Multilingualism in Teacher Education in the Netherlands:
Pre-service Primary and Secondary School Teachers’ Self-perceived Knowledge and Skills, and Attitudes Towards Multilingual Education
Charlie Robinson-Jones s3211509
Supervisor: Dr Joana da Silveira Duarte
Second reader: Dr Charlotte Gooskens
MA Thesis
MA Linguistics (Multilingualism)
Department of Applied Linguistics and Frisian Language and Culture Faculty of Arts
Date of submission: 15/06/2020
2 I wish, firstly, to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor, Dr Joana Duarte, for her insightful feedback, recommendations and support throughout the project. The invaluable suggestions and comments on the survey used in this study by Dr Daniela Polišenská, Dr Catherine van Beuningen, and Dr Mirjam Günther-van der Meij are also gratefully acknowledged.
I wish to extend my further thanks to Dr Joana Duarte’s research group ‘Multilingualism and Literacy’ at NHL Stenden Hogeschool for providing financial support for this research.
3
Abstract
Primary and secondary schools in the Netherlands are experiencing a growing number of multilingual pupils, which has led to the emergence of new pedagogical challenges. These have highlighted both newly qualified and experienced teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills for dealing with this ever-increasing linguistic and cultural diversity. Although
under-researched, the fact that teacher education in the Netherlands, and in Europe, often neglects the topic of multilingualism suggests the same is also true for pre-service teachers. Based on 254 survey responses, this mixed-methods study therefore sets out to reveal both pre-service primary and secondary school teachers’ (a) overall attitudes towards multilingual education (MLE), (b) self-perceived levels of preparedness for implementing MLE, (c) experiences of MLE as a teacher, and (d) knowledge and skills related to implementing MLE developed during training, in the context of the Netherlands. Pre-service teacher respondents presented a slightly positive overall attitude towards MLE and a moderate level of self-perceived
preparedness. Exposure to a wide range of experiences and opportunities through which knowledge and skills for implementing MLE can be developed and awareness of related key theories and teaching methodologies were also reported. This study further considers the differences between pre-service primary and secondary school teachers, emphasises the shortcomings of initial teacher education in the Netherlands, and provides preliminary recommendations to guide further research into the (re-)development of teacher training programmes.
Keywords: multilingual education, teacher education, higher education, teacher
4
1. Introduction ... 10
2. Multilingualism in Education ... 11
2.1. Defining multilingualism ... 12
2.2. An introduction to multilingual education ... 12
2.2.1. Multilingualism in the Dutch education system ... 14
2.2.2. Responding to educational needs in the field of MLE: a holistic approach ... 15
2.2.3. Role of MLE in pupils’ development ... 17
2.2.4. Characteristics of the multilingual pupil ... 18
2.2.4.1. Languages, identity and creativity of the multilingual pupil ... 19
2.2.4.2. Benefits of multilingualism ... 22
2.2.4.3. Importance of home languages in education ... 22
2.3. Teacher preparation and education ... 23
2.4. Language attitudes, beliefs and ideologies ... 25
2.4.1. Teachers’ language attitudes and ideological becoming ... 26
2.4.2. Pre- and in-service teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards multilingualism.... 27
2.5. Summary and research questions ... 30
3. Methodology ... 32
3.1. Research design ... 32
3.2. Research context: an overview of ITE in the Netherlands ... 34
3.3. National online survey on MLE ... 34
3.3.1. Sample and sampling strategy ... 34
3.3.2. Instrument and variables ... 37
3.3.2.1. Section 1: Opinions about the role of multilingualism in education ... 38
3.3.2.2. Section 2: Personal development and its relationship with MLE ... 39
3.3.2.3. Section 3: Knowledge, preparation and training ... 39
3.3.2.3.1. Quantitative items ... 39
5
3.3.2.4. Section 4: Tolerance of multilingualism at school ... 39
3.3.2.5. Section 5: Interpreting a scenario of multilingual classroom interaction ... 40
3.3.2.6. Section 6: Background information ... 40
3.3.2.7. Example survey items ... 40
3.3.3. Procedure ... 41 3.3.4. Data analysis ... 42 3.3.4.1. Quantitative study ... 42 3.3.4.2. Qualitative study ... 44 4. Results ... 46 4.1. Quantitative study ... 46
4.1.1. Pre-service teachers’ overall attitudes towards MLE ... 47
4.1.2. Pre-service teachers’ self-perceived preparedness for teaching in multilingual classrooms ... 56
4.2. Qualitative study ... 68
4.2.1. Pre-service teachers’ experiences of MLE ... 68
4.2.2. Self-perceived knowledge and skills for implementing MLE ... 72
5. Discussion ... 78
6. Conclusion ... 82
6.1. Key findings, contributions and initial recommendations ... 82
6.2. Limitations ... 84
6.3. Future research ... 84
References ... 86
Appendices ... 104
Appendix A. Higher Education institutions offering ITE in the Netherlands. ... 104
Appendix B. Respondent recruitment post. ... 105
Appendix C. Enquête (Nederlandse versie). ... 106
Appendix D. Survey (English version). ... 118
6 Appendix G. Steps followed for the thematic analysis of the open questions. ... 139 Appendix H. Checklist followed for the thematic analysis of the open questions. ... 140 Appendix I. Survey responses (in Dutch): Experiences of multilingual education. ... 141 Appendix J. Survey responses (in Dutch): Knowledge and skills for implementing MLE. ... 182
7
List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of the research questions and related survey sections. ... 32
Table 2. Respondents by province. ... 35
Table 3. Respondent characteristics by programme type. ... 36
Table 4. Overall characteristics of respondents. ... 37
Table 5. Example survey items, scales, foci and sources. ... 41
Table 6. Overview of the nominal independent variables and respective levels. ... 43
Table 7. Overview of research questions, statistical tests and variables. ... 44
Table 8. Overview of themes and codes for “Pre-service teachers’ experiences of MLE”. .... 45
Table 9. Overview of themes, sub-themes and codes for “Self-perceived knowledge and skills for implementing MLE”. ... 45
Table 10. Overview of the survey sections, measures, number of items, and Cronbach’s alpha values. ... 46
Table 11. Regression coefficients for the linear model of overall attitude towards MLE as a function of institution type, age, year of study, education level, programme type, gender and multilingual status. ... 55
Table 12. Regression coefficients for the linear model of self-perceived preparedness level for teaching in multilingual classrooms a function of institution type, age, year of study, education level, programme type, gender and multilingual status. ... 65
Table 13. Responses illustrating experiences of multilingual classroom practices. ... 69
Table 14. Responses illustrating difficulties encountered when teaching in multilingual classrooms. ... 70
Table 15. Responses illustrating experiences of pupil behaviour and performance. ... 72
Table 16. Responses illustrating knowledge of MLE in general. ... 74
Table 17. Responses illustrating communication skills for multilingual pupils. ... 75
Table 18. Responses illustrating knowledge and skills in classroom practices. ... 76
8
Figure 1. Holistic Model for Multilingualism in Education. ... 16
Figure 2. The Dual-Iceberg Representation of Bilingual Proficiency. ... 19
Figure 3. Example LPS. ... 20
Figure 4. Example drawing. ... 21
Figure 5. Research design: a deductive concurrent mixed-methods approach (QUAN + qual; Morse & Niehaus, 2009; Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007) to studying pre-service teachers’ (self-perceived) knowledge and skills, and attitudes towards MLE. ... 33
