stage and to be consistent with approaches used for practicing teachers—approaches that have focused on trying to understand what teachers need to know and be able to do (Sharkey and Johnson 2003) in a given context. The research adopted a Grounded Theory approach to analyzing data from the open-ended questions (Creswell 2015; Glaser and Strauss 1967; Milliken 2010). This approach to data analysis allowed the researcher to interpret data and generate themes that were grounded in the data (Braun and Clarke 2006; Hsieh and Shannon 2005) and flexible so that imaginative theorizing could take place (Charmaz 2014). This approach to design permitted the researcher to avoid making apriori assumptions and adopt a neutral view of PSTs' knowledge, beliefs, and skills within the context of their teacher education program (Simmons 2006). The research was designed around the collection of three sources of numerical and non-numerical data—open ended questions, a language identification task to measure TLA, and teacher-generated instructional materials. These multiple data sources interacted with one another and were used to illuminate, confirm, or dispute what was learned from one data source based on

the analysis of another one; for example, how the results from the open-ended questions were informed by the other two sources. By drawing on different sources of data (i.e., triangulating data) both patterns and inconsistencies in the data could be identified.

#### *2.2. Context for the Research*

The TLA course in which data were collected for this study was taught by the same teacher for each of the six semesters. It was a required course for obtaining K-12 licensure and also for the ESL Endorsement. There are always limits on the number of credit hours that teacher education programs can require of PSTs. As a result, this TLA course was the only course among the required courses that focused on the development of TLA, specifically what knowledge and skills teachers need to have related to language for working effectively with MLs. The course placed multilingualism at its core and concentrated on helping PSTs develop a broad understanding of how multilingual learners use their language systems rather than solely developing expertise in teaching English. The course centered on two of the three domains of TLA (Andrews 2003; Edge 1988; Wright and Bolitho 1993), the analyst domain and the teacher domain.

The course occurred midway through the teacher education program and included a 16-hour field experience in a classroom context with an experienced site teacher who was required to have an ESL Endorsement. The learner population at the sites comprised at least 30% MLs. During the 16-hour field experience, PSTs participated in a variety of instructional activities from tutoring a small group of learners to making presentations to the entire class, as determined by the site teacher.

#### *2.3. Participants*

The PSTs who took the TLA course were preparing to teach in the K-12 context. The course was required for licensure and ESL Endorsement. It was taught by the same teacher in each of the six different 16-week semesters. During the six semesters, a total of 268 PSTs participated in the course. The majority of the PSTs (*n* = 196 or 73%) were seeking licensure for primary school or special education (Grades K-6). Primary school teachers are responsible for teaching math, science, social studies, history, and language arts at grade level. Seventy-three PSTs (27%) were seeking licensure for secondary school contexts in a specific content area, for example English language arts, foreign language teaching, health, history, math, social studies, or the sciences (e.g., biology, physics, and chemistry) and the ESL Endorsement. Seventy-three percent (*n* = 196) of participants considered themselves to be monolingual speakers of English even though eighty-three percent (*n* = 222) indicated that they had studied at least one foreign language (i.e., a language other than English) at some point in their educational history. For primary school teachers, 47 (24%) were males and 148 (76%) were females. In the secondary school context, 43 (59%) were male and 30 (41%) were female. All participants were between the ages of 19 and 32, with a mean age of 21.5 years, and were novice teachers meaning that none had obtained licensure, nor had they assumed full responsibility for classroom instruction in the K-12 context, although they had varying degrees of experience as teacher aids and tutors.

#### *2.4. Data Collection*

To understand the effects that a course on TLA may have on PSTs' beliefs, perceptions, self-efficacy, and emerging ideologies about teaching MLs in the K-12 context, their understandings of multilingualism, and their developing identities as teachers, as well as the development of TLA, three types of data were collected at the conclusion of each TLA course: (a) written reflections in response to five open-ended questions, (b) information from a language identification task, and (c) a teacher-generated instructional materials task.

#### 2.4.1. Open-Ended Questions

The PSTs were asked to respond to five open-ended questions in writing. The questions were designed to capture the perspectives of novice teachers:

	- Category 1: Well-prepared. I would feel confident in accepting a job next week.
	- Category 2: Somewhat prepared. I would need considerable support if were to accept a job next week.
	- Category 3: Not prepared. I would not be prepared to accept a job next week.

Data from open-ended questions were collected during the last 30 min of the final class each semester. All PSTs were given the questions at the same time. If they finished the task early, they were asked to sit quietly, reflect, read, or work on written assignments so that all PSTs in the course would have an equal opportunity to reflect and write for 30 min without the distractions that occur when individual teachers leave at different times.

#### 2.4.2. Language Identification and Teacher-Generated Materials Tasks

For the language identification and teacher-generated instructional materials tasks PSTs chose either a science or social studies text. The science text was about the fundamental properties of volcanoes and volcanic eruptions, and the social studies text was about how Hurricane Maria in 2017 had affected Puerto Rico. Both example texts were ones that could be included in Middle School (Grades 6–8) curricula (see ReadWorks n.d. for an example of the science text). These texts were chosen because they were texts that could be used in lower secondary or upper primary school grades, so the reading level of the texts would be familiar to both primary and secondary PSTs. They were given access to the texts a week in advance of data collection. Data were collected for both tasks in one two-hour online session during the last week of instruction.

In the language identification task, PSTs were given a list of 20 different features of language (see Appendix A) and asked to search the text they had chosen to find examples for 10 of the 20 features. The language features were chosen because they focused on teachers' broad understandings of how relationships among different parts of language are connected (e.g., words representing different lexical categories, types of phrases and clauses, or types of sentences). These features of language were explicitly taught in the course modules in class and supplemented with online activities and tasks that PSTs could explore on their own in order to gain the expertise they felt they needed. In the language identification task, it was assumed that teachers would choose the features of language in which they were most confident and produce a result that was typical of their best work. Having the text in advance allowed teachers to become familiar with the text and select features of language that would be the best fit for the text.

In the teacher-generated materials task, teachers were asked to create an instructional activity for teaching both the content and language of the text they had chosen. There were three components to the task: (a) identifying the language and content, (b) describing the specific instructional activity so that it would be clear to MLs, and (c) explaining why the activity would be useful for them. The two TLA tasks were chosen because they would be ones that PSTs would likely encounter during their first year as teachers of MLs.

#### *2.5. Data Analysis*

Data for the open-ended questions were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Corbin and Strauss 2008; Kolb 2012). Following protocols for this method, data were analyzed for all three types of data as soon as they were collected so that systematic coding and analyses could be combined in an ongoing process that allowed the researcher to reinforce theory generation through the six cycles (i.e., the six semesters) of theoretical sampling.

All data were anonymized for participants who had given consent. During this process, names were removed from each piece of data and replaced with a number, for example 57, and a letter associated with each of the three types of data. The letter "a" was used for open-ended questions, "b" for language identification, and "c" for instructional materials. Data were identified in a spreadsheet, with the participants' numbers and the letter associated with the type of data, for example "57b" referred to Participant 57 for the language identification task.

#### 2.5.1. Open-Ended Questions

To answer Research Questions 1, 2, and 3, data from open-ended questions were analyzed using an open-coding process proposed by Russel (2000; see, for example, pp. 443–44). In this process, the researcher read through the data numerous times to identify potential categories or themes. As themes emerged, data were pulled into the categories. Finally, data from the categories were compared and linked so that relations among categories could be used to build theoretical understandings or positions. These initial processes were repeated each time data were collected. Through each iteration of coding, new relationships emerged, and data were repositioned and recategorized. The categories that remained stable throughout the six points of data collection were ultimately identified as themes, and examples of participants' language from the data were attached to these themes. The themes represented the primary beliefs and emerging ideologies of the participants and offered glimpses into the development of teacher identity.

#### 2.5.2. Language Identification and Instructional Materials Tasks

To answer Research Question 4, each piece of data from the language identification task was evaluated and assigned a numerical number: 0 = incorrect and 1 = correct. For example, if the participant selected "an adjective" from the list of language features and if the sentence the participant selected contained an adjective, a score of "1" would be assigned. A total of 10 points was possible.

The number of times participants selected specific language features was also tracked, and a rank ordering of language features was developed. These rankings were meant to assist the researcher in determining the types of language features in which the PSTs exhibited the most confidence.

Data from the instructional materials task were analyzed according to the rubric in Table 1. Each sample was given a score (i.e., 0, 1, or 2) on each of the indicators. A score of 0 meant that the indicator was not present or in some cases that it was inaccurate. A score of 1 meant that the indicator was moderately effective; for example, the learning activity was not described so that it could be clearly understood. A score of 2 meant that the indicator was effective; for example, the PST was able to explain why the learning activity would be useful for MLs. A total score was calculated. The scores for each participant were then entered into a spreadsheet. A total of six points was possible.

**Table 1.** Rubric for evaluating teacher-generated instructional materials.


#### **3. Results**

Results are organized and presented as they relate to each type of data that was collected—open-ended questions, the language-identification task, and the teacher-generated instructional materials tasks. For the open-ended questions, the results are centered on the themes or categories that emerged from the interpretation of the data. Example responses from the open-ended questions are selected to support each of the themes that emerged. For the language identification task, the results focus on TLA and on how well PSTs are able to identify features of language in the texts. Data are also presented in terms of the degree of sophistication represented by the feature, for example an adjective or a complex sentence. For the instructional materials tasks, the results are presented based on the indicators in Table 1. These indicators target PCK and how well teachers are able to identify the language demands for MLs that are inherent in the text and create instructional materials.

#### *3.1. Open-Ended Questions*

The themes that emerged from the coding processes for the data for open-ended Questions 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Themes from open-ended Questions 1 and 2.

Four themes were identified in response to the first open-ended question. These themes represent the challenges that PSTs believed they were going face in working in the K-12 context, in other words, working with MLs and home language speakers of English in the same classroom. Theme 1 focused on general challenges in managing and balancing their lives as teachers. These worries are captured in these example data:


Theme 2 can be characterized as challenges that PSTs believed they were going to face as teachers of MLs relative to finding support within the school system:


Theme 3 spotlights the challenges that PSTs thought they were going to face working in SEI classrooms with MLs:


Theme 4 focuses on the challenges of classroom management:


Three themes were identified in response to the second open-ended question. Theme 1 focused on PSTs worries about meeting MLs' needs:


Theme 2 concentrated on how PSTs' lack of understanding of their diverse roles and responsibilities affected the development of their identities as teachers of both language and content:


The third theme targets PSTs' concerns about instructional planning:


The third open-ended question asked participants what they still wanted to know about teaching and working with MLs. Only 30 mentioned that they wanted to know more about specific concepts or instructional strategies (e.g., pedagogical translanguaging or differentiation). The remaining 238 responses were all of a general nature:


The fourth open-ended question asked participants to identify a new concept or a skill they had learned in the course that they believed would be helpful in working with MLs. The most frequently mentioned was the concept of pedagogical translanguaging, with 182 responses (68%). The second most frequently mentioned was the stages of second language acquisition, with 51 responses. There were also 154 participants (57%) who identified concepts associated with language and teacher language awareness; for example, more about the sound systems of the languages their students speak or more about how words are formed in other languages. Many of the concepts listed were general ones about teaching and not specific to the TLA course.

The final open-ended question concentrated on PSTs' perceptions of their TLA preparedness. One hundred forty-two participants (53%) placed themselves in Category 1, believing they were well prepared for teaching in terms of TLA while fifty participants (19%) placed themselves in Category 2 and stated that they were not ready for teaching. The remaining 76 PSTs (28%) in Category 3 believed that they were not prepared to teach MLs and would need considerable support. Two-hundred thirty-nine (89%) of the PSTs noted that the TLA course was the first course they had taken that focused on language.

#### *3.2. Language Identification and Instructional Materials*

For the language identification task, the highest score was 90% with 9 out of 10 language features identified correctly; the lowest was 50% with 5 out of 10 correctly identified. The mean score was 6.2/10 (62%). The most frequently selected language features were adjectives, verbs, and prepositional phrases. For the participants who chose these language features, 100% identified them accurately in the text. The next most frequently chosen language features were simple sentences, coordinating conjunctions, and verb forms used as nouns (e.g., a gerund). Eighty-four percent of participants were able to identify a simple sentence correctly. Ninety-six percent identified a coordinating conjunction correctly, yet only fifty-two percent could identify a compound sentence. Forty-two percent identified a verb form used as a noun correctly, in this case a gerund. Words that were incorrectly identified as gerunds were -ing words that were used as verbs in the sentence and not nouns. Only 40% of the participants who chose a restricted relative clause were able to identify one accurately in the text. Seventy-seven percent of the participants who chose a passive sentence as the language feature identified it accurately. For those participants who chose a subordinating conjunction, 66% were able to identify one accurately in the text, but only 38% could identify a complex sentence. All language features were chosen at least once.

Based on the rubric, there were six points possible for the teacher-generated materials. Twenty-seven percent of the participants scored 5 or 6. Forty-six percent received scores of 3 or 4. In addition, 27% received scores of 1 or 2.

#### **4. Discussion**

#### *4.1. Research Question 1*

Research Question 1 focused on the PSTs' beliefs and perceptions concerning the challenges they would face in teaching MLs in the K-12 context. The most prominent challenges for PSTs were (a) limited planning time, and (b) managing the diversity of tasks (open-ended Question 1, Theme 2, and open-ended Question 2, Theme 2). The identification of these challenges suggests that PSTs are experiencing a certain degree of angst about their future as teachers in the K-12 context. None of these challenges is surprising as anxiety is to be expected, particularly given that PSTs' lack experience in teaching. Their field experience in an SEI classroom with at least 30% MLs was likely their first opportunity to experience what their lives as teachers would be like in this context (Pillen et al. 2013). Their ability to identify these challenges showed a high degree of situational perceptiveness. Exposing PSTs to the real-world of K-12 classrooms seemed to be an important factor in their development as teachers of MLs. It was helping them bridge the gap between the theories of teaching to which they had been exposed in their teacher education courses

and the realities of educational practices in the context of classrooms with MLs. Even though anxiety is to be expected, the challenges that PSTs articulated need to be carefully evaluated by teacher educators and teacher education programs to determine if they are being explicitly and adequately addressed in their coursework. For example, where in the teacher education program do PSTs have an opportunity to develop strategies for managing time, planning for instruction, and dealing with non-teaching related tasks?

Pre-service teachers also expressed worries over issues related to classroom management (open-ended Question 1, Theme 4), particularly how they would deal with disruptive behavior. In considering these data, it is important for teacher educators to note that the classroom management issues that PSTs experienced likely stemmed from the fact that they did not feel capable of managing disruptions. They needed tools for classroom management, more time observing experienced teachers as they used these tools, and experience in implementing the tools (Theelen et al. 2020). The question for teacher educators and teacher education programs is to determine how to introduce, practice, and model the use of these tools.

Data from these PSTs also suggested that they were experiencing challenges relative to understanding the politics of public school (open-ended Question 1, Theme 2); they seemed to worry about the parents of MLs and about becoming involved in some type of conflict. While there may be a basis for these worries in the reality of public education, there are also many support systems available for teachers. Teacher educators need to be cognizant of where these support systems are introduced in the curriculum and how they are reinforced to PSTs. What was clear from these data was that PSTs likely did not understand that there were support systems available to them. They needed numerous positive experiences during their teacher education programs, interacting with parents and diverse communities, as well as more direct experience in classrooms with MLs to develop self-efficacy.

#### *4.2. Research Question 2*

Research Question 2 concentrated on PSTs' beliefs, perceptions, emerging ideologies about multilingualism, and self-efficacy for educating MLs in the K-12 context. The classroom context, resulting from the SEI model, was seen as perhaps the greatest challenge for PSTs in working with MLs. The overwhelming majority of PSTs expressed concern about their abilities to teach native speakers of English alongside MLs in one classroom (open-ended Question 1, Theme 3; open-ended Question 2, Theme 1). Pre-service teachers' perceptions of teaching in this context described the options for teaching from limited perspectives, for example stating that teaching native English speakers effectively would mean that MLs would not understand and adapting their lessons to accommodate MLs would mean that native English speakers would become bored. This emerging ideology that separated learners and learning into two distinct groups within the SEI classroom was concerning. Culturally and linguistically responsive and relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings 1995) and pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz and Gorter 2021) are based on approaches to teaching in which all learners experience academic success and teachers see the benefits of linguistic and cultural diversity for all learners. To develop a cadre of PSTs who embrace diversity and are able to develop self-efficacy for working in the SEI context, teacher education programs in local contexts must wrestle with how to socialize PSTs to their roles as both content and language experts within their disciplines (open-ended Question 2, Theme 2). For most teacher education programs, achieving this goal will likely result in the need to place a greater emphasis on facilitating PSTs' understandings of the complexities of language learning and expanding their knowledge of multilingualism and their skills relative to TLA.

