Volume 7 (2016) Issue 2
Baseline Assessment of Norwegian EFL Teacher Preparedness to Work with Multilingual Students
Anna Krulatz (Trondheim, Norway) & Anne Dahl (Trondheim, Norway)
Abstract
(English)
The
present paper describes a study of Norwegian EFL teachers’
self-perceived preparedness to work with multilingual students. The
study employed an online survey to examine teachers’ self-perceived
preparedness to work with multilingual students, the training they
had received in the area of multilingualism,
their beliefs about knowledge, skills and resources needed to work
with multilingual students, and their interest in receiving
additional training. The findings suggest that, while the majority of
the teachers have not received specific training on multilingualism,
most of them feel confident about their ability to work with
linguistically diverse student populations. Implications for practice
in EFL teacher education programs are discussed.
Key
words: EFL teacher education; teacher preparedness; multilingualism;
teacher self-assessment
Abstract
(Norwegian)
I
denne artikkelen presenterer vi en studie av hvor godt forberedt
norske engelsklærere selv mener at de er på å arbeide med
flerspråklige elever. Gjennom en spørreundersøkelse undersøkte vi
hvor godt forberedt lærerne følte seg å arbeide med flerspråklige
elever, hvorvidt de hadde formell kompetanse i å arbeide med
flerspråklige elever, hva slags kunnskap, ferdigheter og ressurser
de selv mente at trenges for å arbeide med flerspråklige elever, og
hvorvidt de var interesserte i å motta ytterligere opplæring i
temaet. Funnene tyder på at mens et flertall av lærerne ikke har
formell kompetanse i å arbeide med flerspråklighet, føler de
fleste av dem seg forholdsvis trygge på sin egen evne til å arbeide
med språklig mangfoldige elevgrupper. Vi diskuterer implikasjoner av
funnene for engelskfaget i lærerutdanningene.
Stikkord:
engelsklærerutdanning; lærerkompetanse; flerspråklighet; læreres
egenvurdering
1 Introduction
In the
last few decades, immigrant populations have undergone a rapid
increase in many European countries. One implication of this
demographic change is the ever-growing presence of minority language
students in European classrooms; both students with home languages
different from the majority language, but born in the country of
residence, and students who are recent immigrants. These students
are, in various ways and to various degrees, faced with the
potentially challenging task of maintaining their home language while
at the same time developing academic language proficiency in the
majority language. Due to the importance of English as a lingua
franca,
English may be added to their linguistic repertoire as a third
language (L3) as early as in the first year of formal education.
Recent
research on “beyond two” multilingualism (Aronin & Singleton
2012) suggests a great complexity in the factors involved in multiple
language acquisition as opposed to second language acquisition, where
the mutual influence of the two linguistic systems is bidirectional
(Jessner & Cenoz 2007). In tri- and multilinguals, all
language systems can influence each other, and production and
acquisition are influenced by factors such as typological
relatedness, cultural similarity, proficiency level, and language
status (Williams & Hammarberg 1998). At the same
time, research underscores the uniqueness of multilingualism and
third language acquisition as compared to bilingualism and second
language acquisition, emphasizing that multilingualism is a norm in
the majority of contemporary communities (Cenoz & Hoffman 2003).
Multilingualism is found in contexts such as African countries where
children speaking two local languages learn the official language
when they start attending school, and European regions in which
minority speakers of languages such as Basque, Catalan, Sami, or
Frisian, who are also fluent in the main language of the respective
country, learn a foreign language. However, multilingualism is also
on the increase in areas
with high immigrant populations.
As a lingua
franca,
English is probably the most frequent additional language. For
example, Turkish children growing up in Germany learn German as a
second language and English as a third language. The same is true for
many children with immigrant backgrounds in Norway. They may speak
their first language (L1) at home with their families, learn
Norwegian as a second
language (L2) outside of the home, e.g., in kindergarten or at
school,
and start developing
proficiency in English
as an additional language as early as in the first grade.
Previous research from
American and Canadian contexts suggests that teachers need
appropriate training and instruction in issues pertaining to language
acquisition and multilingualism to successfully work with students of
diverse language and cultural backgrounds (e.g. Webster & Valeo
2011, Faez 2012). However, there is less research on teacher
preparedness in the European context, where English is a third rather
than a second language, and little is known about how well-prepared
English-as-a-Foreign-language (EFL) teachers feel to work with
minority language students in the EFL classroom. The present study
attempts to address this gap.
The
authors of this article conducted a baseline study of the perceptions
of Norwegian teachers of English with regards to their preparedness
to teach English to minority-language students, their formal training
in doing so, as well as their beliefs about what knowledge and skills
are needed, and their interest in receiving further training in the
area. The cities in which the study was undertaken have relatively
high proportions of immigrant populations
ranging
from 12% to 32% (Statistics Norway 2015). Although the data are
limited to Norway, the findings are likely to be relevant to other
European countries which have recently experienced a rapid influx of
immigrants.