Figure 6. Map of respondents by province. ... 35
Figure 7. Distribution of mean overall attitude score. ... 47
Figure 8. Mean overall attitude score by education level. ... 48
Figure 9. Relationship between age of respondent and overall attitude. ... 49
Figure 10. Mean overall attitude score by gender. ... 50
Figure 11. Mean overall attitude score by institution type. ... 51
Figure 12. Mean overall attitude score by programme type. ... 52
Figure 13. Mean overall attitude score by year of study. ... 53
Figure 14. Mean overall attitude score by multilingual status. ... 54
Figure 15. Plot illustrating the difference in effect between multilingual statuses on overall attitude... 55
Figure 16. Distribution of mean self-perceived preparedness scores. ... 57
Figure 17. Mean self-perceived level of preparedness by education level. ... 58
Figure 18. Relationship between age of respondent and self-perceived level of preparedness. ... 59
Figure 19. Mean self-perceived level of preparedness by gender. ... 60
Figure 20. Mean self-perceived level of preparedness by institution type. ... 61
Figure 21. Mean self-perceived level of preparedness by programme type. ... 62
9 Figure 23. Mean self-perceived level of preparedness by multilingual status. ... 64 Figure 24. Plot illustrating the difference in effect between education levels on self-perceived preparedness. ... 65 Figure 25. Plot illustrating the difference in effect between multilingual statuses on self-perceived preparedness. ... 66 Figure 26. Plot illustrating the differences in effect between programme types on
self-perceived preparedness. ... 66 Figure 27. Plot illustrating the differences in effect between institution types on
10
1. Introduction
Despite multilingualism being an inherent part of the Netherlands, the Dutch education system remains predominantly monolingual (Beuningen & Polišenská, 2019; Nederlof & Smit, 2018). With migrant pupils accounting for 27% and 25% of all primary and secondary school pupils in the Netherlands respectively (CBS, 2020), “superdiversity” (Vertovec, 2007) in schools and new pedagogical challenges in teaching multilingual pupils have emerged (Langeloo et al., 2019; Raud & Orehova, 2020). Consequently, most teachers are
underprepared for implementing multilingual education (MLE) and for dealing with pupils’ linguistic and cultural diversity, thus favour monolingual education (Herzog-Punzenberger et al., 2017; Koch-Priewe & Krüger-Potratz, 2016).
Migrant pupils’ academic performance, however, improves when their home
languages are used at school (García & Baetens Beardsmore, 2009; Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014). Despite this, and evidence that languages are not separated in the brain (Cummins, 1981; Goodrich & Lonigan, 2017), most teachers maintain the stance that involving home languages can prevent pupils from acquiring the target or school language to a high level (Nederlof & Smit, 2018; Pulinx et al., 2017). Migrant pupils are therefore often discouraged from using their home languages (Ağırdağ, 2018; Cummins, 2001; van der Wildt et al., 2017), which can often lead them to feel uncomfortable at school (van der Wildt et al., 2013; van Praag et al., 2017), and to social alienation (El Hadioui, 2011). Pupils’ well-being, academic progress, personal development, identity and creativity are thus affected (e.g., Bialystok, 2018; Biesta, 2010, 2012; Cummins, 2001; LPTN, 2017). This has resulted in an achievement gap between language minority and majority pupils (Cummins, 2009; OECD, 2019).
Although teachers endeavour “to build bonds with and among [linguistically] diverse [pupils] in classrooms” (Edmiston, 2016, p. 2), there is a lack of focus on multilingualism in initial teacher education (ITE) in the Netherlands, which highlights the need to improve the preparation of future teachers for teaching in multilingual classrooms (Baumann, 2017; Inspectie van het Onderwijs [IvHO; Inspectorate of Education], 2018; Onderwijsraad [Education Council], 2017; Schroedler & Fischer, 2020; van Avermaet et al., 2018). Since teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs influence their own and other teachers’ classroom practices (e.g., Beauchamp et al., 2014), it is essential that ITE addresses
“prospective teachers’ perceptions and/or misconceptions” (Portolés & Martí, 2018, p. 251); otherwise, the achievement gap will persist, and fully inclusive education will remain out of
11 reach (De Angelis, 2011; Haukås, 2016, Pulinx et al., 2017). The multilingual turn (Conteh & Meier 2014; Flores & Baetens Beardsmore, 2015) defines this need to shift from monolingual to bi-or multilingual education systems, particularly in the context of primary and secondary education.
While the majority of previous research on pre-service teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes has focused on these aspects individually (e.g., Mitits, 2018; Portolés & Martí, 2020; Schroedler & Fischer, 2020), and either on primary or secondary education, there are no studies to date that explore them collectively. Investigating pre-service primary and secondary school teachers’ overall explicit attitudes towards MLE (Glock et al., 2013, Schroedler & Fischer, 2020) and self-perceived related knowledge and skills can, therefore, reveal the extent to which teachers are being prepared to teach in multilingual classrooms, and consequently the current state of ITE and its shortcomings.
By using a mixed-methods design, this study aims to gain initial insights into pre-service primary and secondary school teachers’ (a) overall attitudes towards MLE, (b) self-perceived levels of preparedness for implementing MLE, (c) experiences of MLE as a teacher, and (d) knowledge and skills related to implementing MLE developed during training, in the context of the Netherlands using a national online survey.
This thesis consists of six chapters. The first introduces the research focus, aims and relevance of the study. Chapter 2 presents a review of theory on multilingualism in education to provide context and facilitate understanding of the findings. The research design and methodology used in this study are outlined in Chapter 3. This is followed by an overview of the quantitative and qualitative results of the survey in Chapter 4, and a discussion of the findings in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 concludes the study, in which the key findings are summarised, initial recommendations to improve ITE presented, and limitations and directions for future research discussed.
2. Multilingualism in Education
This chapter discusses the theoretical background of this study, which is divided into the following four major themes: defining multilingualism (Section 2.1), an introduction to MLE (Section 2.2), teacher education and preparation (Section 2.3) and teachers’ attitudes towards multilingualism (Section 2.4). Finally, in Section 2.5, a summary, the aims, contributions, and research questions of this study are presented.
12 Multilingualism is a widely recognised and global phenomenon that is evident throughout history (Cenoz, 2013). Its complexity, however, is reflected in its numerous definitions, which can be interpreted from the following dimensions: “the individual versus social
dimension, the proficiency versus use dimension, and the bilingualism versus multilingualism dimension” (Cenoz, 2013, p. 5).
Regarding the first dimension, a distinction is often made between individual and
societal multilingualism. Individual multilingualism, or plurilingualism (Cenoz, 2013), is the
“repertoire of varieties of language which many individuals use” (Council of Europe, n.d.), whereas societal multilingualism refers to the “co-existence of many languages in a society” (King & Carson, 2016, p. 9).