The data collected in this study offered further insights into PSTs' beliefs, perceptions, self-efficacy, and emerging ideologies about multilingualism and MLs (open-ended Question 2, Theme 2). Seventy-three percent of the PSTs self-identified as monolinguals even though eighty-eight percent indicated that they had studied a foreign language at

some point in their educational history, likely in secondary school as admission to the university requires at least two years of a foreign language or an equivalent. They could have identified as bilinguals or as emerging multilinguals, which were concepts introduced and discussed in the TLA course. That the majority PSTs self-identified as monolinguals regardless of their experiences with languages other than English needs to be explored further. The reasons could be related to beliefs about their levels of language proficiency (Cook and Bassetti 2011). In other words, the PSTs might have believed that they would need to develop higher levels of language proficiency before they could consider themselves to be multilinguals. Not identifying as multilinguals could also be related to their beliefs about multilingualism and whether they thought it was necessary to use more than one language in their daily lives in school or with friends or family to be considered multilingual. Regardless of the reasons, the PSTs in this study were articulating an emerging ideology in which they were seeing themselves as separate or different from MLs. Monolingualism, as with bi- and multilingualism, is a manifestation of an individual's background and experiences. Whether teachers self-identify as monolinguals or conceptualize their identities relative to languages in other ways, the responsibility for the teacher education program is to support all PSTs in developing self-efficacy, especially for working in SEI context with MLs.

These data show that PSTs are advancing in their understanding of teaching, as they articulated concerns about teaching that could only arise from experiences in real world contexts, for example concerns about how to respond to teaching in situ while also following a set instructional plan with specific goals and objectives or how to know when concepts should be recycled. When asked about the specific concepts they learned in the course that would be most useful for them in teaching, well over half of the teachers recognized the need for more exposure to TLA concepts, and some expressed desires to know more about pedagogical translanguaging (open-ended Question 2, Theme 3; open-ended Question 5). What was generally concerning about their responses was that very few PSTs were able to articulate specific concepts when asked what they still wanted to know about teaching in the SEI context. Most of the PSTs were still conceptualizing teaching in the abstract. The pre-service teachers' self-efficacy for working with MLs midway through the course was concerning, with only a little over half indicating that they were well prepared and about one-fifth indicating that they were not prepared at all. In addition, 89% of the PSTs indicated that the TLA was the first course they had taken that focused on language, and it would likely be the only one most of them would take within their formal teacher education program as no other courses on TLA were required.

#### *4.3. Research Question 3*

Research Question 3 was aimed at understanding PSTs' emerging identities as teachers midway through their teacher education program. Teacher professional identity is defined as the beliefs and values teachers hold about being teachers. These beliefs and values contribute to a coherent sense of who they are as teachers and how they engage with MLs and in the profession of language teaching. Pre-service teachers' identities are evolving as they are shaped and reshaped by their experiences. Data from the PSTs in this study showed that PSTs recognized that their emerging identities as mainstream and content area teachers were sometimes in conflict with their identities as teachers of MLs (Open-ended Question 2, Theme 2). They were beginning to recognize the diverse roles and responsibilities they would need to assume as language experts in their disciplines and as teachers of MLs. Midway through their teacher education program, these PSTs were struggling to find a teacher identity that was inclusive of these diverse roles and responsibilities. The shaping and reshaping nature of teacher identity for PSTs in response to their experiences during their teacher education program was expected. However, teacher educators must recognize that for PSTs to develop identities that are inclusive of their roles and responsibilities as language experts in their disciplines, socialization must be integral to all courses and experiences within the teacher education program from the beginning. A major question for

teacher educators who are preparing teachers to work in this context is how to accomplish this feat.

#### *4.4. Research Question 4*

Research Question 4 targeted the level of TLA that PSTs were able to achieve at the conclusion of the TLA course and midway through the teacher education program. The researcher made every effort to structure the language feature identification task in a way that would allow PSTs to submit their best work. They had access to the text in advance and could choose the language features in which they had the most confidence. The strategy seemed to work, as PTS exhibited a high level of accuracy for the features that were chosen the most frequently, such as adjectives, verbs, and prepositional phrases. Nevertheless, given the structure of the task, the overall scores for PSTs were low with a mean of only 6.5/10 and with some scores as low as 5.0/10.

It is interesting to note that while PSTs seemed to have developed a system for recognizing lexical categories, such as adjectives, verbs, conjunctions, and adverbs, they were struggling overall with constituent structure and making sense of how English is organized hierarchically. For example, they could identify a coordinating conjunction correctly in English but could not easily recognize a compound sentence. The same relationship was noticed with subordinating conjunctions and complex sentences. Pre-service teachers who struggle with these types of tasks will likely not be able to explain these relationships among language features satisfactorily to MLs or be able create instructional materials to meet MLs' language demands.

The teacher-generated materials task that PSTs were asked to complete is one that is common for most classroom teachers and one in which PSTs in SEI contexts will engage on a regular basis when they begin teaching. Only about a quarter of the PSTs could be thought to have the necessary skills to complete such a task effectively midway through their teacher education program. It was clear from these results that PSTs still needed to develop TLA and also needed a stronger understanding of the relationship between theory and practice to execute PCK effectively. For the PSTs who scored five instead of six on this task, the missed point was most often because there was an insufficient or incorrect explanation concerning why or how the activity would be useful for MLs. Almost half of the PSTs had difficulty describing a specific activity. Instead, they described generic procedures, such as having students work in groups, complete a worksheet, or review vocabulary. Pre-service teachers who scored a 1 or 2 on the task also struggled with identifying specific language and content that would be difficult for MLs.

#### **5. Conclusions**

The research reported in this article focused on the voices of PSTs and on their perceptions of the issues and challenges that faced them as they prepared to teach MLs in the K-12 context. Of particular interest was PSTs' self-efficacy for working with MLs and the development of knowledge and skills that underpin TLA. The results from the open-ended questions showed that many of the issues and challenges that PSTs identified were similar to the issues and challenges of novice teachers (Farrell 2012; Veenman 1984) in other contexts, for example, how to find balance in their personal and professional lives and how to manage diverse roles and responsibilities. The pre-service teachers in this study experienced tensions relative to the development of their identities as teachers.

The multiple data sources in this study also shed light on the development of TLA and PCK for PSTs. For the PSTs in this study, the issues and challenges pertained specifically to working in SEI and how to deliver instruction effectively in the classroom to both MLs and home language speakers of English, who were often monolinguals. Pre-service teachers were experiencing stress as they tried to meet both the language and content demands of diverse groups of learners.

What we know from these data is that the performances on the language feature and teacher-generated materials tasks, which are typical tasks required of teachers in

SEI contexts with MLs, were too low for PSTs to be successful in preparing instructional materials for real world classrooms. Multilingual learners need teachers with high levels of TLA, so it is understandable that the PSTs in this study lacked self-efficacy. Teachers' perceptions of their TLA mirrored the results from the task-based data, demonstrating that PSTs were accurate in their perceptions of their skills and knowledge of TLA. Most PSTs (89%) stated that the class was the first one that focused on TLA. Even though the results of the PSTs' performances on the language feature and teacher-generated materials tasks were overall too low for them to be considered effective, the performances may represent what can reasonably be expected of PSTs with no prior experience in TLA. Relative to the design and development of teacher education courses for the multilingual world of the 21st century, it is necessary for teacher educators and teacher education programs to consider how to create programs wherein PSTs can develop high levels of TLA, along with PCK, and improve their self-efficacy for working with MLs. The results from this study show that, without additional work on developing TLA beyond one course, the PSTs in this study would exit the teacher education program and obtain licensure with the level of TLA that they exhibited midway through their program, which is a level of expertise in TLA that is insufficient to meet the language demands of today's K-12 classrooms.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Utah (IRB\_00045525: Date of approval: 15 November 2018).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Queries for access to raw or coded data from this study should be directed to the author.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **Appendix A. Features of the Language Task**

Directions: Choose 10 features of language from the list of 20 below. Find examples for each of your choices in the text you have chosen. Click on the links below to enter your examples.


#### **References**

Alisaari, Jenni, Leena Maria Heikkola, Nancy Commins, and Emmanuel O. Acquah. 2019. Monolingual Ideologies Confronting Multilingual Realities. Finnish Teachers' Beliefs about Linguistic Diversity. *Teaching and Teacher Education* 80: 48–58. [CrossRef]

Andrews, Stephen. 2003. Teacher Language Awareness and the Professional Knowledge Base of the L2 Teacher. *Language Awareness* 12: 81–95. [CrossRef]

Andrews, Stephen. 2007. *Teacher Language Awareness*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arndt, Valerie, Paul Harvey, and John Nuttall. 2000. *Alive to Language: Perspectives on Language Awareness for English Language Teachers*. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Aronin, Larissa, and David Singleton. 2008. Multilingualism as a New Linguistic Dispensation. *International Journal of Multilingualism* 5: 1–16. [CrossRef]

Aronin, Larissa, and David Singleton. 2012. *Multilingualism*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bandura, Albert. 1997. *Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control*. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Barkhuizen, Gary. 2016. Narrative Approaches to Exploring Language, Identity, and Power in Language Teacher Education. *RELC Journal* 47: 25–42. [CrossRef]

Borg, Simon. 2006. *Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice*. London: Continuum.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysi in Psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology* 3: 77–101. [CrossRef]

Cakcak, Yasemin Tezgiden. 2016. A Critical Review of Teacher Education Models. *International Journal of Educational Policies* 10: 121–40. Cenoz, Jasone. 2013. Defining Multilingualism. *Annual Review of Applied Linguistics* 33: 3–18. [CrossRef]

Cenoz, Jasone, and Durk Gorter. 2011. Focus on Multilingualism: A Study of Trilingual Writing. *Modern Language Journal* 95: 356–69. [CrossRef]

Cenoz, Jasone, and Durk Gorter. 2021. *Pedagogical Translanguaging*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cevdet, Yilmaz. 2011. Teachers' Perceptions of Self-efficacy, English Proficiency, and Instructional Strategies. *Social Behavior and Personality* 39: 91–100.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. *Constructing Grounded Theory*, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Ltd.


García, Ofelia, and Li Wei. 2013. *Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education*. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.


Kolb, Sharon M. 2012. Grounded Theory and Constant Comparative Method: Valid Research Strategies for Educators. *Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies* 3: 83–86.

Kramsch, Claire. 2010. *The Multilingual Subject*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krultaz, Anna, Georgios Neokleous, and Anne Dahl. 2022. *Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Teaching Foreign Languages in Multilingual Settings: Pedagogical Implementations*. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1995. But That's Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. *Theory to Practice* 34: 159–65. [CrossRef]

Lillie, Karen E., Amy Markos, Beatriz M. Arias, and Terrence Wiley. 2012. Separate and Not Equal: The Implementation of SEI in Arizona's Classrooms. *Teachers College Record* 114: 1–33. [CrossRef]

Lindahl, Kristen. 2018. Teacher Language Awareness Development and Its Implications for New Educators. *The New Educator* 15: 85–100. [CrossRef]

Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn. 2004. The Rich Promise of Two-way Immersion. *Educational Leadership* 62: 56–59.

Lindholm-Leary, Kathryn, and Ana Hernandez. 2011. Achievement and Language Proficiency of Latino Students in Dual Language Programs: Native English Speakers, Fluent English/Previous ELLs and Current ELLs. *Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development* 32: 531–45. [CrossRef]

May, Stephen. 2019. Negotiating the Multilingual Turn in SLA. *The Modern Language Journal* 103: 122–29. [CrossRef]

May, Stephen, ed. 2014. *The Multilingual Turn. Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education*. New York: Routledge.

Milliken, P. Jane. 2010. Grounded Theory. In *Encyclopedia of Research Design*. Edited by Neil J. Salkind. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 549–54.

Mooney, Annabelle, and Betsy Evans. 2018. *Language, Society, and Power*. New York: Routledge.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). 2021. English Learners in U.S. Public Schools. Available online: https://nces.ed. gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf (accessed on 1 October 2021).

Ortega, Lourdes. 2014. Ways Forward for a Bi/multilingual Turn in SLA. In *The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education*. Edited by Stephen May. New York: Routledge, pp. 32–52.


Riser-Kositsky, Maya. 2019. Education Statistics: Facts about American Schools. *Education Week*. January 3. Available online: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts-about-american-schools/2019/01 (accessed on 15 October 2021).

Rojo, Luisa Martin. 2016. Language and Power. In *The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society*. Edited by Ofelia García, Nelson Flores and Massimiliano Spotti. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 77–120.

Russel, Bernard H. 2000. *Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches*. Thousand Oaks: Sage.


Shulman, Lee S. 1986. Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. *Educational Researchers* 15: 4–31. [CrossRef]

Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Foreword. In *Teaching as the Learning Profession*. Edited by Linda Darling-Hammond and Gary Sykes. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. xi–xiv.


Veenman, Simon. 1984. Perceived Problems of Beginning Teachers. *Review of Educational Research* 54: 143–78. [CrossRef]

Wei, Li. 2011. Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Multicompetence: Code and Modeswitching by Minority Ethnic Children in Complementary Schools. *Modern Language Journal* 95: 370–84. [CrossRef]

Wright, Tony, and Rod Bolitho. 1993. Language Awareness: A Missing Link in Teacher Education. *ELT Journal* 47: 292–304. [CrossRef] Wyatt, Mark. 2018. Language Teachers' Self-efficacy Beliefs: A Review of the Literature. *Australian Journal of Teacher Education* 43: 92–120. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

## *Article* **Should the Elementary School EFL Classroom Contribute to Developing Multilingualism? Pre-Service Teacher Cognitions about Pluralistic Approaches to EFL Teaching and Cross-Linguistic Awareness**

**Christine Möller-Omrani \* and Ann-Kristin H. Sivertsen**

Department of Language, Literature, Mathematics and Interpreting, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, 5063 Bergen, Norway; sivertsenannkristin@gmail.com

**\*** Correspondence: cemo@hvl.no

**Abstract:** Internationally, multi-/plurilingualism has been defined as an important educational goal and plurilingual education as a right for all learners. The present study investigates the readiness of Norwegian pre-service teachers (N = 54) to lay the foundations for multilingualism and life-long language learning (LLLL) for *all* pupils in the elementary school English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. For this purpose, we studied pre-service teachers' conceptualization of multilingualism and their cognitions about laying the foundations for LLLL, using pluralistic approaches, and the importance of cross-linguistic awareness. The following data collection instruments were employed: (a) a survey with open- and closed-ended questions and (b) a short Likert scale survey with items based on the Framework of References for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Culture (FREPA). We found that the participants' conceptualization of multilingualism reflected key dimensions in the field. The great majority of them had a positive view of the contribution that elementary school EFL teaching can make to multilingualism. The overwhelming majority were also positive about laying the foundations for LLLL and agreed that cross-linguistic awareness is important for pupils. However, almost one-third of the pre-service teachers were skeptical about pluralistic approaches to teaching.

**Keywords:** multi-/plurilingualism; multi-/plurilingual education; pluralistic approaches; crosslinguistic awareness; pre-service teachers; teacher cognition; English as a Foreign Language

#### **1. Introduction**

International education policymakers, such as the Council of Europe (CoE 2007), have identified multi-/plurilingualism<sup>1</sup> as an important educational goal and plurilingual education as a right for all learners (Beacco et al. 2016; Coste et al. 2009). For children with multilingual home backgrounds<sup>2</sup> , this includes enabling the children to exploit the full potential of their existing language competence and to understand multilingualism as an asset. For children with a monolingual background, this primarily means laying the foundations for plurilingualism and life-long language learning (LLLL). Plurilingualism is considered a key to democratic citizenship, social cohesion, and access to the labor market (Coste et al. 2009; cf. also Grin 2017, p. 116ff.). These ideas have also inspired national policies, for example, in Austria, French-speaking Switzerland, and Spain (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2015); in Norway (Norwegian Directorate 2013, 2020b; Norwegian Ministry 2004a, 2004b); Finland (Alisaari et al. 2019); Denmark (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019); and Vanuatu (Willians 2013).

