This research aims to explore teachers’ curriculum making practices in language diverse contexts in Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 in England. Drawing from Priestley et al. (2021) hermeneutic framework of curriculum making, we understand teachers’ curriculum making practices in language diverse mathematics classrooms as social and relational practices that emerge in relationality with students, subject, curriculum and environments. These practices involve, but are not limited to, constructing, and enacting a perception of language diversity in mathematics classrooms, translating the National Curriculum documents by selecting content, choosing pedagogical approaches, enacting a range of assessment methods, and so on. Language diverse mathematics classrooms refer to classrooms where diverse languages are used for communication, including official languages of instruction (English), languages employed for teaching, thinking, and learning processes (Planas et al., 2018). Therefore, language diversity goes beyond ‘multilingualism’ or ‘English as Additional Language’ discourses and involves dialects, sign languages, diagrams, gestures, symbols, and more.

The role of teachers in addressing language diversity in mathematics classrooms is well-established in the literature (Chronaki et al., 2022; Lucas et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2019; Xenofontos, 2016;). While some researchers examined teachers’ perspectives on language diversity (e.g. Turner et. al., 2019), or their classroom enactments (e.g., Adler,1998; Gutiérrez, 2002; Khisty and Viego,1999), there is still a need to explore how language diversity is mediated by teachers through a more comprehensive lens that captures a range of social-relational practices at different curriculum making sites. Hence, our research is located at the nexus of micro (i.e., in schools) and nano (i.e., in classrooms) sites of curriculum making by teachers as main actors (Priestley et al., 2021), while accounting for other sites of curriculum making where necessary.

In order to address this gap, we will address the following research questions:

1. How do teachers make curriculum in language diverse classrooms? (e.g., sense-making of language diversity and its relation to teaching and learning of mathematics, content selection, lesson planning, classroom transactions, assessment, etc.)
2. What are the generative mechanisms underlying teachers’ curriculum making practices in language diverse mathematics classrooms?

Theoretical and philosophical framework

We utilise concepts from Priestley et al.’s (2015) ecological approach to teacher agency to understand how personal, structural, and cultural factors influence teachers’ curriculum making practices in temporal and relational spaces. This framework is helpful for us to shed a socio-cultural light into mathematics teaching practices and understand how teachers achieve (or not) agency by means of their environment. Critical realism, as our philosophical framework, shapes our data analysis and the presentation of findings in particular ways (Danermark et al., 2002). Two key ideas from critical realism are particularly pertinent in our research. First, we distinguish the observable, empirical reality between the unobservable real world (Bhaskar, 1998). Second, this distinction can be made through identifying generative or causal mechanisms in the unobservable real world, that underlie the events we observe at the empirical level. Therefore, we borrow ‘generative mechanisms’ as an analytical concept from critical realism to help us identify how and why teachers make curriculum in various ways in language diverse mathematics classrooms.

This research utilises a multiple study design (Stake, 2015) and employs qualitative research methods, including semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations. From a critical realist perspective, interviews offer rich and in-depth information about participants’ experiences, underlying factors (e.g., structural and cultural) (Smith & Elger, 2014) which aligns well with our theoretical frameworks. Non-participant observations will be undertaken to gain enhanced access to the empirical domain of reality (Mason, 2002) and support our identification of generative mechanisms. Nano curriculum making practices will also be accessible through in-classroom observations to be able to grasp a better understanding of classroom transactions. Our sample includes one public and one private school with 5 teacher interviews (Years 4, 5, 6, 8 and a maths lead) and 10 classroom observations in total. Both purposive and convenience sampling strategies (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017) were utilised to recruit teachers, through circulating a research flyer within our professional networks and targeting teachers from different year groups and schools from both private and public sector. Ethics approval for the project is secured from the School Research Ethics Panel (SREP - ETH2324-2798) at Anglia Ruskin University.

In this presentation, we will zoom into one of the teachers’ practices to illustrate how teacher agency (or lack thereof) is a strong generative mechanism to understand why teachers might act in various ways. In particular, we will offer discussions on how pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., how to teach partitioning using a range of linguistic tools), beliefs and perceptions around language diversity in school mathematics nested in national refugee policies and practices (e.g., what linguistically diverse students can or can not understand and do in mathematics) intersect as other strong mechanisms and engender particular curriculum making practices in language diverse contexts. We will argue the extent to which 'Maths Schemes Killing the Teacher’s Agency Star' (a reference to a popular song by The Buggles) is largely dependent on the aforementioned mechanisms, operating under the shadow of OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills), the inspectorate body in England, and the National Curriculum.

Selected references: Chronaki, A., Planas, N., & Svensson Källberg, P. (2022). Onto/Epistemic Violence and Dialogicality in Translanguaging Practices Across Multilingual Mathematics Classrooms. Teachers College Record. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221104040 Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in social sciences. London: Routledge. Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2-3), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_5 Planas, N., Morgan, C., & Schütte, M. (2018). Mathematics education and language. Lessons from two decades of research. In T. Dreyfus, M. Artigue, D. Potari, S. Prediger, & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Developing research in mathematics education. Twenty years of communication, cooperation and collaboration in Europe. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S., & Soini, T. (2021). Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Turner, E., Roth McDuffie, A., Sugimoto, A., Aguirre, J., Bartell, T. G., Drake, C., & Witters, A. (2019). A study of early career teachers’ practices related to language and language diversity during mathemat- ics instruction. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 21(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2019.1564967.