Individual multilingualism is frequently connected to the second dimension, which, regarding proficiency, is characterised by the debate of whether an individual should be fully proficient (i.e., able to demonstrate native-level control, regardless of domain; Baker, 2011) in all of their languages to be considered multilingual (Bassetti & Cook, 2011; Cenoz, 2013). Language use is also evaluated, with one position being that an individual should use their languages daily to be regarded as bi- or multilingual (Grosjean, 2010). However, as Cenoz (2013) states, distinguishing between bi- and multilingualism (i.e., the third dimension) is not as clear-cut as it may seem. Generally, bilingualism refers to the use of two languages and multilingualism to the use of three or more languages (Cenoz, 2013; De Groot, 2011).
Considering the aforementioned dimensions and definitions, this study treats
multilingualism as “the ability of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage, on a regular basis, with more than one language in their day-to-day lives” (European
Commission [EC], 2007, p. 5), which therefore includes bilingualism.
2.2. An introduction to multilingual education
Education systems, as the keys to children’s futures, should be designed to encourage pupils to exploit all of their resources, particularly their languages in the case of multilinguals (Cummins, 2000; García, 2009; Sierens & van Avermaet, 2014). In this study, MLE refers to “the use of two or more languages in education provided that schools aim at multilingualism and multiliteracy” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015, p. 2).
It has been argued that “the inclusion of pupils’ home languages at school and in the classroom can be beneficial for all those involved” (Gilham & Fürstenau, 2020); however,
13 languages other than the school or target language are often ignored (Van Avermaet et al., 2018). This has led to multilingual pupils feeling less comfortable at school (e.g., van der Wildt et al., 2017), and obtaining lower academic results compared to their monolingual peers, which is reflected in the achievement gap (Cummins, 2009). Immigrant pupils in particular also tend to be proportionally over-represented in vocational or lower-level school tracks (Caro et al., 2009; Oakes, 2005). This is often the result of biased recommendations made by teachers that are based on evaluations of academic performance and socioeconomic status (Timmermans et al., 2015).
Since schools have generally made insufficient efforts to accommodate multilingual pupils (Cummins et al., 2015), the monolingual ideology or “monolingual habitus” (Gogolin, 1997) is still prevalent in many countries. Consequently, it has become an expectation that pupils acquire a ‘native-like’ command of the dominant language (Braunmüller, 2006), and schools therefore continue to “[work] towards uniformity and monolingualism” (Spolsky, 2009, p. 91). While education policies are thus still dominated by the view that high proficiency in the dominant language is key to academic success (Blommaert & Van Avermaet, 2008; Pulinx et al., 2017), the achievement gap remains evident.
The achievement gap has been observed in several large-scale monitoring studies, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD)
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). For instance, “PISA data have consistently shown, in most countries, a
performance gap between students with an immigrant background and native-born students” (OECD, 2019, p. 27). It should, however, be noted that the PISA 2018 study indicated that the concentration of disadvantaged students more negatively impacted immigrant students’ performance than did the “concentration of immigrants or of students who speak a language at home that is different from the language of instruction” (OECD, 2019, p. 29). As “a quick-win policy” (OECD, 2019, p. 29), it has been suggested that immigrants receive further language support and approaches such as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) are implemented.
In recent years, several new educational models have been developed and tested to address the lack of academic support for multilingual pupils. For example, the Validiv-project (VALorising LInguistic DIVerstity in Flanders), which ran from 2011 to 2015, set out to determine the effectiveness of the taalbadmodel (language bath model) compared to a multilingual language policy (van Praag et al., 2017). The language bath model assumes that
14 in this case, Dutch, with the view of it improving their future opportunities (van Praag et al., 2017). It was concluded that encouraging the use of home languages in the classroom should receive significantly more attention (van Praag et al., 2017). Similarly, Stroud and Heugh (2011) argue that education systems in which languages are separated from each other are ineffective and insufficiently cater to learners’ needs. It was further determined that when multilingualism is normalised in a school, both mono- and multilingual pupils feel more at home (van Praag et al, 2017; van der Wildt et al., 2013). Studies on translanguaging in the Basque Country (Leonet et al., 2017) and Luxembourg (Kirsch, 2020) have also shown that such multilingual approaches can foster teacher-child relationships, contribute to the
revitalisation of minority languages (e.g., Basque), increase language awareness, and develop pupil’s language skills.
Given the achievement gap and benefits of MLE, it is therefore evident that education systems, and ITE, are “under pressure to adjust, or respond, to contemporary change” (Van Avermaet et al., 2018. p. 344) to ensure teachers are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills, which are investigated in this study.
2.2.1. Multilingualism in the Dutch education system
The 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States and the assassination of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 (see Koopmans & Ruis, 2009) caused Dutch political discourse to shift from promoting to discouraging pluralism (Extra & Yağmur, 2006). Consequently, “cultural diversity and multilingualism [were] increasingly seen as threats to social cohesion” (Extra & Yağmur, 2006, p. 53), and the use of immigrant languages and dialects has since then been discouraged through the Dutch “government’s oliglot perspective in policing immigrant minority languages” (Kroon & Spotti, 2011, p. 95).
Current national curriculum documents imply that those with Dutch as their native language take precedence over those who do not, even though multilingual pupils are still part of the education system and are equal to monolinguals (Nederlof & Smit, 2018). Contrary to this, article 8.3 of the Dutch Primary Education Act 1981 and article 17 of the Secondary Education Act 1963 explicitly mention the pluralistic nature of Dutch society and the importance of social inclusion (Wettenbank, 2020a, 2020b). It is also pertinent to note that article 8.1 of the Primary Education Act 1981 states that it is structured to allow an uninterrupted development process and is tailored to the progress in pupils’ development
15 (Wettenbank, 2020b). In support of this, teaching in primary and secondary schools can be delivered in regional languages, such as Frisian in Friesland, or home languages may also be used as a working language for migrant pupils (Wettenbank 2020a, 2020b).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that multilingualism should play a significant role in these education systems. However, although schools in the Netherlands have been given more autonomy “to adapt to local conditions and to the diverse needs of their pupils” (Herweijer 2009, p. 3), those of multilingual pupils frequently remain unacknowledged, which highlights the necessity for more drastic measures to be taken.
2.2.2. Responding to educational needs in the field of MLE: a holistic approach
To address major issues such as the achievement gap, a shift from bilingual education systems driven by monoglossic ideologies to multi- or plurilingual systems based on heteroglossic ideologies is essential (Flores & Baetens Beardsmore, 2015). This change is reflected in the term “multilingual turn” (Conteh & Meier, 2014). It should, however, be noted that programmes based on monoglossic ideologies “have increased the academic achievement of [language-minoritized] students and allowed many of them access to the larger society” (Flores & Baetens Beardsmore, 2015, p. 220), though multilingual approaches can be more advantageous.
An example response to such issues is the holistic model for multilingualism in
education (see Fig. 1), which was initially developed by Duarte (2017) “to address the needs
of schools within the official bilingual region of Friesland, in the north of the Netherlands” (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018, p. 28). The combination of three principles that form the model seeks “to acknowledge and use multilingualism of different types of multilingual pupils attending diverse school types” (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018, p. 28).
Firstly, the model incorporates various teaching approaches and knowledge “that have proven effective in education of both minority and migrant pupils” (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018, p. 29), rendering it suitable for different school types.
The second principle is the “incorporation of the different approaches towards multilingual education” (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018, p. 29), which are arranged “along a continuum that oscillates between the acknowledgement of different languages and their actual use in instruction” (p. 29).