### *1.1. Pluralistic Approaches*

In language teaching methodology, so-called *pluralistic approaches*<sup>3</sup> provide the theoretical and practical means to reach the goals put forward in plurilingualism-inspired

**Citation:** Möller-Omrani, Christine, and Ann-Kristin H. Sivertsen. 2022. Should the Elementary School EFL Classroom Contribute to Developing Multilingualism? Pre-Service Teacher Cognitions about Pluralistic Approaches to EFL Teaching and Cross-Linguistic Awareness. *Languages* 7: 109. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7020109

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 3 September 2021 Accepted: 15 April 2022 Published: 3 May 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

education policies. To this end, pluralistic approaches make use of teaching and learning activities that involve several varieties of languages or cultures (Candelier et al. 2012a, p. 6). Pluralistic approaches have the explicit aim of establishing "links between competences which the learners already possess and those which the educational system wishes them to acquire" (Candelier et al. 2012b, p. 247; cf. also Haukås and Speitz 2020; Cenoz and Gorter 2013; Piccardo 2013). Pluralistic approaches thus do not simply aim to promote the development of a plurilingual repertoire; they explicitly seek to draw on learners' existing repertoires and learning experiences as a resource for (further) language learning.

In this context, *metalinguistic knowledge* and *metalinguistic awareness* play an important role. Metalinguistic knowledge, in other words, implicit and explicit knowledge *about* language(s) as opposed to knowledge *of* a language, is instantiated as metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok 2001). Metalinguistic awareness, in turn, has been proposed as an important factor in being able to make use of existing competencies to learn subsequent languages (e.g., Cenoz and Gorter 2013; Piccardo 2013; Bialystok et al. 2012; Bialystok 2001; cf. also Beacco et al. 2016). Due to their inherent reflexivity, plurilingual, crosslinguistic activities can contribute to enhancing learners' metalinguistic awareness, and especially learners' *cross-linguistic awareness* (cf. Beacco et al. 2016). According to Cenoz and Jessner (2009), cross-linguistic awareness can be defined as "the learner's tacit and explicit awareness of the links between *their* language systems" (p. 127; our emphasis). Our understanding of cross-linguistic awareness, which draws on Möller-Omrani et al. (2021), goes one step further. We consider any instance of metalinguistic awareness requiring some form of language comparison as constituting an instance of cross-linguistic awareness.

Candelier and colleagues (2012a, 2012b; cf. also Piccardo 2013) distinguished three main language-targeted pluralistic approaches which differ in their respective focus but are not mutually exclusive. The *integrated didactic approach* is based on the idea of establishing links between the limited number of languages taught in the education system. Pupils' first language or the language of education is used to aid the acquisition of a first foreign language. These two languages subsequently support the acquisition of a second foreign language. In *intercomprehension between related languages*, the language to be studied belongs to the same language family as one of the languages the learner is already familiar with (the home language, language of education, or another language). Last but not least, *awakening to languages* aims to introduce pupils to linguistic diversity and to recognize the varieties that pupils from diverse backgrounds bring to the classroom. While the language of education and/or other languages that may be learned in school (e.g., English) are within this spectrum, the approach is not limited to these or to any specific number of languages.

Pluralistic approaches to language teaching have also been proposed for the EFL<sup>4</sup> classroom, for instance, *focus on multilingualism* (Cenoz and Gorter 2013; cf. also the TESOL Quarterly special topic issue "Plurilingualism in TESOL" (2013)) or, more recently, *pedagogical translanguaging* (Cenoz and Gorter 2020; Cenoz and Santos 2020). However, with regard to teaching (not only) ESL or EFL, so-called singular approaches, which recognize only one particular language or culture and deal with it in isolation (Candelier et al. 2012a, p. 6), have been dominant (e.g., Cummins 2017; Paquet-Gauthier and Beaulieu 2016; May 2014; Cenoz and Gorter 2013; Piccardo 2013). Such approaches create artificial "hard boundaries" (Cenoz and Gorter 2013), not only among the languages taught but also between learners' existing linguistic repertoire and the language(s) to be learned.

Not surprisingly, recent studies indicated that pre- and in-service teachers lack the requisite knowledge and training for such approaches, even if they have a positive attitude toward plurilingualism and using multilingualism as a classroom resource (e.g., Dégi 2016; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Haukås 2016; Surkalovic 2014; De Angelis 2011). Teacher preparedness is crucial, however, since the responsibility for implementing plurilingual policies falls on the education system and thus, ultimately, on the individual teacher. Here, teacher cognition—the "unobservable dimension of teachers' professional lives" (Borg 2019, p. 1149)—comes into play.

#### *1.2. Teacher Cognitions*

When used as an umbrella term, *teacher cognition* stands for a cluster of complex aspects of teachers' minds, such as knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, and, more recently, emotions (Borg 2019). Teacher cognitions are shaped by teachers' situated personal and professional experiences (ibid.). Teacher cognitions, in turn, shape the process of becoming a teacher, teachers' professional practice, and their development (Borg 2019), although the relationship between cognition, development, and practice is also complex (cf. Borg 2006, 2018; Phipps and Borg 2009).

The existing body of research on teacher cognition about multilingualism, multilingualism as a resource, and pluralistic pedagogical approaches is limited. In a recent study of in-service teacher beliefs about multilingualism in a course on translanguaging, Gorter and Arocena (2020) summarize eight studies in the field (Portolés and Martí 2020; Tarnanen and Palviainen 2018; Arocena 2017; Otwinowska 2017; Dégi 2016; Haukås 2016; Arocena et al. 2015; Young 2014), in addition to studies already reviewed in Haukås (2016) (Heyder and Schädlich 2014; Jakisch 2014; Otwinowska 2014; De Angelis 2011). We have incorporated the results of several additional studies (Gorter and Arocena 2020; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al. 2020; Alisaari et al. 2019; Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019; Lundberg 2019; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Griva and Chostelidou 2012) into our own review. Several of these studies focus on elementary school teachers (Gorter and Arocena 2020; Lundberg 2019; Arocena 2017; Arocena et al. 2015) or at least include them in their overall data set (Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al. 2020; Tarnanen and Palviainen 2018; Otwinowska 2014, 2017; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Young 2014; Griva and Chostelidou 2012). The remaining studies focus on secondary school teachers or have underspecified their participants.

Not only have previous studies been conducted in a variety of national contexts, they also differ with regard to many other factors, such as the learning/teaching context (e.g., foreign language learning vs. content subjects), the level of the educational system (primary, secondary, tertiary education), the participants (pre-service vs. in-service teachers), and which pupils were targeted (e.g., foreign language learners vs. minority-language children). Research findings thus are not always easily comparable. However, several main tendencies can be discerned.

Overall, teachers seem to take a positive view of multilingualism and plurilingualisminspired approaches to teaching (but see Lundberg 2019; Young 2014; Dooly 2005, 2007), whether for children with home languages other than the language of schooling or in the context of foreign language teaching. At the same time, previous studies indicate that teachers may not be and/or may not feel sufficiently well-prepared to implement a multilingual approach (Gorter and Arocena 2020; Alisaari et al. 2019; Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019; Tarnanen and Palviainen 2018; Dégi 2016; Haukås 2016; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Otwinowska 2014; De Angelis 2011).

In addition, teachers' overall favorable attitude collides with other conflicting beliefs (Alisaari et al. 2019; Arocena 2017; Arocena et al. 2015; De Angelis 2011), such as the value of language separation and the exclusive use of the target language to maximize exposure. Teachers may even acknowledge the value of children's home languages in general while viewing the use of these languages in the classroom much less favorably and voicing concerns about, for instance, a delay in learning the language of schooling or concerns about pupils and teachers not familiar with these languages feeling excluded (Alisaari et al. 2019; De Angelis 2011).

In a similar vein, teachers seem to differentiate between the languages involved when it comes to cross-linguistic comparison and using multilingualism as a resource. On the one hand, teachers see previously acquired languages as a stepping stone to learning additional languages (Jakisch 2014; De Angelis 2011), and they report drawing on the language of schooling and on language(s) already learned in the educational system (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019; Haukås 2016; Heyder and Schädlich 2014). Teachers are less inclined, on the other hand, to draw on the full spectrum of linguistic repertoires their pupils bring to the classroom, especially if they themselves are unfamiliar with these languages (RodríguezIzquierdo et al. 2020; Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019; Arocena 2017; Haukås 2016; Heyder and Schädlich 2014; De Angelis 2011). It is, therefore, not surprising that there seems to be a discrepancy between teachers' overall positive stance and their (self-reported) practice (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019; Dégi 2016; Haukås 2016; Arocena et al. 2015; Heyder and Schädlich 2014).

Teachers tend to view multilingualism and a plurilingualism-inspired approach to teaching more positively if they themselves are multilingual and their professional experience includes linguistically diverse classrooms. Studies looking at language teachers have found that, in general, these teachers are favorably predisposed to multilingualism and plurilingual approaches (Gorter and Arocena 2020; Otwinowska 2014, 2017; Haukås 2016; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Heyder and Schädlich 2014), whereas this was not necessarily the case for teachers of other subjects (Young 2014; De Angelis 2011) or teachers with little experience in such settings (Alisaari et al. 2019; Lundberg 2019). At the same time, teachers' level of proficiency in other languages seems to have an impact on their *plurilingual awareness*, defined as their "ability to promote plurilingual approaches in the language classroom" (Otwinowska 2014, p. 114).

Gorter and Arocena (2020) recently showed that teachers' beliefs about a plurilingualisminspired approach can be influenced favorably through professional training measures. Their participants, in-service teachers in the Basque Country in Spain (94% with a qualification for teaching English), had voluntarily signed up for a training course on new ideas about multilingualism (cf. Cenoz and Gorter 2013). As a result of this training, the teachers viewed several aspects of a plurilingualism-inspired teaching method more favorably than before. They agreed to a greater extent that one language can be helpful in learning another language, for example, and that comparing languages can be useful in this context. In addition, they took a more favorable view of mixing and alternating languages and a less favorable view of a strict language separation policy. While teachers' cognitions can thus be influenced in favor of using a multilingual approach, this may not have an impact on their practice unless additional practical support is provided, for example, teaching materials with concrete activities using a pluralistic approach (Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019).

#### *1.3. Pre-Service Teacher Cognitions*

The number of studies that focus specifically on pre-service teacher cognition about multilingualism and/or pluralistic approaches is even more limited. Nevertheless, these studies mirror the findings for in-service teachers. Pre-service teachers seem to have a generally positive view of multilingualism and pupils' home languages (Hegna and Speitz 2020; Llompart and Birello 2020; Portolés and Martí 2020; Cybulska and Borenic 2014) maybe even more so than in-service teachers (Dooly 2005, 2007). However, pre-service teachers also share in-service teachers' concerns when it comes to including the home languages of children with an immigrant background (Iversen 2021). Portolés and Martí (2020) showed that this can even be the case in a context where pre-service teachers express strong support for promoting minority languages. The participants in Portolés and Martí's study, from the Valencian Community in Spain, seemed to associate the term "minority language" almost exclusively with autochthonous minority languages such as Catalan, which has co-official status in the Valencian Community and was the first language of many of the pre-service teachers in the study.

Similar to in-service teachers, pre-service teachers seem to be and/or to feel largely unprepared for multilingual classrooms and a multilingual approach, independently of whether they themselves have a migration background (Llompart and Birello 2020; Otwinowska 2014; Surkalovic 2014). In a recent study conducted in Norway, for example, Hegna and Speitz (2020) found that pre-service teachers of different language and content subjects associated multilingualism mainly with pupils having a different home language than the majority language, Norwegian. At the same time, Hegna and Speitz's participants mainly seemed to associate the inclusion of several languages in the classroom with a transitional use of the pupils' home languages until these pupils achieved sufficient fluency in

the majority language. This suggests unfamiliarity with a wider concept of multilingualism and pluralistic approaches. However, pre-service teachers' plurilingual awareness may also be connected to their own multilingualism, in other words, to the number of languages they speak and their proficiency in these languages (Otwinowska 2014; but see Cybulska and Borenic 2014).

Pre-service teachers themselves seem to recognize the need for further training and welcome offers of additional training (Portolés and Martí 2020; Cybulska and Borenic 2014). In this context, Woll (2020) and Portolés and Martí (2020) have recently shown that targeted training offers can have an impact on pre-service teacher cognitions about pluralistic approaches (see also Surkalovic 2014). This ties in with other studies which have found pre-service teachers more inclined to renegotiate their initial perceptions than in-service teachers (Dooly 2005) and their ideologies to not yet be fixed to the same degree (Iversen 2021). However, some aspects of pre-service teacher cognitions seem to be more difficult to influence than others, as the studies by Woll (2020) and Portolés and Martí (2020) show.

Woll (2020) conducted an intervention study on pre-service teacher cognition about pluralistic classroom practice. Her participants, pre-service teachers of ESL in the Canadian province of Quebec, attended a German language course in which they themselves experienced first a target-language-only approach and then a cross-linguistic approach. Her participants were overwhelmingly positive about their own experience of the crosslinguistic approach, and their pedagogical reflections seemed to be evolving during and after the intervention. However, Woll found that her participants' cognition was subject to a variety of (sometimes conflicting) influences: theoretical knowledge acquired during teacher training, experiences gained in teaching practice and their own experiences as a learner. Personal experience as a learner did not seem to be enough on its own to challenge deep-rooted beliefs about good language teaching, such as a monolingual ideology.

Similarly, Portolés and Martí (2020) investigated pre-service teachers' beliefs about multilingual pedagogies and the impact of teacher training on these beliefs. The participants in their study, pre-service preschool and primary school teachers in the Valencian Community of Spain, were attending a course that revolved around teaching in English in multilingual contexts and integrating languages and content. Portolés and Martí (2020, p. 253) found significant training effects in four previously identified areas: (1) the status of European languages, the status of English, and multilingual policy in Europe; (2) benefits of multilingualism and the notion of multicompetence; (3) forms of immersion in English; and (4) the ideal profile of multilingual teachers and their professional development. Since their findings show a "shift toward greater alignment in beliefs with principles of multilingual education research" (2020, p. 261), Portolés and Martí conclude that teacher training programs can be effective when it comes to reshaping beliefs in this area. However, there was no significant effect from training in two other areas: (1) ways of enhancing multilingual education and (2) early foreign language learning. Portolés and Martí conclude that teacher training is more effective with respect to academic, theory-informed topics than with respect to controversial topics, such as including migrant children's languages, or popular misconceptions, such as the "the earlier the better".

To the best of our knowledge, to date, only one study has investigated pre-service teacher cognitions about plurilingualism and using pluralistic approaches in the EFL classroom. Cybulska and Borenic (2014) investigated the attitudes of Polish and Croatian pre-service EFL teachers and found, first of all, a positive attitude toward foreign languages and language learning—which is somewhat to be expected for future language teachers. When asked about the languages they would recommend that their pupils learn, the participants named mainly larger European languages (German, Spanish, French, and Italian), which were also the languages most widely spoken by these participants. However, when specifically asked whether they would recommend learning a less widely used language, almost 70% of the pre-service teachers showed openness toward recommending a less widely used language. Cybulska and Borenic's participants also expressed a positive

attitude toward promoting plurilingualism and using pluralistic approaches. This positive attitude tied in with Cybulska and Borenic's finding that nearly all the pre-service teachers agreed that their knowledge of English would help them when learning another language from the same language family. Of these pre-service teachers, 95% also said they would draw on their own and their pupils' language knowledge and skills in the classroom. At the same time, 82% of them showed an interest in further training. In contrast to Otwinowska (2014), Cybulska and Borenic did not find that the number of languages their participants spoke or their professional experience influenced their willingness to use pluralistic approaches.

The present study aims to make a contribution, from a Norwegian perspective, to the very limited body of research on pre-service teachers' preparedness to promote multilingualism and to use pluralistic approaches in the EFL classroom. Similar to Cybulska and Borenic (2014) and in contrast to previous research focusing on linguistically diverse classrooms, we have investigated the degree to which Norwegian elementary school pre-service teachers of English are prepared to lay the foundations for multilingualism and LLLL for *all* pupils.

