31 SES 06 B, Uncovering the Beliefs and Practices of Pre- and In-Service Teachers for Linguistically Responsive Teaching
Objectives and theoretical framework
In a cosmopolitan global society, we need to acknowledge and value diversity more than ever, especially in a union across countries, Europe. One aspect of diversity is language: Pupils bring a variety of linguistic biographies into the classroom and therefore not only have different competencies in the main language at school, in this study German, but also disparities in their acquisition of competencies. Hence, Teachers must be aware of the (subject specific) language and the challenges it may pose for pupils to access content. Teachers need to teach linguistically responsive to assure pupils access to content, to encourage them to develop literacy skills and to offer language development support (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Linguistically responsive teaching (Lucas & Villegas, 2013) is a concept that defines fundamental orientations and types of pedagogical knowledge and skills teachers need in this field. To create a meaningful learning situation to all students in a classroom, teachers should address cultural as well as linguistic knowledge and experiences of students. By doing so, students are enabled to engage, not only content wise but also socially and emotionally (Acquah et al., 2016). Linguistically and culturally responsive teaching are linked and culturally and linguistically competent teachers improve their students’ academic success (Gay, 2010; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). In contrast, teachers may disadvantage their students by not being sufficiently prepared to simultaneously teaching content and (academic) language (Villegas, 2018).
As teachers need to be prepared to take the responsibility and teach linguistically and culturally responsive (Cho et al., 2020), we need to know how to prepare teachers. Focusing on the role of language in content classrooms, on teachers’ competence to embrace language support in their teaching and on LRT-relevant learning opportunities that teachers need to be prepared to teach linguistically responsive, is the starting point of our research. Relevant learning opportunities in this field in teacher education are very divers so far and are not empirically evaluated concerning their effectiveness for learning. The interdisciplinary project DaZKom-Video has developed a test instrument to measure (pre-service) teachers’ competence in linguistic responsive teaching performance-oriented.
Therefore, we follow the concept competence as a continuum (Blömeke et al., 2015): Accordingly, professional knowledge is part of the teachers’ individual dispositions, besides affect motivation and beliefs. The situation-specific skills such as perception or decision making are mediating between the dispositions and the performance (Blömeke et al., 2015): Teachers dispositions influence their situation-specific skills (perception, interpretation, and decision-making) and affect their performance
To assess LRT-relevant performance rather than dispositions, we used video vignettes in our assessment that showed LRT-relevant teaching situations as they illustrate the complexity of teaching more appropriately (Blömeke, König, et al., 2015; Casale et al., 2016). The test requested oral responses as we assume that an oral response format captures an actual performance more realistically than written responses as they represent a natural action. Oral responses create time pressure, the test persons are deprived of time to structure their thoughts and to ask for learned knowledge (Lemmrich et al., 2020).
Based on the presented theoretical framework, the following two research questions emerge:
- How satisfactory is the test instrument´s psychometrical quality?
- Which relations can be identified between the LRT-competence of the test persons, the individual and academic characteristics, learning opportunities and personality factors (big five)?
Method The test instrument was developed in the DaZKom-Video Project. It consists of 12 video-vignettes, one to three minutes long´, with two corresponding items each. The test is presented on tablets with headphones and the oral responses are audiotaped. Referring to the presented theoretical background, the items are based on the situation-specific skills perception and decision-making (Blömeke et. al, 2015). Therefore, the test persons are asked to respond to the following two questions after every vignette: 1) What do you perceive? 2) How would you act if you were in this situation? Additionally, the test includes a multiple-choice-questionnaire to survey learning opportunities, individual and academic background of test persons (teaching experience, subjects of studies, etc.), beliefs about multilingualism in school (Fischer, Hammer, & Ehmke, 2018) and personality factors (Big Five, Goldberg, 1990). The results allow conclusions on the relationship between LRT-competence and additional variables. Additionally, effects of the response format can be evaluated. The responses were coded with a coding manual that was validated in expert interviews and expert ratings. Data were collected in three different studies: pre-pilot (summer 2018), pilot (winter 2018/2019) and standardization study (April to August 2019) (N = 598) in different educational contexts in Germany: pre-service teacher trainings at universities and in-service teacher trainings for experienced teachers.