In the
following, we will first discuss multilingualism and L3 acquisition,
the linguistic situation in Norway, and EFL-teacher-training
requirements. Next, we will present our findings, which shed light
on the degree of professional training,
perceptions about
knowledge, skills and resources needed to successfully work with
minority language students in the EFL classroom, and the
perceived level
of preparedness to support the development of students’
multilingual competence. Finally, we will consider implications for
teacher training programs and
in-service professional development.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Multilingualism
and Third-Language Acquisition
The
Council of Europe defines plurilingualism as “the ability to use
languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in
intercultural interaction, where a person […] has proficiency of
varying degrees, in several languages, and experience of several
cultures.” (Council of Europa 2001: 168)1.
Recent research on third or multiple language acquisition suggests a
great
complexity in the
factors involved in the process, which is influenced by variables
such as typological relatedness, cultural similarity, proficiency
level, and language status (Jessner & Cenoz 2007,
Williams & Hammarberg 1998).
While research points to
several cognitive, linguistic, and social benefits of
multilingualism, multilingual education is not without challenges. To
support multilingualism, teachers and schools need not only to be
knowledgeable about language learning processes, but also to accept
and respect multilingual students and their linguistic repertoires.
As Jessner states, “[o]ne of the most difficult aims of future work
on language teacher education will be to make sure that all language
teachers are experts on multilingualism” (Jessner 2008: 45).
2.2 Multilingualism
and Language Teaching in Norway
In the
present study, we are specifically investigating the EFL classroom in
Norway.
English
has a prominent role taught as an obligatory subject beginning
in Grade 12
(Utdanningsdirektoratet 2013). For
monolingual Norwegian children, this is clearly a case of child SLA
(Second Language Acquisition). Children who speak another language
in addition to Norwegian, however, are acquiring a third language,
and developing from bilingualism
to multilingualism. Depending on their age of arrival in Norway, L2
and L3 can be developed simultaneously or consecutively.
Most
Norwegians are exposed to English through online sources, media such
as non-dubbed, subtitled films and TV-shows, and music and
literature, and fluency in English among Norwegians is generally
considered to be high (Bonnet 2004, Breivik & Hasselgren
2002, EF Education First 2013). In contrast, Nesse (2008) found that
immigrant
students’ proficiency in English
is generally lower than that of Norwegian speaking peers and is
affected by factors such as ethnic background, parents’ attitudes,
proficiency and literacy in the first language (L1), interlanguage
transfer, and qualifications of teachers working with these students.
While
English has achieved a special status both in the Norwegian society
and in the school system, and has been argued to be more than just a
foreign language (e.g. Phillipson 1992: 25), the teaching of English
in Norway is still largely influenced by traditional foreign language
teaching methodologies. Studies report fairly high teacher reliance
on textbooks, as well as a high proportion of teacher-centered
communication (Drew, Oostdam & Toorenburg 2007, Eikrem
2012, Ibsen & Hellekjær 2003, Hestetræet 2012). There
is also a reason to believe that Norwegian is relatively common as
the language of instruction in English classrooms (Drew
2004, Drew et al. 2007, Eikrem 2012), including heavy
reliance on translation (Mehl 2014).
This
may in part be due to low teacher competence in English, especially
in primary schools where, until recently, there were no formal
requirements for an English endorsement. Furthermore, although there
have always been minority language speakers in Norway, it has
historically been considered a fairly monolingual society. If all
students in a classroom share Norwegian as their L1, teachers may
feel that it is beneficial to support L2 learning by instruction and
explanations in the L1. However, if Norwegian is used for
communication in English classroom, students with minority language
backgrounds, whose Norwegian proficiency may be low, may face an
additional disadvantage.
It has been estimated
that children of linguistically, culturally and ethnically diverse
backgrounds constitute 11% of the student population in Norway
(Utdanningsdirektoratet 2012a). Depending on the school, these
numbers can reach as high as 95%, as is the case in certain schools
in Oslo (Surkalovic 2014). The exact statistics about languages
spoken by minority language students in Norway are not available, but
based on advertised openings for mother tongue teachers, it can be
estimated that at least 179 various languages are spoken in Norwegian
schools (Wilhelmsen et al. 2013). The Norwegian Education Act (1998)
guarantees minority language students a right to mother tongue
education and to adequate support for Norwegian language development.
Thus, upon arrival, immigrant children are typically placed in a
“mottak” school or classroom, which are specially designed to
provide transitional bilingual education and adapted instruction to
meet individual student needs. These programs focus on developing
proficiency in Norwegian, including speaking, reading and writing in
Norwegian, and children are expected to exit the program within one
or two years and to enter mainstream education
(Utdanningsdirektoratet 2012b).
Despite
the European Commission’s recognition of the crucial role that
foreign language teachers fulfil in supporting multilingualism
(European Commission 2005), English is often treated as unrelated to
the development of minority students’ multilingual competence.
Additionally, research suggests that despite the rapid increase of
minority language student populations in
western countries,
teachers in these countries lack adequate competence and skills to
work with linguistically and culturally diverse students, and the
overall awareness of issues related to multilingualism is low (Evans,
Arnot-Hopffer & Jurich 2005, Faez 2012, Ladson-Billings
2000, Rushton 2000).