16 accommodated by addressing their “multilingual attitudes, knowledge and skills” (Duarte & Gunther van der Meij, 2018, p. 29).
Figure 1.
Holistic Model for Multilingualism in Education.
Note. Reprinted from A Holistic model for multilingualism in education, by Duarte &
Günther-van der Meij, 2018, p. 29.
Since the model is in its infancy, evidence of its effectiveness is not yet available (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018); however, it is currently being tested through a design-based approach in 12 primary schools in Friesland, as part of the four-year project 3M: Meer kansen
Met Meertaligheid (More opportunities with Multilingualism).
A key feature of the model is that teachers are central to its success (Duarte &
Günther-van der Meij, 2018), meaning that teachers are also able to work on their continuing professional development (CPD). The co-construction approach further contributes to
teachers’ “sense of ownership of the developed activities” (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018, p. 38) and increases their awareness of the benefits of MLE.
Depending on its success in Friesland, the holistic model could be the answer to the “implementation challenge[s] of MLE approaches, which are widespread in mainstream education” (Duarte & Gunther van der Meij, 2018, p. 39; Herzog-Punzenberger et al., 2017),
17 given its potential to improve teachers’ skills for implementing MLE and to positively affect pupils’ personal development (see Biesta, 2010, 2012).
2.2.3. Role of MLE in pupils’ development
Successful education is thought to be centred around three target domains, namely,
qualification, socialisation, and subjectification, with the latter also known as
persoonsvorming (personal development; Biesta, 2010, 2012, 2019). Qualification refers to
the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Socialisation stands for the introduction of traditions, practices and manners to pupils, which can be, for example, socio-cultural, political or
professional. Subjectification, or personal development, is the formation of pupils’ individuality, autonomy, and sense of responsibility.
Biesta (2019) suggests that schools do not only have a significant impact on pupils’ growth as individuals but also have responsibility for their actions that influence this development. It can, therefore, be assumed that multilingualism, to any extent, should form part of schools’ pedagogical responsibilities and ITE.
For instance, the following example from Vries’ (2019) report illustrates the
interactions of personal development and socialisation with multilingualism in a class led by a pre-service primary school teacher in Friesland:
A student-teacher asks the pupils to make a 'language portrait' of themselves, indicating their home languages and which languages play a role in their lives. Because the questions are in Frisian and not everyone has knowledge of that language, the student-teacher divides the non-Frisian-speaking students among the Frisian-speaking students, so they can help each other. (p. 20; translated from Dutch by the present researcher)
An analysis of this scenario reveals several instances of the target domains in action. Firstly, since pupils were asked to work in pairs, the task contributed to their socialisation and personal development (Vries, 2019). Given that pupils were tasked with discussing the roles of the various languages in their lives, it also emphasised the importance of individual and group identity, and fostered language awareness. Finally, Frisian-speaking pupils had the opportunity to utilise their previous (linguistic) knowledge and share it with their non-Frisian speaking peers (Vries, 2019).
The aforementioned scenario exemplifies the importance of MLE, and the impact that acknowledging and involving more than one language in the classroom can have on pupils’ development. With a deeper understanding of multilingual pupils and awareness of research
18 considerably enhanced. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards the role of multilingualism in pupils’ development is therefore measured in this study to determine overall attitude towards MLE and the extent to which its potential is recognised.
2.2.4. Characteristics of the multilingual pupil
A common misconception is that the more exposure to a language the better (Delarue, 2018); therefore, teachers often assume that immersion will result in increased proficiency. It has also been observed that teachers interact differently with multilingual pupils, such as using gestures or simplified language (Heller & Morek, 2015; Langeloo et al., 2019). However, studies have shown that the quality of the interaction is more important than quantity (Delarue, 2018), implying that MLE is not as detrimental to pupils’ progress as one might expect. Further research has indicated that multilingual pupils’ language development (Leseman & Slot, 2014), academic performance and social skills (Vandenbroucke et al., 2018) benefit from engaging in high-quality interaction.
Teachers also commonly believe that mixing languages is a sign of being unable to control language use (Delarue, 2018). However, in reality, when speaking one language, the other is simultaneously active in the brain, as indicated by cognate facilitation effect studies (e.g., Kroll et al., 2012). Previous research has also shown that “different languages may have different demands on specific brain areas involved in language processing” (van den Noort et al., 2014), and may affect one another (Nederlof & Smit, 2018).
For example, Cummins’ (1981) common underlying proficiency (CUP) model suggests that “proficiencies in L1 [first language] and L2 [second language] are not separate abilities” (Goodrich & Lonigan, 2017, p. 3) and cross-linguistic transfer results in applying L1-related skills and knowledge to learning L2. Incorporated into the CUP model are Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP). BICS refers to conversational fluency (Cummins, 2008), whereas CALP is “the extent to which an individual has access to and command of the oral and written academic registers of schooling” (Cummins, 2000, p. 67). The model is represented as a dual-iceberg (see Fig. 2). The surface features denote the observable proficiency skills in both L1 and L2, and appear to be distinct from each other (Nederlof & Smit, 2018). The majority of the iceberg, however, is hidden underwater, indicating both L1 and L2 are connected (Goodrich & Lonigan, 2017). Consequently, “as proficiency in one language develops, so does language independent knowledge (i.e., the common underlying proficiency) that supports the
19 development of skills in both languages” (Goodrich & Lonigan, 2017, p. 3). Evidence
supporting the CUP model has been identified in research on various education systems in which both L1 and L2 are involved (Goodrich & Lonigan, 2017), including that it can enhance academic performance (Cheung & Slavin, 2012).
Figure 2.
The Dual-Iceberg Representation of Bilingual Proficiency.
Note. Reprinted from Teaching for Cross-Language Transfer in Dual Language Education:
Possibilities and Pitfalls by Cummins, 2005, September, p. 5.
Considering previous research, and as Nederlof and Smit (2018) emphasise, it is essential that pupils’ home languages are accepted by both pupils and teachers, and involved in education to exploit the benefits of multilingualism and foster individuality. Pre-service teachers’ acceptance of multilingualism is therefore investigated in this study, as a component of overall attitude.
2.2.4.1. Languages, identity and creativity of the multilingual pupil
According to Joseph (2004), “language … is central to individual identity” (p. 225), therefore “language and identity are ultimately inseparable” (p. 13). Besides its symbolic role
(Edwards, 2009), language is an important factor in social identity, for which it is used to differentiate groups from outsiders (Hogg & Reid, 2006), though it “can shift dramatically during one’s lifetime” (Block, 2009, p. 40).
Since between the ages of six and 14, children begin to create their own identities (Eccles, 1999), it is plausible to conclude that school plays an important role in this stage of development. Children’s creative use of language is also linked to identity construction
20 environments in which to investigate how linguistic identity is treated and perceived by children (Cummins & Early, 2011) and how creativity is involved in these processes.
Dressler (2015) explored young multilingual pupils’ linguistic identity, who were enrolled on a German bilingual program in Canada, using Language Portrait Silhouettes (LPS; see Fig. 3), “where students colour[ed] in their languages on a drawn silhouette of a body” (Dressler, 2015, p. 43).It was concluded that “the LPS can provide a catalyst for dialogue and understanding regarding linguistic identity” (Dressler, 2015, p. 49) and that this, in turn, can help teachers encourage pupils who are struggling with language learning, and promote their creativity.