#### *1.4. The Norwegian Context*

In Norway, the education system is structured into elementary school (grades 1 to 7), lower secondary school (grades 8 to 10), and upper secondary school (grades 11 to 13). The first foreign language is English, which is taught from grade one, albeit for a limited number of hours. English is allocated a total of 138 teaching hours for grades one to four and a total of 228 hours for grades five to seven. Other foreign languages (mostly German, French, and Spanish) are regularly offered, beginning in eighth grade. At the same time, Norway is an inherently multilingual country with an abundance of immigrant languages in addition to two official written standards of Norwegian, several officially recognized minority languages, a rich landscape of geographical dialects, and strong historical ties with other Scandinavian countries and their languages (see, e.g., Haukås and Speitz 2020; Krulatz et al. 2018). According to Haukås and Speitz (2020), all Norwegian pupils can be considered plurilingual.

Recently, the Norwegian curriculum has been substantially revised, but multilingualism figures prominently in both the old (LK06)<sup>5</sup> and the new curriculum (LK20), as does a pluralistic approach. However, the LK06's "General Part" (Norwegian Directorate 1994), which dates to 1994 and outlines the values and vision of the curriculum, did not yet include the idea of multilingualism as a resource. Instead, learning *about* minority cultures and, in the case of Sami, *about* their language was a part of the educational vision. At the same time, the "Purpose" section of the LK06 curriculum for English, which outlined the general aims of the subject, explicitly stated that "[l]earning English will contribute to multilingualism and can be an important part of our personal development" (Norwegian Directorate 2013, p. 1). The LK06 concretized that language learning includes seeing "relationships between English, one's native language and other languages" (p. 3)—clearly a cross-linguistic, pluralistic endeavor, which needs to be seen in connection with the acquisition of learning strategies advocated throughout the LK06. Specific competence aims, which pupils were to achieve by a certain grade, made for further concretization. After grade two, for example, pupils were expected to be able to "find words and phrases that are common to English and one's native language" (p. 6). After grade seven, they were expected to be able to "identify some linguistic similarities and differences between English and one's native language" (p. 8). Such aims could not be achieved without softening the boundaries between languages. In addition, these aims are closely linked to metalinguistic awareness since cross-linguistic comparison, such as identifying similarities and differences, is a profoundly metalinguistic activity. However, the idea of drawing on *all* pupils' *entire* linguistic repertoire is not unequivocally expressed in LK06. In the authors' own experience as teachers and teacher educators, teachers drew almost exclusively on Norwegian in their

English classes and rarely for the purpose of cross-linguistic comparison but as a vehicle language "so that everybody understands".

In the revised curriculum, which has been undergoing implementation since the fall of 2020, the idea of multilingualism as a resource and the promotion of plurilingualism have been made explicit. The new "Core Curriculum"—which replaces the former "General Part"—states that "[a]ll pupils shall experience that being proficient in a number of languages is a resource, both in school and society at large" (Norwegian Directorate 2020a, p. 2). This idea is repeated almost verbatim in the "Relevance and Central Values" section of the new curriculum for English, which outlines why the subject is important for pupils, working life, and society at large. The idea of multilingualism as a resource is further concretized in the new "Core Elements" for the English subject.<sup>6</sup> The core element "Language learning" is now more explicit than the LK06 about including all pupils' full linguistic repertoire: "Language learning refers to identifying connections between English and other languages *the pupils know*" (Norwegian Directorate 2020b, p. 2f.; our emphasis). This is again concretized in specific competence aims for the different grades.

Pre-service teachers in Norway are trained at universities and university colleges (for a more detailed description, see, for example, Krulatz and Dahl 2016 and Surkalovic 2014). Primary school teachers of English are required to take a minimum of 30 credits in the subject; for lower and upper secondary teachers, the requirement is 60 credits. Since these are comparatively recent requirements, many teachers lack the formal qualifications for teaching English. In 2018/19, only 32% of English teachers at elementary schools in Norway had formal qualifications for the subject (Statistics Norway 2019). In-service training courses offered at universities and university colleges are only gradually able to remedy the situation.

Plurilingualism and plurilingual approaches were not mentioned explicitly in the 2010–2018 national guidelines for the training of elementary school teachers of English, although they could be seen as implied in some passages under the general umbrella of diversity. Students were, for example, expected to be "able to plan, lead, and assess [ . . . ] in a way that takes into account pupils' diversity in regard to different needs and different cultural and linguistic backgrounds" (UHR 2010, p. 38). In terms of cross-linguistic comparison, the guidelines specifically called for students to acquire "knowledge about grammatical structures with special emphasis on differences and similarities between *English* and *Norwegian"* (p. 38; our translation and emphasis). However, students were also supposed to learn how to "guide pupils so that they can make use of differences and similarities between *the mother tongue* and English" (p. 38; our translation and emphasis). This mixed message may have contributed to the fact that few teacher training programs in Norway seem to have systematically included multilingualism and multilingual approaches in their education for future teachers of English (cf. Krulatz and Dahl 2016).

The policy background has now changed, and the new teacher education guidelines for elementary school (UHR 2018) explicitly require pre-service teachers of English to learn about multilingualism as a resource. It remains to be seen, however, to what degree this will be implemented in teacher education programs and how it will impact the cognition and practice of future pre-service and in-service teachers.

Several of the studies on teacher cognition reviewed above were conducted in Norway or included the Norwegian context (Iversen 2021; Hegna and Speitz 2020; Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Haukås 2016; Surkalovic 2014). Their results are in agreement with findings from other countries: Even though pre- and in-service teachers view plurilingualism as an asset, they are ill-prepared for promoting plurilingualism and using a multilingual teaching approach. The feedback that a first draft of the revised curriculum received in a national hearing is aligned with this: schools and teachers commented that they did not understand what multilingualism as a competence aim means and how it should be achieved (Norwegian Directorate 2018).

#### *1.5. The Present Study*

Against the background set out in the previous subsections, we raise the following research question: What cognitions do Norwegian pre-service teachers of English have about laying the foundations for multilingualism in elementary school EFL classes? We have formulated five additional sub-questions:


We expected to be able to identify some tendencies consistent with previous studies, where such studies have been conducted. That is, we expected a predominantly positive view of multilingualism, plurilingual approaches, and pupils' home languages. Likewise, we anticipated a predominantly positive attitude toward laying the foundations for learning additional languages. We also expected general agreement that (a) learning English contributes to multilingualism and that (b) it is important to promote cross-linguistic strategies in the classroom.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Participants*

Fifty-four pre-service teachers participated in the study, 40 of them identifying as female and 14 as male (see Table 1). All of the participants were enrolled at a large, urban university college in Norway in a teacher education program for grades 1 to 7 (Norwegian elementary school) and had chosen English as an elective subject, in addition to mandatory mathematics and Norwegian. Thirty-one participants were first-year students at the end of their first semester. Twenty-three participants were second-year students at the beginning of their final semester of English who had one prior semester of English. Both groups had recently returned from teaching practice and had had a brief introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as part of their studies.


**Table 1.** Participants.

Fifty-two participants (96%) stated that their first language was Norwegian. Four of these considered themselves bilingual, with Norwegian and another language as first languages (L1) (Dutch, English, Tamil). Two participants stated that a language other than Norwegian was their L1 (Icelandic, Spanish). In response to the question of how many languages they felt able to carry out a conversation in—anything from ordering something at a restaurant to having an academic conversation—ten participants (19%) answered two, 28 (52%) said three, ten (19%) said four, and five (9%) said five (see Table 2). One participant did not answer the question.


**Table 2.** Self-reported language competence: number of languages in which participants can carry out a conversation.

When participants were asked to state which additional languages they knew and how they would rate their overall confidence in these languages on a five-point scale from "not at all confident" to "very confident," all 54 named English and gave a range from three to five points. The full spectrum of languages stated, as well as the participants' self-reported competence level, is shown in Table 3.

**Table 3.** Participants' self-reported additional language competence on a 5-point scale from "not at all confident" (1) to "very confident" (5).


#### *2.2. Method*

A written questionnaire was administered to the participants. In section 1 of the questionnaire (see Table 4), they were asked to reflect on multilingualism and using a pluralistic approach to language teaching in their future career as EFL teachers. More specifically, the participants were asked about:


The questions in this section contained an open-ended or both an open-ended and a closed (yes/no) item.

In section 2 of the questionnaire, the participants were presented with a six-item, five-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". The instructions given for the Likert scale items were: "Following are a number of statements about knowledge and skills related to language and language learning. To which extent do you agree that the English classroom should contribute to developing these? Please indicate the extent of your agreement/disagreement in the table below".


**Table 4.** General instruction and items included in section 1 of the questionnaire.

The purpose of this Likert scale was to investigate the perceived importance of developing cross-linguistic knowledge and skills in the EFL classroom and, more specifically, the importance which the participants attributed to developing knowledge and skills for which a pluralistic approach to teaching is essential. All of the items on the scale were taken from the *Framework of References for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Culture* (FREPA) (Candelier et al. 2012a, 2012b). FREPA provides a set of global *competences* that pluralistic approaches contribute to developing and a detailed list of *reference descriptors* for *resources* that are presumed to contribute to the activation of these global competencies (Candelier et al. 2012a, 2012b). FREPA further postulates that the development of the resources described by the reference descriptors can be worked on in the classroom (Candelier et al. 2012a, p. 13). The reference descriptors are further sorted into three different but interrelated categories: *knowledge, attitudes*, and *skills*.

Six descriptors from the *knowledge* and *skills* sections of FREPA were selected for the Likert scale. Three criteria were applied in the selection process. First of all, descriptors were only considered if they related to language and were perceived as relating to metalinguistic awareness (cf. Candelier et al. 2012b, p. 77). That is, only descriptors that were considered to refer to knowledge about language(s) (*knowledge* category) or to the application of this kind of knowledge (*skills* category) were included. Secondly, only descriptors with a green key in FREPA were included. These are descriptors where the use of a pluralistic approach is considered essential in order to develop the respective resource. That is, the resource described by the descriptor probably cannot be attained without drawing on pluralistic approaches (cf. Candelier et al. 2012b, p. 17). Last but not least, the descriptors were chosen so as to be neither too abstract nor too specific. This was done to ensure that the descriptors were concrete enough to be easily understood while also ensuring a certain degree of generalization. The descriptors thus selected were used to create the final items for our Likert scale, which are shown in Table 5, together with their original FREPA code and section. For better comprehension, the original wording of K 6.5 was changed from "phonetic/phonological system" to "sound system" and in K 7.2 the bracketed text was removed. All other descriptors were included verbatim.


**Table 5.** FREPA-based items used in the present study.

Section 4 of the questionnaire, which included two metalinguistic awareness tasks from the EVLANG (Candelier 2003) project, will not be reported in the present study. Section 5 collected the background information reported above (gender, first language(s), and additional languages, self-reported confidence in the use of these languages, context in which these languages were learned, desire to learn additional languages).

A pilot study was conducted with ten pre-service teachers, after which the original questionnaire was altered slightly with regard to the phrasing of some of the questions and the ordering of the sections. The final questionnaire was administered during seminars in EFL teacher education. The participants were told that there were no right or wrong answers and to write in the language they felt most comfortable in, whether English or Norwegian, even if the questions themselves were given in English. Furthermore, there was no time limit for answering. All participants answered within the 90 min duration of the seminar, with the longest time taken to complete the questionnaire being approximately 30 min.

The qualitative questionnaire data from Section 1 of the questionnaire was analyzed with the help of NVivo 12 Pro through inductive thematic analysis (Nowell et al. 2017; Braun and Clarke 2006) using a semantic approach to coding (cf. Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 84). In the second step, we developed main themes on the basis of the number of speakers in whose answers we had identified these themes. The Likert scale items were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Agreement rates for individual items and levels (see Section 3.6) were calculated as follows: number of participants divided by the total number of participants.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Pre-Service Teachers' Conceptualization of Multilingualism*

In order to investigate pre-service teachers' conceptualizations of multilingualism, the participants were presented with the following statement: "Please explain what 'multilingualism' is." (Item One). All of the participants answered, albeit in varying degrees of detail ranging from short definitions such as "Multilingualism is when you have several languages" (P31) and "multilingualism is a term that means 'several languages'" (P53) to complex, highly reflective definitions such as "[p]laces, rooms, people etc. can be multilingual.—something that has several languages. Maybe even the definition on 'language' can variere [Norwegian <vary>]" (P41) or "My understanding of multilingualism is that someone is somewhat fluent in many languages, more specifically I believe it is more than two languages. In some cases, I also believe it can be connected to the different literacies, as well, in the sense that language we use on the internet and slang can be viewed as its own language" (P40). Thirteen participants (24%) provided the Norwegian translation

"flerspråklighet" without further explanation. Three participants (5%) answered that they were not sure what multilingualism was.

We identified three main dimensions in the participants' explanations, which correspond to three central dimensions in current discussions in the field (cf. Romaine 2017; Cenoz 2013): number of languages, competence, and individual vs. societal multilingualism (see Table 6). Thirty-eight participants (70%)<sup>7</sup> defined multilingualism as involving either more than two or several languages (N = 25; 46%) or at least more than one language (N = 13; 24%). Two participants (4%) used both "several" and "more than one," as exemplified in P190 s definition: "The ability to speak/use multiple languages. A multilingualist [sic] possesses more than one language they can speak or use."

**Table 6.** Main dimensions and subdimensions of participants' conceptualization of multilingualism. Mentions are given as a percentage of the total number of participants, followed by the absolute number of mentions. More than one theme or subtheme can be present in a single participant's answer.


Thirty-two participants (59%) made reference to competence. Overall, the participants seemed to conceptualize multilingualism as involving an active command of languages, such as being able to speak, communicate, express oneself, or use several languages (N = 30; 56%). This result should not be overinterpreted, however, since "speaking a language" is commonly used as a generic expression, and some of the same participants (N = 6; 11%) explicitly mentioned "understanding" several languages. A few of the participants also addressed multilingual literacy (N = 4; 7%).

Eleven participants (20%) made reference to the individual vs. societal dimension of multilingualism. They seemed to conceptualize multilingualism predominantly as individual and personal (N = 9; 17%) rather than societal (N = 2; 4%). However, multilingualism was also described as potentially being tied to different spaces and domains, such as a multilingual classroom at school, work, a specific room, or a specific conversation (N = 7; 13%). Interestingly, only three participants (6%) explicitly connected multilingualism to growing up with more than one language.

#### *3.2. Pre-Service Teachers' Own School Experience: The Contribution of English to Multilingualism*

In order to investigate pre-service teachers' own school experiences in regard to the contribution EFL teaching can make to multilingualism, the participants were asked the following question: "According to the Norwegian National Curriculum (LK06), 'Learning English will contribute to multilingualism.' Thinking back to your own school experience, do you agree?" (Item Two). The participants were then presented with a yes/no option before being asked to elaborate on why they did or did not agree with the statement. Fortyeight participants (89%) agreed that learning English contributes to multilingualism. Only five participants (9%) disagreed, and one participant left this item blank. Their reasons for agreeing and disagreeing were varied. The five participants who responded negatively referred mainly to the quality of EFL teaching and insufficient learning outcomes, such as their English classes being more focused on grammar than on communication and their having learned English mainly outside of school.

Of the 48 participants who agreed, 42 provided a further explanation. Not surprisingly, the main theme we identified (N = 30; 56%) was that learning English contributes to multilingualism by adding English to one's linguistic repertoire (see Table 7). However, eight of these participants and an additional six others (i.e., a total of 14 (26%)) argued that learning English aids later language learning, be it in general (N = 6; 11%), by enabling learners to use cross-linguistic comparison as a learning strategy (N = 7; 13%), or by enhancing motivation (N = 1; 2%). P110 s answer illustrates the latter two and combines personal experience with a more general explanation: "[T]he more languages you learn, the easier it will be to learn new ones. This is because you have multiple languages in your head you can relate to when learning a new one. When I knew English, it was easier for me to learn French." (P11). Some of the participants made explicit reference to the school setting as being important for learning English and other languages (N = 5; 9%).

**Table 7.** Main dimensions and main subdimension (where applicable) of participants' cognition about the positive contribution that learning English at school can make to multilingualism. Mentions are given as a percentage of the total number of participants, followed by the absolute number of mentions. More than one theme or subtheme can be present in a single participant's answer.


