Finland’s education system is viewed as highly effective, based on the level of student performance in international comparisons (PISA, 2003, 2006), as well as parity in achievement in terms of sex, domicile, and socio-economic background (Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007). Soilamo (2008) however found that Finnish teachers do not have the appropriate knowledge base and strategies to address the needs of multilingual learners. Itkonen and Jahnukainen, (2007) suggest that increasing diversity is resulting in growing gaps in achievement between immigrants and native Finnish students. To address these gaps Finnish teachers need a grounding in both linguistically (Lucas & Villegas, 2013) and culturally responsive practices (Gay, 2010). In three different contexts, 400 participants completed questionnaires with both open and closed ended questions regarding their awareness of and ability to use strategies for teaching students learning content and literacy through their second (or third) languages. Informants were asked to rate their levels of knowledge and skill on a six-point Likert-type scale. Open-ended question solicited teachers’ understanding of how to support multilingual learners and in what areas they felt they would need support. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics for descriptive statistics and frequencies. Multilevel analysis including MANOVA and Cluster analysis were used to identify profiles of teachers and examine associations between awareness of diversity and strategies for teaching. Qualitative data were analyzed by coding and creating categories based on participants’ responses (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Data from the teacher training school suggest that most teachers were highly aware that academic outcomes of their diverse learners were influenced by factors related to language, culture, race, and ethnicity. However even veteran teachers did not have in-depth knowledge about strategies that could help them work successfully with this population. In particular, they were unfamiliar with ways to use learners’ prior knowledge and experiences as well as their linguistic resources. Results from teachers in the broader municipality suggest that they had comparatively lower awareness and less knowledge of specific strategies. Beginning teachers reported the lowest levels of awareness despite having what appeared to be a positive attitude toward culturally responsive pedagogy. The findings provide insight into aspects of teachers’ knowledge about both the linguistic and cultural needs of their students, as well as what constitutes a repertoire of approaches and strategies to assure students’ academic success.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008): Basics of qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Itkonen, T. & Jahnukainen, M. (2007) An analysis of accountability policies in Finland and the United States, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 5-23. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education, Theory into Practice, 52, 98-109. Kivirauma, J. & Ruoho, K. (2007) Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish school reform, Review of Education, 53, 283-302. Soilamo, O. 2008. Opettajan monikulttuurinen työ [Teacher’s multicultural work]. Turku: Turun yliopiston julkaisuja.