Figure 3. Example LPS.
Note. Earl’s Language Portrait Silhouette. Reprinted from Exploring Linguistic Identity in
Young Multilingual Learners, by Dressler, 2015, p. 47.
Monolinguals can, too, benefit from this, since it is an opportunity for teachers to validate and normalise multilingualism (Dressler, 2015). Through this activity, and others (see e.g., Melo-Pfeifer, 2015), monolinguals are introduced to the rich environments of multilingual pupils, who are thought to have “enriched conceptual systems” (van Dijk et al., 2019, p. 9). Being multilingual has been found to “[allow] for more exploratory actions and increased fluency and originality” (van Dijk et al., 2019, p. 8); therefore, by encouraging multilingual pupils to exploit their linguistic repertoires and share them with monolinguals, all pupils’ social, emotional and cognitive skills can become more enhanced (Cremin & Maybin, 2013; Dressler 2015).
21 Melo-Pfeifer’s (2015) study further revealed that pupils, even though only rarely, are able to reflect on their own linguistic repertoires, as illustrated in Figure 4: “the little girl explains, in Portuguese, that she speaks a little bit of Italian and Spanish, and that she feels completely proficient in Portuguese and German” (p. 210). This demonstrates how pupils are aware of the importance of their languages and the role they play in their identity; however, teachers often do not foster this reflective thinking, and consequently, neglect pupils’ language creativity.
Figure 4.
Example drawing.
Note. Drawing 11. Multilingual repertoire reported Portuguese only. (C.T., 9 years old,
Stuttgart). Reprinted from Multilingual awareness and heritage language education: children's multimodal representations of their multilingualism, by Melo-Pfeifer, 2015, p. 210.
It can, therefore, be inferred that improved ITE and CPD, and awareness of research on multilingualism are imperative for the effective teaching of multilingual pupils, which is, for instance, promoted by the holistic model presented in Section 2.2.2 (Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2018). Encouraging teachers to explore and communicate with their pupils regarding multilingualism can contribute to pupils’ identity formation, creativity, and personal development. However, teachers must first understand their own linguistic identity and be aware of theory on multilingualism and MLE for such an approach to be successful (Dressler, 2015; Morgan, 2004; Pavlenko, 2003), the latter of which is explored through the open questions in this study.
22 The advantages of multilingualism are seemingly numerous (Baker, 2011), and, thus far, no disadvantages have been identified (Nederlof & Smit, 2018). Various studies have revealed that bilingual children often outperform monolingual children, particularly in tasks involving executive functions (Blom et al., 2014). For example, Barac and Bialystok (2012) found that bilingual children performed better on verbal and non-verbal tasks that involved executive control (i.e. the cognitive processes necessary for controlling behaviour; Best & Miller, 2010), concluding that bilingualism can improve language proficiency and cognitive skills.
One explanation behind bilinguals’ advanced executive functions lies in their “need to continuously monitor the appropriate language for each communicative interaction” (Costa et al., 2009, p. 136). Consequently, there is thought to be “a positive effect on the functioning of an individual’s attentional system” (Costa et al., 2009, p. 135; Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Costa et al., 2008), and working memory (Engle, 2002). There are also long-term advantages of being bi- or multilingual, such as that it can delay the onset of dementia symptoms by four to five years (Alladi et al., 2013).
Regardless of the evidence, however, Blom et al. (2014) states that there remains a lack of understanding of and debate over which factors or conditions enhance executive control. Despite this, it is clear that multilingual pupils’ home languages should be used at school to develop their cognitive skills and learning. Teachers should be made adequately aware of this research, irrespective of whether they work in primary or secondary education, which is reflected in an aim of this study that seeks to determine pre-service teachers’ levels of such knowledge.
2.2.4.3. Importance of home languages in education
Contrary to popular belief, involving pupils’ home languages at school can in fact improve academic performance (García & Baetens Beardsmore, 2009; Gilham & Fürstenau, 2020; Schroedler & Fischer, 2020; Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014). Some teachers, however, believe that involving multiple languages hinders pupils’ ability to acquire the school or target language to a high level (Nederlof & Smit, 2018). For instance, Ağırdağ et al.’s (2014) study found that teachers in Belgium regarded pupils’ use of Turkish at school or home as a barrier to academic progress, though factor analyses indicated “that the extent of speaking Turkish … was not significantly related to pupils’ academic achievement” (p. 23).
23 Nevertheless, migrant pupils are often discouraged from using their home languages (Ağırdağ, 2018), which, understandably, affects their well-being and performance (Bialystok, 2018). Since multilingual pupils are already equipped with knowledge in their home
languages, acknowledging and including them at school should instead be encouraged to enrich their learning, boost their academic progress (Cummins, 2007; Nederlof & Smit, 2018) and improve well-being (Delarue, 2018). Involving pupils’ home languages in the classroom can also “[provide] a sense of security and [validate] the learner’s lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves” (Auerbach, 1993, p. 13).
Pupils’ home languages, if used strategically, can therefore be effective tools for enhancing learning, improving language proficiency, supporting pupils’ development, and helping maintain a vital component of identity (Gooskens, 2019). Yet, teachers must be aware of the importance of home languages and be adequately prepared to teach in
multilingual classrooms. For this reason, this study aims to investigate the latter by gaining insights into pre-service teachers’ self-perceived preparedness, and into the types of
experiences, knowledge and skills acquired during training.
2.3. Teacher preparation and education
The ever-increasing heterogeneity of pupils attending European schools has resulted in pre-service and in-pre-service teachers, and teacher educators facing several new (pedagogical) challenges (Raud & Orehova, 2020). Contributing factors include the new skills, knowledge and backgrounds of pupils, meaning that ITE should be (re-)designed to respond to changing school demographics (Raud & Orehova, 2020).
Since "teachers are active, thinking decision-makers" (Borg, 2003, p. 81), it is essential that ITE provides them with the knowledge and skills needed to support their teaching. As the EC (2017) recommends, training should focus on inclusivity, diversity, raising awareness of research on multilingualism, and provide first-hand experience of MLE.
One example that underlines the relevance of the EC’s (2017) recommendations is that teachers often avoid involving home languages since they fear losing control of the class and excluding pupils from activities (Berben et al., 2007), and feel uncomfortable when unable to understand what pupils are saying (Pulinx et al., 2017). This demonstrates teachers’ lack of knowledge, skills and experience in dealing with such situations (Strobbe, 2017).
Unlike language teachers, subject teachers (e.g., mathematics, biology, etc.) are often the least prepared for teaching multilingual pupils (Freeman & Freeman, 2014; Viesca &
24 recently been conducted, though “the existing conceptual and empirical knowledge-base for preparing pre- and in-service content teachers is still in its infancy” (Viesca & Teemant, 2019, p. 1; de Oliveira & Obenchain, 2018). It has been suggested that to improve teacher preparation, ITE should “theoretically, pedagogically, and politically demonstrate in context that language, teacher learning, and pedagogy matter” (Viesca & Teeman, 2019, p. 16). For instance, studies have found that providing pre-service teachers with opportunities to study multilingualism positively influences their attitudes towards and understanding of
multilingual pupils (Markos, 2012). However, most teachers, in both primary and secondary education, still depend on their own resources (Herzog-Punzenberger et al., 2017).