#### *3.3. Pre-Service Teacher Cognitions about Laying the Foundations for Life-Long Language Learning*

In order to examine pre-service teachers' cognitions about using an approach to EFL teaching which prepares pupils for learning additional languages, the participants were presented with the following item: "Think about your future job as an English teacher: would you teach in a way that also prepares your pupils for learning languages other than English?" (Item Three). The participants were then presented with a yes/no option again and asked to elaborate on why they would or would not do so. Forty-six participants (85%) answered yes, four (7%) answered no, and three (6%) did not answer the question. One participant (2%) indicated both yes and no and expressed a positive attitude toward learning strategies while simultaneously stressing the need to focus on English. The necessity of focusing on English was, in fact, also the participants' main reason for answering negatively. Three participants (6%) used this argument, adding additional aspects such as the limited number of hours available for English in elementary school: "As I've seen in practice, the students need to focus on English during the little time they actually have English at school" (P15).

Of the 46 participants who answered affirmatively, 40 provided additional explanations. We identified two main reasons for being positive about teaching in this way (see Table 8). The most prominent reason (N = 27; 50%) given was to allow pupils to develop competencies that the pre-service teachers seemed to consider important for learning additional languages. We identified two larger subthemes. Subtheme one relates to helping pupils develop language-learning strategies (N = 24; 44%). Here, 15 participants (28%) made general statements about the usefulness of English, as the first foreign language, for this purpose. All of these participants argued that learning English performs an exemplary function for language learning in general. P25, for example, states that "when you learn English you can also learn strategies on how to learn other languages." Eight participants (15%) more specifically addressed the usefulness of what we have labeled as cross-linguistic teaching and learning, which echoes a core idea of pluralistic approaches: drawing on similarities and differences between previously known or unknown languages in order to foster the acquisition of a new language and, moreover, to enable pupils to do this systematically and employ it as a learning strategy. In P540 s words, "That would be my

goal. To let the pupils see the similarities and find their way of learning a new language, by teaching them English". Two participants (4%) specified that learning *about* English would be helpful for learning other languages. Subtheme two relates to motivating pupils to engage in further language learning by fostering interest and openness (N = 5; 13%). A quote from P40 illustrates how both subthemes can come together: "If the pupils are taught in a way that makes them curious of other languages, and make[s] them see similarities and differences between them, I believe they will be more likely to pursue other languages as well—and succeed".

**Table 8.** Main dimensions and main subdimensions (where applicable) of participants' cognition about teaching EFL in a way that prepares pupils to learn additional languages. Mentions are given as a percentage of the total number of participants, followed by the absolute number of mentions. More than one theme or subtheme can be present in a single participant's answer.


A second main reason was the perceived importance of knowing languages (N = 14; 26%). Apart from making general statements about the importance and value of knowing languages (N = 5; 9%), the participants referred mainly to needs that are brought about by globalization (N = 9; 17%), whether "global" and "intercultural" communication in general, the demands of the labor market, or increasingly diverse societies. As P9 expressed it, "we live in a multi-cultural society in a globalized world".

#### *3.4. Pre-Service Teacher Cognitions about Including Other Languages*

In order to investigate pre-service teachers' cognitions about including languages other than English in the EFL classroom, the participants were asked the following question: "Would you include languages other than English in the English classroom?" (Item Four). The participants were then presented with a yes/no option again and asked to elaborate on why they would or would not do so. Thirty-six participants (67%) answered affirmatively. Fifteen participants (28%) answered in the negative, and three (6%) indicated both yes and no.

We identified three main reasons for answering negatively (see Table 9). The first reason was concern about insufficient exposure to English (N = 7; 13%). The number of hours allocated to English is already quite limited at elementary school, and our participants expressed concern that the exposure time would be decreased even further if other languages were included. Secondly, the participants were concerned about leaving pupils confused and the inclusion of other languages proving too challenging as the participants felt that learning English alone was already a challenge (N = 5; 9%). Last but not least, the participants stated their own lack of knowledge of other languages as a reason (N = 4; 7%). The explanations that were given by participants who indicated both yes and no coincided with those given for negative answers but the "yes and no" participants seemed more undecided.

**Table 9.** Participants' cognition about including other languages: main dimensions of the participants' negative answers. Mentions are given as a percentage of the total number of participants, followed by the absolute number of mentions. More than one theme can be present in a single participant's answer.


Thirty-three of the 36 participants answering yes gave some further explanation. These included a wide range of topics with a single mention, ranging from promoting cross-cultural/cross-linguistic awareness to enhancing pupils' "metacognitive thinking" (P40) and decisions being dependent on the specific class and topic. However, we identified three main tendencies with regard to including languages other than English (see Table 10).

**Table 10.** Participant cognition about including other languages: main dimensions and subdimension(s) in participants' positive answers. Mentions are given as a percentage of the total number of participants, followed by the absolute number of mentions. More than one theme or subtheme can be present in a single participant's answer.


First of all, almost a third of the pre-service teachers (N = 15; 28%) would want to draw on their pupils' home languages, for two different reasons. Eleven participants (20%) set this in relation to language learning goals, arguing, for example, that it would lead to deeper understanding: "[If] I have pupils in class who speak other languages, I would also involve them and ask how you say different words in that language. This could lead to a deeper understanding of the different languages" (P48; our translation). Four participants (7%) stated that their reason was acknowledging the pupils' different cultural and linguistic backgrounds: "I think it needs to be an awareness xxx the multiple cultures that are present in the Norwegian classroom today. Acknowledging languages is also acknowledging and including students in the classroom with a different cultural background" (P2). Secondly, nine participants (17%) specifically mentioned wanting to include Norwegian. The main reason given for this was supporting pupils' understanding (N = 7; 13%). As P41 put it: "Also, I think I will use Norwegian to make sure they understand, but hopefully not to [sic] much". Last but not least, our participants would include additional languages for the purpose of cross-linguistic comparison (N = 10; 19%). They would especially want to look at similarities and differences in order to promote learning (N = 7; 13%). This supports the findings for subtheme one, language learning strategies, described in Section 3.3. Five of the pre-service teachers (9%) explicitly stated that they wanted to draw on their pupils' background languages for this purpose. Only one participant (P4) connected a crosslinguistic strategy to using Norwegian: "It can be useful to compare language structures with the language they [the pupils] already know, whether it is Norwegian or another language" (our translation).

#### *3.5. Pre-Service Teacher Cognitions about Which Languages to Include and Why*

As a follow-up to Item Four, the participants were asked, "If your answer in question 4 was yes: Which languages would you include and why?" (Item Five). The majority of our findings in Section 3.5 echo and confirm those described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. All of the participants answered the question, and again the languages represented in the classroom (i.e., the pupils' home languages) were those mentioned most frequently as the languages they would want to include (N = 18; 33%; see Table 11).

**Table 11.** Other languages participants would include in the EFL classroom. Mentions are given as a percentage of the total number of participants, followed by the absolute number of mentions. More than one language can be present in a single participant's answer.


For the most part, the participants did not elaborate on which languages these were. However, some languages were mentioned explicitly, including Arabic, German, and Russian, which can be considered fairly typical immigrant languages in the Norwegian context. The second most frequently mentioned languages were again Norwegian (N = 17; 31%)<sup>8</sup> , followed by Spanish (N = 12; 22%), German (N = 10; 19%), and French (N = 6; 11%).

We identified two main reasons for our participants' choice of languages (see Table 12). The most prominent reasoning behind the participants' language choice was again crosslinguistic comparison and exploiting the relationship between languages so as to enhance learning (N = 15; 28%). Apart from making general statements, such as "[b]ecause it can help some students to see the similarities and differences between Norwegian and English, when learning English" (P9), the participants also emphasized more specific aspects such as pupils being able to connect new to existing linguistic knowledge (P21 and P43). As P43 writes, "it could help the students to understand English if they could relate it to their native language". In a similar vein, four participants (7%) referred to the usefulness of exploring linguistic similarities, such as similarities in vocabulary (P8 and P40), loan words (P42), and similar sentence structures (P51), which, in the opinion of some of the participants, could also lead to increased metalinguistic awareness (P37 and P40). Interestingly, not only Norwegian (see above), German, French, and Spanish were mentioned in the context of language comparison, but also Latin and Greek: "Maybe Greek, Latin, and French if anything. This is because these languages are the basis for English, and it would be helpful to see the connection" (P11).

**Table 12.** Main dimensions of participants' cognition about why to include other languages. Mentions are given as a percentage of the total number of participants, followed by the absolute number of mentions. More than one theme can be present in a single participant's answer.


When looking more closely at the reasons why teachers may want to include pupils' home languages, cross-linguistic comparison was reconfirmed as the main reason. Seven (13%) of the 10 participants who elaborated stated that they wanted to use these languages to foster language learning through cross-linguistic comparison and exploiting the similarities between languages. The same was true of the participants' motivation to include Norwegian, which contrasts with our findings in Section 3.4. The reason most frequently given for including Norwegian was now cross-linguistic comparison (N = 7; 13%). Drawing on Norwegian for other teaching-related purposes, such as providing explanations and

classroom management, was the second most frequently cited reason (N = 5; 9%). Some participants also gave the simple reason of Norwegian being "our L1" (N = 4; 7%). Some participants also gave the simple reason of Norwegian being "our L1" (N = 4; 7%). The second main reason (N = 6; 11%) for the choice of languages was their perceived usefulness forinternational communication. Not surprisingly, the main languages named,

Norwegian, which contrasts with our findings in Section 3.4. The reason most frequently given for including Norwegian was now cross‐linguistic comparison (N = 7; 13%). Draw‐ ing on Norwegian for other teaching‐related purposes, such as providing explanations and classroom management, was the second most frequently cited reason (N = 5; 9%).

The second main reason (N = 6; 11%) for the choice of languages was their perceived usefulness for international communication. Not surprisingly, the main languages named, apart from Norwegian, were three major European languages: Spanish, German, and French. These coincide with the main foreign languages offered in Norwegian high schools. apart from Norwegian, were three major European languages: Spanish, German, and French. These coincide with the main foreign languages offered in Norwegian high schools.

#### *3.6. Pre-Service Teachers' Perceptions of the Importance of Cross-Linguistic Metalinguistic Awareness 3.6. Pre‐Service Teachers' Perceptions of the Importance of Cross‐Linguistic Metalinguistic Awareness*

*Languages* **2022**, *7*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

A six-item Likert scale (see Section 2.2) was administered to the participants in order to examine the importance pre-service teachers attribute to cross-linguistic metalinguistic knowledge and skills which necessitate a pluralistic approach to teaching in the EFL classroom. As the results in Figure 1 and Table 13 show, our participants predominantly agreed or strongly agreed with all of the Likert scale items. There was no difference between *knowledge* items, reflecting the importance of metalinguistic knowledge, or *skills* items, reflecting metalinguistic ability. This means that the participants overwhelmingly agreed that it is important for pupils to develop cross-linguistic knowledge and skills. However, some aspects of these seemed to be more controversial than others. A six‐item Likert scale (see Section 2.2) was administered to the participants in order to examine the importance pre‐service teachers attribute to cross‐linguistic metalinguistic knowledge and skills which necessitate a pluralistic approach to teaching in the EFL class‐ room. As the results in Figure 1 and Table 13 show, our participants predominantly agreed or strongly agreed with all of the Likert scale items. There was no difference between *knowledge* items, reflecting the importance of metalinguistic knowledge, or *skills* items, re‐ flecting metalinguistic ability. This means that the participants overwhelmingly agreed that it is important for pupils to develop cross‐linguistic knowledge and skills. However, some aspects of these seemed to be more controversial than others.

**Figure 1.** Perceived importance of developing cross‐linguistic knowledge and skills by item and number of participants. **Figure 1.** Perceived importance of developing cross-linguistic knowledge and skills by item and number of participants.

**Table 13.** Perceived importance of developing cross‐linguistic knowledge and skills: agreement rates. **Table 13.** Perceived importance of developing cross-linguistic knowledge and skills: agreement rates.


Items 2 and 3 had the highest agreement rates. Ninety-four percent of the participants (N = 51) agreed or strongly agreed that *it is important that pupils can use knowledge and skills*

*acquired in one language to learn another* (Item 3). Similarly, 93% (N = 50) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that *it is important that pupils know that one can build on similarities between languages in order to learn languages* (Item 2). Items 2 and 3 were also the items with which the highest percentage of participants agreed strongly (81% and 69%, respectively). Common to both items is that they are fairly general statements that resonate with major themes identified in the qualitative data, namely developing language learning strategies (see Section 3.3) and exploiting the similarities between languages (see Sections 3.3–3.5), from the perspective of metalinguistic knowledge ("know that one can build on") and metalinguistic ability ("can use").

Slightly fewer participants (N = 47; 87%) agreed or strongly agreed that it is important that pupils can identify their own reading strategies in the first language (L1) and apply them to the second language (L2) (Item 5). Nine percent (N = 5) chose the middle of the scale for Item 5, indicating that they were unsure whether to consider this important or not. Four percent (N = 2) disagreed or strongly disagreed. Yet again fewer participants (N = 43; 80%) agreed or strongly agreed that it is important that pupils know that certain "loan words" have spread across a number of languages (for example, taxi, computer, hotel) (Item 1). Four participants (7%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with Item 1, and seven (13%) were unsure. It is somewhat surprising that fewer participants agreed or strongly agreed with Item 1 than with Item 2 since Item 1 could be considered a specification of Item 2.

Seventy-six percent of the participants (N = 41) agreed or strongly agreed that *it is important that pupils know that each language has its own sound system* (Item 4). At the same time, a comparatively high number of participants (N = 10; 19%) were unsure whether to consider this important or not. The most controversial statement turned out to be *it is important that pupils can compare sentence structures in different languages* (Item 6). Here, the highest number of participants (N = 5; 9%) disagreed or strongly disagreed, and the highest number (N = 12; 22%) indicated that they were unsure. Nevertheless, 69% (N = 37) agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, even if the percentage that strongly agreed was also the lowest of all items (N = 13; 24%). Regardless, it is surprising that the results are much lower than for Item 2 since it could be argued that the two are related: building on similarities between languages arguably requires comparisons to be made between them. Item 6 could thus have been interpreted as a skill included in Item 2, which is more abstract and knowledge-related. There are several possible explanations for this. First of all, Item 2 may have been perceived as more useful since it explicitly includes a purpose, "in order to learn other languages," whereas Item 6 may have been interpreted as referring to grammar exercises in their own right. In addition, Item 2 leaves it open which similarities are being referred to. In the light of the participants' future careers as elementary school teachers, they may have considered sentence structure as too challenging since it is arguably more complex than, for example, similarities and differences in the lexicon.

#### **4. Discussion**

In the present study, we employed a questionnaire with open and closed-ended items to investigate (1) how Norwegian pre-service teachers of English conceptualize multilingualism, (2) the cognitions that these pre-service teachers have about EFL classes promoting multilingualism (based on their own school experience), (3) their cognitions about laying the foundations for LLLL in their future EFL teaching, and (4) their cognitions about using a pluralistic approach in their future EFL teaching. Finally, we used a 5-point Likert scale based on FREPA to study (5) these pre-service teachers' cognitions about the importance of promoting cross-linguistic awareness in the EFL classroom. Many of our results confirm earlier findings for pre-service teachers (discussed in Section 1) and show, once more, that pre-service and in-service teacher cognitions are similar when it comes to multilingualism and pluralistic approaches.

In our survey, we found that Norwegian pre-service EFL teachers conceptualized multilingualism along three central dimensions. The main aspects mentioned—and in which their conceptualizations differed—were the number of languages involved (at least two vs. several), which kinds of competence(s) multilingualism involves (e.g., active vs. passive), the individual/social dimension, and the situational context of multilingualism (e.g., school and work). These reflect current and past discussions in linguistics (cf. Romaine 2017; Cenoz 2013).

The great majority of the participating pre-service teachers had a positive view of the contribution that learning English at school can make to developing multilingualism, even though multilingualism here seems to have been interpreted mainly as adding English to one's linguistic repertoire. However, a substantial number of our participants also addressed the usefulness of learning English for learning subsequent languages, for example, by allowing learners to develop cross-linguistic strategies. Participants who did not agree that learning English would contribute to multilingualism mainly cited insufficient quality of teaching as the reason, which does not mean that these participants did not value the *potential* contribution of EFL teaching.