Expected outcomes/results Over the period of the test development, the vignettes, the items and also the coding manual were carefully revised after each study and also rated by experts. The test was conducted with larger sample for each study and an increasing number of in-service teachers. While the pre-pilot sample consisted of 77.4% pre-service teachers, the latest study was conducted with 56.9% pre-service teachers and 38.9% in-service teachers. The reliability of the final test instrument is acceptable (Cronbachs Alpha = 0.76) and the overlap between persons’ ability and item difficulty is satisfying. The results of the pre-pilot and the pilot study show that an additional certificate that proves experience in linguistically responsive teaching of respondents, highly correlates (r = 0.22/0.20; p ≤ 0.01) with the test persons’ ability to score higher in the LRT-competency test. Surprisingly, teaching experience in this field did not show significant correlations in two of the three studies, only the pilot study showed significant correlations (r = 0.16; p ≤ 0.01). Similar results appear for the learning opportunities (r=0.18; p ≤ 0.01). The findings of the standardization study illustrate a higher test score for participants who are experienced in LRT and those who are studying/teaching English. Participants with positive beliefs are more likely to perform better in the test: Positive beliefs towards multilingualism in subject teaching (r=0.21**) as well as positive beliefs concerning the responsibility for language support (r=0.25**) correlate highly with the measured LRT competence in the standardization study. Personality factors do not show a connection to LRT-competence. Based on the results, an oral response format does not benefit or disadvantage certain personalities and therefore might be a fair test format. We conclude that, besides linguistic knowledge and language awareness, positive beliefs seem to play a fundamental role in teacher education concerning LRT.
References Acquah, E.O., Commins, N. L., Niemi, T. (2016). Preparing Teachers for Linguistic and Cultural Diversity. Experiences of Finnish Teacher Trainees. In: B. Koch-Priewe und M. Krüger-Potratz (Eds.), Qualifizierung für sprachliche Bildung. Programme und Projekte zur Professionalisierung von Lehrkräften und pädagogischen Fachkräften (pp. 111-129). Münster, New York: Waxmann (Die deutsche Schule Beiheft, 13). Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E. & Shavelson, R.J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 3-13. Blömeke, S., König, J., Suhl, U., Hoth, J., Döhrmann, M. (2015). Wie situationsbezogen ist die Kompetenz von Lehrkräften? Zur Generalisierbarkeit der Ergebnisse von videobasierten Performanztests. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 61 (3), S. 310-327. Casale, G., Strauß, S., Hennemann, T., König, J., (2016). Wie lässt sich Klassenführungsexpertise messen? Überprüfung eines videobasierten Erhebungsinstruments für Lehrkräfte unter Anwendung der Generalisierbarkeitstheorie. Empirische Sonderpädagogik (2), 119-139. Cho, S., Lee, H.-J., Herner-Patnode, L. (2020). Factors Influencing Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Needs of Diverse Learners. The Teacher Educator, 55 (4), 411-429. DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2020.1805835. Fischer, N., Hammer, S., & Ehmke, T (2018). Überzeugungen zu Sprache im Fachunterricht: Erhebungsinstrument und Skalendokumentation. In T. Ehmke, S. Hammer, A. Köker, U. Ohm & B. Koch-Priewe (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenzen angehender Lehrkräfte im Bereich Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Münster: Waxmann. Gay, Geneva (2010). Culturally responsive teaching. Theory, research, and practice. 2. ed. New York: Teachers College (Multicultural education series). Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (6), 1216-1229. DOI: 10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.526. Lemmrich, S., Bahls, A. & Ehmke, T. (2020): Effekte von mündlichen versus schriftlichen Antwortformaten bei der performanznahen Messung von Deutsch-als-Zweitsprache (DaZ)-Kompetenz - eine experimentelle Studie mit angehenden Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 1-11. DOI: 10.1024/1010-0652/a000282. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers: Laying the Foundation in Preservice Teacher Education. Theory Into Practice, 52 (2), 98-109. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2013.770327. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.