Raud and Orehova (2020) further propose that whilst still celebrating each country’s individuality, ITE in Europe should “follow a European perspective” (p. 3) by implementing the EC’s (2017) recommendations. Raising pre-service teachers’ awareness of the role of language in education and society should also be central to ITE and supplementary “induction programmes to effectively prepare novice teachers for work in multilingual schools” (Raud & Orehova, 2020, p. 3) offered to ensure optimal education for all pupils.
Currently, however, teachers are unaware of how to guarantee inclusion and
accommodate all pupils’ needs (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Kumar & Lauermann, 2018). To investigate the effects of multicultural education courses, Kumar and Lauermann (2018) examined the quantity of pre-service teachers’ engagement in multicultural education. It was revealed that, despite the small effect size of the study, providing teachers with multiple opportunities to reflect on culturally diverse school and classroom environments allows them to confront their biases (Kumar & Lauermann, 2018). Accordingly, encouraging teachers to become aware of their own views is essential, since these may have an adverse effect on their practices and pupils’ well-being and academic performance.
De Angelis (2011) therefore proposes that ITE should also “[inform] teachers about the value of immigrants’ languages and why they are an asset for the individual” (p. 229). Furthermore, Haukås (2016), whose study also revealed teachers’ feel underprepared for teaching in multilingual classrooms, drew on De Angelis’ (2011), Hufeisen’s (2011) and Otwinowska’s (2014) studies to conclude that ideal teachers for implementing MLE approaches should be, among others, multilingual, and familiar with research on multilingualism. Teachers should also “be willing to collaborate with other (language) teachers to enhance learners’ multilingualism” (Haukås, 2016, p. 3), given that teachers working at the same school frequently influence each other’s practices and beliefs
25 (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992). This is reflected in collective efficacy, which can be influenced by collaboration and social persuasion (e.g., feedback; Beauchamp et al., 2014), and has in turn been found to have a positive effect on pupils (e.g., Goddard et al., 2000).
Furthermore, Lucas et al. (2014) developed a Linguistically Responsive Teaching
Framework for Multilingual Contexts, which, although designed for language teachers, is
largely applicable to subject teachers. To address the gaps in teachers’ knowledge of how to implement MLE, it is argued that all teachers should have skills related to and knowledge of, among others, sociolinguistic consciousness, language (learner) awareness, scaffolding, linguistic diversity and language acquisition theory (Lucas, et al., 2014; de Oliveira, 2015).
Since numerous studies have stressed the need for urgent changes to ITE, it can, therefore, be argued that immediate action should be taken to ensure “student teachers’ cultural and linguistic awareness, democratic values, and strategies for learner support in diverse school settings” (Raud & Orehova, 2020, p. 3; Herzog-Punzenberger et al., 2017), as well as their attitudes and beliefs, are addressed by teacher educators. By investigating pre-service teachers’ self-perceived knowledge and skills, this study should also uncover the strengths and weaknesses of ITE in the Netherlands, which can act as starting points for further research.
2.4. Language attitudes, beliefs and ideologies
Defined as the “relatively enduring organization of beliefs, feelings, and behavioral
tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups, events or symbols" (Hogg & Vaughan 2005, p. 150), attitudes are intrinsically linked to and can predict behaviour (Baker, 1992). Beliefs in this context can refer to the “propositions individuals consider to be true and which are often tacit, have a strong evaluative and affective content, provide a basis for action, and are resistant to change” (Borg, 2011, p. 370).The value of studying attitudes is high, though language attitude research in linguistics has a relatively short history compared to in social psychology (Krausneker, 2015). In the field of linguistics, language attitudes have been defined as:
the attitudes which speakers of different languages or language varieties have towards each other's languages or to their own language. Expressions of positive or negative feelings towards a language may reflect impressions of linguistic difficulty or
simplicity, ease or difficulty of learning, degree of importance, elegance, social status, etc. Attitudes towards a language may also show what people feel about the speakers of that language. (Richard et al., 1992, p. 199)
26 among others, attitudes towards language learning, languages in general, a specific dialect or variety, and language use.
Attitudes can be analysed in terms of the affective component, the cognitive component and the conative component (Baker, 1992). The affective component refers to feelings towards an object, cognitive to thoughts and beliefs, and conative to behavioural intentions (Baker, 1992). However, “these three components of attitudes, while they are correlated, are not necessarily linked”(Gallois et al., 2007: p. 596). For instance, a teacher may believe that MLE is important, but does not implement multilingual teaching
methodologies in the classroom.
Attitudes can be further categorised as implicit or explicit. Implicit attitudes are those of which people are unaware and are defined as the “unintentional, resource-independent, unconscious, or uncontrollable” (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014, p. 284) evaluations of an object. Implicit Association Tests are often used to measure implicit attitudes (see e.g. Nosek et al., 2011). Conversely, explicit attitudes are those that are consciously formed and overtly expressed (Eagly & Chaiken, 1992), and are typically measured using self-report methods (Williams & Steele, 2019), such as a survey, which is employed in this study.
Interacting with and influencing language attitudes are language ideologies, which are the “shared framework(s) of social beliefs that organize and coordinate the social
interpretations and practices of groups and their members” (van Dijk, 1998, p. 8). Commonly identified ideologies in the field of teaching are the standard language (see e.g., Lippi-Green, 2012) and monoglossic ideologies (see Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015), which have been found to influence teachers’ practices in the classroom, such as “[limiting] the status and use of minority languages” (Tollefson & Yamagami, 2012, p. 4).
2.4.1. Teachers’ language attitudes and ideological becoming
Teachers’ attitudes can influence their own decision-making (Giles & Billings, 2004) and their expectations of pupils. Less favourable attitudes towards multilingual pupils have, for instance, been found to negatively affect academic performance, which can be caused by low trust, negative expectations (see Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968 for the Pygmalion or Rosenthal
effect; Brophy, 1985; Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2015), fewer learning opportunities, and less
feedback. Glock et al.’s (2013) study also supports the idea that teachers’ attitudes influence what they expect from pupils, (see also, van den Bergh et al., 2010), and it “seems reasonable
27 to assume that preservice teachers’ attitudes will do the same once they become teachers” (Glock et al., 2013, p. 204).
Since language is a “powerful social force” (Cargile et al., 1994, p. 211) and language attitudes are shaped by language ideologies (Milroy, 2007), both pre- and in-service teachers should be made aware of their own attitudes and underlying ideologies to help them evaluate, develop and alter their classroom practices (Thomas & Wareing, 1999, p. 188). This
“ongoing development of an ideological framing of schooling” (Edmiston, 2016, p. 2) can be linked to the notion of ideological becoming (Bakhtin, 1981), that is, “how we develop our way of viewing the world, our system of ideas, what Bakhtin calls an ideological self" (Freedman & Ball, 2004, p. 5).