The great majority of the pre-service teachers were also open to laying the foundations for LLLL in the EFL classroom, in other words, to teaching in a way that prepares pupils for learning additional languages. The most prominent reason for this was to facilitate the skills and mindset that many of them seemed to deem important in this context: languagelearning strategies, especially a cross-linguistic strategy, and an interest in and openness toward languages and language-learning. A substantial proportion of the participants also referred to the importance of knowing languages in the wider context of globalization as a reason for wanting to teach in this way. On the other hand, the main reason *against* a more open approach to teaching English seemed to be rooted in a concern that the core of the subject, namely teaching and learning the English language, would be compromised—a concern that is shared by in-service teachers (e.g., Jakisch 2014).

When asked more specifically about a pluralistic approach (i.e., including languages other than English in the EFL classroom), the pre-service teachers were far more skeptical, which mirrors previous findings for pre-service teachers (e.g., Iversen 2021 but see Cybulska and Borenic 2014) and in-service teachers (e.g., Arocena et al. 2015). Almost one-third of the participants did not want to include other languages, again mainly because they were concerned about the already limited amount of time that pupils are exposed to English, but also because they feared placing a greater demand on pupils' cognitive abilities. However, over two-thirds of the participants were open to the idea of including other languages.

The participating pre-service teachers would want to include mainly the pupils' home languages, and the majority-culture language, followed by the more widely spoken European languages typically taught in the national education system. Previous studies have found that pre- and in-service teachers were less inclined to draw on the full spectrum of linguistic repertoires that their pupils bring to the classroom than on the languages used and taught in the education system (e.g., Iversen 2021; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al. 2020; Daryai-Hansen et al. 2019). Against this backdrop, we find it promising that roughly onethird of our participants explicitly mentioned wanting to include the languages represented in the classroom or, in other words, the pupils' home languages. Including any of these languages appeared to be motivated mainly by a wish to use them for cross-linguistic comparison, to exploit similarities and differences in order to enhance language learning. Another main reason, however, especially in relation to the majority culture language, was to foster comprehension in the EFL classroom. A second, lesser motivation for the choice of languages was the perceived importance of these languages for international communication, which ties in with our other findings and with earlier studies in the field (Cybulska and Borenic 2014).

To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has used FREPA as a research tool. Since our Likert-scale results are aligned with the other findings in the survey, our study shows that FREPA can be a valuable tool for creating scales that elicit cognitions about cross-linguistic awareness. When the pre-service teachers were directly presented with FREPA statements about the importance of different aspects of cross-linguistic awareness, they highly valued cross-linguistic knowledge and skills—much more so than was evident

from the qualitative part of our study, where we had already identified cross-linguistic comparison as an important recurrent theme (see Sections 3.3–3.5). However, the participants' perception of its importance varied from item to item. The more general the statement and the more "buzz words" such as "strategies" it contained, the more the participants tended to agree with it. We interpreted this as insecurity regarding the details of *how* to promote and make use of cross-linguistic awareness that is analogous to being positively inclined toward preparing pupils for LLLL and cross-linguistic comparison (Section 3.3), but skeptical about a pluralistic approach (Section 3.4). As we included only FREPA items for which a pluralistic approach is considered essential and as the mean agreement rate for all items combined was 83% ("strongly agree" and "agree" combined), even participants who said that they would not include other languages in the classroom (28%; Section 3.4) thus indirectly recognized the need for a pluralistic approach.

Last but not least, we would like to address some caveats. The findings in this study are, of course, subject to all the general challenges in investigating cognitions, to which we have only indirect access. First of all, it is impossible to know whether the participants' answers faithfully reflect their cognition about a certain topic or whether they instead gave answers that they thought were expected and acceptable in the given context. We tried to reduce this risk by making the questionnaire anonymous, emphasizing that there were no right or wrong answers, and employing methodological triangulation in regard to cognitions about pluralistic approaches. Secondly, a written questionnaire does not allow for follow-up questions, which could have helped to clarify the participants' answers and to shed light on additional layers of cognition. Furthermore, it should be remembered that if a participant did not mention a certain theme or dimension, this does not automatically mean that the participant would disagree with it or not consider it to be important if directly prompted. However, we are confident—despite these caveats—that our findings provide a good overview of what Norwegian pre-service teachers of English consider important in relation to laying the foundations for multilingualism through pluralistic approaches to teaching. We are also confident that the results are a good point of departure for subsequent studies.

#### **5. Conclusions**

The present study set out to investigate, from a Norwegian perspective, pre-service teachers' cognitions about laying the foundations for multilingualism in elementary school EFL teaching, with special reference to pluralistic approaches and cross-linguistic awareness. Overall, we found that the great majority of the pre-service teachers held a favorable view of promoting multilingualism as part of EFL teaching. They also viewed positively pluralistic approaches in the EFL classroom. Finally, the pre-service teachers overwhelmingly agreed that it is important for pupils to develop cross-linguistic awareness. However, a positive attitude does not necessarily translate into corresponding practice once pre-service teachers begin their professional practice. Bearing in mind the growing linguistic diversity in today's classrooms and plurilingualism as an educational goal (see Section 1), knowledge about multilingualism, pluralistic approaches, and cross-linguistic awareness—as well as a corresponding pedagogical repertoire–need to be firmly anchored in teacher education programs so that future teachers of English can not only use their pupils' multilingualism as a resource but can also successfully contribute to promoting plurilingualism in *all* pupils. It remains to be seen whether policy changes, such as the new teacher education guidelines in Norway (UHR 2018), will also lead to changes in implementation. Awareness of and a positive attitude toward these topics are, however, a good starting point for further training.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, C.M.-O. and A.-K.H.S.; methodology, C.M.-O. and A.- K.H.S.; software, not applicable; validation, C.M.-O. and A.-K.H.S.; formal analysis, C.M.-O. and A.-K.H.S.; investigation, A.-K.H.S.; resources, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences; data curation, C.M.-O. and A.-K.H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.-O.; writing—review and editing, C.M.-O. and A.-K.H.S.; visualization, C.M.-O.; supervision, C.M.-O.; project administration, C.M.-O. and A.-K.H.S.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to full anonymity of the participants.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Written informed consent was waived due to full anonymity of the participants.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data available from the first author upon request.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank all the pre-service teachers who participated, for their time and effort.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**


## *Article* **Teacher Language Awareness in Initial Teacher Education Policy: A Comparative Analysis of ITE Documents in Norway and New Zealand**

**Dania Jovanna Bonness 1,\*, Sharon Harvey <sup>2</sup> and Mari Skjerdal Lysne <sup>3</sup>**


**Abstract:** Dramatically increased population flows since at least the 1980s, primarily through economic migration and refugee resettlement, have brought considerable ethnic and linguistic diversity to classrooms around the world. This diversity has been amplified by the rising recognition of in-country indigenous and minority languages. In such plurilingual learning environments, teachers require sophisticated language education skills. They need to be able to teach the dominant language/s across the curriculum, support plurilingual learners, and often teach foreign or additional languages. One conceptual lens through which to analyse the presence of these competencies in current teacher education policy is that of language awareness. While this term originally referred to the raising of student awareness of features and functions of language, it now incorporates knowledge about flexible languaging practices. Through a comparative analysis of the two key teacher education policy documents in Norway and New Zealand, we have investigated how the concept of teacher language awareness is incorporated in high-level policy documents pertaining to ITE in these two countries and how these converge and diverge in their treatment of language awareness. Our in-depth comparison of these important educational policies urges both jurisdictions, as well as others, to be aware of local particularities and broader patterns in meeting the needs of teachers to be plurilingually aware and equipped for 21st-century classrooms.

**Keywords:** language awareness; teacher language awareness; initial teacher education; language education; Norwegian teacher education; New Zealand teacher education; comparative education

#### **1. Introduction**

Dramatically increased regional and global flows of people since at least the 1980s, primarily through economic migration and refugee resettlement, have brought exponentially increased ethnic diversity and resulted in multilingualism<sup>1</sup> in classrooms around the world. Some classroom diversity has always existed, often due to the presence of students from indigenous or minority languages. A societal ideological settlement on the myth of monolingualism, both as a perceived necessary requirement for the stability of the nation-state and as a reality of everyday life, papered over these differences. In the face of much greater societal diversity, this settlement is no longer possible or desirable. The language education requirements of teachers with respect to understanding and working productively with today's multilingualism and plurilingualism should therefore be a priority for governments.

One conceptual lens through which to analyse the relevance of current teacher education policy for 21st-century classrooms is that of language awareness. This term originated

**Citation:** Bonness, Dania Jovanna, Sharon Harvey, and Mari Skjerdal Lysne. 2022. Teacher Language Awareness in Initial Teacher Education Policy: A Comparative Analysis of ITE Documents in Norway and New Zealand. *Languages* 7: 208. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7030208

Academic Editors: Anna Krulatz, Georgios Neokleous and Eliane Lorenz

Received: 31 August 2021 Accepted: 19 July 2022 Published: 4 August 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

in a movement started in the early 1980s, which called for the raising of student awareness of the features and functions of language (Carter 2003). This broad definition now also includes knowledge about flexible languaging practices, multilingualism, and plurilingualism (Otwinowska 2017; Young 2018). The new Norwegian subject curriculum for English, which was introduced in August 2020, states that learning languages involves 'developing language awareness and knowledge of English as a system, and the ability to use language learning strategies' (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2020, p. 2). This is the only explicit mention of language awareness in the curriculum, and the term is not defined. Angelsen and Hauge (2020) see it reflected in several of the competence aims, which require a certain degree of metalinguistic knowledge. In the Aotearoa/New Zealand curriculum (Ministry of Education 2007), cognates such as *students' languages* and *language use* are threaded through the document. For teachers to be able to fulfil the task of integrating a focus on language awareness into their teaching, they should have a thorough understanding of what language awareness is. Language awareness may be seen as a prerequisite for teacher awareness, and Gage (2020) noted that 'the challenge in preparation is to engage teachers to explore concepts of language awareness, which they do not yet know that they need to know' (p. 4). The expectation is, therefore, that initial teacher education (ITE) explicitly addresses these themes. However, Otwinowska (2017) claimed that multilingual and plurilingual pedagogies are rarely covered in European teacher training or in English-speaking countries like New Zealand. Recent research in Thailand and Turkey (Karaka¸s and Boonsuk 2020) examining student awareness of the impact of English on the linguistic ecology of these countries also pointed to the lack of pre-service training in language awareness.

In this study, we sought to investigate the presence of the concept of language awareness, or more specifically teacher language awareness, in high-level policy documents pertaining to ITE in Norway and New Zealand. The focus was on ITE for compulsory education, and the two documents analysed were the *National guidelines for the primary and lower secondary teacher education programme for years 1–7* (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a) and *5–10* (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b) in Norway, and in New Zealand the *Initial Teacher Education Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements* (Teaching Council 2019).

One might ask about the merits of comparing language in education policy between two very different countries from opposite sides of the planet: one in the north of Europe (Norway) and one in the South Pacific (New Zealand). Ball (1998) noted '(o)ne of the tensions which runs through all varieties of policy analysis is that between the need to attend to the local particularities of policy making and policy enactment and the need to be aware of general patterns and apparent commonalities or convergence across localities' (p. 1). Norway and New Zealand have several commonalities but also some differences. Firstly, the two countries have relatively small populations, with New Zealand currently just exceeding 5 million and Norway edging towards 5.5 million. Despite these small populations, Norway and New Zealand have experienced strong inbound migration over the last 20–30 years due to 'pull' (Mohamed and Abdul-Talib 2020) factors such as having relatively wealthy economies and open political and social systems. Both countries also accept United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) refugees as well as asylum seekers. As a result of recent immigration, New Zealand can now be classified as 'superdiverse' (Royal Society of New Zealand 2013), with more than 160 languages spoken, while Norway has more than 200 languages represented (Språkrådet 2018). In terms of majority societal languages, English dominates in New Zealand, with 95.4% of the population claiming to speak English in the 2018 census (Stats NZ 2020). In Norway, Norwegian is the majority language and the first language for more than 90% of the population (St.meld. nr. 35 2007–2008). Even though English has no official status in Norway, all students learn this language from the age of six, and it holds a special position in the Norwegian curriculum (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2020). English is considered a subject separate from Foreign Languages, which are taught from age 13.

Both New Zealand and Norway also have indigenous populations with languages currently in the process of revitalisation. In New Zealand, 4% of the population report speaking te reo Maori ( ¯ Stats NZ 2020), whereas the number of speakers of Sami languages in Norway is uncertain. However, all Sami languages in Norway are considered endangered (Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation 2018). In addition, Norway has several recognised national minority languages (Språkrådet 2018). In New Zealand, Pacific languages are often identified as a group of languages for special consideration (De Bres 2015) because of New Zealand's location in the South Pacific and the relatively high proportions of Pacific people living in the country. Thus, both New Zealand and Norway can be said to have complex linguistic landscapes.

Such linguistic complexity would seem to demand a sophisticated and appropriately nuanced educational response, particularly in the pre-service education of teachers. One part of this response might therefore be located in ITE guidelines as a key policy site for specifying the expectations for educating new teachers. In terms of more conventional language and education policy analysis, these guidelines fall somewhat below the radar. In this analysis, we hope to consider commonalities and differences across our respective localities and bring forth insights beneficial for ITE in other jurisdictions as well. Our intention then is to contribute to the academic conversation about what the composition of teacher language awareness currently is, as well as what it should and could be in policy documents guiding ITE.

#### *Teacher Language Awareness*

The concept *language awareness* (LA) arose in the UK in the 1980s to raise literacy rates, improve foreign language learning, and increase tolerance in an ever more multilingual and multicultural context (Andrews 2007b; Cots and Garrett 2018). From the language learning perspective, it was also a reaction both to strictly prescriptive approaches to foreign language learning as well as communicative approaches with little focus on language accuracy (Carter 2003). Through this, LA developed to involve a range of different areas concerning language. The Association for Language Awareness defined LA as 'explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use' (Association for Language Awareness n.d.). Similarly, Carter (2003) described LA as 'the development in learners of an enhanced consciousness of and sensitivity to the forms and functions of language' (p. 64). The definitions thus address explicit knowledge about language (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, or spelling), knowledge about the communicative aspect of languages, i.e., how we use it, and language learning and teaching aspects.<sup>2</sup>

While LA was originally mostly concerned with the learner, teachers' LA also came into focus early on. Wright and Bolitho (1993) claimed that 'the more aware the teacher is of language and how it works, the better' (p. 292) and argued for its inclusion in teacher education. A specific focus on *teacher language awareness* (TLA) emphasised slightly different elements than learner LA. Andrews and Svalberg (2017) suggested that there is no one definition of what TLA is but explained it as 'a label applied to research and teacher development activity that focuses on the interface between what teachers know, or need to know, about language and their pedagogical practice' (p. 220). Edge (1988) has been influential in the understanding of TLA, claiming that the teacher takes on three roles with interrelated competences: that of the language user, related to language proficiency, the language analyst, with meta-knowledge of language systems, and the language teacher, with the ability to enact the curriculum. Andrews (2007b) claimed that knowledge of subject matter, and especially explicit knowledge of language systems, that is being a language analyst, is central to TLA, but also that TLA is more complex than this. He outlined some characteristics of TLA, a close relationship between knowledge about language and knowledge of language (i.e., language proficiency), and suggested that this proficiency is

connected to effective communication with the learners and the ability to provide useful language input. It also involves 'an awareness of language from the learner's perspective' (Andrews 2007b, pp. 28–29). This makes TLA metacognitive in nature (Andrews 2007b). The three roles Edge listed interact with each other, and 'the harmony of their interaction is dependent upon the extent to which the teacher is 'language aware' (Andrews 2007a, p. 947). Andrews (2007b) also claimed that awareness is 'knowledge-in-action' (p. 31).

Svalberg (2007) pointed out that in continental Europe, LA has been concerned with sociolinguistic issues such as citizenship and multilingualism just as much as with literacy. Cots and Garrett (2018), referring to Coupland (2010), also drew attention to globalisation in the form of increasing demographic mobility and a resulting ethnic pluralism, which leads to a rise in multi- and plurilingualism in the classroom. How should teachers respond to these changes? Young (2018), for example, related a child's right to use their own language, as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN General Assembly 1989), to the school context and noted that this can contribute to an increased feeling of 'belonging and well-being', but also encountering and tolerating otherness. As stated by Young (2018), being aware of the plurality of cultural and linguistic backgrounds in classrooms constitutes a first step in raising both language awareness and cultural awareness.