2.3 EFL Teacher
Education in Norway
Teacher
education programs in Norway are offered
by universities
and university colleges and are available in three tracks:
Grades 1-7, Grades
5-10, and Grades 8-13. In addition, kindergarten teacher education
supplemented by an additional 60 credits (equivalent to one year of
full-time studies) qualifies for teaching in Grades 1-4. Typically,
students in teacher education programs are required to take general
courses in pedagogy (30-60 credits), and students in the 1-7 track
are required to obtain credits in Norwegian and mathematics. The
national guidelines specify the number
of credit hours
required for an English teaching endorsement, which is 60 credits at
the
middle-school and high school level, while for elementary school
teachers a requirement of 30 credits was only introduced in 2015.
Thus, it has not been uncommon for teachers in Norway to teach
English without an EFL endorsement (Drew et al. 2007, Lagerstrøm
2007, Eurydice & Eurostat 2012). In addition, English
teacher education programs have a fair amount of autonomy in
determining the content of the courses they offer, and the methods of
delivery and assessment. As a result, pedagogies and approaches vary
among faculties.
The national guidelines
for teacher education do not specifically state that English language
teachers should be trained to work with linguistically, culturally
and ethnically diverse students. To our knowledge, very few programs
give attention to the special needs of multilingual and multicultural
learners. Multilingual and multicultural perspectives may be infused
into pedagogy courses and Norwegian language courses, but are mostly
absent from English courses. As there is no uniform approach to
integrating a linguistically and culturally responsive pedagogy in
teacher training curricula, the majority of graduates may not receive
any preparation in this area, at all.
Few
studies on the Norwegian EFL teachers’ preparedness to work with
minority language populations exist. Surkalovic (2014) examined
whether pre-service language teachers (PLTs) possessed the necessary
skills to support
linguistically diverse students linguistically, culturally and
ethnically. She found that PLTs lack knowledge
about the extent of linguistic diversity in Norway, have a
superficial understanding of language acquisition processes, and are
unable to perform a contrastive analysis of Norwegian and other
languages, which
the author identified
as important skills for teachers working in multilingual classrooms.
Nonetheless, the participants in the study thought it was important
for them to develop skills and knowledge that are relevant
to work
with culturally
and linguistically diverse students. In a qualitative project,
Krulatz & Torgersen (2016) observed and interviewed
in-service EFL teachers and found that they respected their students'
multilingual backgrounds and were invested in their wellbeing, but
that there was a need for a greater understanding of multilingualism.
Dahl & Krulatz (2016) used some of the same interview data
as well as the descriptive statistics and additional comments
obtained in the present study to triangulate teachers' responses
about their preparedness for teaching diverse classrooms. They argued
that despite feeling somewhat competent to work with multilingual
students, Norwegian EFL teachers needed further training.
Considering
the increasing numbers of multilingual students in classrooms in
Europe and the important role of EFL teachers in supporting
children’s multilingual development (European Commission 2005), the
issue of teacher-preparedness to work with diverse populations
appears to be an urgent one. The present study aims to address the
existing gaps, specifically focusing on elementary- and middle-school
EFL teachers who work with multilingual student populations. As
Norway is not the only Scandinavian country currently experiencing a
growth in its multilingual population, in particular in light of the
new waves of refugees arriving in Western Europe as a result of
conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, the present findings
may bear important implications for Norway as well as Sweden and
Denmark.
3
The Method
3.1
Research Questions
The following research
questions were raised to explore EFL teachers’ preparedness to work
with multilingual students:
- How do EFL teachers perceive their level of preparedness to work with multilingual / minority language students?
- What formal training in working with multilingual / minority language students have the EFL teachers received?
- What are the EFL teachers’ beliefs about knowledge, skills, and resources needed to successfully work with multilingual / minority language students?
- Are EFL teachers interested in receiving additional training in working with multilingual / minority language students?
- What are the relationships between the variables explored?
3.2 Data Collection
and Participants
In the
present study, a mixed-method design was used. Data were collected in
the fall of 2014, using an online survey addressed to EFL teachers. A
self-report was chosen because, although there are limitations to
self-report data, research suggests that teacher perceptions of their
preparedness are a strong
predictor of how
they perform in the classroom (Darling-Hammond et al. 2002,
Pappamihiel 2004). The survey was administered in Norwegian. It was
fully anonymous, and no IP addresses were stored.
Teachers
from about 150 elementary and middle schools in five major cities in
Norway were invited via email to participate in the study. The survey
was also shared
on social media such as Facebook, and, in addition to respondents
from the targeted cities,
eight participants residing in towns with a population of between
18,000-51,000 responded, as well as fifteen participants from towns
with a population of under 11,000. Three participants did not specify
their place of employment. In total, 192 teachers responded.
3.2 Data Analysis
After
the removal of respondents
who did not teach English at the relevant level, 176 responses were
included in
the analysis. The cities where the study was conducted were
represented as follows: Oslo (51), Bergen (29), Stavanger / Sandnes
(25), Trondheim (18), Tromsø (29), other (24). The data were coded
in Excel and analyzed, using the SPSS analytical software. In
addition to descriptive statistics,
chi-square tests were used to investigate whether there was a
significant difference between the training reported and the grade
level taught, the current type of education and an interest in
receiving additional training, self-perceived preparedness and amount
of training received, and self-perceived preparedness and interest in
receiving more training. These analyses were included to gain a
better understanding of the factors underlying teachers’
self-perceived readiness, and in particular of the effect of formal
training on teachers' self-perception.