Holdway & Hitchcock (2018) investigated ideological becoming by introducing teachers to translanguaging and the advantages of using pupils’ home languages to enhance learning. Translanguaging refers to “accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximize communicative
potential” (García, 2009, p. 140). It was found that the teacher-participants had the opportunity to reflect on their attitudes and realise that, as a result of their classroom practices, pupils had limited access to an equitable education (Holdway & Hitchcock, 2018; Mary & Young, 2018). This finding underlines the importance of encouraging both pre- and in-service teachers to become aware of the benefits of MLE, and the need for teacher training that fosters critical thought and reflection (Holdway & Hitchcock, 2018). To help achieve this, combining attitude research with studying knowledge and skills, which is addressed in this study, may reveal shortcomings in ITE and how pre-service teachers currently approach and reflect on their training.
2.4.2. Pre- and in-service teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards multilingualism
Research into teachers’ classroom practices concerning multilingualism has generally
indicated resistance to change (Borg, 2006). This is thought to be linked to ITE programmes, which rarely “devote a sufficient amount of time to … knowledge development about
multilingualism” (Lundberg, 2019, p. 2; De Angelis, 2011). Consequently, teachers tend to revert to monolingual approaches, which are driven by methodologies such as immersion and submersion (Cummins, 2008).
Studies that have explored teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards MLE have largely uncovered negative views and substantiate teachers’ preference to implement monolingual policies. For instance, Pulinx et al.’s (2017) study found that the use of pupils’ home
28 therefore “[coinciding] to a large extent with the monolingual policies implemented in
Flemish education” (p. 552). Moreover, teachers who had strong monolingual beliefs tended to have less trust in their pupils (Pulinx et al., 2017).
Conversely, Haukås’ (2016) study revealed that teachers in Norway believed that their own language learning was possibly facilitated by being multilingual, though did not
maintain the same opinion for their students. It was also found that “the teachers were aware of how to use their previous knowledge in further language learning, whereas their learners may not [have been] equally aware” (Haukås, 2016, p. 12). Overall, it was concluded that teachers did exhibit positive attitudes, since they encouraged learners to use their previous linguistic knowledge, which theoretically will have also contributed to increasing their language awareness. Similarly, De Angelis (2011) comments that language awareness is key if multilingualism is to be exploited when learning a new language. Haukås’ (2016) study was, however, limited to only Norwegian and English; therefore, teachers’ opinions of and attitudes towards other languages, such as minority languages, remain unexplored.
Teachers are also often found to be unaware of how languages are processed and interact in the brain. As one example, teachers in Arocena Egaña et al.’s (2015) study, which was conducted in the Basque Country, expressed concerns that code-switching negatively affects language proficiency, thus favoured using only the target language in language lessons. Such beliefs and practices, however, are thought to be influenced by the widespread monolingual ideologies in the Basque Country (Arocena Egaña et al., 2015). Moreover, De Angelis (2011) found that teachers believe that “language interactions give rise to confusion and delays when learning the host language” (p. 229). It was therefore concluded that most teachers would recommend that immigrant parents not use their home languages to prevent interference with children’s development in the host language (De Angelis, 2011).
Contrary to De Angelis’ (2011) findings, Gkaintartzi et al. (2015) discovered that Greek teachers’ attitudes towards immigrant pupils’ home languages were positive and pupils were encouraged to use and develop them. The teacher-participants did, however, state that they “do not relate them [home languages] to the children’s school language learning” (Gkaintartzi et al., 2015, p. 70), which suggests that some teachers may consider other languages not as useful as and/or inferior to the school language.
Differences in attitudes between primary and secondary school teachers have also been identified, namely that the former are generally more positive towards multilingualism (e.g., Mitits, 2018: Pulinx et al., 2017; Tarnanen & Palviainen, 2018). Influencing factors
29 include that primary school teachers are usually equipped with better pedagogical training, whereas secondary school teachers “are under pressure to fulfil the requirement of rigid curricula and teach a much larger number of students in total” (Mitits, 2018, p. 33), for which often only the majority language is used.
Regarding pre-service teachers’ attitudes, Schroedler and Fischer’s (2020) pre-post design study revealed that participants at the University of Hamburg in Germany exhibited positive beliefs about multilingualism. According to Schroedler and Fischer (2020),
participants “[tended] to believe in multilingualism being a resource and in the importance of supporting multilingual learners” (p. 17). Moreover, multilingual participants were more positive about multilingualism than monolinguals, as were female participants (see also Pulinx et al. 2017; see Hammer et al., 2016 for non-significant effect of gender). Ağırdağ et al.’s (2012) study further revealed that less experienced teachers were more positive towards minority pupils. One line of argument behind this is that newly qualified teachers (NQTs) are exposed to the latest research on multilingualism as part of their training, which implies that they are more aware of the importance and benefits of multilingualism (Mitits, 2018). It can, therefore, be argued that pre-service teachers may demonstrate similar responses regarding their attitudes towards MLE.
Conducted in the Valencian Community in Spain, Portolés and Martí’s (2020) study also found that pre-service teachers presented positive attitudes towards MLE, such as through promoting minority languages. This was, however, likely due to participants’
linguistic background, since all were proficient in Catalan, a minority language. Despite these positive attitudes, it was concluded that the pre-service teacher participants “still suffer from a monolingual bias” (Portolés & Martí, 2020, p. 261) since some believed that being
multilingual is synonymous with high proficiency in all one’s languages.
Overall, the previous research discussed in this chapter illustrates the complexity of and differences in teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, preparation, and classroom practices regarding multilingualism. Some teachers exhibit negative attitudes (e.g., De Angelis, 2011), whilst some are more positive and exploit the benefits of involving multiple languages in their classrooms (e.g., Haukås, 2016). Such variation in the aforementioned aspects highlights the relevance and urgency of this study in that it aims to deepen our understanding of pre-service teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes that are acquired and developed during training. This, in turn, will facilitate the development of ITE curricula that provide better preparation for teaching in multilingual classrooms.
30 In light of the research and theories discussed in this chapter, it is evident that most teachers lack awareness of the benefits of and approaches to MLE. Consequently, insights into their preparation and attitudes are essential. Ideally, this knowledge would guide reforms of ITE, and CPD, to ensure teachers are sufficiently prepared to provide all (multilingual) pupils with an equal, equitable and inclusive education that is both culturally (Gay, 2010) and
linguistically responsive (Lucas & Villegas, 2011, 2013). Therefore, since teachers have significant power in and outside the classroom (De Angelis, 2011), and their practices can influence pupils (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007), this study aims to investigate the under-researched area of pre-service teachers’ explicit attitudes towards MLE (Glock et al., 2013, Schroedler & Fischer, 2020), and self-perceived knowledge and skills related to MLE, in the context of the Netherlands.
To date, there have been no studies in which pre-service teachers’ knowledge and skills, and attitudes towards MLEhave been collectively considered and compared in terms of the following: age, gender, institution type, programme type, year of study, education level (i.e., training to teach in primary or secondary education), and multilingual status. This study, with its innovative approach and mixed-methods design, therefore adds to the literature and theory by investigating pre-service teachers’ knowledge and skills, and attitudes as functions of all the aforementioned variables, rather than in isolation, at the national level. Moreover, a practical contribution of this study to the field of MLE is that the findings will assist
curriculum developers with designing ITE programmes that address the widespread need to improve the preparation of future teachers (see Baumann, 2017; Schroedler & Fischer, 2020).