Despite the originally multicultural and multilingual contexts in which (T)LA first arose, Otwinowska (2017) argued that the focus of traditional TLA is strongly focused on monolingual policies, which is incompatible with a plurilingual approach. Testing the impact of multi- and plurilingualism on TLA and plurilingual teaching approaches with Polish teachers, Otwinowska (2017) found that the more languages the teachers themselves speak and the more fluent they were in their L3-Ln, the higher their plurilingual teacher language awareness. In her study, she extended the traditional approach of TLA, including language user, language analyst, and language teacher (Edge 1988), with the categories crosslinguistic, metalinguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic awareness (Otwinowska 2017). In Otwinowska's model, Edge's (1988) three traditional categories were part of a teacher's crosslinguistic awareness and referred to a teacher's awareness, or meta-knowledge, of similarities and differences between the languages they speak, that is, their L1, L2, L3, Ln, whereas metalinguistic awareness referred to the ability to reflect on these similarities and differences in language systems (Otwinowska 2017). Psycholinguistic awareness involved an understanding of key factors in the learner's individual language acquisition, for example, cognitive differences (Otwinowska 2017). Additionally, knowledge about the effect of the learner's (multilingual) language background on their language acquisition was part of a teacher's psycholinguistic awareness (Otwinowska 2014). Furthermore, the sociolinguistically aware teacher was expected to be conscious of the learner's cultural background, understand the role of a language's place in society (e.g., English as a Lingua Franca) and be aware of the social aspects of language acquisition and use (Otwinowska 2017). Note that Edge's terms referred to a (language) teacher's roles, whereas the latter four kinds of awareness are necessary for the teacher to be able to fill these roles.

Both LA and TLA have traditionally been closely tied to language learning. We see, however, that attention has shifted from a focus on the speaker's learned language to that of education more generally, and from a strictly literacy or language learning perspective to that of (language) education for agency and citizenship. LA is, therefore, relevant also in non-language subjects<sup>3</sup> as well as in first, second and foreign language education (Fischer and Lahmann 2020). Summing up, we thus echo earlier claims (e.g., Carter 2003; Otwinowska 2017; Svalberg 2007; Wright and Bolitho 1993) that in order for teachers to develop TLA, whether plurilingual awareness or more traditional TLA, and subsequently students' language awareness, TLA needs to have a recognised place in teacher education. Consequently, the following research question guided our investigation: How is the concept of teacher language awareness incorporated in high-level policy documents pertaining to ITE in Norway and New Zealand?

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Materials*

The material analysed for this study consisted of two policy documents regulating initial teacher education in Norway and New Zealand. The documents have different functions—the *Norwegian National Guidelines for Teacher Education* (abbreviation: National Guidelines) (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, 2016b) consists of relatively detailed instructions for the content in teacher education, whereas the New Zealand *ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements* (abbreviation: ITE monitoring document) (Teaching Council 2019) focuses on how programme quality will be assured without specific reference to content. After the relevant educational legislation, these policies are the highest-level policy documents pertaining to ITE in each country. They constitute the framework for initial teacher education in the two countries. In addition to these documents, teacher education in Norway and New Zealand is also guided by other policy documents such as educational legislation and ethical platforms (e.g., *Our Code, Our Standards* in New Zealand or *Professional ethics for the teaching profession* in Norway). Even though these documents are without doubt relevant for the teaching profession, they do not address initial teacher education specifically. The national curricula are also relevant for teacher education, but these are aimed at the compulsory education of students and not teacher education itself. Therefore, we have not analysed the national curricula but refer to them where necessary.

Overall, the National Guidelines in Norway comprise 74 pages for years 1–7 and 81 pages for years 5–10. The ITE monitoring document in New Zealand consists of 95 pages. In the following two sections, we present these materials in detail.

#### 2.1.1. National Guidelines for Teacher Education

In Norway, ITE is offered in various kinds of institutional programmes. The most common is a five-year integrated master's programme in universities and university colleges, aimed at pre-service teachers for primary, lower secondary, or upper secondary education. Some pre-service teachers also add a year of pedagogy to earlier academic or vocational studies, which makes them eligible for teaching in secondary schools. Admission to the different programmes is regulated by the Ministry of Education and Research (Forskrift om opptak til høgare utdanning 2017, § 4.7) and includes at the time of writing grade requirements for Mathematics and Norwegian. The content in teacher education programmes is guided by national guidelines. In this study, we are concerned with initial teacher education for compulsory education (years 1–10), and it is, therefore, the national guidelines for teacher education in years 1–7 and 5–10 that are the focal point.

The National Guidelines are developed by teacher educators, the profession, and preservice teachers under the jurisdiction of Universities Norway, while the National Council for Teacher Education, with representatives from all institutions offering teacher education in Norway, is responsible for keeping the National Guidelines up to date and relevant for teacher education and the teaching profession (Universities Norway 2021). The guidelines are mandated in the regulations for teacher education (Ministry of Education and Research 2020). The National Guidelines in use at the time of writing have been effective since 2017. The National Guidelines, together with laws, regulations, and the curriculum, form the basis for an institution's development of its own programme and course descriptions. This makes the National Guidelines an important place to start when looking at how TLA is represented in ITE in Norway. A large part of the guidelines outlines learning outcomes for each subject in teacher education. In addition to pedagogy, pre-service teachers choose three to four subjects. In the programme for 1–7, Mathematics and Norwegian are compulsory subjects, while in 5–10, all subject choices are up to the teacher education institutions and the pre-service teacher. It is thus possible for a pre-service teacher in years 5–10 to not have a language as one of their subjects.

In contrast to New Zealand, where Maori and English medium teaching are covered ¯ in the same ITE monitoring document, teacher education for Sami medium teaching in Norway has a separate set of guidelines. The latter was not included in this study, even though individual references to the Sami language may occur in the National Guidelines.

#### 2.1.2. ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements

In New Zealand, the key policy document that provides guidance to organisations and institutions offering ITE is called *ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements* (Teaching Council 2019). The purpose, as the name suggests, is to clarify for teacher educators the ways in which their programmes will be approved, assessed, and monitored by the Teachers Council of New Zealand, Aotearoa. There is no corresponding document in Norway, where the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education controls and accredits all higher education (NOKUT n.d.).

The ITE monitoring document was first published in 2019, announcing in the preamble that the requirements represented a shift in the Council's expectations for ITE (Teaching Council 2019, p. 3). The requirements were to 'come into force' (Teaching Council 2019, p. 4) by 1 June 2019 and had been in place for two years at the time we undertook the analysis. New Zealand has ITE programmes for both Maori and English medium education, and, as ¯ noted above, these ITE programme requirements apply to both.

Part one of the document sets out 27 requirements for ITE programme approval, organised into seven categories. Firstly, the outcomes required for the programme are presented. Chief among these is the requirement that by the time pre-service teachers leave their course, they need to have met (in a supported environment) the codes and standards for teacher professional responsibility as explained in a tandem document produced by the Teaching Council: *Our Code, Our Standards: Code of Professional Responsibility and Standards for the Teaching Profession* (Education Council 2017). The second category of requirements provides information and guidance on programme development, design, and structure. The third category describes desired 'delivery' methods, which specify how the courses are to be taught, while the fourth category states the requirements for the assessment of pre-service teachers. Section 5 stipulates extra language requirements for Maori medium ¯ courses. In the sixth category, academic, language and character conditions are explained. Programme moderation and review requirements comprise the seventh category. Part two of the document provides detailed instructions for programme approval of existing or new ITE programmes, as well as guidelines for monitoring and review of the programme.

As noted above, one of the key messages for ITE programmes is that they robustly interpret the *Our Code, Our Standards* document (Education Council 2017) as a mechanism for designing a programme of study for pre-service teachers. By the end of their training, graduating pre-service teachers are supposed to be able to meet the standards in a supported environment (e.g., in a classroom with an experienced teacher or through supervision by a mentor) in a variety of contexts (Teaching Council 2019). The first appendix of the ITE monitoring document provides interpretations of the standards through different cultural lenses. One is that of Maori, and the other is a Pacific interpretation. The second appendix ¯ provides the assessment framework for assessing the standards (Education Council 2017) in a supported environment.

#### *2.2. Method*

In the analysis, we employed qualitative content analysis with a deductive category application (Mayring 2000) to determine the presence of certain concepts related to TLA in the ITE policy documents. For this purpose, we broadly applied the categories from Otwinowska's (2017) model for teachers' plurilingual awareness. Although this model was primarily directed towards (English) language teachers, and more specifically plurilingual language teachers, we argue that it is also suitable to study TLA within national level policy documents that regulate the shape and content of ITE across the national curriculum. For example, Fischer and Lahmann (2020) stated that to diminish discrepancies in school performances, 'all teachers, including those who are teaching subjects such as math or geography, (need) to be equipped with various skills. These include linguistic knowledge

as well as knowledge about language learning and multilingualism' (p. 116). Likewise, Vollmer (2009) argued that '*(l)anguage competence, therefore, is an integral part of subject competence*—it is not an additional external element nor is it a luxury which can be ignored' (p. 4, emphasis in original). We, therefore, reason that all teachers are language teachers to some degree and examined the extent to which Otwinowska's categories are evident in the policy documents. A strength of these categories is that they incorporate research that has been carried out since the 1980s, for instance, the influence of positive and negative transfer from the learner's L1 (cf. Otwinowska 2014). Table 1 provides the categories we employed to carry out a qualitative content analysis of the national ITE policy documents in question. A closer explanation of our understanding of the categories is given below.


**Table 1.** Categories for TLA (adapted from Otwinowska 2017).

**Table 1.** *Cont.*


Otwinowska (2017) based her model on the traditional understanding of TLA (Edge 1988), related to all the languages the teacher knows. L1, L2, and L3/Ln hereby influence each other and lead to 'crosslinguistic awareness of a multilingual language user' (Otwinowska 2017, p. 309). Our understanding of *Crosslinguistic awareness* includes an understanding of similarities and differences across two or more languages. Where our documents only refer to individual languages and not to comparisons of several languages, we have categorised these instances as *Teacher as language analyst*. In addition, Otwinowska defined metalinguistic awareness as being able to *reflect* on at least two language systems. For that reason, knowledge about specific language systems and how language(s) work more generally was not considered sufficient to be classified as *Metalinguistic awareness* in our data analysis. These examples were also counted as *Teacher as language analyst* (see Table 1 above). The emphasis here is specifically on *knowledge* about language systems. The example for *Teacher as language teacher* in Table 1 focuses on using a specific framework to facilitate the learning of te reo Maori. As the example for ¯ *Psycholinguistic awareness* illustrates, the focus is on the learner's language acquisition. *Sociolinguistic awareness* refers to an understanding of the language user's linguistic and cultural background as well as to a good cooperation between the teacher, the student, and the students' families.

Examples (1) and (2) from the subject Norwegian both include the phrase 'is capable of using knowledge of [...] language', which can be interpreted differently depending on the context. In example (1), it is unclear whether the pre-service teacher is supposed to produce, analyse, or teach such texts, and it could therefore be assigned to any of the seven categories. For cases like this, we have included an additional category (*Miscellaneous*). In example (2), the pre-service teacher is expected to analyse a variety of texts, and therefore (2) was classified as *Teacher as language analyst*.


Furthermore, a challenge arose in instances such as (3). It is arguable whether 'recognising' refers to a teacher's awareness or a teacher's role. We have coded these instances as *Teacher as language teacher* but acknowledge that understanding individual factors in language acquisition (*Psycholinguistic awareness*) is a prerequisite for the teacher's role as a language teacher. Example (4), in contrast, illustrates a case of *Psycholinguistic awareness* as the focus is on 'knowledge' rather than classroom practice.


In the National Guidelines, aspects related to TLA are primarily present in the language subjects. In non-language subjects like Arts and Crafts or Pedagogy, TLA is mainly reflected in work with basic skills. We have included basic skills in our analysis because it refers to reading, writing, and oral skills (in addition to numeracy and digital skills) (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2017), although the National Guidelines do not specify which basic skills are being referred to in the respective subject. In the ITE monitoring document, we have likewise included references to literacy.

In the coding process, we sometimes found several categories in one sentence. In these cases, each was coded separately. Example (5) illustrates such an instance, which refers to both *Teacher as language user* and *Teacher as language teacher*.

(5) The main tasks of the English teacher are, therefore, to develop both their **own** (*Teacher as language user*) and **the pupils'** (*Teacher as language teacher*) **linguistic, communicative and intercultural competence** (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 24).

The authors from Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL) coded the National Guidelines, while the ITE monitoring document was coded by the author from Auckland University of Technology (AUT). This contributed to optimising a contextual and linguistic understanding of the documents (Grønmo 2004). In the Norwegian context, for example, we used the English version of the National Guidelines but compared these to the Norwegian original when there were concerns regarding the interpretation of the translation. This process would have been more challenging for someone unable to understand Norwegian. Regarding the ITE monitoring document, the use of Maori terms (such ¯ as *Ka Hikitia* or *Tatai Reo ¯* ) required a certain degree of familiarity with the language that the researchers from Norway do not possess. However, in order to increase coding reliability, parts of the National Guidelines were coded separately by the two authors from HVL and subsequently compared.<sup>4</sup> There was a high level of agreement between the two authors. The categories from the ITE monitoring document were coded by the author from AUT and subsequently discussed in plenum. In all but a few instances where the original coder had marked insecurity, the authors agreed on the analysis.

#### **3. Results**

This section presents the findings from the content analysis of the *National Guidelines for Teacher Education* (years 1–7 and 5–10) in Norway and *Initial Teacher Education (ITE) Programme Approval, Monitoring, and Review Requirements* in New Zealand, exploring how the concept of teacher language awareness is incorporated in these documents.

#### *3.1. Results from Norway*

The National Guidelines for teacher education (both 1–7 and 5–10) include a general introduction to ITE and learning outcomes in the respective subjects. Before we start reporting our results, it should be pointed out that because the term *(teacher) language awareness* is never used in the documents, we identified aspects related to this concept represented in a combination of different competencies or categories. Our analyses find that the policy documents for years 1–7 and 5–10 generally show the same tendencies when it comes to the distribution of these categories. Without a doubt, *Teacher as language teacher* is the most prominent category. In the language subjects, the focus is on aspects such as teaching methods and learning strategies, the capability of facilitating students' development of basic language skills, adapted teaching, or developing the students' communicative and intercultural skills, whereas this category almost exclusively refers to basic skills in the non-language subjects or the general introduction. One of the few exceptions can be found in Natural Science, where pre-service teachers are expected to be 'able to develop pupil's senses, joy of discovery, sense of wonder, joy in nature and **natural science language**' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 57).

The second most common category is *Teacher as language user*, which mainly refers to the development of the pre-service teacher's own language skills. In the non-language subjects, the few instances identified refer to using specialist language. Differences become clearer when looking at the language subjects. The subject Norwegian emphasises developing one's own language skills on a more general basis, whereas English specifically mentions the pre-service teacher's own oral and written skills and emphasises a teacher's task of being a language model. This is specified even further in Foreign Languages, which explicitly points to the pre-service teacher's capability of 'communication with good pronunciation and intonation, and of freely using key language structures in oral and written communication' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 28). In addition, the foreign language teacher is expected to be 'a reflective language user and language disseminator' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 27). It seems that the requirements for the *Teacher as language user* become more detailed from the L1 subject Norwegian (language skills) to L2 English (oral and written language skills), and eventually Foreign Languages (e.g., pronunciation and intonation) and Norwegian Sign Language (e.g., applying language structures and basic vocabulary). The latter does not demand any previous knowledge of the language and must thus be considered a foreign language for the pre-service teacher.