Responses
to open-ended questions were analyzed qualitatively. The organization
process consisted of developing codes and identifying main themes.
The responses were coded, using the keywords training,
experience,
language
proficiency,
SLA,
multilingual
studies,
undergraduate,
graduate,
in-service,
teaching
strategies,
activities,
theory,
differentiated
instruction,
students’
L1
and other.
Next, patterns by which keywords
could be grouped
into themes were identified. For instance, the theme of practical
applications
encompassed keywords like teaching
strategies,
activities,
and differentiated
instruction.
Some of the keywords were used to code responses to more than one
question. Specific vignettes and quotes were selected to illustrate
the findings, but as the number of open-ended responses was limited,
these findings are primarily used to provide more detail about the
patterns that emerged from the analysis of the close-ended
responses.
4 Findings
4.1 Experience and
Readiness to Work with Linguistically Diverse Students
The majority of the
respondents (87.5%) indicated that they had worked with students with
minority-language backgrounds:
Fig.1:
Distribution of participants based on whether they had taught
minority language students
With
regards to
their self-perceived preparedness to work in multilingual classrooms,
the teachers in this study reported fairly strong confidence in their
abilities. Figure 2 shows that the majority of teachers classify
themselves as somewhat prepared to work with minority language
students. Nevertheless, only 5% of the teachers indicated that they
felt very well prepared,
and 33% stated that they did not feel prepared, at all:
Fig.
2: Distribution of participants based on how prepared
they felt to teach
minority language students
Only
twelve of the participants included open-ended comments about
self-perceived preparedness. They expressed concerns about diverse
needs and proficiency levels of minority language students, their own
lack of experience and training, challenges caused by the fact that
teachers often do not speak a student’s first language, and
difficulties associated with learning two new languages, English and
Norwegian, at the same time. One respondent commented that it is
particularly challenging
to work with students who have moved from a country where English is
not taught until the 4th
grade,
and another mentioned the challenge of working in a classroom where
several different L1s are spoken.
4.2 Training in
Multilingualism
The data show that only a
minority of the participants (20%) have formal training in working
with multilingual students:
Fig.
3: Distribution of participants based on whether
they had formal
trainin
in
working with multilingual / minority language students
In a
chi-square test, a significant association was found between whether
teachers had training and how prepared they felt to work with
minority-language students, χ2
(2)
= 23.832, p<.001, showing that teachers with training in working
with such student populations were more likely to feel somewhat
prepared or very well prepared than teachers without any training.
Those
teachers who stated that they had received formal training in working
with diverse student populations were also asked to describe the type
of degree they had obtained or courses they had been enrolled in.
Eight teachers stated that they had been trained in Norwegian as a
Second Language (NSL). Training in second language methodology and in
special education were listed by four teachers each. Three of the
teachers reported that they had received other, unspecified
in-service training, and two mentioned experience working at a school
with a diverse student population. Other types of training mentioned
included courses or a degree in linguistics or bilingual education, a
pre- or in-service English teaching endorsement, a graduate degree in
intercultural relations, a degree in German teaching methodology, a
bachelor’s thesis on the topic, or a foreign degree. Some
of the teachers stated the name of the institution where they had
received their training, mentioning the University of Bergen, the
University of Oslo, the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Hedmark University College, and Hamar University College.
Interestingly, one of the teachers commented that courses with a
focus on working with multilingual / minority language
students had not been offered at the University of Tromsø, where he
received higher education.
Since
the formal competence requirements are different for teaching in
different grades, we also investigated whether the highest grade in
which teachers had taught made
a difference in whether they
had had training
to work with minority-language children. Figure 4 shows the
distribution of participants based on the highest grade taught:
Fig.
4: Distribution of participants based on the highest grade in which
they taught
A
chi-square test was performed to examine whether there was a
significant difference between whether teachers in the different
grade categories reported having had training for working with
multilingual students. However, no such difference
was found (χ2(2)=.222,
p=.895).
4.3 Knowledge, Skills
and Resources Needed to Work in Multilingual Classrooms
The
participants were also asked what knowledge, skills and resources
they believe English teachers need in order to successfully work with
multilingual students. Multiple answer choices were possible. These
results are summarised in Figure 5 below, showing that knowledge
of teaching strategies for a multilingual classroom
(85% of the respondents),
resources for differentiated (or adapted) instruction
(84%), knowledge
of language acquisition theory (70%),
and theoretical
knowledge about different aspects of multilingualism
(69%) were perceived as the most important ones. Many teachers also
selected knowledge
about students’ cultural background
(55%), knowledge
of the latest research on multilingualism
(42%), and
access to
resources
in students’
L1
(34%). The ability to speak the students’ respective first
languages was only indicated as important by a small group (5%), and
very few teachers (5%)
agreed that working
in multilingual contexts requires no special knowledge or skills:
Fig.