This study set out to address the gap in the literature by answering the following research questions:
RQ1: a) What overall attitudes do pre-service primary and secondary school teachers attending Dutch higher education present towards multilingual education?
b) Which factors can explain the differences in overall attitudes? i. Age
ii. Gender
iii. Institution type iv. Programme type v. Year of study
31 vi. Education level
vii. Multilingual status
RQ2: a) To what extent do pre-service primary and secondary school teachers feel prepared by teacher education programmes for teaching in multilingual classrooms?
b) Which factors can explain the differences in the levels of self-perceived preparedness?
i. Age ii. Gender
iii. Institution type iv. Programme type v. Year of study vi. Education level vii. Multilingual status
RQ3: What types of experiences with multilingual education do pre-service teachers acquire during training?
RQ4: What types of knowledge and skills related to implementing multilingual education do pre-service teachers develop during training?
Based on the literature discussed in this chapter, it is hypothesised that pre-service teachers present an overall positive and more tolerant attitude towards MLE (see García & Baetens Beardsmore, 2009a; Pulinx et al., 2017), on the basis of them having less experience than in-service teachers (Ağırdağ et al., 2012; Mitits, 2018). It is further predicted that female pre-service teachers are more favourable of multilingualism than males (Pulinx et al., 2017), as are those training to become a primary school teacher (Mitits, 2018: Pulinx et al., 2017; Tarnanen & Palviainen, 2018) and those who consider themselves multilingual (Schroedler & Fischer, 2020). Moreover, it is hypothesised that pre-service teachers in general, and more specifically subject teachers who will teach in secondary schools (Viesca & Teemant, 2019), report lower levels of self-perceived preparedness for teaching in multilingual classrooms (see Ağırdağ 2009; Coleman 2010). Finally, it is predicted that pre-service teachers have limited types of experiences with MLE and basic knowledge and skills needed for its implementation, due to the lack of focus on multilingualism during ITE (e.g., Lundberg, 2019).
32 This chapter describes the research design (Section 3.1), context (Section 3.2), and the
quantitative and qualitative elements of the survey (Section 3.3) used in this study.
3.1. Research design
This study followed an adapted version of a deductive concurrent mixed-methods design (QUAN + qual; Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Morse & Niehaus, 2009). Data for the study was collected using a national online survey that consisted of quantitative (core component) and qualitative items (supplemental component; Morse & Niehaus, 2009). The survey was distributed to all pre-service teachers (both primary and secondary) attending higher
education in the Netherlands. A summary of the survey sections (see Section 3.3.2.) used to answer each research question is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Overview of the research questions and related survey sections.
Research question Section(s) of the survey
1a/b.i-vii Section 1: Opinions about the role of multilingualism in education Section 2: Personal development and its relationship with MLE
Section 4: Tolerance of multilingualism at school
Section 5: Interpreting a scenario of multilingual classroom interaction
2a/b(i-vii) Section 3: Knowledge, preparation and training (quantitative items, see
Section 3.3.2.3.1.)
3 and 4 Section 3: Knowledge, preparation and training (qualitative items, see
Section 3.3.2.3.2.)
A visual representation of this mixed-methods design and its components is illustrated in Figure 5. The qualitative element of the survey is in italics to indicate its lower weighting as the supplemental component in this study.
The rationale behind this approach was that, firstly, the quantitative data would provide a general overview of the problem presented by the research questions, that is, by “explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analysed using mathematically based methods (in particular statistics)” (Aliaga & Gunderson, 2002, p. 14). Secondly, the
33 qualitative items were designed to “obtain description that the first method [could not]
access” (Morse & Niehaus, 2009, p. 31) and provide the possibility of being able to explain unexpected quantitative results (Morse, 1991), particularly regarding pre-service teachers’ self-reported preparedness (see Section 3.3.2.3.).
Figure 5.
Research design: a deductive concurrent mixed-methods approach (QUAN + qual; Morse & Niehaus, 2009; Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2007) to studying pre-service teachers’ (self-perceived) knowledge and skills, and attitudes towards MLE.
Phase Process
Pre-study phase
Study phase
National online survey:
Quantitative items (Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
+
Qualitative items (Section 3)
Literature review
Development and piloting of survey
Data collection
Post-study phase
Data analysis
Inference
Summary, conclusions, implications and recommendations
34 In this study, both pre-service primary and secondary school teachers were surveyed, who were all following one of four different programme types. ITE in the Netherlands is offered at universities (Dutch: wetenschappelijk onderwijs; WO) or universities of applied sciences (Dutch: hoger beroepsonderwijs; HBO), which offer more practical-based education.
Primary school teacher training is either taught at HBO institutions (Dutch:
pedagogische academie voor het basisonderwijs; Pabo) or students can follow an academic
programme, during which teaching is divided between a WO and HBO institution (Dutch:
Academische Opleiding Leraar Basisonderwijs [AOLB]; Academic Primary School Teacher
Training). Both are four-year programmes.
Secondary school teachers can train at WO institutions, though most programmes are offered at HBO level. Specialisation is usually in one subject, which is accompanied by instruction in general teaching (Meelissen & Punter, 2016). Graduating with a four-year HBO degree means a teacher is qualified at “second-grade” (Dutch: tweedegraads) level and can teach the lower secondary school grades. “First-grade” (Dutch: eerstegraads) teachers are those who “often have a university degree in their subject area (e.g., a master’s degree in mathematics) with an additional master’s degree in general teaching” (Meelissen & Punter, 2016, p. 6), and “are qualified to teach all grades in all tracks in secondary education” (p. 6). Internships form part of all ITE in the Netherlands.
3.3. National online survey on MLE
3.3.1. Sample and sampling strategy
Random sampling was used to recruit respondents, since “it [allowed] the researcher to examine the full spectrum of the target population [i.e., pre-service teachers] sampled” (Buchstaller & Khattab, 2014, p. 77).
The survey link was initially distributed via email to programme coordinators and teacher trainers at all higher education institutions (i.e., universities and universities of applied sciences) in the Netherlands that offer primary and secondary school teacher training programmes for all subjects (see Appendix A). However, not all institutions were able to share the survey directly with students due to data protection policies and the COVID-19 pandemic. To increase response rate, social media posts were also published (e.g., in Facebook groups for Pabo students; see Appendix B for example post). Reminder emails were sent and posts re-published at regular intervals throughout the data collection period.
35 The final sample size was 254, of which 195 (77%) were training to teach in primary schools and 59 (23%) in secondary schools. Forty-one males (17%), 210 females (82%) and three (1%) respondents who identified as non-binary or agender completed the survey. Respondents’ average age was 23.29 (SD = 7.12) and most were studying in the province of Groningen (56, 22% ; see Table 2 and Fig. 6 for number of respondents by province). One hundred fifty-four respondents (61%) considered themselves multilingual (referred to as multilingual status in this study) and 100 (39%) did not. Respondent characteristics by programme type and overall characteristics of all respondents are presented in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
Table 2. Figure 6.
Respondents by province. Map of respondents by province.
Province Number of respondents Drenthe 27 (11%) Flevoland 0 (0%) Friesland 23 (9%) Gelderland 2 (1%) Groningen 56 (22%) Limburg 2 (1%) North-Brabant 52 (20%) North-Holland 28 (11%) Overijssel 6 (2%) South-Holland 55 (22%) Utrecht 3 (1%) Zeeland 0 (0%)
