Revising Primary School Teachers’ Language Beliefs and Language Pedagogy

Author(s):

Merja Kauppinen(presenting / submitting)Johanna Kainulainen(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

31. LEd – Network on Language and Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

31 SES 01, Teachers and Multilingualism: From Beliefs to Practice

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

13:15-14:45

Room:

OB-Theatre C

Chair:

Sarah McMonagle

Contribution

There is a strong tendency emphasize phenomenon and problem based learning, when developing school culture and simultaneously pedagogical practices (Fogarty & Brian 2009). This also applies to the latest curriculum process in the Finnish comprehensive school (NCC 2014). Further, the holistic learning tendency leads to trans-curricular contents and interdisciplinary learning, and in this process the language subjects also undergo transition (Vollmer 2006). The role and tasks of the L1 (Finnish) as a school subject are considered in a new way if we pursue the ideas of languages as cross-curricular subjects and encounter school languages as a learning resource in all subjects. An essential role has also been given to the promotion of multiliteracy competencies in all school subjects together with the Digital Turn in learning and the increasing amount of multilingual groups (Holm & Pitkänen-Huhta 2012). In bridging the gap between free time and school literacy practices among pupils, multiliteracy pedagogy is currently a topical issue.

Teachers’ professionality and willingness to create new pedagogical practices are challenged by all curricular changes. There is therefore a need for various in-service education initiatives for teachers and administrators. Regarding mother tongue and literature instruction, 80 % of the Finnish L1 syllabus is taught in primary education. Consequently, the need for in-service education among primary school teachers is considerable. We have responded to this challenge by constructing a year-long in-service education program in mother tongue and literature (Finnish), which a total of 61 teachers and almost graduated teacher students completed, each studying 15–25 ECTS: 29 teachers in 2011 and 32 in 2015.

In this paper, we concentrate on the language beliefs of the primary school teachers and the changes regarding these beliefs during the education program. There is evidence that the relation between beliefs and actions is dynamic (Barcelos & Kalaja 2011). So it can be assumed that if teachers are able to revise their beliefs about language, language use and its learning, it affects their pedagogical practices. Language beliefs reveal the ways language and its use are seen and considered. They can be defined as the attitudes towards language and its use, and are regarded as true by language users. Because of the labile nature of language beliefs, teachers’ beliefs can be affected in social situations and communication contexts, e.g. by colleagues and education policy. (McCarthey & Mkhize 2006; Barcelos & Kalaja 2011.)

The teachers’ in-service education program was composed of 5 modules, which were all founded on such pedagogical bases as right-time peer- and self-reflection of action, practical and virtual support of peers and educators, and guided testing in each teacher’s class. These are the elements which we expected to scaffold the practical and conceptual changes in attitudes and views of the teachers. As Borg (2006) notes, changes in language beliefs are tied to reflection and action. It’s also worth noticing that although beliefs are produced socially, everyone gives beliefs meanings of their own (Barcelos & Kalaja 2011). Despite all the modelling and knowledge provided during the program, it’s the teacher herself who works with her pedagogical ideas and creates practices in her class.

In this paper, we investigate the experiences, opinions, and attitudes of primary school teachers regarding language and its use in a pedagogical context. Our research questions are:

How do the teachers describe their views about language and its use, language instruction, and the role of L1 as a school subject before and after the program?
How is language use understood and its role valued in learning by the teachers before and after the program?

Method

The data consists of motivation papers (n=58) which were attached to the letters of application, and the answers to the feedback questionnaire (n=61) at the end of the program. The data were gathered in two different education programs in 2011 and 2015. The teachers were asked to argue freely why they were applying for the program, and what kind of aims and contents they wanted to handle with peers. The length and content of motivation papers vary considerably. Using a 5-point Likert scale the feedback questionnaire included questions about their learning in different content areas and satisfaction with the educational practices of the program. Accordingly, after each Likert scale question, there were open-ended questions asking for arguments and clarifications of answers. Space was also left in the feedback form for general comments. The feedback answers also vary according to their content and length. Despite differences in these data documents, both data sets include plenty of reflective sessions which reveal opinions and attitudes about language and its use. The total amount of data is as follows: 29 sheets of motivation papers in 2011 and 29 in 2015; 40 sheets of answers to the feedback questionnaire in 2011 and 32 in 2015. The motivation papers and the feedback answers were analyzed by data-driven content analysis into thematic groups that are alike, similar or homogeneous in relation to each research question (categorical analysis, Lankshear & Knobel 2004, 270). The thematic groups of both data sets were compared to each other by matching classes identified language beliefs. All of the analyses were cross-checked by both researchers.

Expected Outcomes

The pre-results show a large variation in language beliefs among primary school teachers at the beginning of the program. On the one hand, teachers focus on explicit knowledge of language. They prefer instruction of separate language skills when language is seen the target of learning (see Hawkins 1999; Andrews 2007). On the other, language is described as a medium of learning. In these cases, teachers report using real-world literacy situations as a learning resource in their lessons. There is also variation in understanding the breadth of childrens' textual environments and the multiliteracy practices needed there. Mills (2005) refers to the opposition between traditional and renewing mindsets in literacy competencies and literacy pedagogy. There has also been discussion of how to bridge the gap between school and home and the literacy practices on both sides (Pahl & Rowsell 2005). Generally, there are more aspects of multiliteracy pedagogy among teacher students and among the teachers in the 2015 education program than among the 2011 teachers, which might have its roots in curricular changes. Teachers especially describe in detail the effects of their classroom interventions and thematic, problem based learning programs at the end of the education program. This reflection reveals the teachers repositioning themselves as language teachers as well as creating new L1 teaching methods instead of adhering closely and regularly to the textbook. Some teachers feel embarrassed about their experiences of new literacy instruction. It’s hard to initiate new pedagogical practices in the teacher community, and in the worst case attempting it alone. In summary, the acquisition of methods and models under which teachers can create pedagogical understanding, does not guarantee its transfer to classroom practices (e.g. Cots 2008). It much depends on teachers’ courage and will to update their professionality even though the school environment does not support this work.

References

Andrews, S. 2007. Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barcelos, A. M. F. & Kalaja, P. 2011. Introduction to beliefs about SLA revisited. System 39(3), 281–289. Cots, J. M. 2008. Knowledge about language in the mother tongue and foreign language curricula. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 2nd edition. Vol. 6. Springer, 15–30. Fogarty, R. J. & Brian, M. P. 2009. How to integrate the curricula. 3rd edition. California: SAGE. Holm, L. & Pitkänen-Huhta, A. 2012. Literacy practices in transition: setting the scene. In L. Holm & A. Pitkänen-Huhta 2012. Literacy practices in transition. Perspectives from the Nordic countries. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 1–23. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. 2004. A handbook for teacher research. From design to implementation. London: Open University Press. Mills, K. 2005. Deconstructing binary oppositions in literacy discourse and pedagogy. Australian Journal of Language Literacy 28 (1), 67–82. NCC = National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. 2005. Literacy and education: understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London: Chapman. Vollmer, H. J. 2006. Intergovernmental Conference Languages of Schooling: towards a Framework for Europe. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.

Author Information

Merja Kauppinen (presenting / submitting)

University of Jyväskylä

Department of Teacher Education

University of Jyväskylä

Johanna Kainulainen (presenting)

University of Jyväskylä

Department of Teacher Education

University of Jyväskylä

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for