5: Knowledge, skills and resources English teachers need to
successfully work with multilingual
students.
The
participants were invited to elaborate on their responses by listing
other areas of expertise needed to work with diverse student
populations. Twenty-seven of the teachers did so, many merely
repeating
the answer choices available. The
open-ended responses were coded and grouped into the following
categories: knowledge of (or resources in) students’ mother tongue;
knowledge of students’ cultural background; access to research on
multilingualism; knowledge of second language and multilingual
acquisition theory; knowledge of teaching strategies in a
multilingual
classroom; resources and materials for differentiated instruction;
simply being a good teacher; other. The importance of knowledge of
the theory
of second language acquisition and multilingualism was
reiterated by
five participants, and four restated the necessity to either know
students’ respective mother tongues or to have access to materials
in languages represented in the classroom. The importance
of expertise in strategies for multilingual classrooms,
access
to resources for differentiated instruction,
familiarity
with the current research on multilingualism,
and no
special knowledge or skills
were each mentioned twice. One teacher stated that it was not
possible to speak the languages of all minority language students in
the classroom, and another one commented that minority language
students could be used as a valuable resource in the classroom.
Experience and willingness to improvise, as well as students’
proficiency levels and mother tongue typology were also mentioned.
Thus, on the one hand, many of the respondents felt that they needed
additional knowledge and skills to better serve the needs of the
multilingual students at their schools. On the other hand, one of the
participants asserted that minority language students were not unique
in any way and that all students in the classroom needed
individualized instruction.
4.4 Interest in
Additional Training
The
majority of the teachers interviewed
indicated that they were interested in receiving training in working
with minority-language students, as illustrated in Figure 6. However,
in a chi-square test, no relationship was found between whether they
had already had such training and whether they would be interested in
(more) training (χ2
(2)=1.6, p=.4153),
nor between whether they felt prepared to work with minority-language
students and whether they
would like to get some training
(χ2
(2) = 5.340, p = .2564):
Fig.
6: Participants’ responses to whether they would
like to get training in
working with minority language students
The
teachers
interviewed were
also invited to elaborate on the specific type of training they are
interested in. Forty-four submitted comments. These answers were
classified and coded into the following categories: specific
methods,
strategies
and activities;
theory
and research;
classroom
resources;
cultural
knowledge;
other.
The majority of these respondents (28 teachers; 64%) expressed an
interest in receiving more training related to the use of effective
methods, strategies and activities in the classroom. This included
activities and strategies specifically aimed at minority language
students, differentiated instruction, methods for teaching grammar
and figurative language, strategies for integrating minority language
students in the mainstream classroom, and
support of the
consecutive acquisition of two languages (Norwegian and English). One
of the respondents specifically
expressed a wish to become better prepared to work with students from
Iraq, Iran, Syria and Africa. Ten of the respondents
(23%)
stated a need for a better background in language acquisition theory
and familiarity with recent research in the area of multilingualism.
For instance, one teacher expressed an interest in learning about
“how the brain functions when we learn a foreign language” (our
translation). The respondents were also interested in acquiring more
background in cultural knowledge as well as tips on where to find
useful classroom resources. Overall, the results suggest that the
teachers have a strong interest in receiving in-service training and
are able to specify what type of training would best suit their
needs. To quote one of the participants, if teachers receive solid
training “we can ensure that all [students] receive the necessary
support to succeed in school” (our translation).
5 Discussion
The
present paper reports the results of a baseline assessment of teacher
self-perceived preparedness to work with multilingual students in the
EFL classroom in Norway. The most important finding
of this study is that, while most of the teachers reported some level
of preparedness - with 62% reporting
that they felt,
to some extent,
prepared to teach English to diverse student populations -, 89% of
the teachers stated that they
were
(possibly) interested in receiving more training in this field. At
the same time, 33% of the teachers stated that they felt not prepared
for instructing culturally and linguistically diverse students, at
all - a finding which has important implications for all parties
involved: minority language students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and teacher training institutions.
Furthermore,
our results show that the majority of the teachers (80%) do not have
any specific training in working with this special group of students.
The additional comments from those who reported that they had had
relevant training included a range of courses such as Norwegian as a
Second Language and general second language methodology. In other
words, not all such training focused on multilingualism or third
language acquisition. Still, the teachers who reported such training
felt more confident about their ability to work with multilingual
student populations.
This is encouraging and indicates that the training that is available
is relevant to teaching
in diverse classrooms.
On the
basis of the teachers' responses and additional comments regarding
the type of training they would like to receive, it is clear that
training
in
specific classroom methods, strategies and activities is needed. As
much as 85% of the participants reported a need for
practically-oriented training in teaching methods that are tailored
to the specific needs of their
students, and this is also the most common theme in the additional
comments. This result is not surprising, and reflects a common desire
in teachers for practical knowledge that can be applied in the
classroom directly.
