The aim of the study is to find out how teachers in Finnish basic education pay attention to language in their teaching. In addition, we aim to investigate whether knowledge of linguistically responsive teaching is linked to the teachers´ understanding and skills to support language learning in addition to teaching content. We define linguistically responsive teaching as the teacher orientations and pedagogical skills to support content and language learning simultaneously. These include, for example, understanding the role of language in all teaching and learning, modifying teaching to suit the students language proficiency and promoting the use of multilingual resources (see, e.g. Lucas & Villegas, 2011). 

As language is the foundation for most learning that takes place in schools, supporting language learning is a vital part of teaching. As a response to the increasing migration into Finland, the current Finnish core curricula for Basic Education (EDUFI, 2014) requires all teachers to take language into account in their teaching, that is to be linguistically responsive. While the importance of linguistically responsive teaching is widely recognised, there are still challenges in its practical implementation; These have been contributed to both lack of resources, as well as lack of knowledge and skills (see e.g., Alisaari et al., 2019; Heikkola et al., 2022; Iversen, 2019; Lundberg, 2019).

In this paper, we focus on how primary school teachers and subject teachers take language into account in their teaching. In addition, we look at the links between previous training in linguistically responsive teaching and teachers´ knowledge regarding the role of language in all teaching and learning. The research questions are as follows:

1. How do teachers in Finnish basic education pay attention to language in their teaching?

2. How is teachers´ previous training in linguistically responsive teaching linked to their understanding of the role of language in all learning and teaching?

The data was collected using an online questionnaire aiming to investigate the implementation of linguistically and culturally responsive teaching in Finland. The questionnaire was sent to all primary, secondary and upper secondary schools in Finland in 2021 in cooperation with The National Agency of Education and the Ministry of Education and Culture. The questionnaire included both multiple choice questions, Likert scale questions, as well as open-ended questions regarding linguistically responsive teaching in Finnish schools (see, Alisaari et al., 2023). 1035 teachers responded to the questionnaire. The data of this study consists of responses to one open-ended question: “How do you pay attention to the language of the subject content in your teaching? If you do not pay attention to the language, what are the potential obstacles for this?” Of the teachers, 531 responded to this question. As we were interested in teachers working in basic education, the final number of respondents included in the analysis was 465. Out of these, 355 teachers had responded to the first question regarding paying attention to language, not just possible obstacles, and were included in the final analysis. The data was analysed by using mixed methods: reponses were categorized by using qualitative content analysis (Krippendorf, 2019) and frequencies investigated by using descriptive statistics. In addition, Spearman correlations were used to examine the possible links between the teachers´ training in linguistically responsive teaching and their understanding of the role of language in all learning and teaching.

Based on our analysis, seven categories of paying attention to language emerged from the data. Most teachers (87%) reported explaining concepts, terms and/or words. This included, for example, explaining difficult and abstract concepts, using synonyms and making vocabulary lists for students. Visual or audiovisual aids, such as pictures, videos, gestures and videos, were reported to be used by 23%. Of the respondents, 15% took subject-specific language into account in their teaching, for example, by comparing it to everyday language. Plain language was used by 9% of the teachers. This included speaking in plain language and using plain language materials. Of the respondents, 8% took up learning or teaching strategies, including reading strategies and flipped learning. 5% discussed either the correction or allowing mistakes, thus focusing either on correct grammar or fluent communication. Supporting students´ own languages was only reported by 3% of the respondents. This was done by translating concepts into students´ L1s and creating peer-to-peer learning situations. Overall, eventhough teachers were able to pay attention to language in a variety of ways, practices supporting their students' multilingualism holistically were scarce. Looking at the possible effects of training in linguistically responsive teaching, there was a statistically significant correlation between training in linguistically responsive teaching and ways to support language: The more training the teachers had, the more ways to support language they were able to name. The findings show that most teachers are able to pay attention to language in some ways. However, due to the teachers´ still developing understanding and skills to implement linguistically responsive teaching, equal learning opportunities may not be fully realized at present. Both pre-service and in-service training is needed in order to promote teachers understanding and skills in supporting language learning, as well as content learning, for all students.

Alisaari, J., Bergroth, M., Harju-Autti, R., Heikkola, L. & Sissonen, S. (2023). Finnish teachers’ perspectives on creating multilingual learning opportunities in diverse classrooms. In V. Tavares & T.A. Skrefsrud (Eds.), Critical and Creative Engagements with Diversity in Nordic Education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Alisaari, J., Heikkola, L. M., Commins, N., & Acquah, E. O. (2019). Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 48–58. EDUFI. 2014. National core curriculum for basic education. perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf(accessed 31.8.2024) Heikkola, L. M., Alisaari, J., Vigren, H. & Commins, N. (2022). Requirements meet reality – Finnish teachers’ practices in linguistically diverse classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, ahead-of-print, 1–17. 10.1080/15348458.2021.1991801 Iversen, J. Y. (2019). Pre-Service Teachers’ Translanguaging during Field Placement in Multilingual, Mainstream Classrooms in Norway. Language and Education 34 (1), 51–65. doi:10.1080/09500782.2019.1682599. Krippendorf, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd edition. Sage Publications. Lundberg, A. (2019). Teachers’ viewpoints about an educational reform concerning multilingualism in German-speaking Switzerland. Learning and Instruction, 64, 101244. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101244 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). Routledge.