Both *Psycholinguistic awareness* and *Sociolinguistic awareness* appear to have relatively prominent places in the guidelines, though both are almost exclusively found in the language subjects. *Psycholinguistic awareness* is largely concerned with language acquisition, including learner motivation and individual multilingualism, as exemplified in the following statement: '(t)he candidate has knowledge of multilingualism that includes Norwegian sign language, where the goal of functional bilingualism in education is key' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 63). In the English subject, multilingualism generally refers to knowledge of multilingualism as a resource in the classroom. Outside the language subjects, references to *Sociolinguistic awareness* can be found in the general introduction and in the subject of Mathematics (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b). In these contexts, pre-service teachers are expected to demonstrate knowledge of students' cultural, linguistic, and social diversity and how this can be used as a resource in teaching. The same is expressed in the language subjects, but, in addition to this, here, there is also a focus on aspects such as the language user's identity, linguistic variation, or 'an understanding of ( . . . ) sign language users as a linguistic and cultural minority, and the language's place in Norwegian society' (subject Norwegian Sign Language, National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 61). *Sociolinguistic awareness* is present to a higher degree in the subjects Norwegian Sign Language, Norwegian, and Foreign Languages than in English. In the latter subject, the only instances of *Sociolinguistic aware-* *ness* refer to English as a world language and developing linguistic, communicative and intercultural competence (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, pp. 31, 33).

An important observation was made in relation to the category *Teacher as language analyst*. This category is relatively infrequent in the data and is most often found in Norwegian Sign Language. There are a few general references to language structure, but in Foreign Languages, there are references to 'detailed knowledge of the target language's sound system, intonation and grammatical structure' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 30). Similar to the findings in the category *Teacher as language user*, the category *Teacher as language analyst* occurs more often in foreign language subjects and less frequently in Norwegian and English, which is not considered a foreign language in Norway. The references to language structure are about knowledge rather than being able to reflect on these structures, which corresponds with the fact that we found no instances of *Metalinguistic awareness* in the policy documents.

Additionally, *Crosslinguistic awareness* is almost non-existent in the data material. The only instance found comes from Foreign Languages, which states that 'the foreign language teacher shall have ( . . . ) insight into the differences and similarities between the target language, Norwegian and other languages' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016b, p. 27).

The last category we used in our analysis was *Miscellaneous*. These instances cannot be clearly assigned to any of the seven categories, as is illustrated in examples (6) and (7).


Example (6), from the subject Norwegian, points to the knowledge of the Sami language and other minority and neighbouring languages. Here, it is not clear whether the reference is to the knowledge about the existence of the languages, the position of the languages in society, or the ability to speak these languages to a certain degree. The last instance that needs to be discussed in more detail is (7). This sentence can be found in the introduction to the National Guidelines and highlights the fact that all teachers need linguistic knowledge, regardless of which subject they are teaching, but it is not clear what this 'linguistic knowledge' entails.

#### *3.2. Results from New Zealand*

In New Zealand, there is a lack of awareness of the need for all teachers to be language teachers, and this is evident in the paucity of references to TLA in the ITE monitoring document. Where references to TLA do appear, it is generally in relation to the stipulations around teacher proficiency in the two languages of instruction in New Zealand: te reo Maori and English. There are also references to teaching M ¯ aori as a second language in ¯ English medium schools and some mentions of teaching students in diverse contexts. While this latter topic could be taken to refer to students from linguistically and ethnically diverse backgrounds, the context suggests students with a range of intellectual and physical needs.

Interestingly, in a policy document referring to all ITE in New Zealand and given that New Zealand is such a linguistically diverse nation with more than 160 languages spoken (Royal Society of New Zealand 2013), the naming of particular languages is quite narrow, limited to English, Maori and Pacific languages. There are references to bilingualism but ¯ not to multi- or plurilingualism.

The predominant LA category in the main body of the ITE monitoring document (Teaching Council 2019) is *Teacher as language user*, with a couple of appearances of the category *Teacher as language teacher*. In the appendices, one more category appears: Sociolinguistic awareness. There are no coded instances of *Metalinguistic awareness*, nor *Psycholinguistic awareness* or *Crosslinguistic awareness*.

The predominance of the language awareness code *Teacher as language user* can be explained through a strong emphasis in the ITE monitoring document on graduating pre-service teachers being able to use the mediums of instruction (either English or te reo Maori) at a high level of proficiency. Therefore, an effort is made to precisely stipulate ¯ proficiency levels required in both te reo Maori or English, depending on which language ¯ is being employed as the medium of instruction (Teaching Council 2019). For example, the code is found where the amount of te reo Maori beginning teachers will need to teach ¯ is explained. There are two levels of Maori medium instruction in New Zealand. One is ¯ known as immersion, constituted by teachers using between 81–100 % te reo Maori in class. ¯ The other is bilingual instruction, where teachers are required to use te reo Maori at least in ¯ the range of 50–80% (Teaching Council 2019).

Requirements for teachers in English medium settings to have specified levels of English proficiency are also detailed. This is particularly the case for those who do not have English as their first language/mother tongue (see Teaching Council 2019, pp. 42–44). For example, 'Prior to entry, candidates for English medium programmes must demonstrate English language competency by providing one of the Council's approved pieces of evidence of English language competency' (Teaching Council 2019, p. 42). In addition, pre-service teachers entering English medium programmes are tested and then monitored on their te reo Maori ¯ proficiency as ITE programmes are required to ensure their candidates are improving their te reo Maori proficiency from whatever the baseline was when they entered the programme. ¯ These requirements also come under the code *Teacher as language user*, as exemplified in (8):

(8) Candidates selected for entry into an English medium programme must be assessed on their te reo Maori competency as close as reasonably practicable after entry. English medium programmes must progressively monitor and support competency in te reo Maori during the programme... (Teaching Council 2019, p. 44).

The code *Teacher as language teacher* has been applied where pre-service teachers are referred to as future language teachers. It should be noted that while high levels of English or te reo Maori are often cited as requirements for effective teaching, they are hardly ever ¯ cited as necessary for effective *language teaching*. One example of *Teacher as language teacher* is where teachers are supposed to provide support for English language learners. It should be noted that although many students in the New Zealand education system come from households where a wide range of languages are spoken, particularly in urban areas, and many of these students would need extra support with English, there is only one mention of teachers needing the skills to be able to do this. The 'approval panel' for the teacher education programme will test for 'whether the programme will enable graduates to identify and respond appropriately to those for whom English is an additional language' (Teaching Council 2019, p. 16). However, there is no explanation of what 'identifying' and 'responding appropriately' translates to in practice. Nor is there an indication as to what other language(s) English might be additional to and whether this means a student needs extra instruction or support in English or not. The overall interpretation and elaboration of the statement would need to be provided by the ITE provider. In the example above, the teacher would also need to be a *Language analyst* in order to be able to identify who has English as an additional language and then what kind of support they might need.

In the appendices of the ITE monitoring document, there are several instances of the code *Sociolinguistic awareness*, closely located with instances of the code *Teacher as language user*. For example, in Appendix 1 (Teaching Council 2019), sociolinguistic awareness is required so that teachers would be able to make accurate judgements about Pacific and Maori families, in particular, Pacific families' familiarity with English. Graduating teachers ¯ need to be able to respond to families and students in culturally and linguistically appropriate and supportive ways. For example, a list is presented that unpacks the attributes, behaviours, and knowledge of a 'good teacher' from a Pacific perspective (9):

(9) A good teacher . . . .

• recognises that English might not be my and/or my parents' first language and communicates with us in a way that we can understand (Teaching Council 2019, Appendix 1, p. 13).

The ability to recognise that English might not be the parents' first language and judge the students' level of proficiency in English was coded as *Sociolinguistic awareness* and *Teacher as language analyst*, respectively, while the ability to communicate with a family in a way they can understand was coded as *Teacher as language user*.

The following is another example of *Sociolinguistic awareness* and *Teacher as language analyst* (10):

(10) A good teacher . . . .

• does not make fun of my and/or my parents' limited English language skills if we don't speak it fluently (Teaching Council 2019, Appendix 1, p. 13).

As a final example in this appendices section, the code *Teacher as language user* was applied. In this case, it was hoped the teacher would be able to use simple greetings and polite phrases, presumably in a range of Pacific languages: 'A good teacher . . . . makes an effort to learn and use simple words like saying 'hello' and 'thank you' in my language' (Teaching Council 2019, Appendix 1, p. 13).

In summary, in the *ITE Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review Requirements* (Teaching Council 2019), TLA mainly arises in the form of the code *Teacher as language user*, less frequently as *Teacher as language teacher*, *Teacher as language analyst* and, occasionally, as *Sociolinguistic awareness*. While language awareness may be further elaborated by providers of ITE as they unpack teacher standards (Education Council 2017) and the New Zealand national curricula (Ministry of Education 2007, 2017) for educating pre-service teachers, the paucity of references to multilingual students, developing student plurilingual repertoires, and the overall importance of language awareness for pre-service and in-service teachers seems to be a significant lacuna in this document.

#### **4. Discussion**

Although New Zealand and Norway could not be further apart geographically, they have several linguistic commonalities. Previously, we discussed their comparable population size, their efforts at indigenous language revitalisation, the salience of minority languages, as well as strong inbound migration, which results in linguistically complex educational environments in both jurisdictions. Examining how two key policy documents that guide ITE in each country refer to different aspects of teacher language awareness has therefore been instructive. Comparing high-level policy documents across countries has offered new perspectives regarding TLA within ITE for policymakers and teacher educators, both concerning the type of policies that exist, their overall content and what they emphasise. In Norway, the National Guidelines specifically include information on what pre-service teachers are supposed to learn over the course of their studies, while the ITE monitoring document in New Zealand does not include any reference to the content of teacher education but rather focuses on how programmes are approved, monitored, and regulated. The National Guidelines are, furthermore, centralised to guarantee that pre-service teachers all over the country receive a comparable education. Interpretation at the local level is possible to some degree. In contrast, the ITE monitoring document gives the individual institutions more freedom for local interpretation and adaptation when it comes to the content of their ITE programmes. Based on the nature of these documents, we would have expected reference to TLA to feature more prominently in the Norwegian document. Interestingly, however, the term language awareness itself never occurs in either of the documents. Neither document communicates why TLA, whether plurilingual or more traditional TLA, would be an important skill for pre-service and in-service teachers to have or how to achieve it.

Looking through the lens of Otwinowska's (2017) different categories that in combination foster plurilingual awareness, however, we do see differentiated pictures of how

TLA is included in the respective documents. In the Norwegian context, *Teacher as language teacher* and *Teacher as language user* are the most common categories, followed by *Psycholinguistic awareness* and *Sociolinguistic awareness*. The *Teacher as language analyst* is relatively infrequent in the data, and *Crosslinguistic awareness* could only be found on one occasion in Foreign Languages. References to *Metalinguistic awareness*, namely the ability to reflect on similarities and differences in two or more languages, are not present in the National Guidelines. We furthermore found that these categories are only included in the language subjects (Norwegian, English, Foreign Languages, or Norwegian Sign Language), whereas non-language subjects, with very few exceptions, only refer to 'basic skills', namely reading, writing, oral, and digital skills, as well as numeracy. This means that pre-service teachers who do not choose to study a language subject may never be exposed to aspects of TLA. This, however, is in contradiction to what Fischer and Lahmann (2020) pointed out, namely that all teachers need linguistic knowledge and knowledge about language learning and multilingualism to reduce linguistic inequality in classrooms. Furthermore, the National Guidelines mention that '(t)he internationalization of society and working life presupposes **linguistic** and cultural **knowledge** and international experience' (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 9). However, it seems that the National Guidelines do not facilitate this knowledge in all subjects.<sup>5</sup>

As in the National Guidelines, *Teacher as language user* and *Teacher as language teacher* are the two most frequent categories in the ITE monitoring document, but the order in which they occur most prominently is reversed. *Teacher as language user* receives more attention than *Teacher as language teacher*. That the categories occur in reversed order may be explained by the different purposes of the respective documents. In Norway, the categories refer to different aspects of TLA that the pre-service teachers need to acquire during their studies, while New Zealand uses these categories more to evaluate the language level of the pre-service teachers both before they start and their competence in te reo Maori after ¯ completing their teacher training. Significantly, other languages are hardly mentioned. The large focus on being a proficient user of the majority language (English) also differs from the National Guidelines, where there are few occurrences of *Teacher as language user* in both the Norwegian (mother tongue) subject and the general description of ITE.

Even though the National Guidelines do not explicitly mention LA, the English subject curriculum in Norway does: 'Language learning refers to developing language awareness and knowledge of English as a system' (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2020, p. 2). In the National Guidelines for the English subject, we found that *Teacher as language teacher* and *Psycholinguistic awareness* feature most prominently, whereas *Teacher as language user* is infrequent. Although teachers are expected to be 'language models'<sup>6</sup> (National Council for Teacher Education 2016a, p. 31), the English teacher's own language proficiency is relatively unspecified and is rather generally described as improving one's own language skills. This stands in contrast to Foreign Languages or Norwegian Sign Language, where more emphasis is put on the teacher's intonation, pronunciation, and vocabulary. Furthermore, both Foreign Languages and English also have few instances of *Teacher as language analyst*. Knowledge of language as a system is an important aspect of the English subject curriculum, and we would have expected a stronger focus on this in the guidelines for ITE as well. This leads to speculations that there might also be less focus on it in the teacher education institutions' course plans. These have not been subject to investigation in this study, but similar to findings by Nordlie (2019) for multilingualism in teacher education in Norway, the implementation of *Teacher as language analyst* may come to depend on the interpretation by teacher education institutions and the teacher educators' personal preferences. Summing up, neither the curriculum nor the National Guidelines define (T)LA, and this may cause discrepancies in interpretation and uncertainties for the graduated teachers who are going to execute the curriculum in the classroom. Therefore, this increased focus on LA for pupils in the curriculum should also influence the type of knowledge and skills pre-service teachers bring with them from their teacher training.

#### **5. Conclusions**

In this article, we analysed high-level policy documents for ITE in Norway and New Zealand in order to investigate how the concept of TLA is incorporated in these documents. Despite both documents being aimed at supporting teacher education programmes, we found that these serve different purposes and that TLA is manifested in varying ways in the two countries. Employing Otwinowska's (2017) additional categories of plurilingual TLA invites a wider range of interpretation of the data than the traditional model (Edge 1988) would have allowed us to do. However, even though we broadened our description of this concept, we only found fragments of it in the non-language subjects (Norway), and not all categories were represented, neither in the Norwegian nor the New Zealand ITE policy documents. It appears that the current policy documents are not likely to promote TLA in ITE programmes. We argue that a more detailed interpretation of the concept of (T)LA is needed in ITE documents to ensure the implementation of language-aware teaching and learning in ITE programmes and schools.

Our analyses further support the significance of international considerations and comparisons of policy documents. This can offer different jurisdictions new perspectives and ideas when developing guidelines aiming to increase the quality of ITE programmes.

A limitation of this study is that the two countries have different foci in their top ITE policy documents. We chose the respective policy documents from Norway and New Zealand because of their similar level of high authority in the hierarchy of ITE national policies. Including other documents which may be read alongside these policies could strengthen the analysis. However, this is deemed outside the scope of this paper. We should note that based on the documents analysed, we cannot know how teacher education is being carried out in the different teacher education institutions, but we see this as a fruitful topic for further studies. For example: How are these (and other) documents interpreted by providers of ITE, and how are they translated into practice? Which methods for language aware teaching are being used in the field? How does TLA influence teaching in a multilingual classroom? The praxis of TLA has been a subject of study since the early 1990s (cf. Wright and Bolitho 1993), but we need a broader research perspective in continuously changing school settings (cf. Gage 2020).

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; methodology, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; software, not applicable; validation, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; investigation, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; resources, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences; data curation, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; writing—original draft, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; writing—review & editing, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; visualization, D.J.B., S.H. and M.S.L.; project administration, D.J.B.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** This is a policy analysis using original policy texts. No human participants were involved in this study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data can be retrieved from the respective websites listed in the references.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank Simon Borg for reading an early draft of this article. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Notes**


#### **References**


Mayring, Philipp. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. *A Companion to Qualitative Research* 1: 159–76.


Wright, Tony, and Rod Bolitho. 1993. Language Awareness: A Missing Link in Language Teacher Education? *ELT Journal* 47: 292–304. [CrossRef]

Young, Andrea S. 2018. Language Awareness, Language Diversity and Migrant Languages in the Primary School. In *The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness*. Edited by Peter Garrett and Joseph M. Cots. New York: Routledge, pp. 23–39.

MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 www.mdpi.com

*Languages* Editorial Office E-mail: languages@mdpi.com www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

Academic Open Access Publishing

www.mdpi.com ISBN 978-3-0365-7728-9