In
addition, most teachers in the survey (84%) express a need for
resources for adapted teaching. This desire may reflect frustration
with large class sizes, especially when students' backgrounds are
heterogeneous. However,
given that “adapted teaching” in Norway is often taken to mean
instruction adjusted to students with specific needs rather than
geared to all students, it may also reflect the common perception of
monolingualism as the norm, where multilingual students are seen as
special cases that need particular
modifications in
instruction. Thus, the high percentage of teachers who selected this
option may suggest that Norwegian teacher education does not prepare
instructors for teaching diverse classrooms. One of the participants
submitted the following comment:
“I have participated in seminars… but they always give an example of a small, undifferentiated group of students… That is not my world and it is a waste of time!” (our translation).
This
comment reflects our earlier point about multilingual students being
a heterogeneous group, and underlines the
need for special teaching strategies for diverse classrooms.
A
clear majority, around 70% of the respondents, also expressed a need
for theoretical knowledge about SLA and about multilingualism, and
this is also mentioned in several comments. This estimation indicates
that Norwegian EFL teachers have an understanding of the complexity
of multilingualism, even though many have no formal training on the
topic. This interest of theirs in theoretical knowledge is
encouraging. Although specific teaching strategies are important,
successful teaching in diverse classrooms also depends on teachers
who value all the students’ languages properly, and this may, in
turn, depend on their theoretical knowledge, for example about the
benefits of (additive) multilingualism and the interdependence of
linguistic competence in the languages of multilinguals (Cummins
2000, Cenoz 2003). Without doubt, teachers need increased awareness
of issues such as codeswitching, deemed as “the most distinctive
behaviour of the bilingual speaker” (Wei & Wu 2009:
193), cross-linguistic influences (Jarvis & Pavlenko
2008), the complexity of multilingual development, and existing
models of multilingual competence. Furthermore, unless teachers are
aware of the difference between conversational fluency and academic
proficiency in a new language, they run the risk of overestimating
students’ comprehension of lesson content (Cummins 2000,
Tuveng & Wold 2005).
Not
surprisingly, approximately half of the respondents (55%) noted a
need for knowledge about the students’ cultural backgrounds.
Nonetheless, it is surprising that the remaining 45% did not select
this response.
This result may reflect the idea that integration into Norwegian
society entails adapting to Norwegian culture, which is rooted in the
predominant notion of equality
as 'sameness',
not just as 'equal opportunity' (Gullestad 1991: 4).
A
final important finding of our study is that the question of whether
or
not teachers had relevant formal education was
not correlated with
their interest in receiving additional training. Thus, it seems that
a lack of professional preparation does not necessarily correspond to
teachers being interested in receiving in-service training.
Conversely, it indicates that having some such training does not stop
teachers from desiring even more training.
Overall,
the findings suggest that an improvement of quality in EFL teacher
education and access to professional development focusing on
multilingualism is
needed. In Norway, some efforts to improve teacher qualifications to
work with diverse student populations are already under way. Although
these efforts are not specifically aimed at EFL teachers, they
constitute the first important
step in increasing
teacher awareness and providing teachers with much needed in-service
training. For instance, Competence
for Diversity
is an initiative by The Norwegian Directorate for Education and
Training to provide support for kindergartens and elementary and
middle schools. Workshops on topics such as multilingualism,
strategies for working with diverse student populations,
intercultural sensitivity, and parental involvement are offered in
collaboration with universities and university colleges. Schools
interested in receiving financial support have to conduct a needs
analysis and submit a specific plan for in-service workshops. They
are then matched with local institutions of higher education whose
faculty provide on-site training, workshops and support
(Utdanningsdirektoratet 2013).
However, participation in
such programs is voluntary. Given the unprecedented diversity in
Norwegian classrooms, it is extremely important to prepare all
teachers in Norway to work with linguistically and culturally diverse
students. We would like to propose that certification requirements
for EFL teachers in Norway be revised, and that all teachers be
offered opportunities and incentives to participate in professional
development with focus on multilingualism and culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Such requirements would also imply a
need to rewrite the curricula of existing teacher education programs,
which in turn requires qualified academic faculty. These are not
changes that will happen overnight, but rather long term goals that
require careful planning and an involvement of legislative
authorities, institutions of higher education, academic and
administrative staff at schools, and local communities.
While
the present study constitutes the first
step in assessing
the preparedness of teachers
of English to work with multilingual students in the contexts of
third language acquisition,
more
in-depth research using validated teacher efficacy instruments is
needed. While the question
of the present study was teachers' self-perceived preparedness to
teach
in multilingual classrooms, it would also be useful to follow up this
study with more objective
measures of their qualifications. Continued work in this area in
Norway can be useful, but we also want to point out that
collaborative projects with researchers in other Scandinavian and
European contexts could render more generalisable results and help
share best practices. It is important to recognize that the concerns
about teachers' preparedness to work with diverse student populations
are relevant for
the majority of Western nations. With an increased international
mobility and recent waves of refugees, teachers can no longer expect
to work in ethnically, culturally and linguistically homogenous
classrooms. New teacher training objectives need
to be set in place
by individual nations, but international collaborations and knowledge
exchange in this domain are undoubtedly welcome as well.
Bibliography
Aronin,
Larissa & David Singleton (2012). Multilingualism.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bonnet,
Gérard (ed.) (2004). The
Assessment of Pupils' Skills in English in Eight European Countries
2002. The
European Network of Policy Makers for the Evaluation of Education
Systems.
Breivik,
Leiv Egil & Angela Hasselgren (2002). From
the COLT's Mouth – and Others': Language Corpora Studies in Honour
of Anna-Brita Stenström.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Cenoz,
Jasone (2003). The Additive Effect of Bilingualism on Third Language
Acquisition: A
Review. In: International Journal of Bilingualism 7 (2003) 1, 71-87. doi:10.1177/13670069030070010501.
Council
of Europe (2001). Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment.
Council of Europe/Cambridge University Press. (www.coe.int/lang;
22/06/2016).
Cummins,
Jim (2000). Language,
Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.
Clevdon, Buffalo, Toronto & Sydney: Multilingual Matters.
Dahl,
Anne & Anna Krulatz (2016). Engelsk som tredjespråk: Har lærere
kompetanse til å støtte
flerspråklighet? In: Acta Didactica Norge 10 (2016) 1, Art. 4. (https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/adno/article/view/2397/2371;
20/06/2016).
Darling-Hammond,
Linda, Ruth Chung & Fred Frelow (2002). Variation in Teacher
Preparation: How Well Do Different Pathways Prepare Teachers to
Teach? In: Journal
of Teacher Education 53
(2002) 4, 286-302.
Drew,
Ion (2004). Survey
of English Teaching in Norwegian Primary Schools.
Stavanger: Stavanger University College.
Drew,
Ion, Ron Oostdam, & Han von Toorenburg (2007). Teachers’
Experiences and Perceptions of Primary EFL in Norway and the
Netherlands: A Comparative Study. In: European
Journal of Teacher Education 30
(2007) 3, 319-341.
EF
Education First (2013). EF
English Proficiency Index.
EF Education First. (http://www.ef.no/epi/;
29/11/2016).
Eikrem,
Bjørg Olsen (2012). "Betre å vere stor enn liten".
Korleis elevane opplever engelskfaget, sett i lys av arbeidsmåtane
som vert nytta. In: Haug, Peder (ed.) (2012). Kvalitet
i opplæringa: Arbeid i grunnskulen observert og vurdert.
Oslo:
Det norske samlaget, 101-121.
Eurydice & Eurostat. (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages in Europe. (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143en.pdf;
29/11/2016).
European
Commission. (2005): Communication
from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions: A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism (COM
2005, 596 final).
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0596;
16.12.2015).
Evans,
Carol, Elizabeth Arnot-Hopffer & Donna Jurich (2005). Making Ends
Meet: Bringing Bilingual Education and Mainstream Students Together
in Preservice Teacher Education. In: Equity
and Excellence in Education 38
(2005) 1,
75-88.
Faez,
Farahnaz (2012). Diverse Teachers for Diverse Students:
Internationally Educated and Canadian-Born Teachers’ Preparedness
to Teach English Language Learners. In: Canadian
Journal of Education 35 (2012) 3, 64-84. (http://www.cje-rce.ca/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/9
67/1323; 29/11/2016).
Grosjean,
François (2010). Bilingual:
Life and Reality.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gullestad,
Marianne (1991). The Scandinavian Version of Egalitarian
Individualism. In: Ethnologia
Scandinavica
21 (1991), 3-18.
Hestetræet,
Torill (2012). Teacher Cognition and the Teaching and Learning of EFL
Vocabulary. In: Hasselgreen, Angela, Ion Drew and Bjørn Sørheim
(eds.) (2012). The
Young Language Learner: Research-Based Insights Into Teaching and
Learning.
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 177-190.
Ibsen,
Elisabeth & Glenn Ole Hellekjær (2003). A Profile of Norwegian
Teachers of English in the 10th Grade. In:
Simensen,
Aud Marit (ed.) (2003). Teaching
and Learning a Foreign or Second Language. Studies and Applications.
Oslo:
University of Oslo,
68-86.
Jarvis,
Scott & Aneta Pavlenko (2008). Crosslinguistic
Influence in Language and Cognition.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Jessner,
Ulrike (2008). Teaching Third Languages: Findings, Trends, and
Challenges. In: Language
Teaching, 41
(2008) 1, 15-56.
Jessner,
Ulrike, & Jasone Cenoz (2007). Teaching English as a Third
Language. In: Cummins, Jim & Chris Davison (eds.) (2007).
International
Handbook of English Language Teaching.
New York, NY: Springer, 155-167.
Krulatz,
Anna & Eivind N. Torgersen (2016). The Role of the EFL Classroom
in Maintaining Multilingual Identities: Issues and Considerations in
Sør-Trøndelag Public Schools. In: Álvarez Valencia, José et al.
(eds.) (2016). Critical
Views on Teaching and Learning English Around the Globe. Qualitative
Research Approaches.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 53-68.
Ladson-Billings,
Gloria (2000). Fighting for Our Lives: Preparing Teachers to Teach
African- American Students. In:
Journal
of Teacher Education 51
(2000) 3, 206-214.
Lagerstrøm,
Bengt Oscar (2007). Kompetanse
i grunnskolen: Hovedresultater 2005/2006
Rapporter.
Oslo-Kongsvinger:
Statistisk sentralbyrå.
Mehl,
Tonje Haugen (2014). Attitudes
and Awareness Around Codeswitching. What are Teachers’ and
Students’ Attitudes Towards Codeswitching in the English Learner
Classroom in Norway,
and what can Influence the Teachers’ Utilization of it? Master’s thesis. (https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/40548;
17.08.2016).
Nesse,
Kristine (2008). Multilingualism:
Challenges Facing Minority Background Pupils Learning English as a
Third Language in Norwegian Primary Schools.
Master’s Thesis. Available from University of Stavanger Open
Research Archive (No. UIS-HF-IKS/2008).
Norwegian
Education Act (1998). Lov
om grunnskolen og den vidregåande opplæringa.
(https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61;
03/12/2015)
Phillipson,
R. (1992). Linguistic
Imperialism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pappamihiel,
Eleni N. (2004). Hugs and Smiles: Demonstrating Caring in a
Multicultural Early Childhood Classroom. In: Early
Childhood Development and Care 174
(2004) 6, 539-548.
Rushton,
Stephen (2000). Student Teacher Efficacy in Inner-City Schools. In:
The
Urban Review 32
(2000) 4, 365-383.
(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026459809392;
29.11.2016).
Statistics
Norway (2015): Immigrants
and Norwegian-Born to Immigrant Parents: Create Your Own
Graphs. (https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selectvarval/Define.asp?subjectcode=&ProductI
d=&MainTable=FolkInnvkatLand&nvl=&PLanguage=0&nyTmpVar=true&CMSSubjectArea=befolkning&KortNavnWeb=innvbef&StatVariant=&checked=true;
29/11/2016).
Surkalovic, Dragana (2014). Forbereder grunnskolelærerutdanningen engelsklærere for undervisning
i engelsk som tredjespråk i Norge? In:
Acta
Didactica Norge 8
(2014) 2, Art. 6.
Téllez,
Kip & Manka Varghese (2013). Teachers as Intellectuals and
Advocates: Professional Development for Bilingual Education Teachers.
In: Theory
Into Practice 52
(2013), 128-135.
Tuveng,
Elena & Astri Heen Wold (2005). The Collaboration of Teacher and
Language-Minority Children in Masking Comprehension Problems in the
Language of Instruction: A Case Study in an Urban Norwegian School.
In:
Language
and Education 19
(2005) 6, 513-536.
Utdanningsdirektoratet
(2012a): Statistikkrapport.
Barn, unge og voksne med innvandrerbakgrunn i
grunnopplæringen. (http://www.udir.no/Tilstand/Analyser-og-statistikk/Statistikk-over-innvandrere-i-grunnopplaringen/;
23.04.2015).
Utdanningsdirektoratet (2012b). Innføringstilbud til nyankomne minoritetsspråklige elever. (http://www.udir.no/globalassets/upload/lov_regelverk/veiledere/veileder_innforingstilbud_020712.pdf;
29./11/2016)
Utdanningsdirektoratet (2013). Kompetanse for mangfold. (http://www.udir.no/Utvikling/Artikler-utvi
kling/Kompetanseloft-pa-det-flerkulturelle-omradet-2013-2017/;
31/05/2016).
Webster,
Nina Lee & Angela Valeo (2011). Teacher Preparedness for a
Changing Demographic of Language Learners. In: TESL
Canada Journal 28
(2011)
2), 105-128.
Wei,
Li & Chao-Jung Wu (2009). Polite Chinese Children Revisited:
Creativity and the Use of Codeswitching in the Chinese Complementary
School Classroom. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12
(2009) 2,
193-211.
Wilhelmsen,
Marit et al. (2013). Minoritetsspråk
i Norge: En kartlegging av eksisterende datakilder og drøfting av
ulike fremgangsmåter for statistikk om språk. Oslo,
Kongsvinger: Statistisk sentralbyrå.
Williams,
Sarah & Bjorn Hammarberg (1998). Language Switches in L3
Production: Implications for a Polyglot Speaking Model. In: Applied
Linguistics 19
(1998)
3, 295-333.
Authors:
Anna
Krulatz, PhD
Associate
Professor
Sør-Тrøndelag University
College
Department
of English
Rotvoll
allé
Trondheim
Norway
Email:
anna.m.krulatz@hist.no
Anne
Dahl, PhD
Associate
Professor
NTNU
– Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Department
of Language and Literature,
Faculty
of Humanities
Dragvoll
Edvard
Bulls veg 1
Trondheim
Norway
Email:
anne.j.dahl@ntnu.no
1The
Council of Europe distinguishes between plurilingualism
and multilingualism,
with the first term referring to individuals, and the latter to
social contexts. In this paper, however, we use the term
multilingualism
to also refer to individuals, as is common in the field.
2In
Norway, other foreign languages, such as Spanish, German, and
Chinese are offered as electives beginning in 8th
grade.
3The
significance value of Fisher's exact test is reported since one
expected value was below 5.
4The
significance value of Fisher's exact test is reported since three
expected values were below 5.